19900123 Ver _COMPLETE FILE_19900601

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date: June 1, 1990
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson $ovr?
Wilmington Regional Office
Through: Dave Adki -
Wilmington Regional Office

Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project J 9 0 0 6 -A
CESAW-CO-90-16-0019/COE Morehead City Harbor
Ocean Bar Dredging
Carteret County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District COE Proposes to
perform maintenance dredging in Morehead City Harbor using a
hopper dredge, with disposal at the US EPA Morehead City ODMDS.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Atlantic Ocean
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will not require a 401 Water Quality
certification.
2. The proposed project should be done in such a way as to not
cause the turbidity outside the immediate construction area
to exceed 25 NTU.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
JHG:9006-A.JUN
cc: WiRO, CF
Jim Gregson
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-CO-90-16-0019
PUBLIC NOTICE
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
WREHEAD CITY HARBOR, N.C.
OCEAN BAR
(Carteret County)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
` do (?' _;a
0Iv
May 25, 1990
The Wilmington District Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina,
proposes to perform MAINTENANCE DREDGING in Morehead City Harbor between
mile 1.75 inside the harbor entrance and mile 2 outside the harbor entrance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This maintenance work involves the removal of all
material lying above the plane of 44 feet below mean low water (MLW) in
Range A and 44 feet below MLW in the cutoff and Range B within the designated
limits of the channels as shown on the enclosed sketch 1. Approximately
800,000 cubic yards of material will be removed by hopper dredge. The work
which is performed annually will begin on or about July 1, 1990 and will
require approximately 90 days to complete. The dredged material consisting of
predominately sand and shell fragments will be transported for disposal to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated (final rule making
September 14, 1987) Morehead City, North Carolina ocean dredged material
disposal site (ODMDS) (sketch 2). The work is required to maintain an
orderly, efficient, and safe flow of traffic from the ocean to the North
Carolina State Ports, public and private facilities, and other navigation
projects.
The boundary coordinates for the Morehead City ODMDS are:
34 38' 30" N 76 45' 00" W
38' 30" N 41' 42" W
38' 09" N 41' 00" W
36' 00" N 41' 00" W
361 00" N 451 00" W
The Morehead City ODMDS is located in ocean waters (contiguous zone)
beyond the three nautical mile limit of the territorial sea. The average
depth of the disposal area is approximately 50 feet. The disposal area is
8 square nautical miles in area. The capacity of the Morehead City ODMDS is
large enough to accommodate the dredged material. Dredged material from the
1990 Morehead City ocean bar maintenance dredging will be paced in the upper
central area of the Morehead City ODMDS.

-2-
The Morehead City ODMDS has been used for many years for the ocean
disposal of dredged material from the Morehead City Harbor navigation channel.
Each year approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yards of dredged material
is dumped in the designated ocean disposal site. Mounding of the dredged
material within the ODMDS has been observed. As a result, future placement of
dredged material within the site will be managed to minimize mounding. No
other significant adverse effects of previous authorized disposal in the
Morehead City ODMDS have been observed.

The Wilmington District will take all necessary actions to ensure that the
materials dredged are appropriately placed within the ODMDS. Those actions
will include designation of the transportation route to the disposal site,
designation of the specific area within the disposal site to be used for
disposal, and the requirement that the dredge have a navigation recorder on
board to document the disposal locations.
The location of the proposed work is shown on sketches 1 and 2 with this
notice.
There is enclosed a list of Federal, State, and local agencies with whom
this activity is being coordinated.
The effects of the proposed dredging an ranspor a
material to the ocean disposal site were addressed with the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (F EIS) Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina,
September 1976. The effects of the disposal of dredged material within the
Morehead City, N.C. ODMDS were addressed in the F EIS Morehead City North
Carolina, Ocean Dredged Material Site Designation, January 1985.
Based on EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR, Parts 220
to 229), the sand and broken shell material to be dredged and ocean dumped is
environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping without further testing, and that
the proposed disposal of dredged material will not cause unacceptable human
health effects or other permanent adverse effects.
No impacts to known archeological/historic resources will occur as a
result of the proposed action.
The dredging has been evaluated for adherence to the requirements of
Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management. The proposed dredging will not
induce development in the floodplain. The proposed maintenance dredging will
improve harbor navigability.
The proposed action has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands. The work will not require dredging or filling of any
wetlands.

-3-
The proposed maintenance dredging may effect Threatened and Endangered
species. Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles are potentially at
risk due to accidental take by hopper dredges. It has also been determined
that migrating right whales are at potential risk from collision by hopper
dredges in transit to and from the ODMDS. Methods have or will be implemented
to minimize impacts on these species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USEWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NW S) have concluded that
the continued operation and maintenance of Wilmington Harbor would not
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species in the
project area.
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina. State concurrence with the
consistency determination was received on-March 18, 1981, and October 18,
1984, for the Morehead City Harbor maintenance dredging and the Morehead City,
N.C. ODMDS site designation, respectively. As the proposed discharge of
dredged material will take place outside of the 3 nautical mile limit of the
Territorial Sea, the discharge is regulated under the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, is not
required.
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation
of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity
on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline,
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of
the people.
The proposed transportation of this dredged material for disposing of it
in ocean waters was evaluated and determined not to unreasonably.degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment,
ecological systems, or economic potentialities. In making this determination,
the criteria established by the Administrator, EPA, pursuant to Section 102(a)
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended,
was applied. In addition, based upon an evaluation of the potential effect
which the failure to utilize this ocean disposal site would have on
navigation, economic, and industrial development, and foreign and domestic
commerce of the United States, an independent determination was made of the
need to dispose of the dredged material in ocean waters, other possible
methods of disposal, and other appropriate locations for the disposal.

-4-
Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the disposal of
this dredged material may request a public hearing. The request must be
submitted in writing to the District Engineer within 15 days of the date of
this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may be affected and
the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity. In order
for such a request to be given appropriate consideration, it should be mailed
or delivered to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Post Office Box 1890,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890, in time to be received on or before
June 11, 1990. All correspondence should refer to the number and date of this
notice.
For additional information concerning
Wells U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Post
28402-1890 or to ep one .
Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
this project, contact Mr. James
Office Box 1890, Wilmington, N.C.
Enclosures

101.10
7a --
ss?
L vast/ $114
Tfl•IC ll. 3=10111

PRO PGS ED
MREDG 1NC1,
DISPOSAL
ARrA
SES S KFTL 4 Z
r-c=. 1>L' r4i LS

F3 47
i c Z
?% •
1
1
Rc ?•?
i t'1 ??It
e?
,,? ?? ,n?Dt? ?11o.lECT
LOCALITY YAP
"t or sluts
• s r
!'?e.?leJr
/ 1•LIAF T/C
z4xf E K
tYL /
r
a
I?
I?
/f
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR,
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE OR MILE!
'pt e
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON. N. C:
AP R[YII19D st"emeaI1 19"
ti
•
.Af Gf
:?ra ._.r:rrsraasassassr-,.
+e
.S ;s
...........-
.4L/ . L., .. - - - - - -

47 `s 4.7
7e 21

t` fit C.•'b7

-` a
39 22
PAf
t 8 6n` Se ?
.18 w? 35 20 ;f,f
e%
'- r6
?+
?.

49 21r II
"t", 20 r
19 23
r ?
?
2c
-s•
7e ni ?,
068
34
Y If1
r , 25.
.-
5 i low- wr ii *1 1,rE
SC
`
1-2
Nsytocsl Moles
7e % -
- :t
4.3

t6

.0 ,. .? w
SO
50 44
SI .
•9 SO
52
52
50
S?. S3
53
' fr S
"Ve. 78/ 6A
v9 N . sr ii; $f« dCa
` SC SG
?? SI SO
69
9
46) <P
`- 7 A
52 A ? ?°a ? S 2\ r
BEAUFORT INt.ET a?j' 52 S
The protect 000104 's 42 tw For V I . •
COntrottmq oeom use cnan 11547 52 50 0 10 53 ?+O
S2 340 ` . .I, r r it It
rr, rr
S31rr 52 6L_ 53 53
54
1 53
•53 ?\, Ir..,?r,.Jrrr.Irrrrlrr.rl,, 3o 54
It Vs 3 N
(February 4, 1986)
8
V,

Morehead City Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
y.

19
LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters -
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Assistant US Attorney
US Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Coast Guard
Regional Director of the ITS Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Park Service
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Office of Chief of Engineers
South Atlantic nivision
All United States Senators and Representatives for State of North Carolina
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Regional Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
NC State Clearinghouse and Information Center
w
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
234,5-?
MEMORANDUM
N ??9j
Date: June 1, 1990 c 3
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson v?
Wilmington Regional Office
Through: Dave Adkin " S
Wilmin egional Office
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9006-B
CESAW-ND-90-10-0018/COE Wilmington Harbor
Ocean Bar Dredging
Brunswick County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District COE Proposes to
perform maintenance dredging in Wilmington Harbor using a hopper
dredge, with disposal at the US EPA Wilmington ODMDS.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Atlantic Ocean
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will not require a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
2. The proposed project should be done in such a way as to not
cause the turbidity outside the immediate construction area
to exceed 25 NTU.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
JHG:9006-B.JUN
cc: WiRO, CF
Jim Gregson
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers'
Post Office Box 1890 *".. g 799
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-18900
SEA
CESAW-ND-90-10-0018 May 3, 1990
PUBLIC NOTICE
MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN /i{j)
Wilmington Harbor, North [cc: 41k
19?0
(Ocean Bar)
(Brunswick County)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: c'/
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North na,
proposes to perform maintenance dredging in Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina
between Baldhead Shoal Channel and Smith Island Channel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Wilmington Harbor project consists of a series of channels or "reaches"
extending from the ocean bar at the mouth of the Cape Fear River to a point
1.67 miles above the Hilton Bridge at Wilmington. The work addressed by this
public notice involves the maintenance (removal of shoals) in the Baldhead
Shoal Channel and the Smith Island Channel at the ocean bar. A drawing
showing the location of the proposed work is enclosed with this notice
(figure 1). The work is required to maintain an orderly, efficient, and safe
flow of traffic from the ocean to the North Carolina State Ports, public and
private facilities, and other navigation projects.
Dredged Material. Approximately 600,000 cubic yards of dredged material will
be removed during the 1990 maintenance of Baldhead Shoal and Smith Island
Channels. This material consists of approximately 60% mud and 40% sand and
shell. Chemical and biological testing of representative sediment samples
from the proposed dredging areas was conducted in 1979. Those tests indicate
that the sediments are acceptable for ocean disposal. EPA Region IV restated
concurrence with this conclusion by letter dated January 23, 1987.
Dredging Methods. A hopper dredge, selected by competitive bidding will be
used for the existing project maintenance as described above. All shoal
material lying above the plane of 40 feet below mean low water within the
designated limits of the channels as shown on the enclosed drawing (figure 1)
will be removed.
'.4-
0011 4
-2-
All necessary actions will be taken to ensure that the materials dredged
are appropriately placed within the disposal area described below. Those
actions will include designation of the transportation route to the disposal
site, designation of a specific area within the disposal site to be used for
disposal, and the requirement that the dredge have a navigation recorder on
board to document the disposal locations.

Disposal Areas. Material dredged by hopper dredge will be disposed of in the
EPA designated Wilmington (52 FR 25008 et seq., August 3, 1987) ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS) (Figure 2). The Wilmington ODMDS boundary
coordinates are: 33 49'30"N, 078 03 06"W; 48118"N, 01139"W; 47119"N,
02148"W; 48'30"N, 04116"W. The Wilmington ODMDS is located in ocean waters
zone- beyond the 3 nautical-mile limit of the territorial sea.
C-4nt-Luous -_
The average depth of the disposal area is 42 ft?- The ac?ty of the
existing disposal areas is large enough to accommodate the dredged material.
Dredged material from the 1990 Wilmington Harbor ocean bar maintenance
dredging will be placed in an area which is in the southernmost corner of the
Wilmington ODMDS.
Disposal of dredged material in the vicinity of the ODMDS has occurred for
Apradjpq from the maintenance of the lower portion of Wilmington Harbor
Y P yea- -; -------- -
(approximately 800,000 cubic___ ar s ?er- - -
disposal of dredged material has occurred at the ODMDS from the maintenance of
the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MDTSU, approximately 1 million cubic
yards in 1987 and 600,000 cubic yards in 1988) and from continued annual
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. Future disposal at the ODMDS of dredged
material from existing channel maintenance will continue indefinitely in
quantities comparable to those reported from 1987 to present. No significant
mounding or other adverse impacts have been observed in the ODMDS.
Dredging Schedule. Dredging by hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels
including Baldhead Shoal and Smith Island Channels) is performed any time of
the year. The work is performed annually and will begin this year in or about
late May 1990. The work for 1990 will require approximately 60 days to
complete.
PROJECT IMPACTS
The effects of the proposed dredging and transportation of dredged
material to the ocean disposal site and the need for ocean disposal were
assessed in the Final Environmental Impact Statements (F EIS), Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, April 1977 and Long-Term Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, October 1989 which were prepared by the
Corps of Engineers.
The effects of disposal of dredged material at the Wilmington ODMDS
were assessed in the F EIS Savannah, GA, Charleston, SC, and Wilmington,
NC. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation, October 1983 which was
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
« -%
-3-
The dredging has been evaluated for adherence to the requirements of
Executive Order 11988, F loodplain Management. The proposed maintenance
dredging will not induce development in the floodplain. The proposed
maintenance dredging will improve harbor navigability.
The proposed action has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands. The work will not require dredging or filling of any
wetlands.
No impacts to known archaeological/historical resources will occur as a
result of the proposed action.
As the proposed discharge of dredged material will take place outside the
three mile limit of the territorial sea, the discharge is regulated under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. A
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act of 1972, as
amended, is not required.
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina and local land use plans. Concurrence
was received from the North Carolina Department of Environment Health and
Natural Resources on September 23, 1981, for Baldhead Shoal and Smith Island
Channels.
The proposed maintenance dredging may effect Threatened and Endangered
species. Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles are potentially at
risk due to accidental take by hopper dredges. It has also been determined
that migrating right whales are at potential risk from collision with hopper
dredges in transit to and from the ODMDS. Measures will be implemented to
minimize potential impacts on these species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF WS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NW S) have concluded that
the continued operation and maintenance of Wilmington Harbor would not
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species in the
project area.
COORDINATION
There is enclosed a list of Federal, State, and local agencies with whom
this activity is being coordinated.
The proposed transportation of this dredged material for the purpose of
disposal in ocean waters was evaluated and determined not to unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. In making this
determination, the criteria established by the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, pursuant to section 102(a) of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, was applied. In addition,
based upon an evaluation of the potential effect which the failure to utilize

-4-
this ocean disposal site would have on navigation, economic and industrial
development, and foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, an
independent determination was made of the need to dispose of the dredged
material in ocean waters, other possible methods of disposal, and appropriate
locations for the disposal.
I? .-K
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation
of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal have been balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
_ re-l-evan--t_-to the proposal have been considered, including the cumulative
- - ---a?ton economics, aesEheis, general
enviGas t! ronmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish an w e
values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare
of the people.
- ---- - all known interested persons in
order to assist in developing facts on which a decision may -be ma e- y t e - -
Corps of Engineers with respect to the disposal of dredged material in
ocean waters. For accuracy and completeness of record, all data in support
of, or in opposition to, the proposed work should be submitted in writing
setting forth sufficient detail to support convictions. Any person who has an
interest which may be affected by the discharge of this dredged material may
request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the
District Engineer within 14 days of the date of this notice and must clearly
set forth the interest which may be affected and the manner in which the
interest may be affected by this activity. In order for such request to be
given appropriate consideration, it should be mailed or delivered to the U.S.
Army Engineer District, Wilmington, Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28402-1890, in time to be received on or before May 17, 1990. All
correspondence should refer to the number and date of this notice.
Robert D. Volz
Major, Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
Attachments
... . -?

LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Assistant US Attorney
US Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Coast Guard
Regional Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Park Service
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Office of Chief Engineers
South Atlantic Division
-All --Unit-ed- -Stat-es__Se_nators and Representatives for State of North
Caro ina
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Regional Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreational Service
NC State Clearinghouse and Information Center
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
U.S. ARMY COE 404 PUBLIC NOTICE OR NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
PROJECT NAME: COUNTY: 1117A _? PROJECT? 9[j -/)o
g =L-'
STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: A/ CLASS: _.v scJ
BASIN: -Abq
'404' PUBLIC NOTICE: (Y OR N)
NATIONWIDE PERMIT: (Y OR N) # -
2-PROJECT DESCRIPTION: . ?-.- li
ASSIGNED TO: jL-
DATE APP. REC'D.: D D (YY/MM/DD)
INITIAL REPORT: q6660 (YY/MM/DD) RECOMMENDATION: / ?Q
FINAL REPORT: D-(YY/MM/DD) (ISSUE/DENY/OTHER)
WATER QUALITY CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D: (Y OR N)
IF YES: G NERAL CERT: (Y OR N)
TYPE GEN: INDIVIDUAL CERT:-L
(BULKHEAD, BOAT RAMP, ETC.)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED:
(EXISTING, PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK, ETC.)
TO BE PERMITTED BY: (DEM, DHS, COUNTY)
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE? (Y OR N)
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER:
WETLAND: d
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT U (Y OR N)
DREDGING ??r 5 b 9
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
RESOURCE? (Y OR N)
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? _ (Y OR N) o `?47c
SEQUENCING ?'
r.
IS SEQUENCING REQUIRED? ^(c.i wgT (Y OR N) ?, )D/a, c J?'???Y
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE? (Y OR N)
MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS? (Y OR N) `dc's
MITIGATION PROPOSED? (Y OR N) '?Ec'ZGLLJ
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS:
1j" V Ad v
cc: WaRO - Mills - Central Files - COE
May 23, 1990 1222324?5?4
Mr. G. Wayne Wright MAY 100
{ }
V
Chief, Regulatory Branch LCI i?7[R QUALITY
Department of the Army Manning Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890 6 9 L9??
SUBJECT: Bile No. CLSAW-0090-N-064-0321
Dear Vr. . Wright :
In regards -to your letter dated May 18, 1990, I hope the follow-
ing statement is satisfactory in reference to paragraph a, b, & c.
My desire and reason for wanting to fill this pond is because our
property is in a residential area, whereas, a lot of children like
to fish in this pond and play around this pond, throwing things
into it, etc. I do not like this responsibility. Should a child
drown or hurt himself in any way, I am responsible. I do not wish
to have this burden on me. I know of no other alternative to
eliminate this problem except to fill the pond.
Insomuch as "wetland losses," it was agreed with Mr. Ken Jolly
in our meeting on April 15, 1990 that if and when:i received permit
to have this pond fille(!,I.'would not have it filled. B.,YOND ".9ETLA14i)
STAGE." There-fore, I do not see any loss of "wetland" as I do
not plan to build up this area at all, only fill to"wetland stage."
I hope I have supplied the necessary information needed in order
to receive permit.
Yours truly,
Walter R. Viverette
CC: Mr. William Mills
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
Management
of Environment, Health and Natural

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
May 17, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Mills
THROUGH: Forrest R. Westa
Regional Water Q t Supervisor
FROM: W. E. Anderson
Environmental hnician
SUBJECT: CESAW-090-E-057--0289
Joseph Simpson
Macon County
MAY 1990
TER QUALITY
11anning Branch
Ann B. Orr
Regional Manager
On May 16, 1990, I visited the subject site. Jones Creek is a class
WS-III-Trout stream in the Little Tennessee River basin and it is
tributary to Cartoogechaye Creek which is the water supply source for
the Town of Franklin.
It appears that the entire stream substrate had been relocated. This
relocation of the stream bed will reduce some of the stream bank
erosion which was occurring at the site. Moving the stream bed back
to the original location would likely cause additional impacts
downstream. It is recommended that the stream be stabilized in its
present location under the guidance of Wildlife :Resources. Additional
work should not be done without first: obtaining proper permits.
If you have any questions, please lei: me know.
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
a. _,#

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 1990 M
N
TO: Bill Mills
FROM: Mike William ior-
Bob Jamieson
Regional Manager
APR rS90
k.
Wq TEr.
Planni T Y
ng -
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project #9003-H
COE Public Notice CESAW-PD-90-16-0011
Bogue Sound-Spooner's Creek to Peletier Creek
Carteret County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District of the U.S. Corps
of Engineers proposes to perform maintenance dredging in the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bogue Sound in the vicinity of
Spooner's Creek and Peletier Creek, outside the areas
suplementally classified ORW. Approximately 278,000 cubic yards
of spoil material is proposed to be hydraulically dredged from
the AIWW, and pumped onto the beach on Bogue Banks. Two disposal
locations are proposed at Pine Knoll Shores, to the east and to
the west, adjacent to Pine Knoll Shores. Approximately 3500
linear feet of shoreline will be impacted by the dredging
project.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Bogue Sound and Atlantic Ocean
CLASSIFICATION: SA and SB
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments are provided.
-The project will require 401 water quality certification,
and should contain the following conditions:
1. The turbidity in the receiving waters should not exceed
25 NTU as a result of this project.
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
i
Bill Mills
CESAW-PD-90-16-0011
April 2, 1990
Page Two
2. The terminal end of the pipeline shall be positioned
landward of the MHW line to allow maximum settlement of
suspended solids.
3. Nuisance materials such as glass, metals, and
plastics should be removed from the beach as soon as
possible after each pumping event.
4. This certification shall only be valid for the 1990
project.
This office has no objections to the project as proposed.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please advise.
MW:9003-H.MAR
cc: Jim Gregson
WiRO
CF
rt 1 4.
?' `? ? l ?\? d.nc 5rA7p 4
ly •? MAR 1 b 1990.
8PI'State of North Carolina '°7?`°" t?e??°nar
dE?
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor .
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 03/12/90
Mr. Jim Gregson
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
George T. Everett
Director
rnaR 16 ,sso
OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMEN1
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
REFERENCE: CESAW-90-0011-t,
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Amendment to PN89-0020. Second pipeline at Pine Knoll Shores
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice, dated
03/08/90 describing a federal project or permit is being circulated
to interested 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 03/20/90.
Sin-prely
4S/-L hen B . Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This 'office supports the project proposal.
No ' Comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
s
CESAW-PD-90-16-0011
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28102-1890
AMENDMENT
TO
PUBLIC NOTICE
MAINTENANCE OF
BEAUFORT TO CAPE
BOGUE SOUND IN THE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;

March 8, 1990
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (AIWW)
FEAR RIVER REACH, SECTION I
VICINITY OF SPOONER'S - TANGENT B
AND PELETIER CREEKS-
(Carteret County)
PUBLIC NOTICE CESAW-CO-ND-B
identify a char e 9-0020, dated June 29, 1988
g e the beach disposal area. ) is amended to
area is to allow the use of a second The change in the beach disposal
Proposed Project. The Pipeline crossing at the
coordination anion
the town Of Pine Kn Proposed new pipeline crossing western end of the
hores,
the North Carolina Division of the CoastaloMana the Co was rps identified during
dredging contractor of Engineers
and
for the o gement and discussions
also updates the 1990 maintenance dred with the
documents. Project schedules and status of dredging cycle. This PUBLIC
The changes are indicated in bold t required environmental NOTICE
The Wilmington District y prop es it y Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
propo t Perform maintenance dred No
ing Carolina,
y of Spooner,, and Peletier C1eeksln the AIWW in Bo
gue Sound in the
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This maintenance work is scheduled to be in
completed no later than June 7 g after
perform, March 1 ? 1990 , and to be
The work will require the Oremovalrofgshoalszlmatel
14 feet below mean y 65 days to
to fe low water within the desi nated Yang above the
pe Fear Reach, Section 1,0 6 AIWW channel limit3, Bea 'of
quantity of material to be rTa Tangent tFB, as, shown on fi Beaufort
yards. The mate ited 90 is a tely 1. The estimated
particular sediment type (average eig fed b e ?7 ted cubic
which has been freighted by estimated volume of a
proposed for dent n FY bdredged) grain size distribution
The work will r 90 is 93 percent sand in the channels
competitive biddedging
accomplished by use of a h and 7 percent silt and
8• The dredged material willubecdisposine dredge seleeted clay. by
beaches within the area designated on fi
Bps beach disposal area will be used Torre 1, Only posed of on Bthe Banks
shown on figure any onenmaintenancendredgin Bcycl
deposition ill 2depend the T eoloca i location
and length of beach used for dred g cycle as
ged
environmentally acceptable pipeline of shoal areas and th lab material
beach disposal eline crossing the availability of
conducted by others routes. No related dredging
is anticipated.
and

A drawing showing the work and disposal area is enclosed with this notice.
The proposed beach disposal area is within the flood plain. The dredging
and discharge of dredged material on the beach has been evaluated for adherence
to the requirements of Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management. The
proposed actions maintain navigability and help minimize the impacts of floods
on human safety, health, and welfare. In order to ensure navigability of the
AIWW, the proposed activities must be located in the flood plain.
The proposed action has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands. The work will not require dredging or filling of any
wetlands. The discharge pipeline may cross wetlands to reach the beach disposal
site. Where the pipeline crosses wetlands, pipeline joints will be welded and
burlapped to provide protection from leakage. Any impacts to wetlands will be
minor and of short duration.
There is enclosed a list of Federal, State, and local agencies with whom
this activity is being coordinated.
The maintenance dredging of AIWW Section I - Tangent B was addressed in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Maintenance of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina (filed with the Council on Environmental
Quality on November 21, 1975) and the Supplemental Information Report (SIR),
Maintenance of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Side Channels Peletier Creek-,_
Carteret County, North Carolina, dated August 9, 1983. An Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), Maintenance of
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Beaufort to Cape Fear River Reach,
Section I - Tangent B, Bogue Sound in the Vicinity of Spooner's and Peletier
Creeks, Carteret County, was made available for public review and comment-on
June 19, 1989. PUBLIC NOTICE CESAW-PD-E-90-16-0001, dated October 26, 1989,
indicated the availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which
was signed following review of public comments received.
An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI)
addressing the modified beach disposal area described in this PUBLIC NOTICE is
available. Copies of this EA/FONSI may be obtained by writing Philip Payonk at
the address indicated below.
No impacts to known archaeological/historical resources will occur.
No impacts to endangered species are expected if the proposed work occurs
between November 16 and April 30. However, if maintenance dredging of AIWW
Section I,- Tangent B and beach disposal of dredged material on Bogue Banks
occur between May 1 and November 15, it cou_d impact nesting loggerhead or green
sea turtles, species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. If dredged material is discharged on the beach during the turtle
nesting season, daily monitoring of sea turtle nesting efforts in the beach
impact area and nest relocation, as needed, will be required in order to
minimize potential adverse impacts to these species. Also, the hatching success
of all nests in the project area will be monitored. This program will be
coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. The beach disposal area modification is not expected to
change the above assessment of project effects on endangered species.

