19950032 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19950125

RECEIVED
CARTERET COUNTY, MAY p 4 1995
NORTH CAROLINA. EfWIRONI&NTAL SCIENCES
pAA ernN
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State,
duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths,
personally appeared ........................
.............................................................. Patti .... J.....4..erIx............... who being
Clerk
first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is ............................................
................ ........................ ......_------------ --- ................ --....---.............--------.....................
(Owner
partner
publisher
or other officer or emplo
ee
North Carolina Division
,
,
,
y
authorized to make this affidavit) of Environmental
Management

of THE CARTERET PUBLISHING CO., INC., engaged in the publication Public notice is hersbyi given that
U.S. Army corps of €nptnarisr has ap-
of a newspaper known as CARTERET COUNTY NEWS-TIMES
published plie to the North Ca of
ir
ml
v
ai
,
, E
nv
onmental Man ge
ent for
Water
a
issued, and entered as second class mail in the Town of Morehead City, in Quality Certification pursuant to Section

said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
Environmental Management Commis-

and sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true sion rules in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and
15A NCAC 2B .0109. The activity for
copy of which is attached hereto, was published in CARTERET COUNTY conch the certification is sought
is to
conduct maintenance dredging of Drum
m
Inlet, in Carteret County.
The public is invited to comment on

NEWS-TIMES on the following dates: the above mentioned application to the
........... ........................................... Division of Environmental Manage-
ment. Comments shall be in writing and
shall be received by the Division no lat-
p
Ma
rc
8
h er than 25 March 1995. Comments
.
.
...
.,..
........... ......
. .................................._.._.._.............._.........._.._.._..__•
should be sent to NC Division of Envi-
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper
document
or ronmen Management, Water Quality
,
, Planningg, , Post Office Box 29535, Ra-
legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such lelgh, North Carolina 27828-0535, At-

publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications tention: John Dorney. A copy of the ap-
plication is on file at the Division office

of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a at 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wil-
mington, NC 28405.3845, North Caroli-

qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General na
(910-39527399 -339090 Ington Regional Office
(90; Fax M910.350-2004)
Statutes of North Carolina. during normal business hours and may
be Inspected by the public. M8
This ..9th ...... day of ---- ------ Mar..ch .............................. 19...95.

(Signature of person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ............. nin.th.........
March 95
day of . ........... 19. ..
.............................. . --...... .......................
Notary Public.
My Commission expires: ........................ Septembe.r...J.2.,_..19.97.......
`.. _43
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Alok - m
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C)E H N F 1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 25, 1995
Colonel Robert Sperberg
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet
Project # 95032
Carteret County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2981 issued to U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers dated 25 March 1995.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
30A-I--,
ston kar Q,1 . P.E.
Attachments
2981.wgc
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A
NORTH CAROLINA
Carteret County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers in Carteret County pursuant to an application filed on the 19th day of January of 1995 to
conduct maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of AIWW in conjunction with the proposed development in Carteret County will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-
500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout
waters by DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and
reservoirs; 10 NTUs in trout waters).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 25th day of March, 1995.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
sto ow r. P.E.
WQC# 2981
RFOF/BCD
i M4R 0
F??Nr 19?s;
ARAA ? C/F F6

_--:Tr,D

C>
C_)
--
01
'j
r l)p-?

INN
US Army Corps
of Engineers
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
t.rw "a ;t
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 1995
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-1786
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEN ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATA: January 12, 1995
2. NAMELADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i :. JAN ' 9 1995
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890 ,. ,_.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-189 3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Robert J. Sperberg
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Frank Yelverton
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Maintenance of Drum Inlet
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action covers the dredging and
disposal of dredged material from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
federally maintained Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor
(Waterway) near Atlantic, North Carolina. The proposed channel would follow,
to the extent feasible, natural channels.
Hydraulic pipeline dredging is proposed in the connecting channel with
disposal on the beach of Core Banks on either side of Drum Inlet. The
connecting channel is 9,650 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7 feet deep (plus
2 feet of allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new
dredging effort will remove approximately 298,500 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging
approximately 104,000 cubic yards every 2 to 3 years.
Dredging in the inlet and ocean (bar channel) would be by either the
hopper dredge Currituck with disposal in nearshore ocean waters or more likely
by sidecast dredge with disposal adjacent to the channel. The proposed bar
channel is 5,120 feet long, 150 feet wide, and 9 feet deep (plus 2 feet of
allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new dredging
effort will remove approximately 122,000 cubic yards of material. Subsequent
maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging approximately 39,000
cubic yards every 2 to 3 years with the same dredging and disposal methods.
The proposed action is described in detail in the Environmental
Assessment. Maintenance of Drum Inlet. Carteret County. North Carolina,
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1995.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Maintaining Drum Inlet to its proposed
dimensions would save 500 commercial fishing vessels the additional expense of
having to use Barden or Ocracoke Inlets (25 miles south and north of Drum
Inlet) to get to the fishing grounds. The annual value of this transportation
savings is $1,314,500. Additionally, another $25,000 in annual vessel damage,
resulting from attempts to use the shoaled inlet, would be prevented. The
benefit-cost ratio for the proposed action is 2.3 to 1.
In the case of storm events, Drum Inlet would also allow ease of access
from the ocean to safe haven in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: December 1995
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 3 months
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Near Atlantic, North Carolina
County: Carteret
Drainage Basin: White Oak Basin
Receiving Waters: Core Sound and Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material proposed
for discharge is naturally occurring coarse to fine sands with some silt,
which will be dredged from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor. The material to be
dredged is not contaminated or polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None, except
the silt content will be less during future maintenance actions.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HOW. OR ORW?
X YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS:
See references 7, 8, and 17 (on the previous page).
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES, EXPLAIN:
The project was constructed in December 1971 and maintenance was discontinued
in the mid-1970's, prior to the requirement for a Section 401 Certificate.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
DATE:
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ITEMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................... EA-1
2.00 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND HISTORY ..................... EA-3
3.00 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................... EA-3
4.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................... EA-4
4.01 Disposal Alternatives .................................. EA-4
4.01.1 Upland Diked Disposal .......................... EA-4
4.01.2 Beach Disposal Above the Limit of the Wave Uprush Zone EA-4
4.02 Alternative Channel Dimensions and Alignments .............. EA-4
4.03 No Action Alternative .................................. EA-5
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................ EA-5
5.01 Water Quality ...................................... . EA-5
5.02 Estuarine and Marine Resources ......................... . EA-6
5.03 Terrestrial Resources ................................ . EA-7
5.04 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................... . EA-8
5.05 Archaeological/Historical Resources ...................... EA-11
5.06 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources ..................... EA-11
5.07 Development ...................................... EA-12
5.08 Inlet stability ....................................... EA-12
5.09 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management ............. EA-12
5.10 Air Quality ........................................ EA-12
6.00 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS ........................ EA-13
7.00 RELATIONSHIP TO N.C. COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EA-13
8.00 COORDINATION ........................................ EA-13
9.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS .................................... EA-14
10.00 POINT OF CONTACT .................................... EA-16
11.00 REFERENCES ......................................... EA-17
12.00 FINDING ............................................. EA-18
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
FIGURES
(All figures, tables, and attachments follow page EA-18)
FIGURE 1: Area under consideration for Drum Inlet Navigation Channels
FIGURE 2: Pipeline route & disposal sites (Bar Channel A-C, connecting
Channel C-F)
TABLES
TABLE 1: Dimensions, initial volumes and grain size of the Drum Inlet Channel
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1: Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
ii
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) covers the dredging and disposal of
dredged material from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the Federally
maintained Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor (Waterway)
near Atlantic, North Carolina. The proposed channel would follow, to the extent
feasible, natural channels. The proposed channel alignment is indicated in Figure 1,
but since natural channels can vary considerably in location, the location of the
maintained channel could be anywhere in the area of consideration indicated in
Figure 1. The purposes of following natural channels are to reduce dredging volume
and duration which would also reduce potential adverse environmental impacts.
The connecting channel (reaches C-F, Figure 1 and Table 1) to be dredged
from the Waterway to the inlet is 9,650 feet long, 75 feet wide and 7 feet deep, plus 2
feet of required overdepth and 2 feet of allowable overdepth (Table 1). These
overdepths are to allow for a shoaling reservoir between maintenance dredging
events, to ensure a controlling depth of 7 feet, and to allow for any dredging
inaccuracies.
The first new dredging effort will remove approximately 298,500 cubic yards of
material by hydraulic pipeline dredge. This material will be pumped to the beaches of
Core Banks north or south of the inlet and placed below the limit of the wave uprush
zone to minimize alterations and impacts to the upland portion of the beach (Figure
2). The wave uprush zone is the part of the beach wetted by the normal wave
uprush. The beach is owned by the National Park Service, Cape Lookout National
Seashore (Service) and a Special Use Permit would be required from the Service
prior to any disposal activities. Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will
involve dredging approximately 104,000 cubic yards every 2-3 years. This
maintenance will be done at the same time as the maintenance of the Waterway in
order to eliminate the cost for separate mobilization.
The 2-3 year maintenance frequency, considering the proposed depth and
width, may result in higher shoaling rates in certain portions of the connecting
channel. If such shoaling occurs, the proposed overdepth dredging may not provide
an adequate shoaling reservoir between maintenance events. Therefore, the channel
cross-sections at these higher shoaling locations may be widened and/or deepened
as necessary to provide a shoaling reservoir of sufficient size to permit a 2-3 year
maintenance frequency. The size of these reservoirs, if any, can not be estimated at
this time, but before these reservoirs would be excavated, we would coordinate this
action with the appropriate agencies and individuals.