IL 1_1?
Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate No. 2365 was issued by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for the disposal of
dredged material from AIWX Section I - Tangent B on the Bogue Banks beaches, as
described in PUBLIC NOTICE CESAW-CO-ND-89-0020, dated June 29, 1989. An
amendment to Water Quality Certificate No, 2365 has been requested for the
disposal of dredged material within the beach disposal area specified by this
PUBLIC NOTICE CESAW-PD-90-16-0011. A Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) Evaluation
and Findings of Compliance was signed on C,?tober 26, 1989, and will be amended
to address the modified beach disposal area prior to the discharge of dredged
material.
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina, The modified beach disposal area has
been coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and
consistency concurrenoe has been requested.
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on
the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably
may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reason-
ably foreseeable detriments. All factors -which maybe relevant to the proposal
will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands,
historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation,.water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people,
Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the disposal of
this dredged material may request a public hearing. The request must be
submitted in writing to the District Engineer within 15 days of the date of
this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may be affected and
the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity. In order for
such a request to be given appropriate consideration, it should be mailed or
delivered to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, Post Office Box 1890,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 in time to be received on or before
Harch 23, 1990. All correspondence should refer to the title, number, and date
of this notice. For further information, contact Philip Payonk,'Environmental
Resources Branch, at [phone].
.Thomas r n
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures

I
I i N
I I
i I
l
i l
i
I
l
t
i
I
I
I ? C.)
I
1 '
I 1
i '
I I
i I
' a
I
I
1
i i
GOG:•t .11?
11 ]
11' ]
`°ill a irl30nvi OuJ ?
O •
U
I
i ca
I
'y 111 _ ?] : K :? A n • I~ I
+? I
17.
18 ?: it 49
•f? C 1 I I ZO Si
] ` s 12 27 O
7
pyJ 20
7 W*
=? ? M $
25 33
al 3 5 '? _
1 1
9; Z L
1 71 ]7
1
Id ] -
1 ' 70'.
7 29 F o O
o I
1 ` I)'
1 _ ?, 5 k
II'
1
` 27_y]7_ 48
l [ u
1 :stn
L.
II: l i ze't
] 9 - m
1 9 : 50 F..,
z
48 LLJ
a5
II:? ? ? 2a c9 Z
t• C
l : : ~
,
48
1I:I ? 42 Z
• ? I 48 49
t l' LL
imp x
Knoll i?<... L..... 1.... ?. `•'r t8
1] i 3
.r
1. I4.. •c ?•? '11' •7. "? 49
3 7
i y
1 ab. •? ae
:2]
]a s - ..A.. ._ -
S SA
<9
17
11 ' 22
47 c9
1 7G c_
'' 71
1j • r?
11i v42
pl ] ] 6 9
1 ]8 <6
1]
1
x 11
1 a1
c
? 1 N
1 n ]7
u
a S SA
7 . ]6 ae
m

I
L 1,
c? II I t
? I
;ba I
;
=
t
o - I
I FLL I I
?

I
©;?
ii
i ICJ r.
^
1
I ? x

x
u
C
? to
N e
W N E N W
? c •t K ? I

W C7 m C v NI
•
4 2 U
v
,Q
CO
i
4 y O
J N W N C
a O co 4 O
V 4
a s ? ? O N I
.. •U v] O m q .^?
1 3
<
I 7
0
z
0
2
n
i
r
N I
e
W c9 1 ?•-
C
2 c
O o i
= U '
N
O
4

W O
Z
O
?
U
C
W
a O
(?
u
>
O
?
m O
U
u
t

O
G
Y
r z
O
'
C
U N
co
> C
of
o U
m ?
? U

?d

_. z
a u
u u
N

u O
?. N
r
nt
v U

O I U
i

i
I
' I
i
N

D I U ? m
1
CITY
w i . 20
R.6.
1
f?
•
.:' 7hO
B'K.. SCI 1•..? f . A`,('!?i 'a. r .
26
?. :ev v ;i r R
'6
'
0gn:
..}.? . (x=4 q.' 18 wq as
u
6
=
O
1
X
44'
,r. F
G
Y; `, •p
5 ; '7
i
'•`:
<
?
y
".••G
<NXII
I
. 7 1 ` ?2 1 l]
e: ?.'..
?. / :
?
t
I :
?.-
11 iDK"J'.. p" s fr z A
t •. I71
8 1N3cJIlVl 1tiV1S `I' _ `o•.. 196
19 1
:7 it
f. R

EO
crl

x_IJ
Romp
C
m p, OOOZ 11 \(?„? ?1 t 5 F za

O !
• \\\? Z b
37

M !-00
oil
O W i ,
r I
6 1
17:
al
I
t
., e:,
l
i 11
'
?'"''
4'
x
1
WryA
1
4
0005
48
•
=
? 1
"
= ? : =
ii
?
.
....
.
1
3
"
e
i 3
' x 1'
•
.. Z trl
S?
[ 77
° OOOB T
x
II
1
36
20
?
..
6 .1 i
_ I ] x ....t
J-!
6 0000
1
] I t :1: xest
.
,Iy
Pr l.I:,r • 6 ?" ?7"'x r 1 x ~w 5 l i ]9
:9: 50

w, • 1 I „` 7 1 1 ?i 40
?-? OOOZ I xa t 78 `5 (9
1 i
<
]
4
N Il
56
Jl
OOOYI 7 1: ` tx

?
S 6;
i
51
7
M 710, 1 x l
n I is 49
'
M
t l 4 " Romp l 74
?
.
:
•P is,.. 1'••Sg••f...,f o,.. to
(R' OOOSI' 4 S S - 1 Pine Knoll l E
4al ?l ? ro .uou w?

;.i
??
.r
I/ 5 7
6
•
-`
f
•?
? 2
is ?•..., .v ". y' •
? 11'1'/•I. •' •? t9
X10
I: \l-.
0009,
<
IC 0000Z 9
J I < C ?f j M.
• y tt i,
OOOZ2 4]
'.4. 1?1 C 6 4 ! 1 i. , ii,•/,., i/•/•l.l.l. .1 •\ ?' .. L .?^
14
-000b2 o1a 46 17
6 0"

76 00072 W () (9
76
• I] y '1 I
x 1 N c7
09007, _
` '1 0 cl
L1 s x
I'
9999E 1 W
w m <6 (9
II 7 • .1 1 < y
K
I
11 ] +0 it (
x
J 2 46 '6

I
9997, E' ,'IJ'''• ) ;. 1 2 to
11 ?^ I , \ ] O w
II .?„ j O t] 41
0 f) ri t. I:
Y Z-
11/ 25 ]7 47
;11
1 fl 1N.l JNl/1 nN] Q 6
I
? a ]
l,..SS6
t' t 1 5' )< 4e
1 _
O U CO
<
?j
FZ;

>
?, I
•-I
LL
I

I
I©f? (
?l ?? li{
w

1 li li ]
U
<
w
_
<
(z
N y U
O Y e ? I

v < N1 -
o
J'0 m <
W y I
I C
L
to O
c-,
N U 4
O y I
O Co
o
C
'
1 3
1

1
m
F-
z
w
0
z

z I
O '

W

N m
C
3 a
M
<
t
O'
z
.
c
0
-
O
N
U
>
u
C
O
cr
U
z
O

a?
_

u
b
? U
N C

x W Q
m O

o z
--
O
Z u
N
2 O

- ? C
c>. m
Y 7 L
N U

LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Institute
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Coast Guard
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director, National Park Service
Regional Shellfish.Consultant
Office of the Chief of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
All United States Senators and Representatives for
State of North Carolina
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Regional Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreational Service
North Carolina State Clearinghouse and Information Center

c.5(ATE
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary February 27, 1990 Director
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Suermann:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review for consistency
with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program pursuant to 15 CFR 930
of Corps Public Notice number CESAW-CO89-N-016-0482, regarding application
for an after-the-fact permit for the placement of fill in wetlands on Lot
No. 7, Dorothy Pake Heirs Subdivision, adjacent Jarretts Bay near Smyrna,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
The NC Division of Environmental Management has still not made a final
determination on the required 401 Water Quality Certification, but we have
received an indication that the Certification will probably be issued.
Since we have no other objections to the project based upon mandatory
and enforceable components of the approved North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, we agree with the applicant's consistency certification
provided that the 401 Water Quality Certification is issued.
Should you have any questions concerning our finding please contact
Dr. James Wuenscher, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
T ° r George T. Everett
cc: Bill Mills, NC Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
March 14, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Proposed Duck Ponds at Cedar Island and Gull Rock
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Gantt:
We offer the following comments in regard to the report entitled,
"Proposed Joint Venture by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to Enhance Wetlands at Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge and Gull Rock Game Lands as Wintering Habitats for
Waterfowl."
a. The proposed action is disturbing to this office in that over the
years a policy has emerged, primarily due to the postures taken by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, that
development of duck habitat at the expense of wetlands is not acceptable.
Accordingly, it must be clearly demonstrated why, in this case, wetland loss
is acceptable.
b. The proposed action also needs to clearly demonstrate what the
anticipated benefits to ducks will be. Over-wintering habitat is abundant in
North Carolina. It hardly appears that development of new over-wintering
habitat will improve duck populations. Only on those rare occasions when
intensive cold weather to the North forces large concentrations of birds into
North Carolina would there ever be a concern for additional habitat. Any
claims that more over-wintering habitat is needed must be supported.
Furthermore, concentrating waterfowl in public hunting areas appears to be
contradictory to development of healthier Spring duck populations.
c. It appears that a study of the ponds presently occurring in the area
would provide some of the information that the proposed study attempts to
obtain. Basic information such as degree and type of use can be obtained.
This information is fundamental before consideration of the new ponds.
d. The Corps of Engineers recently permitted experimental excavation work
for the North Carolina Division of Health Services in two coastal sites in a
study effort called Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) that the State
4, ,
-2-
developed in order to determine what benefits that technique would have on
controlling mosquitoes and at the same time determine what impacts the action
would have on the marsh. The effort was extensively coordinated with the
State and Federal review agencies and selected experts to develop a well
designed experimental project that would have the best chance of addressing
the issues, answering the questions, and identifying the changes and/or
problems that developed due to the work. Although the activities are not the
same, it appears that there is significant information that can be inferred
from the ongoing studies that would be useful in not only identifying the
anticipated impacts of the proposed action, but may provide valuable input for
design of a better study. This would be especially true for vegetation
changes induced by the discharge of material. For example, if there are
vegetation changes detected at the Hobucken site, then changes.could be
expected with the proposed work due to the greater amount of material to be
excavated and discharged to construct the proposed duck ponds.
e. The impacts of the proposed waterfowl impoundments on native species
of wildlife which are dependent on the presently existing habitat should be
thoroughly discussed. Of particular concern are potential impacts of the
impoundments on the black rail, the harrier, and the American bittern.
Breeding population of all of these species are currently being tracked by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program due to their infrequent occurrence in
the state. Since the impoundments may adversely affect some of the best
breeding areas remaining in North Carolina, percent reductions in breeding
habitat available on the refuge resulting from the project should be estimated
and the effects of this habitat loss on the state's breeding populations of
these species analyzed and discussed.
f. It is unclear why the proposed ditch at Cedar Island is needed.
Justification for this proposed action should be provided. In addition, the.
drainage impacts induced by the ditch also need to be evaluated.
g. The acreage of impacts on wetlands, i.e., excavation area for the
ponds and the ditch, and area subject to disposal of the excavated material,
`needs to be clearly specified.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Questions
.concerning these comments should be directed to Mr. David Franklin, at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
w-, y
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Don Baker
North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Preston Pate
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post.Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
/ North Carolina Department of
V/ Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
-3-
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Section - Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
September 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM

f^t^ .7 -
r `

g
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Tech ician
TO: Lorraine Shinn, Regional Manager c
THROUGH• Jim Mulli an Regional Supervisor
SUBJECT: A-95/EIS Review
Project #90-0123
Maintenance of AIWW
Pamlico County
The above subject document has been reviewed by this office. The document
consisted of an EA/FONSI for the maintenance dredging of the Atlantic Intra-
coastal Waterway from the Virginia State Line - Beaufort Reach, Goose Creek -
Bay River Section, ranges 5 through 7. Approximately 125,000 cubic yards
of material will be dredged from ranges 5 through 7 and disposed of within
the proposed 35 acre upland diked disposal site on Jones Island. Ranges 5
through 7 have not been dredged since 1943. The Army Corps of Engineers
has proposed a maintenance frequency of once every 8 to 10 years.
The subject project.will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from this
Division. The activity was previously covered by a General Certification
(No. 1273) for the upland diked disposal site. This General Certification
states that the Director of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management may require submission of a formal application for certification
for any project of this type, if it is determined that the project will exert
a significant adverse effect upon water quality. It has been determined by
this office that sediment analyses need to be performed and the results sub-
mitted to this office along with the quality of the decant water anticipated
so that a determination of whether water quality standards contravention can
be made. After this determination is made, a recommendation will be sent to
the Director of this Division as to whether a formal application for certifi-
cation should be submitted. If the necessary analyses have already been per-
formed (within the last 2 years), the Army Corps of Engineers need only sub-
mit the results to this office for determination.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at 946-6481.
STA7Z o
s 1 - 91
dJ. 4
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
5i2 North Salisbury Street ® Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 5, 1989
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of En-4 ,eers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Lt. Colonel Suermann:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review
pursuant to 15 CFR 930 Subpart C - Consistency for Federal
Activities of your consistency determination contained in the
"Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Maintenance of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Virginia State
Line - Beaufort Reach, Goose Creek - Bay River Section, Ranges
5 through 7, Pamlico County, North Carolina". The document
was provided, to the North Carolina State Clearinghouse which
assigned the number 90-E-0000-0123 for circulation and review.
Based upon our review, we agree with your determination
that the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program provided an erosion and
sedimentation control plan is submitted to the North Carolina
Division of Land Resources at least 30 days prior to
initiation of land-di,stu.rbi no; activities. in addition, a 401
Water Quality Certification may be required from the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management. As of this
date, we have not received any comments from DEM concerning
the status of the Certification.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has
determined that the proposed dredging and diked disposal area
is consistent with their guidelines for wetlands and aquatic
habitat conservation provided the dredging does not occur
during spawning and nesting seasons. The North Carolina
Division of Health Services disagrees with the statement
contained in the EA/FONSI which says that there will be "no
significant mosquito problems in conjunction with the use of
the proposed upland diked disposal site." They have
documented a number of mosquito problems associated with
upland disposal sites and request that the Corps take
responsibility for surveillance of the site and respond with
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

the appropriate control measures when problems are identified.
If you have any questions about our concurrence or the
conditions and requests listed above, please contact Mr. Steve
Benton, Division of Coastal Management, at [phone].
Sincerely,
,p/-George T. Everett
NC Division
NC Division
NC Division
NC Wildlife
NC Division
RF
of
of
of
Re
of
- --
?g nu GzP --- - -
Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
land Resources
Environmental Management
sources commission
Health Services

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date: September 7, 1990 y"
To: Bill Mills o S?Q199?
Planning Branch !)
CO
From: James H. Gregson"C/
?`P?
Wilmington R Tonal Office S? 4\a.
??
Through: Dave Adkins
Wilmington Regional Office
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Project # 9008-E
Scoping - Commercial Nav. Needs Cape Fear and NE Cape
Fear Rivers
New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, Pender and Duplin
Counties
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District, COE has initiated
a General Investigation study of the commercial navigation needs
of the Cape Fear and NE Cape Fear Rivers. The area includes the
Cape Fear River to Fayetteville and the NE Cape Fear River to
Kornegay's Bridge in Duplin County.
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
The General Investigation study should address the following
issues.
1. The past and future impacts of dredging on tidal
amplitude and salt water intrusion, and their effect on
the plant and animal communities along the Rivers.
2. The enhanced development potential associated with
channel dredging and what adverse impacts it has had
and will have on wetland resources and water quality.
JHG:9008-E.SEP
cc: WiRO
CF
Jim Gregson
A tv. SiA?E' q,
l7toc? '' ` 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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
08/02/90
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jim Gregs.on
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
From: Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
Roger N. Schecter
Director
AUG t3 1.990 f

Subject: Project Number DCM90-15, Dated 07/06/90
Scoping - Commercial Nav. Needs Cape Fear, NE Cape Fear Rivers
Proposed by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Multi County
The above listed document is being circulated to you for review
and comment by 08/10/90.
Type of Review Requested:
General Comments / FYI
Determination of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
_ NEPA / NCEPA Comments
Preliminary Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal / State Consistency Comments
Please contact me before the response due date if additional
review time is needed. Thank you.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
c- , A)CY1n ClU - 1-3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 6, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, has recently
initiated a General Investigation (GI) study of the commercial
navigation needs of the Cape Fear and Northeast (Cape Fear)
Rivers, including the Wilmington Harbor project. The area under
study (see enclosed map) ranges from the Ocean Bar Channel off
the mouth of the Cape Fear River up the river to Fayetteville
in Cumberland County and up the Northeast (Cape Fear) River to
Kornegay's Bridge in Duplin County.
The study was authorized by a resolution of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, U. S. House of Representatives,
dated September 8, 1986. The study will examine the water resource
needs and opportunities within this area with a particular focus on
needed commercial navigation improvements in Wilmington Harbor.
Environmental and cultural resource needs in the study area will
also be investigated.
The port in Wilmington is a vital component of the regional and
State economy and navigation improvements may be necessary to keep
the port competitive with other Atlantic seaboard ports. Al so of
great importance, however, are the ecological resources of the Cape
Fear River system. Nationally significant resources occurring in
the area include anadromous fishes, migratory waterfowl, a diversity
of wetland types, federally listed endangered species, and sites on
the National Register of Historic Places. The goal of this study
will be to allow for the continued economic growth of the region
while maintaining the integrity of these, and other, important
natural and cultural resources.
We now invite your participation in the scoping process for
the GI study. The scoping process is a vehicle for all interested
parties to express their interest and concerns about a study area ???
during the planning process. Your comments on any aspect of the
study or the resources of the study area will be welcomed and will

-2-
be helpful in determining the direction of our future studies. No
formal scoping meetings are planned at this time but, based on the
responses received, scoping meetings may be held with specific agencies
or.individuals as required. Please provide any comments on this study
nb later than August 10, 1990. Should you have any questions regarding
this study, please feel free to contact Mr. Frank Snipes, Study Manager,
at [phone] or FTS 232-4774.
Sincerely,
el-111 1?- e9z
Thomas C. Suermann
J
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosure JTR . , . =%.
Deputy District F.::dineer
• 1
"I, ..
C O M B ER L A N D
S A M P
FAY EVI LLE
B L A D E N
,
/ ELIZABETH-
TOWN