The material dredged during maintenance will also be excavated by a hydraulic
pipeline dredge and the material disposed in the same locations as indicated above.
Hydraulic pipeline dredging is restricted to reaches C-F (Figure 1 and Table 1)
because seaward of point C the wave environment is too intense for conventional
pipeline dredge operations. The proposed channel dimensions are too restrictive for
use of an ocean certified pipeline dredge.
Based on boring logs, the new work material averages about 95 percent sand
and 5 percent silt. The silt content averages 3 percent in reach CD to 6 percent in
reach EF. A portion of reach EF near the Waterway contains a layer of sediment that
has up to 24 percent silt, and near the intersection of reaches DE and EF is a layer
of about 20 percent silt. No consolidated material is present. This dredged material
is compatible with existing beach material. The volumes and grain size by reaches
are indicated in Table 1. Maintenance dredging will probably involve dredging greater
than 95 percent sand with no significant silt layers since these layers will be removed
during the initial dredging. However, if the natural channel shifts during the
maintenance phase of the project, dredging in these new areas may have a silt
percentage similar to the new work dredging. If a major shift in the channel occurs,
additional borings will be taken prior to each maintenance event. This information will
be coordinated with the appropriate agencies and individuals prior to maintenance.
Dredging in the inlet and ocean (bar channel, reaches A-C, Figure 1 and Table
1) would be by either the hopper dredge Currituck with disposal in nearshore ocean
waters or more likely by a sidecast dredge with disposal adjacent to the channel.
The proposed bar channel is 5,120 feet long, 150 feet wide and 9 feet deep (plus 4
feet of overdepth: 2 feet allowable overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). This
increased width and depth compared to the connecting channel is for the higher
localized shoaling rates and for added safety for the vessels using the inlet. The first
new dredging effort will remove approximately 122,000 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging approximately
39,000 cubic yards every 2-3 years with the same dredging and disposal methods.
Based on boring logs, the new work material is about 97 percent sand and 3 percent
silt in each of the two reaches. No layers of silt, clay or consolidated material are
present. This sand/silt ratio is anticipated to be about the same whether or not the
inlet has a major shift. The volumes and grain size by reaches are indicated in
Table 1.
The initial new work and subsequent maintenance efforts would take
approximately 90 days to complete. Dredging activities in the connecting channel
with disposal below the limit of wave uprush would routinely take place between
December 15 and March 31 of any given year to minimize potential impacts to known
resources. No seasonal dredging restrictions are proposed in the inlet and ocean
area using side cast dredges or the hopper dredge Currituck.
EA-2
2.00 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND HISTORY
Drum Inlet was closed by natural forces in February 1971. The inlet was
reopened about 2 miles south of its former location by the Wilmington District in
December 1971. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in
August 1971 for this action (USAED 1971). This construction was approved under
authority of Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act. The authorized
dimensions for the connecting channel from the inlet to the Waterway were 7 feet
deep by 150 feet wide. The channel from the inlet to the deep water of the ocean
was 150 feet wide by 9 feet deep. Total channel length was about 11,500 feet, with
a straight alignment from the Waterway to the ocean. The proposed channel (total
length of 14,770 feet, Table 1) is some 3,270 feet longer because it follows the
natural meanders of existing deep water.
The reopened inlet was initially several hundred feet wide but quickly increased
to over 2,000 feet wide. Due to the instability of this new inlet, maintenance of the
channel was very difficult. In a 1977 report, the Wilmington District determined that
maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet was not economically feasible. Therefore, the
inlet has not been maintained since the mid 1970's.
In March 1991, the Wilmington District received a letter from Carteret County
requesting the District to resume maintenance dredging in the inlet. Local interests
contend that this inlet is very important to the economic survival of the commercial
fishermen in the county. A preliminary investigation was completed in June 1992
which indicated that the inlet appears to have stabilized and that maintenance
dredging is now feasible. However, since the project has been inactive for several
years, a Limited Reevaluation Report, a component of which is an EA, must be
prepared prior to commencement of maintenance.
3.00 PURPOSE AND NEED
Maintaining Drum Inlet to its proposed dimensions would save 500 commercial
fishing vessels the additional expense of having to use Barden or Ocracoke Inlets (25
miles south and north of Drum Inlet) to get to the fishing grounds. The annual value
of this transportation savings is $1,314,500. Additionally another $25,000 in annual
vessel damage, resulting from attempts to use the shoaled inlet, would be prevented.
The benefit-cost ratio for the proposed action is 2.3 to 1.
In the case of storm events, Drum Inlet would also allow ease of access from
the ocean to safe haven in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge.
EA-3
4.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.01 Disposal Alternatives.
4.01.1 Upland Diked Disposal. Mainland upland diked sites were not
sought for this project because of the potential problem of contamination of ground
water with saltwater. Use of liners to preclude this problem would be cost prohibitive.
The existing diked disposal island, New Dump Island (Figure 1, 10 acres), near
the proposed channel alignment is not a primary disposal site because it does not
have adequate capacity for maintenance of the project, and this disposal area is
currently being used for the maintenance of the Atlantic Channel and Atlantic Harbor
of Refuge. This island historically contained large nesting colonies of laughing gulls,
royal terns and sandwich terns. Brown pelicans also nested here along with several
species of herons and egrets. However due to development of dense cover of plants
on this site, the terns and most of the laughing gulls have abandoned the island. If
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) requests that a portion of
the sands from the Drum Inlet project be pumped to this island periodically for habitat
enhancement, we will accommodate this request if feasible and other concerned
resource agencies concur. Disposal would be avoided during the nesting season of
April 1 through August 31. This site is on the North Carolina Registry of Natural
Heritage Areas because of the waterbird nesting activity.
4.01.2 Beach Disposal Above the Limit of the Wave Uprush Zone.
Dredged material may be placed periodically on the upland portion of the beach.
This would only be done on a case by case basis, at the request of the Service and
after coordination with other appropriate agencies. The cost of this alternative is
similar to disposal in the wave uprush zone except that upland disposal may have a
potential to impact colonial nesting waterbirds (section 5.03) and threatened and
endangered species (section 5.04).
4.02 Alternative Channel Dimensions and Alignments. The authorized
Waterway dimensions are limited to 75 feet wide by 7 feet deep. Since these
Waterway dimensions are the limiting factors that would control connecting channel
egress and ingress, the connecting channel was limited to these dimensions (plus 4
feet allowable overdepth).
The inlet channel dimensions are authorized to 150 feet wide by 9 feet deep.
These dimensions (plus 4 feet allowable overdepth) are proposed for the inlet area
because of increased localized shoaling rates in this area and for added safety of
vessel passage.
EA-4
The authorized channel is a straight alignment from the Waterway to the inlet.
The proposed alignment follows the natural deep water which will reduce dredging
volume and duration which also reduces costs and potential adverse environmental
impacts.
4.03 No Action Alternative. Failure to implement maintenance dredging of
the Drum Inlet would result in significant loss of cost savings to the local commercial
fishing industry and would preclude ease of access to the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge
during storm events.
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.01 Water Quality. The North Carolina water quality classification assigned
to the Drum Inlet area (White Oak Basin) is SA/ORW. SA waters are suitable for
commercial shellfishing and all other tidal salt water uses including primary and
secondary recreation, and fish propagation. ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters)
are unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreation or ecological
significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management will concurrently