CAPE FEAR-NORTHEAST (CAPE FEAR)
RIVER, N. C.
to o 10 20 30 STUDY AREA
SCALE IN MILES
KORNEGAYS
B R I D G E ----?
S O N
I
`KENANSVILLE
.v
d?
BURGAW®
??f /
R .H? ,
SM THS
CR, cc,
O G
,KE /
ACCAMAW
S -WILMINGTON
R U N S W I C K
SOU T H-
PORT /
0
MOUTH 0?
CAPE FEAR RIVER I
CORPS Of ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
-_... A
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 7, 1990
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson
Wilmington Regions Office
Through: Dave Adkin
Wilmingt egional Office
SEP 199fl
W ATER QUAUT
Q?ann+nq 3r?nc1
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9007-N
CD90-18
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Harbor - NE Cape Fear River Improvements
New Hanover County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
prepared a final supplement to the FEIS for Wilmington filed with
the USEPA on February 5, 1980. The supplement addresses only
changes to the authorized project and new information regarding
potential project impacts. Proposed harbor improvements consist
of the following elements:
A. Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the
west at the existing depth of 38 feet plus 1 foot of
allowable overdepth for a distance of 8000 feet.
B. Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth
of 32 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 400 feet between Castle Street and the NC HWY 133
bridge.
C. Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth
of the NE Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side
at a project depth of 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth.
D. Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth
of 32 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 300 feet from the NC HWY 133 bridge to the Hilton
Railroad Bridge, located 2,600 feet upstream, and
deepening the navigation channel from a project depth
of 25 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 200 feet from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point
750 feet upstream.
9007-N.SEP
Page Two
The major change in the project since the 1980 EIS is the
deferment and unscheduling of the acquisition of 2,800 acres of
environmental lands along the NE Cape Fear River for conservation
purposes. This component of the project was in the plan
authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The project complies with the General 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 1273 for dredge spoil dewatering.
3. The project as proposed will result in the loss of
approximately 0.85 acres of fringe marsh and 20.2 acres of
estuarine shallow water primary nursery habitat. With no
mitigation proposed to offset the lost functional values of
these areas and with the enhancement/conservation proposal
now unscheduled, such a proposal is inconsistent with 15A
NCAC 2B .0201 (Antidegradation) and 15A NCAC 2B .0109
(Waters Affected by Dredge and Fill Activities). The
acquisition of environmental lands is a necessary component
of the project to mitigate both immediate and long term
project induced impacts.
4. Although the Final Supplement to the FEIS discusses the salt
water intrusion problem, it does not address potential
impacts from increased tidal amplitude. It is recommended
that more studies need to be done in both these areas.
5. In areas where blasting will be used, blasting schedules
should not only be coordinated with DMF but water quality
monitoring should also be conducted and coordinated through
this Division to determine the extent and impact of sediment
suspension.
JHG:9007-N.SEP
cc: WiRO
CF
Jim Gregson
? . 5rA7p4
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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Jim Gregson
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
REFERENCE: CD90-18
Applicant/Sponsor:
CD - Improvements,
Dear Mr.?Gregson:
Roger N. Schecter
Director
07/23/90
JUL 25 1990 OAS )TA %famington iatlriPIIMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Harbor - NE Cape Fear River
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 06/01/90
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 08/01/90
Sir)/64rely<r--)?-,
'' Stephen B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
? r

INTRODUCTION
Increasing commerce, combined with the increased dimensions of newer
vessels, has created a need for-larger channels in the upper portions of
Wilmington Harbor in order to achieve more efficient vessel operation and
permit increased loaded vessel drafts. In response to this need, the
Congress of the United States directed the Wilmington District in 1967 to
study the need for harbor improvements. A plan to improve navigation in the
harbor was subsequently developed in concert with the State of North
Carolina and other interested parties. A Final Environmental Impact
Statement'(FEIS) on this project was filed with the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency on February 5, 1980. The project described in that FEIS
was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
One element of the congressionally authorized project is the acquisition,
either in fee simple or through conservation easement, of 2,800 acres of
environmental lands consisting of wetlands, bluffs, and buffer strips along
the Northeast Cape Fear River above Wilmington for conservation purposes.
The environmental lands component of the authorized project is a separable
fish and .wildlife enhancement feature. Acquisition of these lands has been
deferred and classified as unscheduled at this time. Deferral of action or
the environmental lands received negative response from environmental
agencies during coordination of the Draft Supplement to the Final EIS -or
the project, including indications of a possible referral of this dec_sion
to the Council on Environmental Quality. If no action has been taken that_
is, if no funds are provided) on this element within 10 years of the
completion of the project General Design Memorandum, the automatic
deauthorization process will begin. However, after this time period has
elapsed Congress has 30 months to provide funds before deauthorization
occurs.
During the scoping process, local interests and the State of North
Carolina requested that the feasibility of extending the authorized 35-foot
project further upstream be examined. Analysis has shown that the extension
of the project is economically feasible and should be incorporated into the
proposed plan. Moreover, economic and engineering evaluations performed
since the draft supplement to the FEIS was circulated, have led to a
redesignation of the NED plan. The NED plan now proposed for construction
consists of a 38-foot channel (plus 1 foot allowable overdepth) instead of
the 35-foot channel (plus two foot required overdepth) which was discussed
in the draft supplement. Analyses performed on the 38-foot channel above
the Memorial Bridge, including the extension, have shown that its
anticipated impacts on the environment are not substantially different from
those addressed in the draft supplement to the FEIS on a 35-foot channel in
the same area. Due to this similarity in impacts, a determination was
made to prepare a final supplement to the FEIS rather than a revised draft
supplement.
This supplement to the FEIS has been prepared and circulated to all known
interested parties due to the length of time since circulation of the FEIS,
changes in the project being proposed, and refinement of our understanding
of potential impacts which may result from the proposed project. This
Supplement addresses only changes to the authorized project and new
information regarding the projects potential impacts. It should be
considered a companion document to the FEIS as it does not contain all
previously coordinated descriptions of the project areas resources or the
projects environmental impacts.
1.00 SUMMARY
1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings
The Wilmington District has studied the navigation problems currently
being experienced in Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties,
North Carolina. As a result of that study, it was determined that
improvements to the harbor were economically feasible and a Feasibility
Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement describing the needed
improvements were prepared and circulated to the public in 1980. Since that
time, economic and political climates have evolved which have necessitated
adjustments to the project recommended and coordinated in. those reports.
The 2,800 acres of environmental lands proposed in the previous reports have
been classified as unscheduled. Moreover, further harbor deepening and
extensioi, of the new project depth further upstream have been determined to
be economically feasible. impacts of these harbor improvements on estuarine
resources are expected to be minor as dredging will be performed during the
fall and winter to the maximum extent practicable, quantities to be removed
are small, and existing upland disposal sites will be used. Since estuary
'disturbance will be slight, it is expected that impacted resources will
recover rapidly. Minor aggravation of the saltwater intrusion problem in
the Northeast Cape Fear River estuary is possible during periods of low
freshwater inflow.
1.02 Areas of Controversy -
Not scheduling protection of the 2,800 acres of conservation lands
concurrently with harbor improvements is viewed unfavorably by interests
concerned with preservation of long-term environmental quality in Wilmington
Harbor. It is uncertain if protection of these lands will be scheduled in
the future.
The Wilmington District's position regarding the need and justification
for the.lands, which were clearly laid out in the Feasibility Report,
remains unchanged. Navigation dependent economic development of the region
is continuing. This development has led to valuable wildlife habitat-being-
lost throughout the region. In the immediate project area, some of this
development has occurred along the U.S. 421 highway corridor which parallels
the lower Northeast Cape Fear River and borders the environmental lands.
This habitat loss elevates the importance of the wildlife habitat within the
environmental lands. Additionally, at least one local industry has
expressed a desire to have deep water navigation extended further upstream
in the Northeast Cape Fear River. Interest in improving navigation in the
river can only be expected to continue. If such improvements take place,
the threats to the environmental lands will be further increased. Moreover,
the entire Cape Fear River estuary is an area important to migrating and
overwintering waterfowl, a resource of renewed national interest. Waterfowl
impoundments within the environmental lands which are owned and operated by
I private interests are heavily used by many species. Maintenance of the
the
ties,
ty
that
ted
'ts have
and
.ned to
tuar-'_ne
-ng
emoved
'tuar'
11
m 1 r,
ow
Sts .
6ington
ed in
ation
gion
eing-
s
lle_s
n the
ream
the
e,
over,
d
rfowl
d by
*habit4t and water quality of the Northeast Cape Fear River is believed to be
a critical link in preserving these waterfowl values. Clearly, acquisition
of the environmental lands would support the President's no net loss policy
on wetlands and would help to achieve the goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
If no action has been taken (that is, if no funds are provided) on this
project element within 10 years of the completion of the project General
Design Memorandum, the automatic deauthorization process will begin.
However, after this time period has elapsed, Congress has 30 months to.
provide funds before reauthorization becomes necessary.
Based on the responses received in the scoping process, it appears that
some reviewers are unclear about the difference between enhancement and
mitigation, as it relates to the environmental quality benefits which are
provided by the conservation lands. As stated and illustrated in the FEIS
and Feasibility Report on the project, the protection of these conservation
lands is considered to be enhancement, not mitigation. In comparing
alternative futures (with and without the project), the analysis contained
in those documents clearly displayed that there is essentially no difference
between the National Economic Development (NED) plan and the no action plan;
i.e., the impacts of the proposed navigation improvements on the environment
are minor and the progressive economic development along the Northeast Cape
Fear River will continue to degrade significant resources at what are
essentially equivalent rates, with or without the proposed navigation
improvements. Given this finding, mitigation for the proposed navigation
improvements was never determ-fined to be appropriate. It is the Corps'
position that the addition of the 38-foot channel extension to the project
will have inconsequential direct and indirect impacts on the environment and
that mitigation is, therefore, still inappropriate.
Current impacts of saltwater intrusion on freshwater ecosystems in the
Northeast Cape Fear River estuary (without the proposed harbor improvements)
include the mortality of trees in the tidal swamp forest and its gradual
conversion to a marsh ecosystem. The magnitude and extent of this problem
are currently unknown. Analysis of this situation has shown that the harbor
improvements may cause a minor aggravation of the saltwater intrusion
problem during periods of low freshwater inflow.
1.03 Unresolved Issues
There are no unresolved issues.
3
I
3.00 PROPOSED PLAN AND ALTERNATNES
During the preconstruction engineering and design stage of project
development, each element of the congressionally authorized harbor
improvement plan was reexamined to determine if it was still needed and if
its construction and maintenance was still economically justified. During
this reexamination it was determined that each of the harbor improvement
elements in the authorized plan is still needed and economically justified.
A summary of project economics is provided in Appendix D. Since each
element is warranted, they were all retained and considered in the following
array of plans.
3.01 Proposed Plan
The proposed plan was refined during the preconstruction engineering
and design (PED) stage of project development as a result of the scoping
process, guidance from higher authority, and analysis of navigation needs
and harbor improvement costs. During the scoping process, local interests
and the State of North Carolina requested that the feasibility of extending
navigation improvements further upstream be examined. Analysis has shown
that this extension is economically justified and should be incorporated
into the proposed plan. Further evaluation of project alternatives
determined that a range of project depths (35'-38') were economically
feasible and environmentally acceptable. Of these depths, the 38-foot
channel with 1 foot of allowable overdepth displayed the greatest benefits
in excess of costs and has, therefore, been designated the National Economic
Development (NED) plan. The State of North Carolina has reviewed the
economic information on alternative channel depths (see Appendix D) and
decided to sponsor the 38-foot channel (letter dated November 3, 1989).
An element of the congressionally authorized project is the
acquisition, either in fee simple or through conservation easement, of 2,800
acres of environmental lands consisting of wetlands, bluffs, and buffer
strips along the Northeast Cape Fear River above Wilmington for conservation
purposes. This element of the authorized project is a separable fish and
wildlife enhancement feature. Acquisition of the environmental lands has
been deferred and classified as unscheduled at this time. If and when funds
for this project element are provided, first costs will be shared 75 percent
Federal and 25 percent non-Federal and operation and maintenance costs would
be 100 percent non-Federal. If no action has been taken (that is, if no
funds are provided) on this element within 10 years of the approval of the
project General Design Memorandum, the automatic deauthorization process
will begin. However, after this time period has elapsed Congress has 30
months to provide funds before reauthorization becomes necessary.
With these developments, the proposed plan is now different from that
which was coordinated in the FEIS. The harbor improvement plan currently
being proposed for construction consists of the following elements:
6
*Elem nt Improvement
A Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the west at
the existing depth of 38 feet plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth
for a distance of about 8,000 feet (same as authorized).
B Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth of 32
feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth at a width of
if 400 feet between Castle Street (Cape Fear Memorial Bridge) and
ng the N.C. 133 Highway Bridge (authorized at 35 feet plus 2 feet
of required overdepth).
C Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of 'the
_ng Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side
(previously 100 feet on east side) at a project depth of 38 feet
plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth (authorized at 35 feet plus 2
feet required overdepth).
D Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth of 32
g feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth at a width of
300 feet from the N.C. 133 Highway Bridge to the Hilton Railroad
s Bridge, located 2,600 feet upstream, and deepening the
is navigation channel from a project depth of 25 feet to 38 feet
plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth at a width of 200 feet from
ir,g
n the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point approximately 750 fee:
upstream (added to plan).
Detailed Description of Project Elements, Construction Methods and
Anticioar.ed Maintenance.
its
°c Detailed descriptions of each project element are as follows. The
currently proposed harbor improvements are shown on Figure 1.
Element A The existing 400-foot wide Fourth East Jetty Channel will be
widened by 100 feet on the west side for a post construction
,800 width of 500 feet. The Fourth East Jetty Channel is
approximately 8,000 feet long and 38 feet deep, plus 1 foot of
ti on required depth below project depth. The ends of the Fourth
d East Jetty Channel will be tapered back to form a smooth
s transition with the Upper Brunswick Channel on the downstream
ands end and the Between Channel on the upstream end. Approximately
,Ien- 388,247 cubic yards (cyds) of material will need to be dredged
)uld to achieve the desired project dimensions. The widening of the
channel will require the removal-of some fringe marsh on the
ie eastern shore of Eagle Island. The fringe marsh loss will be
approximately 0.85 acres.
Element B The channel between the Memorial Bridge (US 74/76) and the NC 133
bridge has an existing authorized depth of 32 feet and a width
of 400 feet. This channel is approximately 9,100 feet long.
The actual constructed dimensions were 32 feet deep plus one
foot of overdepth. In 1978, private interests deepened this
channel from the Memorial Bridge to a point 1,300 feet below
the NC 133 bridge to a depth of 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide.
The new channel work will follow existing channel alignments
7

^a - - -a-ro o m io ro OF
: mw -- '"vy zv "' cr o o ma w w a
am
• m 7 .-
0 O
7
~
C r on,
O m 0 r. a?a°v 3c. mo w o?ooaro n 0° w

.
O
'
I
W m

°
.

a m w 0

W
R

m m m
m
?

00
m
v 0
° to 0
° ,.., :3 ,•7 N c* N 7 ° ; -.
a .4 gy
° to
y
and will consist of deepening the channel to 38 feet plus i
foot of allowable overdepth below project depth. The channel
will taper to approximately 370 feet wide at the Memorial
Bridge and 200 feet wide at the NC 133 bridge. Approximately
869,681 cyds of material (375,000 cyds of rock.and 494,681 cyds
of earth) will be excavated from the channel and the turning
basin (Element C) to achieve the desired project dimensions.
Element C The existing authorized turning basin is 32 feet deep by 800 feet
wide by 1,000 feet long. The actual dimensions constructed in
1949 were 30 feet deep by 800 feet wide by 1,000 feet long. In
1973, the 400-foot channel part of the turning basin was
deepened to 32 feet plus one-foot of overdepth._.The proposed
improvement would deepen the existing turning basin and widen
it on the west bank by 50 feet. Post-construction dimensions
of the basin will be 38 feet deep (plus 1 foot of allowable
overdepth below project depth) by 850 feet wide by-1,000 feet
long. Tapered approaches will be constructed to provide a
suitable transition from the 400-foot channel to the turning
basin. Amounts of material to be dredged for the turning basin
improvements are included in the figures provided for Element
B, above.
Element D This project element consists of the extension of the 38-foot
project from the NC 133 bridge to a point 750 feet upstream o?
the Hilton railroad bridge, a total distance of 3,350 feet.
One foot of allowable overdepth below project depth will also
be used in this area. The existing channel is 32 feet deep and
400 feet wide from the NC 133 bridge to the Hilton railroad
bridge and 25 feet deep and 200 feet wide above the railroad
bridge. The improved channel will follow the existing channel
alignments. Between the NC 133 bridge and the Hilton railroad
bridge, the channel will be approximately 50 feet from the
Dixie Cement dock and will be 300 feet wide. The NC 133 bridge
and the Hilton railroad bridge both have 200-foot horizontal
clearances; therefore, the 300-foot channel will taper to 200
feet at these bridges. Above the Hilton railroad bridge the
channel will be 200 feet wide. Approximately 144,026 cyds of
material (including 29,000 cyds of rock) will have to be
removed to achieve the desired project depth.
It is anticipated that the project will be constructed using a pipeline
dredge. In areas of rock, blasting will be used. Rock is known to occur in.
varying amounts throughout the project'area except in the vicinity of the
Fourth East Jetty Channel. Significant amounts of rock are known to occur
in the vicinity of the turning basin below the NC 133 bridge. The duration
of the drilling and blasting process will be approximately 145 days. Shocks
from blasting work will be monitored with a network of seismographs. If
shock waves are judged to pose a vibration threat to structures in developed
areas, they will be reduced through use of delay periods to keep vibrations
8
4
within acceptable limits. A summary of new work dredging requirements is
shown on Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of construction dredging requirements.
Project Projected Construction Dredging Req uirements *
Element(s) Project Depth Allowable Overdepth Estimate Used
A 348,528 39,719 388,247
B & C 713,110 156,571 869,681
D 110,938 33,088 144,026
TOTAL 1,172,576 229,378 12401,954
* All values represent cubic yards of material to be dredged.
Construction and maintenance work will occur between October 1 and March
31 to the maximum extent practicable in order to minimize adverse impacts on
. sensitive estuarine resources. As can be seen in Table 1 above,
approximately 1,401,954 cyds of material will be dredged to achieve the new
project dimensions. Dredged material from construction of harbor
improvements and subsequent maintenance events will be placed in existing
disposal areas on Eagle Island and Point Peter. These disposal areas are
routinely used for the maintenance of the existing harbor and all necessary
environmental clearances for their use have been obtained. These disposal
areas are judged to have sufficient capacity to contain all of the dredged
material required to be removed from the area of the harbor improvements and
the existing navigation project over the 50-year planning horizon.
Projected maintenance dredging requirements, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Projected maintenance dredging requirements.
Project
Element Sediment
Type Maintenance
Frequency Ave. Annual
Existing Maintenance
Increase Requirement{
Total
A Sand 2 yrs. 26,000 6,300 32,300
B
C
D
TOTALS
Silt 6 yrs. 4,000 13,000 17,000
Silt 3 yrs. 10,100 32,600
Sand 4 yrs. 3,400 10,800
43,500 62,700
42,700
14,200
106,200
All values represent cubic yards of material to be dredged..
9
i
1 Many utility lines cross the Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear
i River within the limits of the proposed harbor improvements. The utility
line relocations will be accomplished by the non-Federal sponsor of the
project, the State of North Carolina, or the State's designee. The non-
federal sponsor is required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
to assure relocation. The non-Federal sponsor or utility owner will be
required to submit plans to the Wilmington District Regulatory Branch and
obtain Department of the Army permit authorization prior to relocating any
utility lines. This supplement to the FEIS covers any utility line
relocation necessary for construction of the Wilmington Harbor-Northeast
Cape Fear River project.
The following list represents known utility lines which cross the
navigation channel, with a notation of whether or not they are.expected to
be impacted by the project. Other, as yet unknown, utility lines may be
disclosed as coordination of the project continues.
Fourth East Jetty Channel
Two utility lines are present in this area, the Exxon gas line to
DuPont and the AT&T light guide cable. Both are below the proposed
project depth and will, therefore, not be affected by the project.
Memorial Bridge to NC 133 Bridge
* Cape Fear Memorial Bridge electric cable (impacted)
* 2" waterline, Castle Street to Corps of Engineers boatyard (impac:ec)
* CPU electric lines and low-voltage control cable between Castle
Street and west bank (impacted')
* 3" PVC pipe, Vision Cable (impacted)
* 3 telephone cables between Market Street and west bank (impacted)
* Telephone cable, Princess Street to west bank (impacted)
* 3" wastewater force main, Princess Street to west bank (impacted)
* 8" water line, Princess Street to west bank (impacted)
* 2" waterline, Cowan Street to Wilmington Shipyard (impacted)
* 30" wastewater outfall pipe (not impacted)
38-foot Channel Extension (upstream of NC 133 bridge)
* NC 133 Highway Bridge 4 electric cables (not impacted)
* 24" raw waterline, Water Plant to vicinity of Dixie Cement (impacted)
* 1-1/2" waterline, Water Plant to Almont Shipping (impacted)
* 24" raw waterline, Water Plant to vicinity of East Coast Terminal
(impacted)
* 2 telephone cables, south side of Hilton railroad bridge (impacted)
* CSX bridge control cable, upstream of Hilton railroad bridge (not
impacted)
Additionally, dredging of berthing areas to project depths by local
industries will be necessary in order for them to realize the economic
benefits of the proposed navigation improvements. Three industries will
perform such dredging; Dixie Cement, Almont Shipping and Chemserve. The
dredging requirements of.these industries are as follows:
10
a` Dixie Cement Company: Approximately 1.20 acres will be dredged to
ty project depth.and an additional 0.65 acres to varying depths for
basin side slopes, requiring removal of approximately 14,000 cyds of
material. Most of the area to be dredged is already greater than 30
986 feet deep. Dredged material will be placed in the Point Peter
dredged material disposal area. Dixie Cement Company's plans for
nd their berthing area, including a map, are shown in the November 16,
any 1989 letter from Henry von Osen and Associates (see Appendix A).
* Almont Shipping Company: Approximately 1.85 acres will be dredged to
project depth and an additional 0.70 acres to varying depths for
basin side slopes, requiring removal of approximately 12,000 to
tO 14,000 cyds of material. Most of the area to be dredged is already
greater than 30 feet deep; however, the northeast portion of the
basin is shallower, with depths as little as 10.5 feet. Dredged
material will be placed in the Point Peter dredged material disposal
area. Almont Shipping Company's plans for their berthing area,-*
including a map, are shown in the November 1, 1989 letter from Henry
von Oesen and Associates (see Appendix A).
* Chemserve Terminal, Inc.: Approximately 1.75 acres will be dredged
to project depth and an additional 0.30 acres to varing depths for
basin side slopes, requiring removal of approximately 25,000 cyds of
material. Most of the area to be dredged is already greater than. 30
feet deep. Dredged material will be placed in the Point Peter
dredged material disposal area. Chemserve's plans for their berthing
area, including a map, are shown in their October 30, 1989 let;,er
(see Appendix A).
ted )
ed)
t
11