review this EA and the Corps' request for a Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality
Certificate to authorize the work that may impact water quality under the proposed
action. Also, the Section 404(b)(1) evaluation for the discharge of dredged material is
included in Attachment A.
No significant adverse impacts to water quality are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed work. Turbidity associated with dredging and disposal will be
short-term in duration and end following dredging. Turbidity levels may be higher
during the initial dredging period since the average silt content will be about 5 percent
(Table 1), but two locations have layers with 24 and 21 percent silt. For subsequent
maintenance events, the silt content should be less than 5 percent. The sediments in
the area are not anticipated to be contaminated with toxic substances since the site is
well removed from any known sources of pollution.
If a portion of the dredged material is placed on New Dump Island to enhance
colonial waterbird nesting habitat, none of this dredged material will enter Core Sound
since the disposal island is diked. The 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2668
issued by the State of North Carolina on January 21, 1992, authorizes the discharge
of effluent from a diked disposal area since the discharge is covered under
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(16).
Salinity in the vicinity of the project is at or near ocean concentration (35 parts
per thousand (ppt)). No significant change in salinity of the area is expected to occur
EA-5
as a result of the proposed action, since the inlet has been opened for more than 20
years.
No adverse impacts to ground water resources are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed activity, especially since no upland disposal is proposed.
5.02 Estuarine and Marine Resources. The Drum Inlet area is heavily used
by commercial and recreational fishermen. For example, the area is open to the
mechanical harvest of clams (Marshall 1993). Excluded from this harvest area are
known eel grass (Zostera marina) beds and oyster and clam leases. Even though eel
grass beds are located along much of the sound side of Core Banks, no beds are
located in the immediate vicinity of the inlet due to shifting sand. These beds are
also not located within the proposed channel alignment (based on 1988 [existing]
mapping, Figure 1) since eelgrass beds generally do not occur in naturally deep
channels. Eelgrass beds will be remapped based on updated information and the
proposed channel alignment will also be field checked prior to the initial and
subsequent dredging efforts in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass beds. Bay scallops
are confined to eel grass beds and since these beds will be avoided, there should be
no impacts on bay scallops.
. The nearest oyster or clam leases are on the mainland side of Core Banks
near Atlantic and will not be impacted by the project (Marshall 1993). Little, if any,
oyster resources are located in the project area but hard clams (Mercenaria
mercenaria) are taken by hand in areas around the inlet where bottom sediments are
not shifted by tidal flow (Marshall 1993). Since the proposed channel will follow
natural deep water to the extent possible and since most of the channel is an area of
shifting sands, the impacts to this clam resource will be minimized.
Core Sound waters in the project vicinity provide habitat for an abundance of
other estuarine and marine organisms and support both commercial and recreational
fisheries for blue crab, shrimp, and finfish. Also, larval fish do migrate through Drum
Inlet on their way to primary nursery areas on the mainland side of Core Sound. To
minimize impacts to these shellfish and fisheries resources (also to minimize impacts
on surf fishing, section 5.06; nesting sea turtles, section 5.04; and nesting waterbirds,
section 5.03), dredging with disposal below the limit of wave uprush would be limited
to the period between December 15 and March 31. Dredging will start at the
Waterway end of the connecting channel (reach EF) where the sediment with the
highest silt content is present. Placing this material on the beach during the early
part of the dredging period would minimize impacts of turbidity since this time period
is generally a lower recruitment period for many marine species (Miller et al. 1984,
Hettler and Barker 1993).
The impacts of disposal below the limit of wave uprush on marine resources
would be minor and confined to the immediate vicinity of the disposal area and to the
EA-6
timeframe in which the disposal occurred. Intertidal benthic invertebrates, including
mole crabs, coquina clams, amphipods, isopods, and polychaetes, would be covered
by dredged material in the beach disposal area. Some burrowing up through
overburden could occur. Impacts on recolonization would be minimized since
dredging/disposal would occur when biological activity is low, and recruitment would
occur from adjacent areas. These invertebrates serve as an important food source
for surf-feeding fish and shore birds. Other than affecting benthic food sources in the
immediate disposal area, no adverse effects to fishes should be expected in the
vicinity of the dredging and disposal activities.
However, there is some uncertainty regarding the impacts of beach
nourishment. Therefore, the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
contracted with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington to perform a literature
review regarding impacts of beach nourishment in the southeastern United States,
to make management recommendations to minimize impacts, and make
recommendations regarding additional monitoring efforts that may be warranted. A
report is anticipated in the summer of 1995 and will discuss fisheries, benthic, and
beach face organisms. This report will be coordinated with all interested agencies
and individuals. Based on the findings of this report and subsequent coordination,
the Wilmington District will take the appropriate action to minimize the impacts of
beach nourishment.
The dredge pipeline may cross over but not result in the fill of high or low
marsh to reach the disposal area. Where the pipeline crosses the marsh, joints
would be burlapped and welded to provide protection from leakage. Any impacts will
be temporary and thus impacts to wetlands should be minimal.
Dredging and disposal by the Currituck or side cast dredges of the
predominantly sandy material in the inlet and ocean areas should not adversely
impact resources during any season of the year.
5.03 Terrestrial Resources. Terrestrial resources on Core Banks in the
vicinity to be traversed by the dredge pipeline and the proposed disposal area include
mixed shrub thickets, beaches, and dunes. The area seaward of the primary dunes,
consists primarily of bare sand; however, vegetation in disposal area may include
beach spurge, sea rocket, panic grass, sea purslane, pennywort, and seabeach
amaranth.
Impacts to terrestrial resources on Core Banks are expected to be due to
discharge of dredged material above the limit of wave uprush (if the Service requests
such disposal) and due to pipeline placement. The disposal area may also be
impacted by the grading of the discharged dredged material by heavy equipment.
EA-7
The pipeline route has not been specified but would be determined following
coordination with the Service. Easements would be required for the pipeline crossing
these public lands and a Special Use Permit required for disposal. No areas of
maritime forest would be affected by the pipeline route. If dune vegetation is
disturbed by the pipeline or equipment crossing to the beach, those areas would be
restored to pre-project grade and replanted following project completion.
The least tern, common tern, piping plover and other waterbirds have nested
on the beach just north and south of the inlet. These areas are posted to protect
nesting from April 1 through August 31. If dredged material is placed on the beach
above the limit of wave uprush, the nesting time will be avoided. The nesting areas
will also be avoided unless the appropriate agencies indicate that disposal in the
nesting areas would enhance nesting habitat.
Disposal on New Dump Island will only be at the request of WRC and with
concurrence of other appropriate agencies. Such disposal would be done to enhance
colonial waterbird nesting habitat which is considered an enhancement to terrestrial
habitat. Disposal would be avoided during the nesting season of April 1 through
August 31.
5.04 Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed work has been
reviewed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The following species may occur in the project area and must be considered:
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
Bald eagle
Arctic peregrine falcon
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Roseate tern
Piping plover
Hawksbill sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Green sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Shortnose sturgeon
Balaenoptera physalus
Me qptera novaeangliae
Eubaleana lacialis
Balaenoptera borealis
Physeter catodon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Sterna dougallii dougallii
Charadrius melodus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Chelonia mydas
Caretta caretta
Lepidochelys kempii