3.02 Alternative Plans
Plan A - Congressionally Authorized Plan
This plan was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986. It consists of the following elements:
Widening of the Fourth East Jetty Channel by 100 feet to the west
with a depth of 38 feet for a distance of about 8,000 feet.
Deepening of the navigation channel from 32 feet to 35 feet at a
width of 400 feet between the Memorial Bridge and the I.C. 133
bridge.
Widening of the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 100 feet on the east side at a depth of
35 feet.
The acquisition in fee simple, or conservation easement if less
costly, of 2,800 acres of wetlands, bluffs, and buffer strips for 5
to 6 miles along the Northeast Cape Fear River above Smith Creek and
provision for the management of acquired lands by an appropriate
interest.
This plan called for scheduling acquisition of the conservation lands
concurrently with construction of the recommended harbor improvements.
Detailed descriptions of project elements, construction methods and
maintenance requirements for navigation improvements (exclusive of the
extension) would be similar to those of the recommended plan.
Plan B - Congressionally Authorized Plan With the Conservation Lands
Unscheduled and Without the Channel Extension
This alternative classifies the conservation lands as unscheduled and
would defer consideration of the channel extension requested by local
industry and the State of North Carolina to a later date. Its elements
would therefore be as follows:
Widening of the Fourth East Jetty Channel by 100 feet to the west
with a depth of 38 feet for a distance of about 8,000 feet.
* Deepening of the navigation channel from 32 feet to 35 feet at a
width of 400 feet between the Memorial Bridge and the N.C. 133
bridge.
Widening of the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 100 feet on the east side at a depth of
35 feet.
Detailed descriptions of project elements, construction methods and
maintenance requirements for navigation improvements (exclusive of the
extension) would be similar to those of the recommended plan.
12
Plan - Congressionally Authorized Plan With the Conservation Lands
Unscheduled and With the Channel Extension
This alternative classifies the conservation lands as unscheduled and
includes the channel extension requested by local industry and the State of
North Carolina. This alternative is the same as plan D below, but would
relopment have a channel depth of only 35 feet in three of its elements. This was the
alternative proposed in the draft Supplement to the FEIS circulated
E previously. Its elements are as follows:
West
Widening of the Fourth East Jetty Channel by 100 feet to the west
with a depth of 38 feet for a distance of about 8,000 feet.
a
33 * Deepening of the navigation channel from 32 feet to 35 feet at a
33 width of 400 feet between the Memorial Bridge and the V.C. 133
bridge.
f the
depth of Widening of the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side at a depth of
35 feet.
ess Deepening of the navigation channel from 32 feet to 35 feet at a
s for 5
reek and width of 300 feet from the N.C. 133 Bridge to the Hilton Railroad
late Bridge,. located 2,600 feet upstream, and deepening the navigator
channel from a project depth of 25 feet to 35 feet at a width o° 200
feet from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point approximately 750
lands feet upstream.
Detailed descriptions of project elements, construction methods and
1e maintenance requirements for navigation improvements would be similar to
those of the recommended plan.
Plan D - Thirty-eight Foot Channel With the Conservation Lands Unscheduled
and With the Channel Extension (Recommended Plan).
d and i This is the proposed plan which is described in detail in section 3.01.
This plan is believed to represent the most economically desirable
is combination of project elements. Deletion or modification of the project
elements outlined in section 3.01 would result in a less efficient and
economically desirable project.
i
west
3.03 Without Condition (No Action)
to
3 x The no action alternative would result in a continuation of existing
conditions with limitations on vessel size and loaded drafts. Because of
the documented need for harbor improvements and the anticipated growth of
the ? water dependent industry in the region, it is believed that the no action
'pth of alternative is unacceptable.
f 3.04 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
Plan.A - The impacts of this plan on the natural resources and economy of
the area were discussed in detail in the FEIS. Economic benefits for
elements A - C would be less than the currently proposed plan. Economic
benefits associated with element D would be foregone. In accordance with
4 13
Section 907 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the economic
benefits realized through protection of the conservation lands are assumed
to be at least equal to their acquisition and management costs. An impact
of the proposed harbor improvement which was not adequately discussed in the
FEIS is minor aggravation of saltwater intrusion problems (during periods of
low freshwater inflow) in the freshwater wetland areas along the lower
Northeast Cape Fear River estuary. Potential saltwater intrusion impacts
are discussed in Section 5.01 and in Appendix C.
Plan B - The impacts of the elements comprising this plan on the natural
resources and economy of the area were discussed in the FEIS and are
considered to be essentially the same under current conditions, However,
the fish and wildlife enhancement features offered by the acquisition of the
conservation lands will not be immediately realized with this alternative.
Future development along the Northeast Cape Fear River above the project
will probably be site specific and not occur with a holistic view of the
complex ecological interactions which maintain the productivity of the
estuarine system. Benefits achieved from planned and controlled development
such as maintenance of high biological productivity, protection of wildlife
habitat, and maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing river corridor cannot
be assured. Economic benefits for elements A - C would be less than the
currently proposed plan. Economic benefits associated with element D would
be foregone. As in Plan A, minor aggravation of saltwater intrusion
problems (during periods of low freshwater inflow.) in the freshwater wetland
areas along the lower Nor,?heast Cape Fear River estuary will probably occur
with this plan. Potential saltwater intrusion.impacts are discussed in
Section 5.01 and in Appendix C.
Plan C - The impacts of this alternative on the natural resources and
economy of the area are essentially the same as those discussed for the
authorized plan and described in the FEIS. The incorporation of the channel
extension into the project plan will result in the disturbance of additional
estuarine bottom and will result in additional economic benefits (see
appendix D). Even with the extension of a 35-foot channel, adequate
disposal area capacity is available to contain dredged material from the
project over the 50-year planning horizon. As in Plan B, fish and wildlife
enhancement benefits which would be achieved by protecting the conservation
lands will be foregone. As with the other plans, minor aggravation of
saltwater intrusion problems (during periods of low freshwater inflow) in
the freshwater wetland areas along the lower Northeast Cape Fear River
estuary will probably also occur with this plan. Potential saltwater
intrusion impacts are discussed in Section 5.01 and in Appendix C.
no
Plan D (Recommended Plan) - The impacts of this alternative on the natural
resources and economy of the area are essentially the same as those
discussed for the authorized plan and described in the FEIS. The
incorporation of the channel extension into the project plan will result in
the disturbance of additional estuarine bottom and will result in additional
economic benefits (see Appendix D). Even with the extension of a 38-foot
channel, adequate disposal area capacity is available to contain dredged
material from the project over the 50-year planning horizon. As in Plans B
and C, fish and wildlife enhancement benefits which would be achieved by.
protecting the conservation lands will be foregone. Aggravation of
saltwater intrusion problems (during periods of low freshwater inflow) in
the freshwater wetland areas along the lower Northeast Cape Fear River
estuary will be worse under this plan than plans A, B, and C. due to a
14
,,omi c
?Ssumed
lmpac t
in the
eriods of
'mo.
'acts
eve r ,
0 of the
lat ve .
ject
` the
he
elooment
ildlife
cannot
the
D would
r
we.land
cccur
f
,he
channel
it'onal
i
1
y
the d
the
Id-'- i :-e
vat on
I ? n
M
L
Ural
l t
tional
oot
ed
ans B l
`y
din
4
rgreatr channel depth. Potential saltwater intrusion impacts are discussed
in Section 5.01 and in Appendix C.
The comparative impacts of each of these alternative plans on
previously undredged benthic habitat in the project area are shown in Table
3. These acreage figures represent impacts from channel widening and from
newly incorporated sideslope areas resulting from deeper project depths.
Less acreage of benthic habitat will be affected with the recommended plan
than with the congressionally authorized plan due to changes in the design
of Element C. Acreages of benthic habitat affected by dredging of berthing
areas by industries are not included in the table. Acreages to be dredged
for berthing areas with the proposed plan are discussed on page 11 of this
report. Similar impacts would result from Plans A through C but, since
these plans have lesser project depths, less dredging of berthing areas
would be required.
Table 3. Approximate acreages of new benthic habitat affected by each
alternative plan, excluding berthing areas.
ELEMENT NO ACTION PLAN A PLAN B PLAN C PLcN D
A 0.13 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
B 0.D
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.6
C 0.0 5.2 5.2 1.1 1.6
D 0.0 - - 0.8 1.0
PLAN TOTAL 0.0 24.7 24.7 21.4 24.6
15
33.a-n` chemicals and allied products; (3) fabricated metal products; (4) non-

11

tallic metallic minerals, except fuels; and (5) pulp, paper, and allied products.
me
The largest tonnage of a single commodity handled in 1984 was basic
ral chemicals and products, which includes fertilizer and paraxylene, a
the feedstock for 2 local DMT plants. Fertilizer is distributed to farmers and
o
and DMT is used in the production of polyester. In that year, a total of nearly
1.17 million tons of basic chemicals were carried, or approximately 20
s

e
Dock

percent of the total. The main containerized and general cargo commodities
at 2, are tobacco, paper products, steel, lumber, DMT, furniture, and electronics.
Hi,ton Harbor tonnage for the 1980-85 period has decreased, while the number of
age the vessel calls has increased. This is due to a shift from petroleum and dry
bulk tonnage to container and general cargo, requiring more ship calls to
carry the same amount of tonnage. For these reasons, North Carolina State
ports Authority (NCSPA) tonnage has increased while the overall tonnage in
the harbor has decreased. Traffic through :he NCSPA has been greatly
impacted by the container volume, which is expected to further increase in
1o8t., the future. Additional investment in container facilities should result in
rea; greater opportunities for growth.
pulatior
was
ibout 2
4.08 Coastal Zone
,cent The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (PL 92-583),
lout required the State to develop a management plan to assure a coordinated
approach to coastal development. This is accomplished through two
?labcr mechanisms: the formulation of local land-use plans articulating the
Mn r,-le objectives of local citizens and translating them into desired future land-
,ce of use patterns, and the designation of areas of environmental concern (ArEC'S)
nt for the protection of areas of statewide concern within the coastal area.
about The CZMA further requires that Federal activities be consistent, to the
iliior; maximum extent practicable, with the approved state coastal management
13 programs. The local land-use plans for the project area are the
Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan update of 1986, the New
luding Hanover County Land Use Plan of 1986, and the Brunswick County Land Use Plan
about of 1987.
3rs
is The recommended plan would take place in the estuarine system and will
affect the following AEC's: Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Shorelines,
porkers Estuarine Waters, and Public Trust Areas. The potential impacts of these
'•rvices plans on each of these AEC's are discussed in Section 5.08 of this document.
?a tior;
sir
e
. the
long
ages
(2)
21
i

Table 6. Comparison of benefits and costs.
Project Feature Ave Ann Benefits Ave Ann Costs Net Benefits B/C Rati
Widen the Fourth East
Jetty Channel by 100' $222,800 $681200 $154,600 3.3
Deepen the Channel to 38',
Widen the Turning basin
& extend to Chemserve $5,484,900 $2,164,200 $3,320,700 2.5
Project Totals $5,707,700 $2,232,400 $3,475,300 2.6
5.08 Coastal Zone
Review and determination of consistency with the N.C. Coastal Management
Program is required because the recommended plan will directly affect the
coastal zone (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). Constructic
operation and maintenance of the proposed project, the relocation of affecte
utility lines throughout the project area, and the dredging of berthing area
by local industries, as described in Section 3.01 of this document, are
consistent with the Coastal Management Program of the State of North Carolir
The potential impacts of the recommended plan on each of the AEC's in tt
project area are as follows:
Coastal Wetlands: The proposed activities are defined as a second
priority use of this AEC and are consistent with the management objectiv
Approximately 0.85 acre of brackish marsh will be converted to an open
water primary nursery area by the project. This loss of marsh is
necessary to achieve adequate channel width in the Fourth East Jetty
Channel. Wetland areas disturbed by utility line relocations will be
restored if necessary. No wetlands will be affected by dredging of
berthing areas.
Estuarine Shorelines: The proposed activities are compatible with the
management objective for this AEC. Estuarine shorelines affected by
pipeline placement (for channel or berthing area dredging) or utility li
relocation will be restored if necessary.
Estuarine Waters: The proposed activities are defined as a second
priority use of this AEC and are consistent with the management objectiv
The proposed dredging in the estuarine system will enhance navigability.
Public Trust Areas: The enhancement of navigation is an acceptable
practice within public trust areas, and the proposed activities will not
be detrimental to the biological and physical functions of the estuary.
Relocated utility lines will mirror existing conditions at the new proje
dimensions.
30

activities have been, and will continue to be, coordinated with the
NC Division of Marine Fisheries. Monitoring of the effects of
blasting on fishes, particularly the shortnose sturgeon, is
currently being planned.
404(b)(1) Evaluation Report and 404(a) Public Notice - An evaluation of
the project in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, was prepared and included as Appendix E of the FEIS. That
evaluation is applicable to the currently proposed project and berthing
areas. A Section 404(a) Public Notice (SAWC080-N-010-000030, dated February
221 1979) was distributed on the work described in the FEIS. Utility line
relocations will be performed by the permit holder or the non_federal
sponsor for the project, the State of North Carolina. The permit holder or
the State of North Carolina will be required to submit plans to the Corps to
obtain Department of the Army permit authorization prior to relocating any
utility lines. A Section 404(a) Public Notice (CESAW-PD-E-88-65-10-0004,
dated March 3, 1988) has been distributed on the 35-foot extension and all
utility line relocations. Dredging of berthing areas to project depth will
be performed by the affected industries. These industries will be required
to submit plans to the Corps to obtain Department of the Army permit
authorization prior to performing the work. A Section 404(a) Public Notice
on the increased project depth and the berthing areas is being furnished to
the public concurrent with the mailing of this Final Supplement to the FEIS.
Consistency Determination - The proposed project, including utility line
relocations and dredging of berthing areas, has been determined to be
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management program (see Section
5.08).
401 Certification - Effluent from upland diked dredged material disposal
areas is covered under Section 401 (P.L. 95-217), General Water Quality
Certificate No. 1273, issued on November 10, 1978. Relocations of utility
lines are covered under Water Quality Certificate No. 2303, issued on
December 19, 1988
7.03 Recipients of Supplement to the FEIS
The following agencies and persons were provided copies of the scoping
letters and the draft and final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
Elected Officials
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable Charlie G. Rose
Hon. A. M. Hall
N.C. State Representative
Mayor, City of Wilmington
34
Honorable Terry Sanford
Hon. Frank Block
N.C. State Senator
Hon. Harry Payne
N.C. State Representative

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
v `"
MEMORANDUM °
Date: October 2, 1990
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson
Wilmington Regio 1 ffice
i
Through: Dave Adkins
Wilmingto gional office
23456
p1a?,rm9
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
A95 Review for Excavation and/or Fill Activities
Project # 91-0201
N.C. DOT Widening of US 17 from NC 50 to Jacksonville
Onslow County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes a widening of US 17 from two to four
lanes for approximately 17 miles.
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
A preliminary review indicates that the project will require
a 401 Water Quality Certification.
The EA should address the nature and extent of any impacts
to wetlands and/or waterways within the project area. It should
also include a 404 (b) (1) evaluation and a mitigation proposal
for any unavoidable impacts.
JHG:91-0201.OCT
cc: WiRO, CF
Jim Gregson

Date:
To:
From:
Through:
Subject:
DIVIS1,9N OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
23 45 ?6
o?.? lggfl
27
co
01October 2, 1990 ;` ,_,yp11??
Bill Mills ,yC? P?arnin
Planning Branch
James H. Gregson
Wilmington Region ce
Dave Adkins
Wilmington eg onal office
Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9009-T
CD90-24 / A95 Review / EA / FONSI / Feasibility Report
Morehead City Harbor Improvement
Carteret County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District COE proposes to
construct and maintain improvements to the Morehead City Harbor.
The improvements include harbor and berth deepening, channel
deepening and channel widening at several locations.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Newport River/Bogue Sound
CLASSIFICATION: SA
STATUS: Closed
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
Earlier Comments on the Draft Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment have not changed.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
JHG:9009-T.OCT
cc: WiRO, CF
Jim Gregson

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 1990
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson-j?
Wilmington Regional O fice
Through: Preston Howard
Wilmington Regionp1of fi ce
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9004-Q
Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment
Morehead City Harbor Improvement
Carteret County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District COE proposes to
construct and maintain improvements to the Morehead City Harbor.
The Improvements include harbor and berth deepening, channel
deepening and channel widening several locations.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Newport River/Bogue Sound
CLASSIFICATION: SA STATUS: Closed
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The project complies with the General 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 1273 for dredge spoil dewatering.
3. The proposed project should be done in such a way as to not
cause the turbidity outside the immediate construction area
to exceed 25 NTU.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed
JHG:9004-Q.MAY
cc: ARM" CF
Jim Gregson
STA7Z
yov r- r
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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Jim Gregson
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
09/19/90

Of-[ tC.+
nr P,A
Roger N. Schecter
Director
SEP 25 1990 ?a
G? F1CF s'; t/at rcn,a
„i-,' lA G1'F1CL
REFERENCE: CD90-24
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Report/EA/FONSI/CD - Morehead City Harbor Improvement
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 09/12/90
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 10/10/90
4esinerely
/.n i B to
'-v??
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 12, 1990
Mr. Roger Schecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611=7687
Dear Mr. Schecter:

Enclosed for your information is a cop'<,of the South Atlantic
Division Engineer's Public Notice of feasibility report
completion, dated August 30, 1990, and a copy of the Feasibility
Report and Environmental Assessment, Morehead City Harbor
Improvement, Morehead City, North Carolina, dated June 1990,
(revised August 1990).
Page EA-2 and pages V-37 through V-60 in the report relate
to the issue of consistency with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. These pages have been clipped.
I trust that this added information will aid in resolving any
remaining concerns, and will result in a finding that the proposed
project is consistent with the Coastal Management Program.
Sincerely,
c
Thomas C. Suerm n
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
F? SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
' ROOM 313.77 FORSYTH ST.. S.W
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30335.6801
J h
August 30, 1990
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF SURVEY - REVIEW REPORT
ON MJREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NOF`IIi CAROLM - 10209
Notice is hereby given that a report on navigation improvements for
Morehead City Harbor has been issued by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Wilmington District and South Atlantic Division Engineers. The
report was authorized by a resolution of August 8, 1984, by the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of
Representatives.
The report was prepared in coordination with concerned individuals,
agencies, and institutions. Plans-were formulated with full consideration
of impacts on the environment.
The reporting officers find that modification of the existing Morehead
City Harbor is warranted for improved deep-draft navigation. The estimated
first cost of the proposed improvement is $9,620,000. The Federal share of
estimated at $3,524,000. Annual costs, which are comprised of interest and
amortization' of the initial construction cost and maintenance are estimated
at $1,8521000. The average annual benefits of the improvement are
estimated at $3,241,000 and the-ratio of average annual benefits to costs
is $1.8 to 1.
The reporting officers recommend that the existing Federal project for
Morehead City Harbor be modified to provide a channel 47 feet deep by 450
feet wide from the open ocean to mile 0.0 near the existing beach line, and
45 feet deep by 400 feet wide from the beach line through the east leg.
Bend wideners would be provided along both sides of the bar channel between
mile 0.0 and seaward mile 1.0. The turning basin would be enlarged to
1,350 feet and realigned to provide a 200-foot buffer from ships docked at
the Aviation Fuel Terminal. There would be Federal assumption of
maintenance of the northwest leg and the east leg extension.
In accordance with law, the report is being referred for Washington
level review and decisions by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors {CEKdi), Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors was established by the River and Harbor Act of 1902
with a primary function of reviewing feasibility reports and advising the
Chief of Engineers. The Board conducts its own irendent review and
coordinates a review by affected States and other Federal agencies. The
Board then provides a recommendation to the Chief of Engineers. The Chief

-2-
of Engineers, in turn, reviews the report and recct?ner?dations of the Board
and forwards a reccnendation to the Secretary of the Army. If the
Chief's recommendation is significantly different frcan the recommendation
coordinated with the States and Federal agencies, the States and agencies
will be afforded an opportunity to comment further prior to submission of
the Chief's report to the Secretary. The Assistant Secretary of the Army,
in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, then establishes
the Administration position on whether the proposal' would be recamre ded
to the Congress for authorization.
Interested parties may present written views on the report by mailing
their gents to the Washington Level Review Center, Kingman Building,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5576, in time to reach them by October 1,
1990. If extension of this date is considered necessary, written requests
stating reasons and additional time desired should be mailed to them soon
after the receipt of this notice. Final action on the report will not be
taken until after expiration of this notice, or any extension thereof that
may be granted, and full considerations of all information submitted in
response thereto. Information furnished by mail is considered carefully
and bears the same weight as that furnished at public meetings; therefore,
additional meetings will be held only when. found to be in the public
interest. Requests for a meeting should be fully supported by reasons why
the new material cannot be submitted just as effectively by mail as a
meeting. copies of information received by mail will not be furnished to
other parties. However, such information will be regarded as public
information (unless the correspondent limits its effective value by
requesting otherwise) and may be inspected and notations made therefrom by
other interested parties in the office of the Washington Level Review
Center.
Further information may be obtained from the District Engineer, U.S.
Army Engineer District, Wilmington, Post Office Boat 1890, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28402-1890. Interested parties, including the press, may
make such rates of the contents of the report as they desire. Interested
parties may purchase copies of the main report at the cost of reproduction
($10). Requests should be addressed to the District Engineer at the above
stated address. Checks or money orders should be made payable to the
Treasurer of the United States.
You are requested to give the foregoing information to any persons
known by you to be, interested in the report, and who, not being ]mown by
the Division Engineer, did not receive a copy of this public notice.
Major General, U.S. Army
Division Engineer
CF, S?=Z
FEASIBILITY REPORT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MOREHEAD CITY
HARBOR IMPROVEMENT
MOREHEAD_ CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
M
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
South Atlantic Division
June 1990
R 8/90
16
SYLLABUS
A feasibility study has been completed which
evaluated modifications to the existing, 40-foot-deep
harbor at Morehead City, North Carolina. Findings of
this study show feasibility for deepening the Main
Harbor at Morehead City from its existing, authorized
depth of 40 feet to 45 feet. Other proposed modifica-
tions to the Main Harbor include enlarging the Turning
Basin and widening a portion of the Ocean Bar Channel.
The purpose of these improvements is to provide a deeper,
safer harbor for oceangoing vessels used in the export of
phosphate rock and coal.
In addition to improvement of the Main Harbor,
the authorized Federal project for Morehead City Harbor.
will be extended to include Federal maintenance of the
Northwest Leg and the East Leg Extension. These areas
are currently outside the limits of the authorized
Federal project.
Total first cost of the Recommended Plan of
Improvement is currently estimated at $9,620,000. With
average annual benefits estimated at $3,241,000 and
average annual costs estimated at $1,852,000, the
benefit-cost ratio for the plan is 1.8.
Since the project is essentially a modification of
existing channels, environmental impacts are expected to
be minor. An environmental assessment has been prepared
and is included in this report.
This report was prepared in full compliance with a
resolution adopted by the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, United -States, House of Representatives,
on August 8, 1984.

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON HARBOR IMPROVEMENT
1.00 SUMMARY
The Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina, Study is an investigation of im-
provements to an existing deep-draft Federal navigation project. Local
interests have expressed a need for deepening of the harbor in order to allow
large bulk cargo vessels to more efficiently use the port's facilities. In
addition to increased project depth, channel widening in specific locations is
needed to alleviate some of the maneuvering problems encountered by pilots of
lapggr VeQgplg in nn ar a o chronic shoaling in range A and within the turn-
ing basin. The impacts of existing activities-related to construction and
ongoing maintenance of Morehead City Harbor have been previously discussed in
the following environmental documents:
Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina,.Final Environmental Impact Statement,
May 1976
Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina, Beach Disposal, Environmental
Morehead City, North Carolina, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation, Final Environmental.Impact Statement, January 1985.
Supplemental Information Report, Brandt Island Morehead City Harbor,
Carteret County, North Carolina, September 1985.
The impacts of several alternatives, including no action, on significant
resources in the project area were investigated. Proposed harbor improvements
are not expected to result in significant impacts on estuarine', marine, ter-
restrial, esthetic, recreational or cultural resources, endangered species,
wetlands, flood plains, water quality or the quality of life in nearby com-
munities.
The EA and unsigned FONSI were circulated for public comment in April of
1990. Letters -providing comments on the EA/FONSI and the Corps responses to
those letters have been included in Attachment V. Changes between the first
and final EA/FONSI are in bold type.
i
1.01 Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues
During coordination of the EA/FONSI, the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) provided a draft determination that the proposed harbor
deepening was inconsistent with the state's approved coastal management
program. These comments were provided in a letter dated June.4, 1990 (see
Attachment V). The DCM requested additional information regarding project im-
pacts which has been provided in Attachment V. An unresolved DCM concern is
that the harbor deepening will induce or increase coal shipments which are in
turn contrary to Morehead City's Land Use Plan. The Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended (PL 92-583), requires that Federal activities be con-
sistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state coastal
management programs. As shown.on tables 17-21 in the feasibility report, the
Corps has determined that harbor deepening will not induce higher levels of
coal or phosphate rock shipments. Project benefits accrue from transportation
cost savings resulting from the reduction of lightloading and from the use of
larger and more efficient ships. Thus the Corps position is that the proposed
project is consistent with the N.C. Coastal Management Program (see Attachment
V).
2.00 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVE OF ACTION-
Morehead City Harbor is_a•deep-draft, Federal navigation project located
in the town of Morehead City, North Carolina, approximately 2.5 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean through Beaufort Inlet. Phosphate rock, fertilizer, chemicals,
petroleum products, sulfur, wood chips, coal and general cargo are handled by
the port. The Corps of Engineers presently maintains the channel at a depth
of 42 feet across -the ocean bar and 40 feet inside the harbor. Existing
depths are not sufficient to allow modern deep draft bulk carriers, which
presently use the harbor, to navigate while fully laden. Local interests have
expressed a need to deepen the harbor and entrance channel and widen specific
restricted areas so that the large carriers can more efficiently use the har-
bor. The turning basin radius is inadequate to safely turn the larger vessels
projected to use Morehead City Harbor in the future. The existing radius and
location do not provide an adequate buffer between maneuvering ships and ships
docked at the. aviation fuel pier or berth 4 (see detail of the existing
Turning Basin, Figure 1).

Yr • ?_
?\
sat I v?RT INS
r'
TYPICAL SECTION
1
Mt{. Kt1b
vt {{rrr
•t?t tt tr{rlr
r,
N{CYIt ?. t.
n0. C\ {1 r.
K•t[l •frM•
M••Cl•!t•
h
EAUFORT
:is ...1
CH. rO
`\\ % i NRp %
%
N '
O •`? •O
11 -V
??, ?• ? f) \.? .per.; soo,
-1• - .. . ... .............. »•CM C\ t0. .
J. CA
f'AfC1s?Et ,'
'r
sllACla crollo (
POINT
_ r
9 ! r 1 l4
• 1 1?
1 r ?.
own
_ NCS?A_ i
ir0
\\ r f ?,v It EAST LEG \ J
1 Z ? r 1 \ Q IL
• _ .. tTN •A ,? 1 1 O
! r
I-r--+--? -• - tEttN S+ tE t 00 7),0.,
{Et71! T &ElTM
1 i%pw c Sao" ()000 1.
1
1 ?\
rresT LEG

1 ` /\ RADIO ISLAND A T L. A N r 1 C 0 C E A N
1200' OIA. TUININO AtEA_12, / \ --.. ' ...'° .
sc.r,c .,? ??? \?? MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR ;-
NORTH CAROLINA
`\ - SCALE or MII.ts
DETAIL OF TURNIN4. "six
wLr Or nc CORPS OF NGINEERS'- WILMINGTON N.C.
MAP REvISEO UPTEMPER '1"0'

3.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.01 Project Dimensions
The current project consists of an ocean bar channel (Range A) 42 feet
deep and 450 feet wide from deep water in the Atlantic Ocean through the ocean.
bar at Beaufort Inlet; a cutoff channel 40 feet deep and 600 feet wide; an in-
ner harbor channel (Range B, 400 feet wide and Range C, width varies) 40 feet
deep; a wye-shaped turning basin with'a depth of 40 feet on the east leg and
in the 1200-foot diameter turning area and a depth of 35 feet on the'west leg;
and a connecting channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide from the west leg of
the turning basin to Sixth Street, thence through a basin 12 feet deep and 200
to 400 feet wide extending to Tenth Street, thence 6 feet deep and 75 feet
wide to its junction with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) in Bogue-
Sound. The existing project is shown on Figure 1 with depths summarized on
Table 1a. Present operational procedures include 2 feet of allowable over-
depth. During pump-outs of Brandt Island (see Section 3.03, below),
maintenance of a temporary access channel (12 feet deep, 100 feet wide and 400
feet long) between the west leg of the turning basin and Brandt Island is also
required. About 498 acres of estuarine and ocean bottom are within the area
disturbed by dredging for maintenance of the Morehead City Harbor under the
existing condition.
3.02 Dredging Methods
Both pipeline and hopper dredges are used in the maintenance of the har-
bor. Pipeline dredges are normally used to maintain the Turning Basin and
interior harbor channels (Channel to Sixth Street, Connecting Channel and
Basin in front of Morehead City and the innermost portion of the Inner Harbor.
Channel (Range C)-(see Figure 1). About 450,000 cu. yds. of material are
removed every 2 years from Range C, tho'Turning Basin, the East Leg, the West
Leg and the Northwest Leg. Maintenance of the Channel to Sixth Street and the
Connecting Channel-and basin in front of Morehead City has been necessary only
once since initial construction in 1931. This occurred in 1955, when 41,000
cu. yds. were removed. The.annual maintenance requirement of-this area is es-
timated at approximately 2,000 cu. yds. Hopper dredges are used to maintain
"Range B of the Inner Harbor Channel, Cutoff Channel, and Ocean Bar Channel.
From 1981 to 1988, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 cu. yds. were removed an-
nually by hopper dredge.
EA-4

3.03 Disposal Areas
Material dredged by hopper dredge is placed in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designated Morehead City Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). Material dredged by pipeline dredge is either
placed in the upland diked dredged material disposal area on Brandt Island or
pumped directly onto the ocean beach within the areas as shown on Figure 2.
Current practice is to stockpile dredged material in the Brandt Island dredged.
material disposal area and to pump it out to the ocean beach at about an eight
to ten-year frequency, 'subject to the availability of funds. If sufficient
funds are not available, and only a portion of the material from
Table 1a: Project Features, Existing Depth (-Ft. MLW)
Morehead City Harbor, Carteret County, North Carolina
. Channel Segment Existing Depth 1/
OUTER HARBOR
Range A (Ocean Bar Channel) 42 '
Cutoff Channel 40
Widener A 42
R?noc R li(1
INNER HARBOR
Range C 40
East Leg 40
East Leg Extension?/ 40
West Leg, Berths 4-7 35
Northwest Leg 1/ 35
Connecting Channel and Basin 6-12
NOTES: All depths listed are authorized depth.- Actual depths maintained in
these areas include an-additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth.
Proposed depth, the East Leg Extension is to be constructed by
others and is not yet part of the existing project.
3/ Maintained by the NCSPA under the existing condition.
Brandt Island is removed, the number of years that material could be pumped in
to the Brandt Island disposal site would be reduced and pump-out would be re
quired more frequently. Pump-out has been performed only once, in the winter
of 1985/86. However, disposal of dredged material from harbor maintenance=
directly. onto . the beach has been performed before and could occur'?:__
'? '.

t
O
O
cx
? (p6
w Z C.
OO of
I
! 1
N

1 !
f;
a
'I ui

.4. f I
1
J
O

' w
co
U
O

z
d
1 ? ? 1 1
: >f I.

J
i
------- - -1' Oz
aQ
v
ff

i

l 1 r /
? .
I

.. '

1
1
1 ,
•
1
• 1 /
'

Z 1 .
;.
1
•
J

71 : I -
I I
I 1

'
Ir' 1 /
1 I
1 I
1 I
I I
I I /II
1 1

?. 1
I I
R 8/90 EA-6
N
W
7
V

again. Periodic excavation of Brandt Island is required to assure the long
term availability of the site for disposal. The ocean beach is considered a
secondary disposal site and beach nourishment is not a project purpose.
Brandt Island, the beach disposal area and the pipeline route are shown on
Figure 2. Efforts are underway to secure a permanent easement for the use of
the pipeline route. All of the land required for the pipeline route shown on
Figure 2, except for one small parcel, is currently under public ownership.
The placement of dredged material within the limits of the beach disposal area
shown on Figure 2 is also variable. The beach disposal area is all inclusive,
incorporating all of the sites which have been used to date. It is very un-
likely that all of this area will be used during any given beach disposal
event. Current practice is to avoid the beachfront at Ft. Macon State Park
because of concentrated public use in the area; however, it is included on
Figure 2 and may be used if the park requests dredged material deposition _for
site protection at some point in the future.
3.04 Maintenance Schedule
Hopper dredging with disposal in the ODMDS and dredging in the inner har-
bor have no seasonal restrictions (i.e., can occur at any time of year).
However, disposal of dredged material on Brandt Island and beach disposal have
seasonal restrictions as shown on Table 1b. and described below.
Table 1b: Disposal Schedule Restrictions
Morehead City Harbor, Carteret County, North Carolina
I Jan..) Feb. I Mar. I April i May I June I July I Aug. I Sep. I Oct I Nov. I Dec I
I I I I<-- Avoid Disposal On Brandt =>I I I i I!
1...1•..1•..1.• III11III l
I I I I •<=---___-= Avoid Beach Disposal
I..IiI..I..1...1...1...1...1...1...1...(
I I I I i<= Turtle Monitoring Required for Beach Disposal =>. I !
1 I I I i I I I I I I I I
Diking/dike repair or dredged material disposal on Brandt Island is avoided if
practical during the colonial waterbird nesting season, if nesting waterbirds
are present in the disposal site. Should diking/dike repair or dredged
material disposal be scheduled between 1 April and 31 July of any year, an in-
spection for nesting activities of colonially nesting waterbirds is required
before work begins. If significant nesting activity is in progress, ac-
tivities are postponed until nesting is substantially completed. In previous
years, disposal on Brandt Island past .1 April has been allowed-. as
EA-7
long as disposal was underway prior to 1 April. Beach disposal will occur to
the maximum extent practicable, after 15 December and be completed prior to 15 C
April any given year in order to avoid impacting recreational fishing, nesting
birds, and sea turtles. If beach disposal between 1 May and 15 November can-
not be avoided, a sea turtle monitoring program is instituted. As stated
previously, hopper dredging occurs annually and pipeline dredging occurs about
once every 2 years. Pipeline dredging of the channels leading from the west
leg of the Turning Basin to the AIWW (Channel to Sixth Street, Basin, and
Connecting Channel) require dredging very infrequently (see section 3.01,
above).
4.00 ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives investigated during the Morehead City Harbor feasibility in-
vestigation include no action and the construction of navigation channels of
different dimensions.
4.01 No Action.
Under a no action alternative the existing conditions would be maintained.
The existing shipping capabilities, economic potentialities, and environmental
impacts would continue.
4.02 Alternative Channel Depths and Improvements
During the feasibility investigation, harbor deepening alternatives in one
foot increments from -43 feet mlw to -48 feet mlw .with channel improvements
were examined. A more detailed discussion of the alternatives is included in
the feasibility report.
5.00 PROPOSED ACTION
5.01 Harbor Improvements
The plan proposed for construction includes harbor and berth deepening,
channel and harbor modifications and new maintenance work as described below
and shown on Figures 3 through 5 and Table 2.

EA-8
41

1? I VARYING _I
TYPICAL DREDGING SECTION
VA.
N 0 R T H
• OFww
O
MI,FI04
C A R O L I N A
"Mm

• 1 ,
1
1
MOREH A TY - ---- I
???

Wr1EaaC S.S%? " _

?ASp
??
AND 2.S YI I
W. C.
STATE \

PORTS \ 1 RADIO
I
1
?
( .
-
ANF>f
? ISL
t rt TURNINO
_ IN
Sa+ Ark
ru wee ?
BOGUE '8ANKS

® PROPOSED ENLARGEMENTS-AND DEEPENING
OUTSIDE CURRENT PROJECT LIMITS
® FEDERAL MAINTENANCE TAKEOVER AREAS
J \ /?
1 1 -
CUfOFF 1 \
,? t O rl
t
a SHACKLEFORD
e
POINT
Llucmna 1 I 1
r- 1 1
1 1
1
I
FEDERAL
END ST "CE 1 ri
t < A] 1' .. ?tl
1 1
1 1 lei
M.C. STATE PORTS AUTHORITY 1 II
°1
1
RADIO
ISLAND
N yy
foll.. °° f \
\ _ 11 1 DEEPEN TO 47'
- - --------------- 1 1 0 WI TO DEEP WATER
p?Sp.E 15' / I
rl
BASIN -135W&
------ ------ DEEPEN TO 45' `\ t^ 1 1 .
\ 1 +
IIp1TM.EST uc )S' SR'4sF? \% - FEASIBILITY REPORT - HARBOR IMPROVEMENT
FEppOL wI"awA? \\ MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR. N.C.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT.
1 D
DETAIL OF TURNING BASIN SCALE OF MILS
soo ?o o soo IoDO \?,s. -
SCALE IN FEET
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTONJN.C
EA-9 Figure 3-
-R •... ti - .8/90.
S.
U. S. ARMY
u:
N
COE
]PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
\ 1
\` II
rl \ \ 1
\
elRp sMD,,c
y
.
`4- \
w
?
^'?
+
`
s>?fri
ms
sr
7
j
?
C
t!
`1?:1? ,
?
1
OEE?ErTO 45'

3NII HOIYW
00 F- I
O
co
O
f-
U
Q
W
W O i Y I ?
W LO
,
f / 1

4
6
hi I

O
N

O
O
U
U
3
a
J W
1-
N
1
4
R' N
f
x
W
Cy o
? s
? o
w?
a
w t
z
z Q
W
r V / H U.
w
?Z
J 1/ I/ g a' U N
i r<
I
I? 1
I/ I i >
i/ I ? W J
V? p m
3f 8d ,d0 N3 00
na .
i R N?=-
' aao
1 F-
O
2
1 ?v
w
ca
= i ? Z N
1
O
s* = °_
W _
V
' O
IL : h
cx
a
i .fC = P

U "' O
W
O
?
IL f pp
M W
0 1 • N
EA-10
r
I I
of 1
'+' 1 I
?.I I
?I 1
1 1
1 I
% I
/ I
f !
o -/
I

LCN
o

L

tLo
41 _4
1
A Cs..

z
M
y
6

z
H
z
a

o

_ 0
?n

Table 2: Proposed Project Depths, (-Ft. MLW)
Morehead City Harbor North Carolina, Harbor Improvement
Range Existing Depth/ Proposed Depth-/ Figure No.
OUTER HARBOR
Range A 42 47 3
Range A Extension 44-49?/ 47 4
Range A East Cut 35-45?/ 47 4
Range A 'West Cut 11-36?/ 47 4
Range A Step Cut 8-32 2/ 35 4
Widener A 42 47 4
Cutoff 40 45 3
Range B 40 45 3
INNER HARBOR
Range C 40 45 3
East Leg, Berths 2 and 3 40 45 5
East Leg Extension, Berth 1 403/ 40 5
Turning Basin Modification 5-39?/ 45 5
West Leg, Berths 4-7 35 35- 5
Northwest Leg, Berths 8 and 9 35 35 5
Connecting Channel and Basin 6-12 6-12 3
NOTES: 1/ Authorized (existing condition) or proposed autho rized. (proposed
plan) depths. Actual depths in these areas include or would include
an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth.
2/'Approximate actual de pth.
3/ Proposed depth, the E ast Leg Ext ension is to be, constructed by
others and is not yet part of the existing project.
Depth Increases. The, proposed project, is referred to as the "45-foot"
project, since the federally authorized and maintained depth inside the harbor
will be deepened from 40 feet below MLW to 45 feet below MLW. Depths of 47
feet will be allowed across the bar channel (Range A) to account for wave ac-
tion. As with the existing project, the actual depths dredged will include
approximately 2 feet of allowable overdepth dredging.
Although widening of the authorized channel bottom width is not proposed'
(with the exception of channel and harbor modification described below)'.;
deepening would result in an enlarged channel top width through sloughing".
EA-12

Range A Extension. As the harbor is deepened, the ocean bar channel (Range A)
will be extended to reach the offshore contour corresponding to the new chan-
nel depth. Since the offshore topography is relatively flat, the bar channel
will have to be extended by approximately 4,300 feet to reach the -49 foot.MLW
contour.
Range A Side Cuts. The most serious width problem along Range A occurs as a
result of recurring shoaling. The problem area is located in the northern
part of Range A, just south of the.cutoff, where a large offshore shoal on the
west side of the inlet creeps eastward into the channel.
Three separate cuts are proposed to alleviate this problem (see Figure 4)
The first cut would be a 100-foot wide cut on the east side of the channel at
the northernmost part of Range A. Starting at the junction of the Cutoff and
Range A, it will measure.approximately 3,400 feet long including a transition
length which angles back to the main channel. The cut will be constructed at
the 47-foot below MLW depth plus fee_ of allowable overdapth and a 11-4:GiH
outside side slope. This modification would provide an additional safety fac-
tor by allowing more room for a pilot to set up and recover from the turn.
The second cut will be a 100-foot widener with a 1V:5H side slope at 47-
feet below MLW plus 2 feet of allowable overdepth on the west side of Range A.
This west cut will be combined with a third 100-foot wide step cut into the
shoal at a depth of 35 feet below MLW. The step cut is designed to minimize
sediment, the side slopes of the step cut will be dredged at the naturally-
occurring 1V:2H side slope. The west side cut and the step cut will measure
approximately 2,500 and 3,000 feet long, respectively, with the southern ends
of each transitioning back to the main bar channel. It is estimated that the
step cut will act as a catch basin for the moving shoal so that the channel
will remain at project width and depth for the entire year. Figure 4 shows
details of these Range A modifications.
Turning Basin Enlargement. Design guidelines dictate that, for a 870-foot
long design vessel, the turning radius should be increased from its present
size of 1200 feet to at-least 1350 feet. Using these guidelines, knowledge of
local conditions, results from other simulation studies, and -.input from the
pilots, local sponsors, and division and district engineers, the 1350-foot
turning basin was positioned within the harbor with 200-foot buffers from
ships docked at both the Aviation Fuel Pier-and Berth 4, see Figure 5.
The present layout of the basin allows this enlargement to be best ac-
complished by making a cut near the corner.of the West Leg south of Berth 4
and extending it in a southeasterly direction to approximately 300 feet west
of the intersection of Range C and Range B. This cut would maximize the size
of the basin while minimizing the amount of dredging required. It would also
involve deepening the eastern 600 feet of the West Leg in front of Berth 4-to
-the new project depth with the existing 1V:3H side slope.
New Maintenance Work. The Federal Government will take over the maintenance
dredging of the Northwest Leg from the State of North Carolina. The present
width and length-.dimensions as-well as.the depth of:35.feet-below MLW plus 2
feet of overdepth-will remain the same. The Federal Government will also
EA-13
assume maintenance of the East Leg
a depth of 40 feet below MLW plus 2
obtain all required environmental
Leg Extension and this work will be
the proposed harbor improvements:
5.02 Dredging Methods
Extension which is. proposed for dredging to
feet overdepth by NCSPA. The NCSPA will
clearances for the construction of the East
completed with or without construction of
The type of dredge, and dredged material disposal methods used for con-
struction and maintenance of the proposed project are expected to be similar
to those used for maintenance of the existing project (no action). See
Sections 3.02 and 3.03.
5.03 Disposal Areas
Material dredged by hopper dredge for project construction and maintenance
will be disposed of in the Morehead City ODMDS. Material dredged by pipeline
dredge for project construction will be stockpiled on Brandt Island for future
beach disposal. Maintenance material will continue to be either stockpiled on
Brandt Island or pumped directly to the Beach as described in section 3.03.
The capacity of the existing disposal areas is large enough to accommodate the
additional material and no new disposal areas are required for construction or
maintenance of the proposed project. No significant change in the existing
excavation cycle at Brandt Island (as described in Section 3.03) is expected
as a result of. the proposed action.
5.04 Dredging Schedule
The proposed project construction or maintenance will not significantly
affect the existing maintenance dredging-and disposal schedule.: Dredging and
disposal of dredged material from the maintenance of Morehead City Harbor, as
modified, would continue to be- required at the same frequency as the existing
condition. Although some minor increases in the dredging and disposal period
would occur, these increases would not significantly affect the ability to
complete the work within existing dredging periods established to minimize im-
pacts to environmental resources (See Section 3.04).
6.00 IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES.
The impacts of existing dredging and dredged material disposal operations
are described in the previously referenced Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Environmental Assessments and Supplemental Information Report (See
1.00).
This document will address the impacts of the proposed harbor improvements..
and alternatives on significant resources in the project area. Since the ex-
isting project is already 40 feet deep in most areas, deepening the harbor by.
5 feet would not significantly -alter environmental conditions in

EA-14

( the project area.. The environmental. impacts of the proposed action are
primarily due to habitat modification in areas of new dredging and channel
sloughing, and increased dredging and disposal periods. Secondary impacts
primarily associated with changes in harbor operations resulting from harbor
deepening were also investigated.
6.01 Estuarine and Marine Resources.
Resource Description. Morehead City Harbor is within the Newport River es-
tuary with navigation channels extending into the nearshore Atlantic Ocean.
Waters in the project vicinity provide habitat for an abundance of estuarine
and marine organisms and support both commercial and recreational fisheries
for blue crab, hard clam, oysters, shrimp and finfish. Portions of these
waters serve an important function as a nursery area for aquatic species. --
Estuarine and ocean bottom within areas to be dredged by e harbor
modifications are not expected to provide habitat for significant populations
of benthic organisms due to their depth and continual disturbance by shoaling,
maintenance activities and/or turbulence created by the operation of large
ships. Most of the waters within the area to be dredged and in the vicinity
of the Brandt Island disposal area are closed to shell fishing. The inter-
tidal zone within the proposed beach disposal area serves as habitat for an
These species provide an important food source for surf-feeding fish and shore
birds; however, they are not commercially important.
The harbor and channels are popular fishing areas for sport and commercial
finfish such as bluefish, spot and croaker. Deep water provided by the chan-
nels attract king mackerel and cobia into near shore protected waters- making
those species available to the small boat angler. Marine waters in the
vicinity of the beach disposal site provide habitat for a variety of ocean
fish. Northern:-.kingfish, pompano,* spot, bluefish,..and flounder are actively
fished for from both the surf and local piers. Deeper, waters in the vicinity
of the offshore disposal site support an abundance of king mackerel, Spanish
mackerel, and cobia. -'
The Morehead City Harbor project area is not designated.as a primary nurs
ery by the N.C'. Division of Marine Fisheries and due to its existing depth,
provides little value as a secondary nursery. The surf zone adjacent to the
beach disposal area serves as a nursery area for juvenile pompano and northern
kingfish between June and September.
Project Impacts. Dredging for construction and maintenance. of the Morehead
City Harbor :improvement is not expected to cause significant impacts to es-
tuarine or ocean resources. Although project dimensions would be modified,
dredging methods (see 3.02), and disposal operations (see 3.03) would be the
same as the existing condition. Dredging schedules presently used for the
maintenance of. Morehead, City. Harbor (see 3.04) will continue to be imple-
mented. _
EA-15
As with the existing maintenance operations, mobile organisms such as
pelagic fish are expected to avoid the dredge and escape harm; any sessile or
slow moving forms encountered by the dredge will be lost. The areas of es-
tuarine and ocean bottom disturbed by maintenance of the existing project (no
action) and project alternatives are listed on Table 3. Bottom conditions
after harbor modification would be similar to existing conditions in most
areas, and recolonization by similar inhabitants is expected.
Dredged materials from,existing maintenance operations are predominantly
recently deposited sand. . Dredging for the proposed project requires the
removal of sandy material containing scattered pockets of silt and clay.
Disturbance of these silt pockets by the dredge may result in an increase in
suspended' ma ter ial in the water column. These increases should be minor, tem-
porary and localized and are not expected to result in significant adverse
impacts to estuarine resources. Since all project alternatives will require
the removal of additional dredged material for construction and maintenance
(as shown on Tables 4 and 5), the amount of time that the dredge is operating
in the area would be increased; and therefore, any impacts associated with the
work will extend over a longer period-of time. Estimated additional dredging
periods for construction and maintenance of project alternatives are. listed on
Tables 6 and 7. Construction of the proposed plan would require about 12
weeks for the outer harbor (hopper dredging) and 23 weeks for the inner harbor
(pipeline dredging). This would be a one time event. Increases in the dura-
tion of future maintenance dredging for the proposed plan would be minor
(about one week each for the inner and outer harbor).
The impacts of the disposal of dredged material from deepening the
Morehead City Harbor Project on estuarine and marine resources would be minor
and confined to the immediate vicinity of the disposal areas and the time
frame. in which the disposal occurred. Although the amount of material dredged
during and following harbor improvement will be greater than that dredged for
the existing project, activities associated with disposal operations will be
essentially the same as the existing condition. Beach disposal will occur to
the maximum extent practicable, after 15 December and be completed prior to 15.
April to avoid impacts to juvenile fish in the surf zone and lessen impacts to
fisheries resources and sport fishing. As with the existing project, disposal
should be complete prior to the onshore recruitment of most intertidal or-
ganisms. Recruitment of coquina clams on the beach at Fort Macon begins in
-March (Reilly and'Bellis 1983), therefore beach disposal would continue to im-
pact that species. Any loss of intertidal organisms would be temporary as
repopulation would begin as soon as the disposal operation ends. The existing
upland diked disposal area at Brandt Island and the beach disposal site used
for maintenance of the existing project are large enough to accommodate the
additional dredged materials from all deepening alternatives. During beach
disposal operations minor increases in the actual impact area within the beach
disposal site would be expected.
Further discussion of impacts to estuarine and marine resources is
provided in Attachment V, Wilmington District responses, 'to comments provided
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,*
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990, Attachment 1: Memorandum
from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries dated May 4,-1990.
EA-16 -

Table. 3: Benthic Habitat Affected (acres)
!Sorehead City Harbor North Carolina,.Harbor Improvement.
Alternative Project Depths (-Ft. MLW)?/
MARINE BOTTOM4/
New Work Dredging
40?/ 43 44 453/ 46 47 48
Channel Sloughing 0 10 14 17 20 24 27
Range A Extension 0 19 33 46 91 137 157
Range A Modifications 0 21 21 21 21 21 21
SUBTOTAL: 0 50 68 84 132 182 205
Existing Condition 243 243 243 243 243 243 2
Subtotal Marine Bottom 243 293 311 327 375 425 448
ESTUARINE BOTTOM 4/
New Work Dredging
Turning Basin Mod. 0 22 22 22 22 22 22
SUBTOTAL: 0 25• 26 27 28 29 30
Existing Condition 255 255 255 255 255 -255 255
Subtotal Estuarine Bottom 255 280 281 282 283 284 285

TOTAL EXISTING CONDITION: 498 498 498 498 498 498 498
TOTAL NEW WORK-DREDGING: 0 .•.75 94 111 160; 211 - 235
TOTAL HABITAT AFFECTED: 498 573 .592 609 658 709 733
NOTES: 1/ All alternatives include an add itional 2 feet of allowable overdepth
plus 2 more feet along Range A to allow for wave action.
2/ No action alternative-(existing conditi on).
Proposed plan.
4/ Area affected includes channel and basin bottom width and side
slopes.