Acipenser brevirostrom
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
EA-8
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened*
Eastern cougar Felis concolor co_ uauar Endangered
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus up miles Threatened
* - similarity of appearance
None of the whales should be impacted by the proposed action since all the
dredging, disposal and maneuvering actions would be close to the beach and in less
than 20 feet of water.
The bald eagle and peregrine falcon would be expected to occur only as
migrants or winter residents within the project area. Due to their mobility, habitat
disturbances resulting from the project should not affect these species. The red-
cockaded woodpecker is a resident of mature pine forests of the project region. No
pine forest habitat would be affected by the proposed dredging and dredged material
disposal; therefore, the red-cockaded woodpecker would not be affected. The
roseate tern is an infrequent visitor to the area, but is not known to nest here and
thus should not be impacted by the project.
The eastern cougar is not known from any locations in eastern North Carolina
and the American alligator and the rough-leaved loosestrife are not known for the
project area because of a lack of suitable habitat. The shortnose sturgeon has been
documented recently for the Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1993), but no other
populations are known from North Carolina. Therefore, these species should not be
impacted by the project.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual or perennial plant that usually grows between
the seaward toe of the dune and the limit of wave uprush zone. Greatest
concentrations of seabeach amaranth occur near inlet areas of barrier islands, but in
favorable years plants may occur away from inlet areas. During a survey of Core
Banks conducted by the Service in 1994, of the 704 plants found, 534 (76 percent)
were within 1 mile of the south side of Drum Inlet. Similar conditions existed in 1993
with 1,054 of the 1,290 plants (82 percent) within 1 mile of the south side of the inlet.
Since this plant can not survive in the wave uprush area, disposal in this zone will
have no adverse impact.
If dredged material is placed on the beach above the limit of the wave uprush
zone, it will be on a case by case basis and at the request of the Service with
coordination with other appropriate agencies. The primary purposes for such
disposal would be erosion control, improving nesting habitat for waterbirds and
improved habitat for Amaranthus. Widening of the beach, or the making of a more
gentle beach profile may make more habitat available to the plant, thus having a
EA-9
beneficial effect. Therefore, if the beach disposal occurs within the December
through April disposal window recommended by Weakley and Bucher (1992), impacts
to seabeach amaranth habitat is not expected.
However, recognizing that uncertainty still clouds this issue, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has instituted a long-term seabeach amaranth monitoring
program at every beach in North Carolina which routinely receives dredged material.
We will continue this program until such a time that enough data are available to
allow a reasonable prediction of the actual impacts of each planned disposal action
on the species in the future. For the Drum Inlet project, whether dredged material is
placed above or below the wave uprush zone, either the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or the Service will continue this monitoring effort.
The piping plover is a fairly common winter resident along the beaches of
North Carolina (Potter et. al., 1980). This species normally nests on the Atlantic
coastal beaches between April 1 and July 31. From 1989 to 1994, 7-15 pairs of
piping plovers have nested annually on Core Banks in the Drum Inlet vicinity (Rikard
1993 and 1994). If the dredged material is placed below the limit of wave uprush and
disposal takes place outside the indicated nesting season, impacts to this species
should be avoided. If disposal is requested by the Service on the beach above the
wave uprush zone, the potential impacts to this species would be evaluated and
coordinated with all appropriate agencies.
Sea turtles are known to nest on ocean beaches in North Carolina between
May 1 and November 15. The hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles are infrequent
visitors to the project area with no known nesting records. The Kemp's Ridley and
Green Sea turtles are also not known to nest in the project area but they may be
infrequent visitors in the coastal waters. For loggerhead sea turtles, from 1989 to
1994 there have been 1-5 nests, digs or crawls per year within 1 mile of Drum Inlet
(Rikard 1993 and 1994).
If the dredged material is placed in the wave uprush zone and outside the
nesting season, the sea turtle nesting habitat should not be impacted. However if
disposal would occur above or below the wave uprush zone during the nesting
season, such action would be coordinated with the appropriate agencies and
negotiated mitigation measures would be taken.
Loggerhead, green, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles may enter the project area
to feed, thus they may be in the dredging area. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) has determined that hydraulic pipeline dredges are unlikely to
adversely affect sea turtles. Also side cast dredges and the Currituck hopper dredge
are not believed harmful to sea turtles because of the small size of the dragheads,
slow speed of the vessels, and the low suction levels (NMFS 1991).
EA-10
Disposal in the wave uprush zone could take place past March 31, due to
unexpected scheduling problems and long-term dredging equipment problems. In
this unlikely event, loggerhead seaturtles and seabeach amaranth are not anticipated
to be adversely impacted since the location where the turtles nest and amaranth
grows should not be altered.
5.05 Archaeological/Historical Resources. An archaeological assessment
of the inlet was conducted during the fall of 1993 per the provisions of Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987. On the basis of the locations of known shipwrecks and
historic inlet locations, the assessment indicated that the inlet and adjacent off-shore
waters had a moderate probability for the occurrence of shipwreck sites, while the
interior portions of the sound proposed for the connecting channel were judged to be
of low probability (Kimmel 1993). This assessment led to a recommendation for field
studies in the vicinity of the inlet.
On the basis of the cultural resources assessment, a magnetometer and side-
scan sonar survey was conducted of the inlet vicinity and over a portion of Core
Sound. This survey was conducted by archaeologists from Tidewater Atlantic
Research, Inc. (TAR) during the winter of 1993-94. This survey found only one
magnetic anomaly on the sound side of the inlet, close to the shoreline of core banks.
This anomaly was not recommended for further investigation due to its magnetic
characteristics and its distance from documented inlet locations (TAR 1994:12-13).
No further cultural resources surveys have been recommended for the project and the
North Carolina Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, by letter of April 6, 1994,
has concurred with this finding.
5.06 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources. The ocean, beach, dunes, and
beach vegetation offer natural scenery which is aesthetically appealing to many. The
area of wave uprush where disposal of dredged material is proposed is extensively
used for recreational activities such as swimming, walking, sunbathing, and surf
fishing. These activities have large seasonal fluctuations with peak use occurring in
warm months, except for surf fishing when peak activities occur during the fall
through December 15 (Harris 1994). To minimize impacts to surf fishing activities,
beach disposal would be limited to December 15 through March 31.
The impacts to beach recreation and aesthetics are expected to be short-term
and minor. The dredged material to be discharged contains some silt; however, this
fine-grained material would not be retained in the beach profile but would be quickly
winnowed by wave action. The appearance of the beach would likely be only
temporarily degraded. Disposal would result in a temporary widening of the surf
zone.
EA-11
5.07 Development. The commercial fishing fleet is not projected to increase
in the future. Development pressure for waterfront development will continue with or
without the inlet as will the desire for increased dock space for recreational craft.
Therefore, the inlet is not considered to be a significant factor affecting future
development of the area. The depth of the Waterway (7 feet) will limit the size of
vessels using the area.
Present recreation/commercial use of the inlet is infrequent due to the amount
of shoaling and subsequent draft restrictions. Users consist of a few fishermen with
small craft who use the inlet enough to be aware of the problems and changes.
There are 500 commercial vessels in the vicinity of Drum Inlet that want to use the
inlet but are not able to in its current condition.
5.08 Inlet stability. It is anticipated that side cast dredges will be used at the
ocean bar channel and through the inlet gorge. The side cast dredge operation will