EA-1 7

f
Table 4: Hopper Dredging Volumes (Cubic Yards)
Morehead City Harbor North Carolina, Harbor Improvement.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTIONI/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)?/
403/ 43 44 454/ 46 47 48
New Work 0 789,000 1,162,910 1,610,400 2,229,620 .2,947,270 3,625,450
PROJECT MAINTENANCE5/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)21
403/ 43 44 454/ 46 47 48

Existing 715,700 715,700 715,700 715,700 715,700 715,700 715,700
New Work 0 98,380 135,280 169,820 264,210 338,750 372,540
Total 715,700 814,080 . 850.980 885,520 979,910 1,054,450 1,088,240
NOTES: 1/ Dredging volumes required for project construc tion (one time only)
21 All alter natives include an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth plus 2 more
feet alon g Range A to allow for wave action.
No action alternative (existing condition).
Proposed. Plan.
Dredging volumes for project maintenance (expe cted to occur about once each year
throughou t the project life).
EA-18

' Table 5: Pipeline Dredging Volumes (Cubic Yards)'
Morehead City Harbor North Carolina, harbor Improvement.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION"
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)?/
403/ 43 44 454/ 46 47 48
New Work 0 918,180 1,062,200 1,218,110 1,376,790 1,537,190 1.699,300
5/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)Z/
403/ 43 44 454/ 46 47 48
Existing 454,600 454,600 454,600 454.600 454,600 454,600 454,600
New work 0 7o.4o0 76_nnn Sn ann u? dnn on nnn o? onn
Total 454,600 525,000 530,600 535,400 540,000 544,600 548,400
NOTES:- 1/ Dredging volumes-required for project construction (one time only)
21 All alternatives include an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth
3/ No action alternative (existing condition).
4/ Proposed Plan.
Dredging volumes for project maintenance (expected to occur about once every 2
years throughout-the project life).
Includes 48,000 cubic yards of maintenance material from Northwest Leg, presently
dredged by others.
Table 6: Hopper Dredging Period (weeks)
Morehead City Harbor North Carolina, Harbor Improvement.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)?/
403/ 43 44 40/ 46 47 48
Mobilization & Demob. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
New Work Dredging 0 5 8 11 15 19 24
Total 0 - 6 9 12 16 20 25
PROJECT MAINTENANCE 5/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)?/
403/ 43 44 40/ 46 47 48
Existing Maint. Dredging 5. 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mobilization & Demob. 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1
New Work Maint. Dred. 0 1 1 1 2 2 2
Total 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
NOTES: 1/ Dredging period required for project construction (one time only).
Assumes.a production rate of 21,800 cubic yards per day.
2/ All alternatives include an additional 2.feet of allowable overdepth
plus 2 more feet along Range A to allow for wave action.
3/ No action alternative (existing condition).
4/ Proposed Plan.'
Dredging volumes for project maintenance (expected -to occur about
once each years throughout the project life). Assumes a production
rate of 21,800 cubic yards per day.
J EA-20

Table 7: Pipeline Dredging Period (weeks)
Morehead City Harbor North Carolina, Harbor Improvement.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 1/
Activity. Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)-
403/ 43 44 454/ 46 47 48
Mobilization & Demob. 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
New Work Dredging 0 - 16 18 21 24 27 30
Total 0 i8 20 23 26 29. T2
PROJECT MAINTENANCES/
Activity Alternative Depths (- Ft. MLW)2/
Existing Maint. Dredging 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Mobilization & Demob. 2 2 2 2 2. 2 2
New Work Maint. Dredging 0 1 1 1 2 2 2
Total 10 11 Ti 11 12 12 12
NOTES: 1/ Dredging period required for project construction (one time only).
Assumes a production rate of 8,200 cubic yards per day.
2/ All alternatives include an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth
plus 2 more feet along Range A to allow for wave action....
3/ No action alternative. (existing condition). .
41 Proposed Plan.
5/ Dredging volumes for. project maintenance (expected to occur about
once. every 2 years throughout the project life). Assumes a produc-
tion rate of.8,200 cubic yards per day.
The impacts cf ocean dredged material disposal on marine resources are
discussed in the previously referenced Morehead City Harbor EIS and in the
USEPA/U.S. Army Corps .of Engineers Final Environmental Impact .Statement,
Morehead City, North Carolina, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation, January 1985. The Morehead City ODMDS covers about 8.0 square
nautical miles and therefore -has sufficient capacity to contain the addi-
tional dredged material from all project alternatives. Any impacts to marine
resources associated with the disposal of additional material from any of-the
project alternatives in this area are considered insignificant.
EA-21

EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria 00 CFR 220-229) require in
Part 225 that applications and authorizations for Dredged Material Permits un-
der Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended, for transportation of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it in ocean waters will be evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in accordance with criteria set forth in Part 227. In accordance
with those criteria, an assessment of ocean dumping of dredged material from
initial construction and maintenance of improvements proposed for the Morehead
City Harbor Federal Project is included as Attachment I. The ODMDS is located
beyond the territorial seas (3 nautical miles) and therefore a State water
quality certificate is not required.
The materials dredged during the maintenance of Morehead City Harbor and
those which would be dredged during the proposed harbor improvements (new work
dredging) are predominantly sands (See Geotechnical Appendix to the
Feasibility Report) and are therefore excluded from bioassy and bioaccumula-
tion testing requirements as indicated in 40 CFR 227.13 (b)(1). The new work
dredged materials contain scattered pockets of silt and clay. EPA Region IV
concurred with this determination in a letter dated June 20, 1990.
6.02 Water Quality
Resource Description.' Morehead City Harbor is located at the confluence of
the Newport River and Bogue Sound. The North Carolina water quality clas-
sifications assigned to the waters in the vicinity are shown on Figure 6 (15
NCAC 2B •.0312 effective June 30, 1981). The waters in the vicinity of
Morehead City Harbor, as shown on Figure 7, are prohibited shellfish areas (15
NCAC 3B..1111).
An analysis of 1974 salinity-data collected by the Corps of Engineers
shows that the salinity in the Morehead City Harbor area is nearly sea
strength-and is fairly well mixed from-the water surface to the channel bot-
tom. Salinity measurements were taken at various points in the harbor, and
the northernmost station was in the vicinity of Berths 2 and 3 approximately
500 yards south of the railroad bridge (Figure 5). Through one-half of a
tidal cycle, salinity concentrations in the northern part of the harbor ranged
from 31.5 ppt to 25.5 ppt. At any time within the tidal cycle, salinity
variations from the water surface-to.the channel bottom were not greater than
2.0 ppt and, in most instances, were less than 1.0 ppt. A Salinity
Distribution Analysis (See Attachment II) was done using a one-dimensional
dispersion analysis model, very conservative flow rates and average maximum
salinity concentrations. It is estimated that the 1978 harbor deepening (from
35 feet below MLW to 40 feet below MLW) increased salinity of the Newport
River Estuary by about 0.55 ppt.
C
EA-22
MOREHEAD CITY
? ??, '•i: . _ .•.. •' ;' l ?'•• ?' -.. ' a i ""I '111111/
' •, • ?s:f •tiyr'!-" : itr`0? ? t ••?•..:..... fJ. ._r.•:• ' ? 1';. ?', 1 j'', 1 ? i .
000
... ,?-'• ••_ r„ . • • • ' ( ,`' ?,n pia \ /„?•''I ?" ???11 ".. ?t-
, 1 1
+ i 1 •?' '?
BOOUE:SO H SA
• , .? , ;, o fah,
-- , ,ice , ? .. .. ''?•.\ .,• <? •? \? ? < 1.. ?,?t'1` •. - ? \ ?:

' ? nail' •t tel.... "} f /?
$B ??- 1/2 0 /?VJ `t t
-`? 1/2-
Figure 6 Water quality classifications assigned to the Morehead City Harbor.
North Carolina areo. Stippled area is classified SC, Newport River
restricted area.
MOREHEAD CITY
$A I It C? ..moo - ?., ? ' • '? ? ?;
rRONIBITED iHEtIFIiN AREA! ..",>

.- 1 tf. •'t
BOOUE 306NO • • _ t 0
• , x,.
Alp
t, h
g '... '
A N K S Simi •1 • ''lam' ,• ^
1/2 0 1/2.7?
ATtANTIC OCEAN BMAUfORT IMLET
Figure 7 Prohibited shel i f tsh areas in the vicinity of Morehead City Harbor,

Project Impacts. The proposed project, which involves dredging below existing
project depths by hopper and hydraulic pipeline dredge, will produce tem-
porary, localized, and minor water quality impacts; similar to those
encountered during present maintenance dredging. However, as a result of the
larger quantities of material to be dredged for construction and maintenance
of the harbor improvements, dredging and the associated water-quality impacts
will extend over a longer period of time than the present maintenance dredging
(See Tables 6 and 7). Subsurface investigations of the Morehead City Harbor
area (See Geotechnical Appendix to the Feasibility Report). indicate that the
new work sediments are predominantly sands with scattered pockets of fine
grained silts and clays as compared to the sands dredged during maintenance.
The presence of fine grained materials may result in a wider dispersion of
turbidity impacts associated with the dredging and disposal of new work sedi-
ments than that encountered with maintenance dredging.
The deepening of Morehead City Harbor will increase the amount of material
to be dredged for each maintenance operation. However, even the greatest in-
crease in maintenance dredging requirement, that for the -48 ft mlw
alternative, is not expected to produce a significant change in the water
quality impacts of the maintenance activities.
Construction and maintenance of the proposed plan (deepening from 40 feet
below MLW to 45 feet below MLW) will result in minor increases in salinity in
the harbor area and the Newport River Estuary upstream of the harbor and may
result in minor effects on vertical salinity distribution. Results from the
dispersion analysis show that dispersion within the estuary will result in an
increase in salinity within the estuary of approximately 0.5 -ppt (See
Attachment II). It is not expected that this minor change in salinity would
have a significant impact on estuarine biota.
. For all the alternatives considered, the disposal of dredged material
within the Morehead City Harbor ODMDS should not significantly degrade marine
water quality. Disposal of dredged material which is predominantly sand with
small quantities of silt and clay will locally and temporarily affect the
water column turbidity (increase), dissolved oxygen concentrations (decrease),
and nutrient concentrations (increase). The dredged material is expected to
quickly settle to the bottom following release from the dredge's hopper and
thus limit the impacts to an area immediate to the discharge point.
Water quality impacts associated with Brandt Island disposal of dredged
material result from the discharge of decanted slurry effluent. The discharge
of this effluent may locally decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations and in-
crease turbidity and. concentrations of nutrients in the receiving waters.
These effects are minor when effluents are properly controlled and released.
-A Specific Use Standard with respect to hydraulic dredging in Public Trust
Areas specified in the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act - Guidelines
for Areas of Environmental Concern indicates that effluent from diked disposal
areas used when dredging in closed shellfish waters shall be returned to
closed shellfishing waters (15 NCAC 7H .0208(b)(2)(0). As the Morehead City
Harbor is a prohibited shellfish area, this use standard restricts the place-
ment of the Brandt Island discharge weir and effluent pipe to the northern and
eastern portions of the Brandt Island perimeter.
EA-24

Beach disposal of dredged material from either the stockpile at Brandt
Island or directly from Morehead City Harbor will cause temporary and local-
ized increases in nutrient concentrations and turbidity and reductions in
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Atlantic Ocean. Beach disposal of 3.9
million cubic yards of material dredged from the Brandt Island stockpile
during the summer of 1986 produced turbidities as high as 250 NTU in the
Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the discharge pipe. Turbidities decreased
rapidly with distance from the pipe. These increases in turbidity associated
with the beach disposal operation indicate that an appropriate mixing zone is
required in the area of the discharge in order to provide a reasonable oppor-
tunity for the mixture of the discharged sediment-water slurry and the
receiving waters. The turbidity water quality standard for all tidal salt
waters is the basic standard applicable to SC waters: turbidity due to a dis-
charge cannot exceed 25 NTU; if the background turbidity exceeds 25 NTU, the
discharge cannot cause any increase in turbidity in the receiving waters. For
the 1986 beach disposal, the Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) water quality certifi-
cate, Certification No. 1863-dated December 10, 1985, indicated that the beach
disposal a conducted In such a manner as to prevent sign icant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction related discharge."
Turbidity levels outside of the area of construction related discharge (mixing
zone) are not expected to exceed the water quality standard of 25 NTU. The
beach disposal is not expected to violate state water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen or nutrients.
As described in section 6.07, future develo ment of the port would be the
-gd1 °out`project condition, ere ore no secondary
water quality Impacts-are expected as a result of the proposed action.
Section 404(b)(1) evaluation. As with the existing project, disposal of
material in Brandt Island will be under an existing nationwide permit 33 CFR
330.5 (a)(16) for upland diked disposal and General Water Quality Certificate
No. 1273 dated 10 November 1978. A Section 404 (P.L. 95-217) Public Notice
for the harbor improvements was circulated concurrent with public review of
this EA/FONSI and a Section 404(b)(1) 'Evaluation is included - as_ Attachment
III. ' A State water quality certificate for discharges associated with the.
construction and maintenance of the proposed harbor improvement project was
requested from. the State of North Carolina concurrent with the circulation of
this EA/FONSI.- Section 401 water quality certification (Certification No.
2502) was issued for the proposed. harbor improvements by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management dated August 16,. 1990 (See Appendix A of the
Feasibility Report).
Past Coordination. A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation for beach disposal of
materials from Brandt Island was-performed as a part of the Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Morehead City Harbor, beach
disposal, circulated for public review on October 10, 1983. A separate sec-
tion 404(b)(1) evaluation, dated September 1985, was prepared for the
backfilling of. the access channel at its entrance to the disposal area upon
completion of the Brandt-Island excavation.
R_ 8/90
EA-25
A Section 401 (Public Law 95-217) Water Quality Certificate {WQC #1967)
was issued for beach disposal on Atlantic Beach by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management on January 4, 1984. A separate Section 401
(Public Law 95-217) Water Quality Certificate (WQC #1863) was issued by the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management on December 10, 1985, for the dis-
charge of material from Brandt Island on the beach at Atlantic Beach and
backfilling of the Brandt Island access channel. WQC 11863 was modified to in-
crease the area to be backfilled in the Brandt Island access channel on March
4, 1986.
6.03 Terrestrial Resources
Resource Description. A large portion of the the project area has been dis-
turbed by residential and commercial development. However, undisturbed areas
of maritime forest, mixed shrub, thickets and dunes exist which provide
habitat for birds, reptiles and small mammals. Although the habitat value of
maritime forest is not well documented, it is a unique community that is
rapidly disappearing in North Carolina (Fussell 1978). Dunes serve an impor-
tant function as a natural barrier to storm tides, protecting barrier island
development. Dune vegetation such as sea oats is important as a dune builder
and protection against erosion.
Amaranthus ump ilus (seabeach amaranth or pigweed) an annual or perennial
plant that usually grows between the seaward toe of the dune and the mean high
water line was listed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, as threatened (revised July 1987) since the completion
of the previous environmental documentation. The plant is a candidate for ad-
dition-to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants (50 FR 188, p. 39527). The USFWS encourages consideration
of candidates in environmental impact analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
Greatest concentrations of Amaranthus umilus occur near inlet areas of
barrier islands. However in favorable years, these plants can occur away from
inlet areas. A. umilus may occur in the proposed disposal area (Personal
Communication, August.3, 1989, Allan Weekly, N.C.- Natural Heritage Program).
Project Impacts. ..The previously referenced 1976 EIS, 1983 EA and 1985 SIR
-for Morehead City Harbor found no-significant project impacts.on terrestrial
resources. All harbor deepening alternatives propose to use the same upland
and beach disposal sites as the existing project (see Figure 2). Efforts are
underway by the local sponser to secure a permanent easement for the use of
the pipeline route shown on Figure 2; however, precise pipeline routes to the
beach from the inner harbor or Brandt Island disposal site are presently de-
pendent on the Corps' ability to obtain temporary right-of-ways and may,
therefore, vary in the future. Any new pipeline routes will be evaluated for
the presence of unique vegetative communities, significant wildlife habitat,
cultural resources, and wetlands prior to use. Areas with significant en-
vironmental resources that would be significantly impacted by pipeline
placement will be avoided. Therefore, no additional. impacts to terrestrial:
resources are anticipated as result of the proposed action. --
R 8/90
EA-26

As with the existing condition, placement of dredged material within the
designated beach disposal area may cover some A. umilus; however, a widening
of the beach, or the making of a more gentle beach profile may make more
habitat available to the plant thus having a beneficial effect. The expected
infrequent schedule of beach disposal should allow recolonization or rees-
tablishment of A. pumilus. The construction or maintenance of the harbor
improvements are not expected to result in significant increases in the beach
disposal frequency or area and therefore no significant additional impacts to
A. pumilus are expected.
No prime or unique agricultural lands would be affected by the proposed
project.
6.04 Endangered Species
esource Description. Endangered and threatened species that may occur in the
project area and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service are listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Threatened and Endangered Species
Morehead Ci tv Har?nr iJnn4 i+ (`?
SPECIES
STATUS
EFFECT
Finback whale,-Balaenoptera physalus
Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae
Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis
Right-whale, Eubalaena glacialis
Piping plover, Charadrius melodus
Roseate tern, Sterna dougalli
Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kem i
Hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata
Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea
Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta
Green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas
Shortnose sturgeon, Aeipenser brevirostrum
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered;
Threatened
Endangered
.Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
May Effect
No Effect
No Effect
May Effect
No Effect
No Effect
May Effect
May Effect
May Effect
Past Coordination. The impacts of the Morehead City Harbor Project on
threatened and endangered species were assessed in the Morehead City
Harbor, North Carolina, Final Environmental Statement (filed with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on September 24, 1976), in the
Supplemental Information Report to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), Morehead City Harbor, Carteret County, North Carolina
(dated September, 1985) and in the Biological Assessment of Endangered and
Threatened Species Which May Occur in the Vicinity of the Morehead -City
Harbor Beach Disposal Project (dated May 1983). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)'
concurred with the Corps of Engineers (letters dated June 16, 1983 and
EA-27.
June 7, 1983, respectively) that the maintenance -of the project, as
described in the Biological Assessment, would not affect listed species
under their ,jurisdiction. Additional analysis of the impacts of beach
disposal on the environment was provided in the Environmental Assessment,
Morehead City Beach Disposal, Carteret County, North Carolina (dated
October 1983).
An assessment of the impacts of using the designated ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS) on endangered and threatened species was
performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983) as a part of
their Environmental Impact Statement for designating an ODMDS in the
vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina. The USFWS and the NMFS con-
curred with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that use of the
Morehead City ODMDS would not affect listed species under their ,jurisdic-
tion.
The 1983 Biological Assessment and the endangered and threatened
species analyses contained in the above referenced NEPA documents were
supplemented by a Supplemental Biological Assessment, Operation and
Maintenance of Morehead City Harbor, Carteret County North Carolina,. dated
July 1989 because of the January 10, 1986 listing of the Atlantic coast
population of the piping plover as a threatened species, the November 2,
1987 listing of the Atlantic coast population of the Roseate tern as an
endangered species, new information regarding the statuses of the
shortnose sturgeon and right whale in the state, and new information
regarding the potential impacts of hopper dredging on the shortnose stur-
geon, right whale, and the sea turtles.
Current effect/no effect determinations for the continued operation
and maintenance of Morehead City Harbor are listed in table 8. It was
determined that the nests of the green sea turtle and the loggerhead-sea
turtle were at risk if beach disposal operations took place during the sea
turtle nesting season, and that Kemp`s ridley, loggerhead, and green sea
turtles and the shortnose sturgeon were potentially at risk due to ac-
cidental take by hopper dredges. It was also determined that migrating
right whales were at potential risk from collision by hopper dredges in
transit to and. from the ODMDS. Implementation of a sea turtle nest
monitoring and relocation program, hopper dredge observer programs (for
.sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, and right whales) and hopper dredge
operation to minimize take (NMFS Biological Opinion, Maintenance Dredging
of Morehead City Harbor, dated January 10, 1990), are proposed to
ameliorate and assess the severity of these impacts, if any.
The Biological Opinions of the USFWS and the NMFS concerning the ef-
fects of continued operation and maintenance of Morehead City Harbor were
provided on December 7, 1989, and January 10, 1990 respectively. These
opinions concluded that the continued operation and maintenance of
Morehead City -Harbor would not jeopardize the continued existence of en-
dangered or threatened species in the project area.

EA-28

Project Impacts. The proposed project improvements as described in sec-
tion 5.00 would not change the effect determinations for listed species as
shown on Table 8.
No significant change in the excavation cycle in Brandt Island (as
described in Section 3.03) is expected as a result of the proposed action.
Some increases in the beach disposal period and area could occur due to
the proposed improvements. However, these increases would not sig-
nificantly affect the ability to complete the work outside of the 1 May -
15 November sea turtle nesting season and any increases in beach disposal
area would be minor. It is not expected that the proposed harbor improve-
ments would result in a significant additional risk to nesting sea.
turtles. Sea turtle nest monitoring and relocation programs will continue
to be implemented as needed after the proposed project impr6vements are
MM. monitoring areas an periods will be extended as needed to cover
any increases due to project modifications.
The construction and maintenance of the proposed deepening of the ou-
ter harbor channels, Range A extension and Range A wideners would increase
the area of hopper dredging (see Table 3) and period of hopper dredge
operation (see Table 6) and therefore may increase the risk of accidental
take of the sea turtles
w a es. THE propose hopper dredge observer program and dredging opera-
tion to minimize take would be extended. to cover these increases and
therefore would also ameliorate and assess the severity of any additional
impacts to the species.
. The USFWS and NMFS reviewed the Draft Feasibility Report and EA/FONSI
and concluded, in letters dated. August 1, 1990 and July 16, 1990 respec-
tively (see attachment V), that their Biological Opinions rendered for the
continued operation and maintenance. of Morehead City Harbor, would apply to
the proposed harbor modifications. Therefore consultation requirements
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, are complete.
6.05 Cultural Resources
_ Resource Description. The .1976 Environmental Impact Statement for the
Morehead City Harbor project and the 1983 Environmental Assessment for
Morehead City Harbor Beach Disposal determined that the existing project
would have no effect on terrestrial cultural -resources. The proposed har-
bor improvements will not affect new undisturbed upland areas. All of the
harbor deepening alternatives will-require new dredging and will result in
an -enlarged area of channel sloughing which could-impact submerged cul-
tural resources, including shipwrecks, and the inundated remains of either
the Fort-Macon historic site (1834) or the earlier Fort Hampton. Ten ves-
sels have been documented as lost in or near Beaufort Inlet during the
period of 1778 to 1923 (Dames and Moore, 1979), and it is suspected that
there are vessel remains in the vicinity of the inlet that were not docu-
mented at the time of vessel loss. A review of project specifications by.
archaeologists from the Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit has determined that
the sensitive area for shipwrecks includes modification of all of Range A
out to - project depth,, all -of the Cut-Off, and a portion of Range B
(Figure 3)• R 8/90
- f _ EA-29 - --

..During May of 1986, the Corps of Engineers conducted a magnetic survey
of the affected area exclusive of the Range A western side cuts to locate
magnetic anomalies which may represent submerged cultural remains. That
survey indicated a considerable amount of marine debris in the vicinity of
the interior channels (Range B and Cut-Off) but few anomalies off-shore
(Range A). These anomalies were further investigated by side-scan sonar
and were found to be recent.debris of no historic interest (Watts, 1989).
Further comprehensive survey is required over the western portions of the
Range A side cuts prior to,pro,ject construction. This area was not in-
cluded in the sampling and intensive surveys conducted during 1988 and
1989 because specifications were not then included in the plan. This off-
shore area is where most shipwrecks are recorded.
Project Impacts. No impacts to cultural resources would result from the
construction or maintenance of the proposed action to Range C, B, and the
eastern portion of Range A. The North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer has reviewed the surveys and concurred with our find-
ing of no effect from the proposed improvements in these areas in a letter
dated 14 April 1989. Impacts from the Range A western side cut will be
evaluated and coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer
prior to project construction.
6.06 Recreational and Esthetic Resources
Resource Description. The seashore area along-Rogue Banks is used exten-
sively for public recreation activities including sunbathing, swimming,
surf fishing, walking, jogging and shell collecting. Morehead City Harbor
and Beaufort Inlet provide a good fishing area as well as access to
productive offshore waters for both sport and commerical fishermen. The
ocean beach, open water, the nearby salt marsh and maritime forest provide
a variety- of natural scenery which contrasts sharply with the;appearance
of the urban environment.
Project Impacts. As with the existing project, the esthetics of the beach
would temporarily. be degraded during beach disposal due to the presence of
the dredges and pipeline in the harbor, heavy.equipment and pipeline on
-the beach and elevated turbidity itT the surf zone. Noise and exhaust
created by the operation of the dredge and other equipment will result in
minor increases in noise and air pollution. The beach disposal operations
would continue to take place during the winter and early spring, which is
the off-season for beach use, and therefore, would not significantly im-
pact beach recreation'. Since the new material to be dredged for harbor
deepening contains scattered lenses of silt and clay, the disposal opera-
tion which contains that material may produce clay balls which persist on
the beach after the disposal operation is complete. Clay balls are un-
sightly; however, they would be expected to begin to disintegrate, wash
off the beach and/or become buried soon after the disposal operation is
complete. An extensive scatter of clay balls on Atlantic Beach in April,
after the 1986 disposal operation from Brandt Island, was essentially gone
by the summer. As with the existing condition, boaters using the harbor
area during construction or maintenance dredging may be inconvenienced by
the dredge plant and floating sections of pipeline. Since all deepening
EA-30

alternatives will result in the dredging of additional material, this
period of inconvenience would be extended (see Tables 6 and 7). Boater
inconvenience has not been reported to be a problem at Morehead City
Harbor and is not expected to be a problem with any of the construction
alternatives Although harbor deepening is expected to allow ships to
more efficiently use the harbor, a.significant increase in ship use is not
expected and no conflicts with recreational use in the area are an-
ticipated.
6.07 Quality of Human Life.
Many significant socioeconomic impacts to Carteret and surrounding
counties result from the operation of Morehead City Harbor. These impacts
can be construed as positive or negative -largely de endin on on '
a ex erna iti.es associated with a
port and its hinterland industrial base, such as rail and other types of
congestion, industrial dust, water and noise pollution are unquestionably
negative impacts on the quality of life of the local population.
The Corps of Engineers projects growth in the industrial sectors
benefiting from depths in excess of the presently authorized 40 feet,
however, it believes that this growth will
Nei 190 r--VFp'e 11. ---Tne Fort 0 ore ea City-, as well as the hinterland in-
dustrial base, will be basically the same under the with or the without
project condition. This is because an additional five feet of harbor
depth is of minor significance compared to the overall demand and supply
for products in the world marketplace. Therefore construction of the
proposed plan would not significantly impact the quality of life in nearby
communities. Projected future increases in commodity exports including a
three to four fold increase in the-export of phosphate rock will add to
the congestion, noise, and industrial dust at Morehead City Harbor and
nearby communities. However, these conditions and-associated negative im
.pacts; on the quality of life of the local population are likely to
increase due to economic factors other than the construction of the
proposed project.
Since the socioeconomic conditions in nearby communities would be es-
sentially the same under the with or without project condition, the
proposed plan should not disrupt community cohesion, affect facilities and
services or employment. Tax and property values would not be affected and
no displacement of people, businesses or farms is anticipated as a result
of the proposed action.
Rail Traffic Assessment. As stated above, the volume of cargo handled
through Morehead City Harbor will increase with or without the deepening
project. However, the railroad traffic into the Port will be essentially
the same under the with or without project condition. The deeper project
depth is not expected to divert cargo from any other ports, nor is it an-___
ticipated that the with project condition will induce any new rail traffic.-
through Morehead City Harbor or other nearby communities.
EA-31
The Port of Morehead City is authorized through the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to rail up to 3 million tons of cargo
each year. Currently, less than 1 million tons of products are railed to
and from.the Port annually, and the terminal switching service operators
say that to exceed 1 million tons would require a major expansion effort.
They do not believe this will be necessary in the foreseeable future.
Some of the products using the rail service at the Port of Morehead
City include lumber, tobacco, asphalt, roofing products, limestone, avia-
tion fuel, coal, woodchips, minerals, and only one granular phosphatic
fertilizer, which is not a major export. All of the phosphate rock is
barged from the mine site in Beaufort County. This barge traffic is also
expected to increase over time with or without the proposed harbor im-
provements. Presently, one train a day, five days a week calls on the
Port. NCDOT has authorized up to three trains per day at Morehead City.
The daily train averages less than 100.cars. The only commodity that uses
the rail service to Morehead City that is projected to increase sig-
nificantly, again, under with or without project conditions, is woodchips.
Morehead City Export Terminal estimates that their projected exports of
woodchips will add an average of 28 cars per train to the same scheduled
daily train. No significant increase in the frequency or duration
(length) of trains is foreseen at Morehead City under the with or without
project condition.
6.08 Wetlands and Flood Plains
The proposed harbor improvements will not require dredging"or filling
of any wetlands. However, as with the existing condition, the discharge
pipeline will cross wetlands to reach the beach disposal site. Where the
pipeline crosses wetlands, pipeline joints will continue to be welded and
burlapped-to protect the joints from leakage. Any impacts to wetlands
would be minor and of short duration. The proposed plan is in compliance
with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Wetland creation by
the open water disposal of dredged material is not proposed at this time,
since other beneficial use (beach fill) is proposed for the material to be
dredged by pipeline dredge and wetland creation by hopper materials would
be impractical in.the project vici0ity.
.As with the existing condition, the proposed beach disposal area is
"-- within the flood plain and is in compliance with the requirements of
Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management. Alternatives to beach dis-
posal were investigated in the previously referenced Morehead City Harbor
FEIS; however, they were not found to be feasible.

EA-32
4 ?
I/-
7.00 FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION
Project timing restrictions as described in section 3.04 and implemen-
tation of sea turtle nest relocation and the hopper dredge observation
program described in 6.04 would 'minimize impacts to fish and wildlfe
resources. Any impacts to fish and wildlife resources would be negligible
and therefore no fish and wildlife mitigation plan was developed.
8.00 CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
The Morehead City Harbor Project has been determined to be consistent
with the approved, Coastal Management Program of the State of North
Carolina. Previous consistency determinations are listed below. -
Consistency Determination Morehead City Harbor (Inner Harbor),
Carteret County, North Carolina, dated 29 January 1981 (State concur-
rence 17 March 1981) as amended, 4 October 1983 (State concurrence 11
January 1984)
Consistency Determination Brandt Island, Morehead City Harbor,
Carteret County, North Carolina, dated 1 October 1985 (State concur-
encec, 21 March i900
Consis
County
March
Ocean Dumping, Carteret
(State concurrence 18
Based on the information presented within this EA/FONSI the proposed
improvements to the Morehead City Harbor Project are consistent with the
approved Coastal Management program of the State of North ;Carolina and
local land use plans.

EA-33
9.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following list is a summary of environmental commitments related
to the proposed action.
1. Diking/dike repair or dredged material disposal on Brandt Island will
be avoided if practical during the colonial waterbird nesting season,
if nesting waterbirds are present in the disposal site. Should
diking/dike repair or dredged material disposal be scheduled between 1
April and 31-July of any year, an inspection for nesting activities of
colonially nesting waterbirds will be made before work begins. If sig-
nificant nesting activity is in progress, activities will be postponed
until,nesting is substantially completed.
2. Beach disposal will occur to the maximum extent practicable, after 15'
December and be completed prior to 15 April of any given year.
3. Sea turtle nest monitoring and relocation programs will continue to be
implemented during beach disposal if needed after the proposed harbor
improvements are made. Monitoring areas and periods will be extended
as needed to cover any increases due to the proposed project.
4. The proposed hopper dredge observer program for sea turtles, shortnose
sturgeon and right whales and dredging operation to minimize take (NMFS
Biological Opinion, Maintenance Dredging of Morehead City Harbor, dated
January 10, 1990 as modified by NMFS letter dated July 16, 1990) would
be implemented for project construction and continued for project main-
tenance. Monitoring areas and periods will be extended as needed to
cover any increases due to the proposed project.
5. Further comprehensive underwater cultural resources survey is required
over the western portion of the Range A side cuts. Impacts from the
western portion -of the Range A side out will be evaluated and coor-
dinated with the State Historic Preservation.Officer prior to project
.construction.
6. The plans and specifications for the proposed project will'be submitted
to the North Carolina Division-of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
for approval in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Between the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control-Commission
and the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOA was
signed by the Chairman, North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission
on December 23, 1985 and by the District Engineer on January 10, 1986.
7. During beach disposal operations, a no pumping zone will be established
within 200 feet on either side of ocean piers. The dredging contrac-
tor would be required to move the discharge pipe to the other side of
the pier as soon as the discharge reaches the 200-foot no pumping zone.
8. The feasibility of implementing a 5:1 slope at the along the northwest
leg will be determined during post-authorization planning studies. ff
R 8/90 l
EA-34
MyJOIANDUM
TO: Stephen B. Benton
FROM: Linda P. Mercer 4
DATE: May 4, 1990
`SUBJECT: Morehead City Harbor Improvements
?
y
/
c -
?
'99
0
/
Y h
`
101
cif ?!4
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries supports the proposed
improvements to Morehead City Harbor but would like *n nffnp toe `ell--
?v.vn+u
ons.
1. We agree with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation that
the Wilmington District undertake an assessment of the environmental
consequences of beach front disposal of dredged materials on nearshore fishery
resources. Specific concerns are the effects of beach nourishment on feeding
and migration of fishes along Bogue Banks. Both commercial and recreational
fishin acti
is ernes, may have been negatively impacted by the 1985-86 beach disposal..
These impacts should be assessed prior to future beach spoil disposal.
2. The Division generally recommends a moratorium on dredging at certain
times of the year to protect juvenile finfish, shrimp, and crabs migrating
into estuarine waters. The dates of these moratoria vary according to the
location, such as February to June in inlets and March or April to September
in nursery areas. Because the Morehead City Harbor is the entrance through
which larval organisms must pass to several highly productive water bodies,
including Bogue Sound, Newport River, North River, Back Sound, and Core Sound,
the Division recommends that the need for a moratorium for this project be
assessed, along with the potential impacts of dredging on larval organisms.
Local authorities on larval fish transport such as William Hettler, National
Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort -Laboratory and Dr. John Miller, North
-Carolina State University, may be able to provide information on peak periods
of larval transport through Beaufort Inlet.
3. Concern has been expressed to the Division on the impact of the steep
wall on the northwest leg of the turning basin on migration of fishes into
Bogue Sound. It is felt that the abrupt wall facing incoming juvenile fish
and shrimp impedes or halts their progress into Bogue Sound. The Division
recommends that a 5:1 slope be created during future maintenance dredging of
the northwest leg.
LM/bsm
3
V-21
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
on the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 1: Memorandum from the NC Division of Marine Fisheries dated May 4,
1990 (Page 1 of 3).
1. The effects of beach disposal have been assessed and are described in sec-
tion 6.01 of the EA/FONSI. Beach disposal will be timed to the maximum
extent practical to occur after 15 December and be completed prior to 15
April to avoid impacts to juvenile fish in the surf zone and lessen impact
to fisheries resources and fishing.
It is noted that placement 6f beach fill and associated seaward exten-
sion of the beach front would reduce pier area available for fishing.
Although these impacts can not be avoided, they will be reduced by estab-
lishing a no pumping zone 200 feet on either side of the pier. The
dredging contractor would be required to move the discharge pipe to the
other side of the pier as soon as the discharge reaches the 200-foot no
pumping zone. This information has been added to section 9.00 of the
EA/FONSI.
We are unaware of any commercial fishing losses as a result of 1985-
1986 beach disposal. We would be interested in any data that you have
that indicate that these negative impacts may have occurred.
2. The estimated entrainment rates of fish and shellfish by hopper and
hydraulic pipeline dredge are low; indicating that dredging causes a mini-
mal direct mortality (See Section 6.01 in the EA/FONSI). The potential
for entrainment of organisms may be increased during certain times of the
year or under specific conditions, such as narrow :channels where mobile
organisms may not be able to avoid the dredge or in areas where passive
organisms may be concentrated. These conditions are not present in the
project area. -

V-22
Wilmington District, Responses. to Comments
on the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990•
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 1: Memorandum from the NC Division of Marine Fisheries dated May 4,
1990 (Page 2 of 3).
The material excavated by the dredge consists of a slurry of about 20%
solids and 80% water. Based on an expected production rate of 8,200 cubic
yards of sand/day by pipeline dredge the amount of water being pumped at
any given time would be expected to be about 10 cfs. Considering that the
n e is a ou 250-,79-0 cfs, the
volume of water removed by the dredge at any given time is insignificant
compared to the volume of water passing through the inlet. Even if dredg-
ing were to occur during a time when larvae were abundant in the inlet,
the number of organisms which would be entrained by the dredge would be
expected to be small in relation to the number of organisms that would be
expected to pass through the inlet unaffected.
organisms ass"v?id?e with
the deepening and continued maintenance of the Morehead City Harbor
project is unknown but is believed to be insignificant based on the short-
term duration and physical characteristics of the dredging operation and
the magnitude of water movements in the project area.
Maintenance dredging of Morehead City Harbor has no seasonal restric-
tions; however, disposal of dredged material on the ocean beach or Brandt
Island, is seasonally restricted as described' in section 3.04 of the
EA/FONSI. This moratorium on dredging would significantly impact our
ability to maintain project dimensions, especially on the ocean bar.
Shoaling historically occurs during the late spring season, due to the
southerly shift of the prevailing winds. Orders of magnitude increases in
advanced maintenance dredging during non-moratorium periods would have to
be initiated to overcome this deficit. Even this technique may not al-
leviate the dramatic effects of these springtime shoaling rates. Due to
the low potential for significant impacts to estuarine organisms and a
high probability for adverse operational impacts a seasonal moratorium is
not warranted.
V-23
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor. Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 1: Memorandum from the NC Division of Marine Fisheries dated May 4,
1990 (Page 3 of 3).
3. The existing 'steep slopes (about 2:1).occur naturally as a result of a
dredged box out, due to the composition of sediments. Although it is
operationally difficult, a 5:1 slope could be dredged in a series of shal-
low box cuts. The dredged area required to maintain this slope at or less
than 5:1, must be determined. ,The feasibility of implementing a 5:1 slope
will be determined during post-authorization planning studies (see section
9.00 of the EA/FONSI).
i?
V-24

COASTAL ?SSU:iRC=? CO\?1?'?.
Memorandum
TO. Melba McGee
THROUGH: Carol Tingley
May 9, 1990
I
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Harbor improvements -- Morehead City
Iz
REFERENCE: 90-0839
As noted in the EA, the proposed dredge disposal site at Brant
Island-is the location of an important seabird nesting colony.
This colony was active in 1988, the last year for which the North
Carolina Natural Heritage.Program received any data. in addition
to the ncn-listed common tern (Sterna hirunco), the colony
included Iwo species that are considered of special concern in
I- -_ e@111 (SER.Lifa a and L e
black skizmer (Rhvncops ni.ger). Other species that have nested on
Brant Island in the past include the black- necked stilt
(Himantoous mexicanus), a rare nesting species in North Carolina,
and the least tern (Sterna albif rons).
These seabird colonies are now restricted to just a few sites in
North Carolina due to the development of the barrier islands.
Dredge spoil islands such as Brant Island provide the best
remaining habitat for nesting and can be kept in suitable
condition primarily by repeated deposition of spoil material. The
spoil should only be deposited during the non-breeding season,
however, from September to February. During the breeding season,
any sort of disturbance can severely reduce reproductive success.
As also noted, disposal of dredge material by piping it onto the
beach at Bogue Banks can also have adverse consequences. The
Natural Heritage Program database contains several nesting
records from along .this beach for the federal-threatened
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). We also have records
for several populations of the state-threatened seabeach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumillus), a species that is also a candidate for
federal listing.
We concur with the USFWS recommendations that beach dumping be
done on a frequency of no more than once every ten years,-and that
it should be scheduled to -avoid the turtle'nestirlp - 'eriotl. iy
decision to mhoose new routes for sand pipelines"should be
preceded by a careful survey for `the amaranth as well as for
other communities of maritime vegetation.
DIV7ST.ON OF PARKS AND RECREA
G

V-25
4 ?
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 2: Memorandum from the Division of Parks and Recreation Dated M.av
9, 1990•
1. Noted.
2. The importance of continued dredged material disposal on Brandt Island in
maintaining suitable habitat for colonially nesting waterbirds is notes.
The Brandt Island disposal schedule and methods to minimize impacts to
these species which are implemented for maintenance of the Morehead Ciy
Harbor Project are described in section 3.04. of the EA/FONSI. These pro-
cedures minimize impacts to colonially nesting waterbirds and allow
sufficient time to schedule and implement the disposal operation. A more
restrictive schedule for the proposed deepening project is not proposed.
3. Noted. Potential impacts on these species are discussed in sections 6.03
and 6.04 in the EA/FONSI
4. See Corps response to US Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation 3, pages
77 and 78 in the Feasibility Report. Beach disposal will avoid the turtle
nesting season to the degree practical (See section 6.04 in the EA/FONSI).
Any new pipeline routes will be evaluated for the presence of unicue
vegetation (see section 6.03 of the EA/FONSI).

V-26

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
e
From:
Through:
May 7, 1990
Bill Mills
Planning Branch
James H. Gregson-ti
Wilmin ton Re ional O
I17'1j9
Mq y1990
P_Q
Tr 1IFD
DO,? OFFICt

g g ffice
Preston Howard '-
Wilmington Regional Office !1RF`1•0N H0wAPD, •(^
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations'
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9004-Q
Draft Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment
Morehead City Harbor Improvement
ca,-

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Wilmington District COE proposes to
construct and maintain improvements to the Morehead City Harbor.
The Improvements include harbor and berth deepening, channel
deepening and channel widening several locations.
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Newport River/Bogue Sound
CLASSIFICATION: SA STATUS: Closed
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The project complies with the General 401 Water Quality 4
Certification No. 1273 for dredge spoil dewatering.
3. . The proposed project should be done in such a way as to not
cause the turbidity outside the immediate construction area
to exceed 25 NTU.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed. 6
JHG:9004-Q.MAY ?NS1''?lhl??
cc: WiRO CF
;eC11
Jiro •.Gregson
V-27 ", 0 tm
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
North Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 3: Memorandum from the NC Division of Environmental Management,
dated May 7, 1990
1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. Amendment to the existing Section 401 (PL (95-217) Water Quality
Certificate has been requested by,letter dated April 19, 1990 from the
Wilmington District to the NC Division of Environmental Management.
4. Noted.
5. No violation of this water quality standard is expected.
6. Noted.

V-28
RN2'?
.w ??,,.
\??c?\5 ? o•? i , y 9?0
? '.
Mq y? ??
_? ggO ,
`Er, ?' ECG
x y;:?;,? s?EO
`?? r,?a afF;cf
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary ? Director
May J.S, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland ?,?
SUBJECZ'• 90-
smen
We have reviewed the feasibility report and environmental
assessment of harbor improvements at Morehead City and concur
with the conclusion that these improvements are economically
justified.
The projection of future levels of.bulk cargo at: this port
is, of course, conjectural, but we would consider the projections
used by the-Corps to be very conservative and therefore the
cost-benefit ratio computed by the Corps to be the minimum
expectation.- The study assumes the present low levels of coal
exports will continue. We?recognize the competitive advantages
of Hampton Roads. However, ?f national coal exports increase,
perhaps. as a result of oil shortages, congestion at Hampton Roads
could and probably would cause some ships to divert to other
ports. Morehead City would be one of these choices.
The analysis of shipping costs is based upon an invariant sum
for a particular class of ship regardless of the extent to which
it is loaded. We agree that the major costs of bulk cargo
carriers are fixed, but there are surely some operating economics
in a light-loaded carrier, such as reduced loading time. If this
is the case, the costs per ton of the larger carriers at light-
loading would be somewhat less than shown. Table II indicates
that the most efficient combination to Europe with a 45-foot
.channel would be a 120,000 DWT carrier with a 53?foot draft,.
` eight feet light-loaded, and a cost of X6.86 a ton.
V -29
1
2.
3
(2)
The table did not evaluate light-loadings of more than ten
feet. By our calculations a 175;000 DWT carrier with a 58-foot
draft, thirteen feet light-loaded, would have a cost of only
$6.56 a ton. Similar calculations can be made for Indian Ocean
destinations.
The project appears to have minimal environmental impacts in
'as much as it would only involve an intensification of existing
maintenance dredging.
bb
cc: Don Sherry

V-30
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment. Letter dated May 18, 1990.
Attachment 4: Memorandum from the NC Division of Water Resources, dated May
16, 1990.
1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. Table 11 was revised using fiscal year 1990 shipping costs. Revised ship-
ping costs are higher and no longer shows an advantage to the 120,000 DWT
carrier with 53-foot draft, eight feet light-loaded. However, as shown on
tables 13 through 16 in the feasibility report, ship availability as
manifested in the fleet mix is the main factor in determination of overall
shipping costs and thus project benefits.
s
WUU.LU
the harbor even if it were deepened to 49-feet, because those ships would
more likely call at deep draft harbors which can load to their capacity.
Also channel dimensions and the turning basin are not well suited to ships
of this very large class.
5. Noted.