have no appreciable impact on sand transport around the inlet since material is
merely deposited on either side of the channel and is not physically removed from the
inlet environment. A change in erosion rates is therefore not envisioned.
Furthermore, the connecting channel from the inlet to the Waterway will be dredged
by pipeline dredge, with the dredged material being deposited on the beaches at both
sides of the inlet, thus adding more sand to the beach profile.
Migration of inlets is a widely observed natural phenomenon along the Atlantic
coast. Drum Inlet will continue to migrate as it has historically. From 1976 to 1991,
the inlet centerline has migrated both northeast and southwest with a net movement
of about 120 feet southwest. During this same period, the inlet width has ranged
from 1,080 feet wide in 1991 to 3,420 feet wide in 1981.
Inlet instability in the 1970's was the result of a newly opened inlet establishing
itself (e.g., formation of the ocean bar and flood tide delta). Drum Inlet has matured
from this formative stage, resulting in a more stable condition. The inlet will continue
to migrate, whether dredging is resumed or not. However, the rate of migration will
not prevent the maintenance of a navigable channel across the ocean bar or through
the interior channels.
5.09 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Mana qement. The proposed
disposal areas are located within the 100-year flood plain, but as discussed in section
4.00 there are no feasible alternatives. Also, as discussed in section 5.00, impacts to
resources have been minimized; therefore, the proposed action conforms to
applicable State and local floodplain protection standards.
5.10 Air Quality. The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of
the Wilmington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Carteret County has been
determined to be in compliance (attainment area) with the National Ambient Air
EA-12
Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the
air quality of this attainment area.
In accordance with 40 CFR 93.153 for nonattainment and maintenance areas,
conformity determinations with the State Implementation Plan are required for Federal
actions if certain exemptions are not meet. However, since the project is in an
attainment area, a conformity determination is not required.
6.00 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS.
The Carteret County Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan of
1991 classifies Core Banks as a national priority area and the waters of Core Sound
as ORWs (section 5.01). The proposed dredging and dredged material disposal
would not result in significant adverse effects to the lands and waters in and around
Drum Inlet; therefore, the proposed action does not conflict with the land use plans
for Carteret County.
7.00 RELATIONSHIP TO N.C. COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Based on the information presented within this EA, the proposed maintenance
dredging of the Drum Inlet, disposal on Core Banks or New Dump Island by pipeline
dredge, disposal in the inlet by side cast dredge, or disposal in shallow ocean waters
by hopper dredge are consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program of
the State of North Carolina and the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan. During
coordination of the EA, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management will
review the information presented herein and furnish a consistency position on the
proposed work.
8.00 COORDINATION
Representatives from the following agencies were contacted regarding the
proposed action and preparation of the EA.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
EA-13
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Carteret County
Cape Lookout National Seashore
9.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
This EA is being circulated for 30-day review to the following agencies and
individuals.
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Environmental Health
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Naval Port Control Office
U.S. Department of Energy
United States Coast Guard
Postmasters
State Agencies
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
State Clearinghouse
l_ ibraries
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Librarian, North Carolina Environmental Resources Library
UNC-Wilmington Library
EA-14
Libraries (con't)
State Library of North Carolina
Duke University Library
East Carolina University - Joyner Library
Elected Officials
All United States Senators and Congressman Martin Lancaster
Honorable Bruce Ethridge
Honorable Paul Tyndall
Honorable G. Malcolm Fulcher, Jr.
Chairman, Carteret County Commissioners
Mayors
Local Agencies
North Carolina Council of Governments Region P
Carteret County Development Council
Morehead City Building Inspector
Conservation Groups
Conservation Council of North Carolina
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Sierra Club
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Carteret County Crossroads
Izaac Walton League
Colleges/Universities
UNC Institute of Marine Science
Duke University Department of Geology
Cape Fear Community College
Companies and Individuals
Carteret-Craven EMC
Jacksonville Daily News
Carteret County News-Times
EA-15
Companies and Individuals (con't)
Morehead City Shipping Co.
Williams and Haywood, Inc.
T.D. Eure Construction Co.
Wilmington Shipping Company
Sailcraft, Inc.
Texasgulf, Inc.
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
Stevens Towing Company
Stroud Engineering
Timber and Land Management
Aviation Fuel Terminals
George Davenport
Grady Davis
John Hooten
T. O. Talton
Don Taylor
R. T. Jones
Luther Smith and Son
Lloyd Wood
Alex Malpass
Galvin Mason
R. W. Chambers
John Fussel
Frank Hatsel
Walter Gentry
Haywood Weeks
William Whaley
Anne McCrary
Vince Bellis
Ray Brandi
Orrin Pilkey
James Parnell
Claude Brown
W. D. Aman
10.00 POINT OF CONTACT
Any comments or questions regarding this EA should be addressed to Mr.
Frank Yelverton, Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890.
Telephone contact is 910-251-4640.
EA-16
11.00 REFERENCES
Harris, W. 1994. Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Personal
Communication, March 14, 1993.
Hettler, W.F. and D.L. Barker. 1993. Distribution and abundance of larval fishes at
two North Carolina inlets. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 37:161-179.
Kimmel, Richard H. 1993 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Drum Inlet Vicinity,
Carteret County, North Carolina. Memorandum, dated 7 October 1993, on file,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Marshall. M. 1993. Chief, Resource Enhancement, North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. Personal Communication, December 13, 1993.
Miller, J.M.; J.P Reed and L.J. Pietrafesa. 1984. Patterns, mechanisms and
approaches to the study of migration of estuarine dependent larvae and juveniles.
From: Mechanisms of Migration in Fishes, Edited by J.D. McCleave et al., Plenum
Publishing Company, 1984.
Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose
Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower
Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Final Report to the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Biological Opinion, Dredging of Channels
in the Southeastern United States from North Carolina Through Cape Canaveral,
Florida. November 25, 1991.
Potter, E. P.; Parnell, J. F.; and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Rikard, M. 1993 and 1994. Resource Management Specialist, Cape Lookout
National Seashore. Personal Communication. November 3, 1993 and
December 5, 1994.
Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR). 1994. Remote Sensing Archaeological
Survey, Vicinity of Drum Inlet, Carteret County, North Carolina. Prepared by TAR,
Washington, North Carolina (Contract No. DACW54-93-D-0030). Submitted to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1971. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Drum Inlet, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. and M.A. Bucher. 1992. Status Review of seabeach amaranth
EA-17
(Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition
(After Hurricane Hugo). Report to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, N.C. and Endangered Species
Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
178 pp.
12.00 FINDING
The proposed action should not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will probably not be
required. If this opinion is upheld following circulation of this EA, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed and circulated.
EA-18
a ?: 4F r ;q VA. N
i
?• ? NORTH
• d .r RAUMH
µ="{ CAROLINA
rwTtER?ts
eu;rfrn My _ SITE
•i r
• L=
i y ATLANTIC
t _ C OCEAN • a w
6 SCAU IN rm0
VICINITY MAP
,- ? White Pt . wTe camcM LIMM
H L v
VARMS
Y r , TYPICAL OCEAN
BAR CwaMEL
?= ^c I '
L Yom. ? ' ? ?, DREDGW SECTION ?
z _ I NOT TO SCALE
t000 ATE CR=VG L VIM
Steep Pt / rr. ns
»-^ u
L / 1?--VARn-?^"1
G TYPICAL. CCr\IECTING C?HANtEL
DAEDGD?JG SECTION
NOT TO MALE
?v
Q / + J.:
r ?
f4
\ ?V
Secgr-oss (1988 :;+4 4'
NYA?.' \
) Al
,J- ATLANTIC
OCEAN
- •; 2000 1000 0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
Figfe t AREA UNDER CUMMATION FOR DRUM PST NAVIGATION COMES
( Bcr CF-cr ei A-C, Connect ng D-? i C--F)

J o
? '
N ?
I X

w I co
000
000

I
O'
Ati -
w
tJn I O W

O W
LLI

J

~
N

LL.
Q ' CL
> n I
3r 00 Z .
. •...; ;• J
O I
I 10 N rr ?,,,?
LL ?.._. 1 . ,
?L7
r

J I 0
`_
V)
LLJ
w -OW CO tn
x z U
o ff N U p .]
< o I a

> O N

N

° .g
0- W
o oo
n w z
I o O O, n E" d
O Q SO? C/?
w ? CA d U
I / ? a
0 / O

O N Y f
W t0 r N O N r 10 00
0
(?]
1 1 1 I X N H
(ISW) 1333 NI N0I 1YA313 w

d

000 / J
o
a
• 009
2
i ?F?
E d

C:)
W

d

cZi i x W a
/ o
N 0.
/ ; i
.. C\

00 i
? Q• 4,0
1y : W
F
Cs?
es-
N

O
1 w o
J O W

? _
0
LlJ
? ,I
. o N LL

o

? o ao W

0
oo, V)
d
O

J
s? '
<2 U
X o N
?
00o
X o
o
A10 • f-

O
O
' N
Table 1. Dimensions, initial volumes and grain size of the Drum Inlet Channel.
See Figure 1 for proposed reaches.
Area Reach Length Depth Width Volume Percent
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet3) Sand/Sift
Bar Channel AB 3,500 9 150 103,200 97/3
(+4 overdepth)
BC 1,620 9 150 18,800 97/3
(+4 overdepth)
Subtotal A-C 5,120 122,000
Connecting CD 2,750 7 75 41,450 97/3
Channel (+4 overdepth)
DE 2,770 7 75 138,250 95/5
(+4 overdepth)
EF 4,130 7. 75 118,800 94/6
(+4 overdepth)
Subtotal C-F 9,650 298,500
Total A-F 14,770 420,500
ATTACHMENT A
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-E-95-16-0003
Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose (if no,
see section 2 and NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2);
Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
YES;_; NO;_;* YES; X I NOi-
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI X I NOI_I
YES,'-,' NOI_I* YESI X I NOI_I
YESI_I NOI_I* YESI X I NO,-_I
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6.
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
X

X
X

X

X

X
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
i
i i X i i
i ; X ; i
i i X i i
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
X
X
X
' X
X I
' X '
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
' X

X
X
X

X
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6.
2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics .......................................IN
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants ......................................IX.,
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project .....................................
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation .....................................
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances ........................
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources ..................................
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities ............... ................
(8) Other sources (specify) ......................................
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA "Maintenance of Drum Inlet, Carteret County,
North Carolina," dated January 1995.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES I X I NO
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6.
3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site ................................. IN
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site ..................................... 'X'
(3) Degree of turbulence ........................................ 'X'
(4) Water column stratification .................................... :X_
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction .................................
IN
(6) Rate of discharge .......................................... 'X'
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities) ..................................
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time ............................ 'X'
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA "Maintenance of Drum Inlet,Carteret County,
North Carolina," dated January 1995.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable ................... YES NO
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken ................................ YES 'X' NO '_I*
For water quality see Section 5.01 of the EA.
For benthos see Section 5.02 of the EA.
For fisheries see Section 5.02 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 5.04 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
*See page 6.
4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ;X; NO ;_i*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES NO
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES NO i_i*
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES NO
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES All NO ;_;*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES ;X; NO
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES NO
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES NO
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the

Section 404(b)(1) guidelines .................. _
...............
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the

inclusion of the following conditions: ............ _
.........
......
*See page 6.
5
C. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative ..................... :_
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem ............................
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem ...........................
8.
Wilbert V. Paynes .B
BERT J.
Acting Chief, Planning Division COL, EN
Commanding
Date: 116196 Date:
_C? ?? ? !?-
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance
with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed
projects may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent
portions of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does
not comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to
be evaluated in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short-form" evaluation
process is inappropriate.
6
State of N orth Carolina

.
Departm ent of Environment,
1
Health an d Natural Resources
?Dlvlslon of E nvironmental Management
James B. H nt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan , Howes, Secretary
Preston Howard, Jr., P, E., Director
Alkvuw?
&-M4 oil
DEH
February 27,1995
Carteret C unty News
P.O. Bxo 1 79
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
ATTN: Legal Ad Department
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Public Notice
R
Please publish the attached Public Notice one time in the
section set aside for Legal Advertisements in your newspaper. The
publication should run on or before March 8, 1995. Please send the
invoice for publication and three copies of the affidavit of
publication to the address given below. Payment cannot be
processed without the affidavit of publication.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Attn: John Dorney
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call
John Dorney at 919/733-1786.
Sincerely,
J n Dorney
W tlands Technic 1 Review Group
95032.pub
cc: John Dorney
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
P.O, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
has applied to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Environmental Management
Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0109. The
activity for which the certification is sought is to conduct
maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet,in Carteret County.
The public is invited to comment on the above mentioned application
to the Division of Environmental Management. Comments shall be in
writing and shall be received by the Division no later than 25
March 1995. Comments should be sent to N.C. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Planning, Post Office Box
29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535, Attention: John Dorney.
A copy of the application is on file at the Division office at 127
Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845, North
Carolina 27889 (Wilmington Regional Office (910-395-3900; Fax #
910-350-2004) during normal business hours and may be inspected by
the public.
reston How , Jr.
irector
.C. Division
Environmental Management
DATE: 27 February 1995
. A.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonat'nan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P,E„ Director
February 27,1995
Carteret County News
P.O. Bxo 1679
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
ATTN: Legal Ad Department
Dear Sir.
SUBJECT: Public Notice
LT.WA
A&141 97
?EHNR
F11 E
COPY
Please publish the attached Public Notice one time in the
section set aside for Legal Advertisements in your newspaper. The
publication should run on or before March 6, 1995. Please send the
invoice for publication and three copies of the affidavit of
publication to the address given below. Payment cannot be
processed without the affidavit of publication.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Attn: John Dorney
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call
John Dorney at 919/733-1786.
Sincerely,
JJ n Dorney
tlands Techni al Review Group
95032.pub
cc: John Dorney
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r- w
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
has applied to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Environmental Management
Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0109. The
activity for which the certification is sought is to conduct
maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet,in Carteret County.
The public is invited to comment on the above mentioned application
to the Division of Environmental Management. Comments shall be in
writing and shall be received by the Division no later than 23
March 1995. Comments should be sent to N.C. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Planning, Post Office Box
29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535, Attention: John Dorney.
A copy of the application is on file at the Division office at 127
Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845, North
Carolina 27889 (Wilmington Regional Office (910-395-3900; Fax #
910-350-2004) during normal business hours and may be inspected by
the public.
resto Howard Jr.
rector
Environmental Management
DATE: 27 February