V-31
3
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 Director
June 4, 1990
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Lt. Colonel Suermann:
We have nearly completed our review of of the draft consistency
determination contained in the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental 1
Assessment - Morehead City Harbor Improvement, Morehead City, North
Carolina. When comments are received from the Division of Environmental
Health and the Division of Environmental Management, we will forward them
under separate cover. Since the consistency determination is contained in
a draft NEPA document, we are providing a draft State Position on the
consistency determination at this time.
Our reviewer comments, attached, identify several informational needs
which should be addressed in the final EA. In addition, the State Property •,
Office has informed us by phone that an easement or letter of permission is 2
required for spoil disposal in the Brandt Island disposal area. This may
be obtained from the State Ports Authority.
Two major problem issues identified include secondary development,
particularly on Radio Island, and local land use plan inconsistencies with 3
respect to the proposed increase in coal shipment. Our reviewers indicate
that the coal shipment increases used as partial Justificatift- -for the
harbor improvements are inconsistent with the Morehead City Land Use Plan
and.perhaps the New Bern Land Use Plan as well. t- Radio Island has its own
approved plan entitled "Area Development Plan for Radio Island" which was
developed in 1982. A copy is enclosed. Secondary development associated
with the harbor improvements should be consistent with this plan.
Based on. information contained in the draft KA and consiatency
determination, the State's position on consistency if the proposal were in
final form would be that it is inconsistent with the Korth Carolina Coastal L?
Kanagement Program. Specifically, the proposal is inconsistent with the
Morehead City Land Use Plan. The proposal may also be inconsistent based
?t. on insufficient information. The additional information needs are
identified in the attached reviewer comments.
V-37
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal. Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Suermann Letter 6/4/90
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed activity and for
your consideration of the North. Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Please call me at [phone] if you have any questions. Ms. Kathy
Vinson at our Morehead City office 1-800-682-2632 is available for advice
in resolving the land use plan questions.
Singorely,

Consistency Coordinator
cc: Mr. Preston P. Pate, Assistant Director
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC State Clearinghouse
0 oas a anagement, Morehead City Office
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Outer Continental Shelf Office
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
NC Division of Land Resources, Wilmington Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC State Property Office
NC Division of Environmental Management
NC Division of Environmental Health

V-38
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
Letter from North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Coastal Management (DCM). dated June 4, 1990
1. Noted.
2. An easement or letter of permission to use Brandt Island as a disposal
site for this project will be requested from the State Ports Authority.
3. We show in the feasibility report (tables 17 through 21) that deepening
will not induce higher levels of coal or phosphate rock shipments, and it
is stated that coal shipments will only average 150,000 metric tons per
year in the future, with or without the deepening project. This is only
about 62 percent of the level of coal export in 1986 (see page 25 of the
Feasibility Report), when the Morehead City Land Use Plan was written and
is only a small fraction of the unacceptable level of 3 million tons per
year, determined by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
referenced on page 17 of the above plan. It is not expected that harbor
deepening would induce any new rail traffic in New Bern (see section 6.07
of the EA/FONSI).
Export levels of coal and phosphate are projected to be the same under the
with and without project condition and it is not expected that the deeper
channel will attract new and different commodities to Morehead City
Harbor. Therefore, secondary development of the adjacent areas including
Radio Island is not expected to be induced by the proposed harbor deepen-
ing. Future development of Radio Island is expected with or without the
proposed harbor deepening.
4. We believe that your draft.determination that the project is inconsistent
with the North Carolina Coastal Management program is incorrect as it was
based on the misconception that the proposed harbor improvements will in-
crease coal shipments, rail traffic and secondary development.
5. Noted.
V-39
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
STEVE BENTON
CHARLES S. JONES
1
MAY 22 )gar,
C40ASTAL RESOURC.eS COMM
CONSISTENCY REVIEW - PROJECT CD90-12 & SCH90-0839
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
MAY 21, 1990
Attached are two (2) memos from Jim Mercer and Kathy Vinson which
primarily addresses the projects inconsistency with local Land 1
Use Plans (particularly, the Town of Morehead City's). It should
Land -Usp Plans were nni-
be noted that an analysis of these
undertaken in these documents.
Another important aspect of this project which was not discussed
is the secondary impacts which might occur on Radio Island. With 2
the designation of Radio Island as the "port" for offshore oil
and gas exploration activities, and the State Port Authority's
acquisition of major land holdings on the island for future port
develo?m
opportunities for a variety of different types of development
which may or may not be compatible with Land Use Plans or the
physical and human environment. Since the SPA is currently
undertaking a port development plan for Radio Island (and also
plans for future land acquisition), I believe that the projected
development of Radio Island should be incorporated in the
discussion of the proposed harbor, improvements.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at my Morehead City office.
CSJ/dh
Attachments
cc: Preston P. Pate, Jr.

V-40
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
Letter from North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management dated June 4, 1990.
Attachment 1: Memorandum from Charles Jones dated May 21, 1990.
1. Local land use plans were considered in the preparation of the EA/FONSI
and the consistency determination (see section 8.00 of the EA/FONSI):
2. The existing 40' channel depths will accommodate ships associated with
offshore oil and gas exploration. No secondary development of Radio
Island is anticipated as a result of the harbor deepening project. See
response 3 to the NCDEHNR, DCM letter dated June-4, 1990.
3. Noted.
V-41
MEMORANDUM:
TO: CHARLES S. JONES
FROM: KATHY B. VINSON
SUBJECT: PROJECT CD90-12 - CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
DATE : MAY 17 , 19 9.0
This project proposes improvements, including harbor and berth
deepening, at the Morehead City Port-to allow large bulk cargo 1
vessels to more efficiently use the Port's facilities and channel
widening- at specific locations to alleviatt- 4-he
'
maneuvering pro ems encountered by pilots of larger vessels.
Specifically, these improvements would allow more efficient
shipping of phosphate rock and coal from the Morehead City Port.
Impacts associated with these improvements could include
increased rail traffic through Morehead City to transport the
increased coal that would be expected to be exported from the
.Port and pollution associated with coal dust.
er your request, I.have reviewed this project for consistency 2
with the Carteret County, Morehead City,-and New Bern Land Use
Plans.
The 1985 Carteret Countv Land Use Plan discusses port development
on pages 168 through 170. The Plan states that a 1981 proposal
to develop a coal storage and loading facility on Radio Island c?
was opposed by interested parties in the County. Consequently, e?
an Area Development Plan (ADP) was developed and approved by a
Task Force appointed by the Governor. The Task Force, which
represented Atlantic Beach, Morehead City, Beaufort, Carteret
County, the State Department of Commerce, the.North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, and
the North Carolina Department of Transportation, oversaw a study
of rail transportation problems associated with the movement of
large quantities of bulk goods through the Port. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation concluded that the movement
of in excess of three million tons of coal per year through
Morehead City would cause unacceptable delays and interruptions
to the community.
Following the Task Force's recommendation, Carteret County L?
amended its Zoning ordinance to allow greater County control over
industrial development on Radio Island.
Pages 172 through 173 of the Carteret County Land Use Plan states
the County's policy of commitment and support of Federal and
State programs that are beneficial to the County and to question
v-42

May 18, 1990
Page #2
and oppose those that are not. Programs specified in the Plan
include cooperation with the North Carolina State Ports
Authority.
The Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental theessSent of the E
Morehead City Harbor Improvements, prepared by U.. Army
Corps of Engineers, states on page 28 that yearly coal exports to
expected
Europe from Morehead City Harbor
metric tons over the period
rock exports are projected cean portseby.thelyearn2010ric tons to
European and India
The projected export of coal is well othane3umillionatonslperl
for movement through Morehead
year) specified in the County Land Use Plan. Phosphate rock is
barged from Texasgulf's Lee Creek Mining and Manufacturing
facility, located approximately 60 miles north of Morehead City,
to the Port complex via the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway.
Therefore, the large quantity of phosphate rock projected for
exportation should laeyPlan transportation
system at levels stated as unacceptable in the County's
If the improvements are judged to be beneficial to the County,
this project would not appear to be inconsistent with the County
Land Use Plan based on the County's policies on port development
and-cooperation with State and Federal programs, although any new
construction or development on Radio Island associated with the
anticipated increase in exportation of coal and phosphate rock
may require a Special Use Permit from the County.
The 1986 Morehead City Land Use Plan Update states on page to the
following Economic and Community Development policy:
overriding conflicts and incompatibility with local commerce
.including sports and commdreial fishing,•and marine research, the
Town strongly urges the State Ports Authority to rescind its
designation of the Morehead City Port for polluting cargos such
as coal and hazardous chemicals. Further, the Town urges the
designation of the Port as a facility handling a mix of
non-hazardous/non-polluting bulk, break-bulk and container cargo.
It is the Town's policy that future Port development, utilize .;. 1 0
barge/waterway transportation to avoid traffic conflict in
Morehead City particularly along the U.S. 70 corridor..'
While the increased export of phosphate rock would not increase 1
rail traffic through Morehead City, I cannot determine if
phosphate rock is hazardous or polluting, and therefore, cannot
determine if the increased export of this product is inconsistent
with the Morehead City Land Use Plan. However, based on the
v-43
May 18, 1990
Page #3
above-referenced policy statement, increased coal-exportation
from the Morehead City Port would appear to be inconsistent with
the Morehead City Land Use Plan.
The 1987 Town of New Bern Land Use Plan includes the following
energy facility citing and development policy on page 43: "It is 1 G
the City's policy that no more than two-trains per day pass
through New Bern to *or from the Port at Morehead City. Further,
it is the City's policy that it be notified twenty-four hours in
advance of the transport of any hazardous materials by way of
trains through its jurisdiction and that no, train block any -
intersection f
If the proposed Port improvements were to result in more than two
(2) trains per day traveling through New Bern to or from the
Port, this related activity would not appear to be consistent
with the New Bern Land Use Plan and could create problems within
the Town of New Bern. However, it is unclear if the Town of New
Bern can regulate rail traffic associated with intergtAt
?mmarnc „ ?., --
---- -- ---"-r.... ? vL t.v41 {..o t ne Port.
Please let me know if you have additional questions. 1
KBV/dh
V-44
a
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
Letter from North- Carolina Department- of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management dated June 4, 1990.
Attachment 2: Memorandum from Kathy B. Vinson dated May 17, 1990.
1. The proposed harbor deepening will not induce increased coal shipments or
rail traffic (See section 6.07 in the EA/FONSI)
2. Noted.
3. Noted.
4. Noted.
5. Noted.
6. Noted
7. Noted.
8. See response 3 to the NCDEHNR, DCM letter dated June 4, 1990.
9. Noted.
10. The proposed project is not expected to induce future port development.
Growth is expected to be the same with or without harbor deepening (see
section 6.07 of the EA/FONSI).
11: See response 3 to the NCDEHNR, DCM letter dated June 4, 1990.
12. Rail traffic into the Morehead City Port is expected to be the same with
or without harbor deepening (see section 6.07 of the EA/FONSI) therefore
this project would not result in additional rail traffic through New
Bern.
13. Noted.
V-45

MEMORANDUM:
TO: STEVE BENTON
FROM: JAMES L. MERCER
SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY REVIEW - CD90-12
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT - EA/FONSI
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS --PROJECT
DATE: MAY 2, 1990
Thp +-irgl o-9 e9a_]_(&t a. rate of 1-57,-000 me ric tons per
year) is used as part of the cost benefits for the "45 foot" 1
project. Because there has been no coal at the Port for over
twelve (12) months, the project will bring about a return to
increased rail traffic and coal dust, the same as it was in 1983
when the MCET tonnage was equivalent to their expectation for
1995. I believe the local communities, including Carteret
County; Newport, Pine Knoll Shores, Atlantic Beanh.___M?ro ova- L--
ession at the woodchip industry
has successfully taken the place-of the coal exportation simply
because the woodchip pile occupies the' same area used to
stockpile the coal.
My review of the 45 ft. project included an examination of the
appropriate Land Use Plans, an important item that was not 2
addressed in the Draft Feasibility Report, EA/FONSI, Morehead
City Harbor Improvements. It would appear that the proposed
project is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan for the Town of
Morehead City as certified July 25, 1986. The Policy Statement
for Economic and Community Development found on Page #40 is
quoted for your convenience:
"(a) Industrial Development - Industrial development in and
around Morehead City consists of many sediments. These
industries and their impacts on the community often conflict
with one another (e.g. train traffic to the port and tourist
traffic across the bridge to Bogue Banks.)
It is the Town's policy to encourage light industry with
limited off-site impacts within its Town limits and
extraterritorial jurisdiction. _
Due to overriding conflicts, an incompatibility with local
commerce, including sports and commercial fishing and marine
research, the Town strongly urges the State Port's Authority
to resend its designation of the Morehead City Port for;;
polluting cargos-such 4s*'ro and hazardous chemicals.
Further, the Town urges the esignation of the port as a
V-46

May 2, 1990
Page #2
facility handling a mixed of non-hazardous/non-polluting
bulk, break bulk and container cargo.
It is the Town's policy that future port development
utilized barge/waterway transportation to avoid traffic
conflicts in Morehead City, particularly along the U.S. 70
corridor."
Train traffic to the State Port is a topic of discussion in the
Carteret County Land Use Plan, dated September 1985. On Page
#168, under Section 2.3.11, Port Development, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the County Task
Force, concluded that increased coal transportation through
Morehead City would cause serious delays and interruptions to the
community that simply were not acceptable.*
If, for instance, a new coal pile was to be located on Radio
Island, a mandatory Special Use Permit within the Port industrial
district would be required. The County's Board of Commissioners
must make the following finding regarding the proposed industrial
use:
"(a) That the special use will not materially endanger the
public health, public safety, adjacent water and air
resources or environment if located where proposed and
development according to the Plan as submitted and approved;
and,
(b) That the special use meets.all the requirements,
conditions and specifications of this ordinance; and,
(c) That the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining-or abutting property, or that the use is a public
necessity; and, -
(d) That the location and character of the use if developed
according to the Plan as submitted and approved will be in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in
general conformity with the Plan of development of the
zoning district and its environments; and,
(e) That either adequate water, sewer and safety equipment
and facilities are either present or are proposed and will
be constructed to adequately provide for and protect the
adjoining areas; and,
(f) That adequate public or private transportation means
and facilities are present at or near the site, or are-
proposed and will be carried out by, or on behalf of, the
v-47
1? 4
May 2, 1990
Page #3
applicant to.serve the site and the activities and uses on.
the site so as not to-endanger the safety or unduly disturb
the normal activities of nearby property owners or the
citizens of nearby communities through which the
transportation system must pass; and,
(g) The proposed use would not have an adverse
environmental impact on water and air resources."
The 1987 Land Use Plan for the Town of New Bern, North Carolina, 5
also has a policy statement that speaks to the railroad issue.
Found on Page #43 of that document, it reads in part: "It is the
--
Cj V-,= 4- Inn ay Pd5
through New Bern to or from the Port at Morehead City."
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing these documents and 6
providing input to the system. If you should have additional
questions concerning my position, please do not hesitate to
contact me in my Morehead City office.
JLM/dh
cc: Charles S. Jones

V-48
A ?1
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990..
Letter from North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management dated June 4, 1990.
Attachment 3: Memorandum from James L. Mercer dated May 2, 1990.
1. At Morehead City, the Morehead City Export Terminal (MCET) has converted
its 7-acre open ground storage area from coal to woodchips; however, they
have indicated that they are continuing to negotiate for coal contracts.
In addition, MCET retains its capability to load coal directly from train
to ship (see page 64 in the feasibility report). Coal is expected to be
exported from Morehead City Harbor with or without the proposed harbor im-
provements.
2. Local land use plans were considered in the preparation of the EA/FONSI
and the consistency determination (see section 8.00 of the EA/FONSI).
Since this project is not expected to increase coal or phosphate shipments
or induce port expansion we did not find it to be inconsistent with The
Town of Morehead City's Land Use Plan.
3. This project is not expected to increase train traffic to the State Port
(see section 6.07 of the EA/FONSI). Coal shipments will only average
150,000 metric tons per year in the future, with or without the deepening
project. This is only a small fraction of the unacceptable level of 3
million tons per year, specified in the County Land Use Plan.
4. Noted.
5. This project is not expected to induce any new rail traffic in New Bern,
North Carolina (see section 6.07 in the EA/FONSI).
6. Noted.
V-49
4
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor Outer Continental Shelf office
James S. Lofton, Secretary Donna D. Moffitt, Director
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: Steve Benton
FROM: Jane LedwW
DATE: May 16, 1990
i «, re erence
CD90-12, Morehead City Harbor Improvements
The proposal generally appears to take adequate measures to reduce or eliminate
adverse impacts on North Carolina's estuarine and marine resources. However, I
am concerned about possible water quality impacts not discussed ` in the
environmental assessment. Specifically, the report addressed water quality only
in terms of salinity and turbidity. This ignores the potential for the
resuspension of toxics or heavy metals that may be associated with harbor
sediments. Depending on the material in the bottom sediments, there could be
impacts to water quality from this activity.' The applicant should address this
issue.
V-50
1

19 W. Hargett, St., 9th Floor • Raleigh, North Carolina 27,601 t Telephone [phone]

Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
Letter from North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and. Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management dated June 4, 1990.
Attachment 4: Memorandum from Department of Administration, Outer Continental
Shelf Office, dated May 16, 1990.
1. As described in section 6.02 of the EA/FONSI, the material to be dredged
for construction and maintenance of the proposed harbor improvements is
predominantly sands. Scattered pockets of fine grained silts and clays oc-
cur in the new construction material.
This material is not expected to contain toxics or heavy metals.
Contaminants are not generally associated with sands and the finer grained
materials comprise a small percentage of the total volume of material
proposed for dredging. These fine grained materials are not recently
deposited and would also'not be expected to contain contaminants.
The dredged materials proposed for ocean disposal have been evaluated in
accordance with the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Ocean
Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229) which were promulgated
pursuant to Section 102(a) of the Ocean ..Dumping Act (ODA) (Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended). This
evaluation indicated that the Morehead City Harbor dredged material
proposed for ocean dumping is environmentally acceptable for that activity
(see section 6.02 and Attachment I of the EA/FONSI). EPA Region IV con-
curred with this determination in a letter dated June 20, 1990.

V-51
I+ 44
1 ?
% X17
r_
':IAY ,.
C0"SSAL RESOLVK 'c `.
KN North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 23, 1990
TO: Steve Benton
FROM Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Consistency Determination No. CD90-12: Morehead
City Harbor Improvements, Carteret County, North
Carolina
The Wildlife Resources commission has reviewed the
subject Consistency Determination (CD) and professional
biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of
the project area. Our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat..401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the
Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-
128).
Due to time constraints and staff limitations we were
unable to provide timely comments on the project
Environmental Assessment. Consequently, we are not familiar.
with areas--of concern that may have been addressed in that
document. Our primary concerns regarding the Morehead City
Harbor Improvements project involve potential impacts on sea
turtles, colonial nesting birds, and secondary impacts on
fish and wildlife associated with increasing capabilities of
the Morehead City Port.
Information contained in the CD suggests that sea
turtle, short-nosed sturgeon, and right whale monitoring
will occur and that monitoring activities are being
coordinated with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. We request that these
activities also be coordinated with our agency as we are
statutorily charged with conservation and protection of
wildlife resources in North Carolina. 'I'f we are unaware of
1
2
3

V-58
0
Ci
Memo
coordination activities
becomes difficult for us
requested coordination,
with agency policies and
Page 2
May 23, 1990
and monitoring efforts, then it
to protect resources. Without the
we consider the project inconsistent
guidelines.
A second area of concern involves the use of dredged
material to maintain colonial bird nesting habitat in a
suitable condition. Several islands, utilized by colonial
birds in varying degrees, are adjacent to or nearby the
project area. We would like to see a commitment by project
sponsors to utilize some of the dredged material for
management of colonial bird nesting islands as needed. We
are also concerned that the document does not rule out the
possibility of dredging and disposal during the colonial
bird nesting season. What happens if dredging and disposal
become necessary between April 15 and November 15? Will
bird nests be ignored or will an alternate disposal site be
located? These questions-are not addressed in the CD.
Another area of concern involves omission of
information regarding secondary impacts from the proposed
harbor improvements. It is our opinion that impacts from
secondary development, including modifications to
transportation systems, related to increased shipping
capacities through the port should be addressed. Often
secondary impacts on fish and wildlife from projects such as
the one being proposed are greater than primary-impacts.
However, this is an area which has not received proper
attention.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this CD. If these concerns are not satisfactorily
addressed, we believe the project to be inconsistent with
our policies and guidelines. If-we can provide further
assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp

cc:' Dennis L: ttewart, Habitat Conservation Project Leader
4

6
V-59

4
Wilmington District, Responses to Comments
On the Morehead City Harbor Environmental Assessment,
Dated March 1990.
Letter from North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management dated June 4, 1990.
Attachment 8: Memorandum from North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
dated May 23, 1990
1. Noted
2. Noted
3. These activities- have -been coordinated
Commission NCWRC). A copy of the Morehead City Harbor, Biological
Assessment under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, has been
provided to Mr. Randall Wilson of the NCWRC (Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers letter dated June 18, 1990).
4. Large volumes of materials are to be dredged as a result of harbor deepen-
ing or continued project maintenance (see tables 4 and_, 5 in the EA/FONSI).
portion of this material for the maintenance of colonial waterbird nesting
habitat would be impractical.
Procedures for the management and protection of colonial waterbirds of
coastal North Carolina are outlined in the Cooperative Agreement for the
Protection and Management of North Carolina's Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Approved by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in December 1988. Management needs should be identified by'"the
NCWRC representative to the Colonial Water Management Committee at their
annual meeting and addressed in accordance with proceduresoutlined in the
cooperative agreement. .
As described in section 3.04 of the EA/FONSI, diking/dike repair or
dredged material disposal on Brandt Island is avoided if practical during
the colonial waterbird nesting season, if nesting waterbirds are present
in the-disposal site. Should diking/dike repair or dredged material dis-
posal be scheduled between 1 April and 31 July of any year, an inspection
for nesting activities of colonially nesting waterbirds is required before
work begins. If significant nesting activity is in progress. activities
are postponed until nesting is substantially completed.
5. See response 3 to NCDEHNR, DCM letter dated June 4, 1990.
6. Noted.

V-60