US Army Corps
of Engineers
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
JAN 1 9199b
FLA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R JANUARY 1995
1.r
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-1786
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEN ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: January 12, 1995
2. NAMEJADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Robert J. Sperberg
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Frank Yelverton
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Maintenance of Drum Inlet
f f JAN " 1995
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action covers the dredging and
disposal of dredged material from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
federally maintained Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor
(Waterway) near Atlantic, North Carolina. The proposed channel would follow,
to the extent feasible, natural channels.
Hydraulic pipeline dredging is proposed in the connecting channel with
disposal on the beach of Core Banks on either side of Drum Inlet. The
connecting channel is 9,650 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7 feet deep (plus
2 feet of allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new
dredging effort will remove approximately 298,500 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging
approximately 104,000 cubic yards every 2 to 3 years.
Dredging in the inlet and ocean (bar channel) would be by either the
hopper dredge Currituck with disposal in nearshore ocean waters or more likely
by sidecast dredge with disposal adjacent to the channel. The proposed bar
4'
channel is 5,120 feet long, 150 feet wide, and 9 feet deep (plus 2 feet of
allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new dredging
effort will remove approximately 122,000 cubic yards of material. Subsequent
maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging approximately 39,000
cubic yards every 2 to 3 years with the same dredging and disposal methods.
The proposed action is described in detail in the Environmental
Assessment. Maintenance of Drum Inlet. Carteret County. North Carolina,
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1995.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Maintaining Drum Inlet to its proposed
dimensions would save 500 commercial fishing vessels the additional expense of
having to use Barden or Ocracoke Inlets (25 miles south and north of Drum
Inlet) to get to the fishing grounds. The annual value of this transportation
savings is $1,314,500. Additionally, another $25,000 in annual vessel damage,
resulting from attempts to use the shoaled inlet, would be prevented. The
benefit-cost ratio for the proposed action is 2.3 to 1.
In the case of storm events, Drum Inlet would also allow ease of access
from the ocean to safe haven in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: December 1995
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 3 months
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12.
Municipality: Near Atlantic, North Carolina
County: Carteret
Drainage Basin: White Oak Basin
Receiving Waters: Core Sound and Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material proposed
for discharge is naturally occurring coarse to fine sands with some silt,
which will be dredged from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor. The material to be
dredged is not contaminated or polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None, except
the silt content will be less during future maintenance actions.
it ,
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA. HOW. OR ORW?
J_ YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS:
See references 7, 8, and 17 (on the previous page).
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY?
YES X_ NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
The project was constructed in December 1971 and maintenance was discontinued
in the mid-1970's, prior to the requirement for a Section 401 Certificate.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
DATE:
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
3
1.
f
Mail Completed Application to:
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-1786
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Ph. [phone]
DEN ID:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. DATE: January 12, 1995
2. NAMEIADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ,lAI
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Robert J. Sperberg
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Frank Yelverton
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Maintenance of Drum Inlet
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action covers the dredging and
disposal of dredged material from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
federally maintained Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor
(Waterway) near Atlantic, North Carolina. The proposed channel would follow,
to the extent feasible, natural channels.
Hydraulic pipeline dredging is proposed in the connecting channel with
disposal on the beach of Core Banks on either side of Drum Inlet. The
connecting channel is 9,650 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7 feet deep (plus
2 feet of allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new
dredging effort will remove approximately 298,500 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging
approximately 104,000 cubic yards every 2 to 3 years.
Dredging in the inlet and ocean (bar channel) would be by either the
hopper dredge Currituck with disposal in nearshore ocean waters or more likely
by sidecast dredge with disposal adjacent to the channel. The proposed bar
1
channel is 5,120 feet long, 150 feet wide, and 9 feet deep (plus 2 feet of
allowed overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). The first new dredging
effort will remove approximately 122,000 cubic yards of material. Subsequent
maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging approximately 39,000
cubic yards every 2 to 3 years with the same dredging and disposal methods.
The proposed action is described in detail in the Environmental
Assessment. Maintenance of Drum Inlet. Carteret County. North Carolina,
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1995.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Maintaining Drum Inlet to its proposed
dimensions would save 500 commercial fishing vessels the additional expense of
having to use Barden or Ocracoke Inlets (25 miles south and north of Drum
Inlet) to get to the fishing grounds. The annual value of this transportation
savings is $1,314,500. Additionally, another $25,000 in annual vessel damage,
resulting from attempts to use the shoaled inlet, would be prevented. The
benefit-cost ratio for the proposed action is 2.3 to 1.
In the case of storm events, Drum Inlet would also allow ease of access
from the ocean to safe haven in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: December 1995
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 3 months
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATIO
Municipality: Near Atlantic, North Carolina
County: Carteret
Drainage Basin: White Oak Basin
Receiving Waters: Core Sound and Atlantic Ocean
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The material proposed
for discharge is naturally occurring coarse to fine sands with some silt,
which will be dredged from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the
Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor. The material to be
dredged is not contaminated or polluted.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None, except
the silt content will be less during future maintenance actions.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA. HOW. OR ORW?
X YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: None
Excavated: None
Total Impacted: None
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS:
See references 7, 8, and 17 (on the previous page).
19. HAVE ANY S
THIS PROPERTY?
YES X_ NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
The project was constructed in December 1971 and maintenancle was discontinued
in the mid-1970's, prior to the requirement for a Section 4J1 Certificate.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATE:
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed applicat
* Drawings of proposed dredge and dispos
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
ion
it sites
3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ITEMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................... EA-1
2.00 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND HISTORY ..................... EA-3
3.00 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................... EA-3
4.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................... EA-4
4.01 Disposal Alternatives .................................. EA-4
4.01.1 Upland Diked Disposal .......................... EA-4
4.01.2 Beach Disposal Above the Limit of the Wave Uprush Zone EA-4
4.02 Alternative Channel Dimensions and Alignments .............. EA-4
4.03 No Action Alternative .................................. EA-5
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................ EA-5
5.01 Water Quality ....................................... EA-5
5.02 Estuarine and Marine Resources .......................... EA-6
5.03 Terrestrial Resources ................................. EA-7
5.04 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................... EA-8
5.05 Archaeological/Historical Resources ...................... EA-11
5.06 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources ..................... EA-11
5.07 Development ...................................... EA-12
5.08 Inlet stability ....................................... EA-12
5.09 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management ............. EA-12
5.10 Air Quality ........................................ EA-12
6.00 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS ........................ EA-13
7.00 RELATIONSHIP TO N.C. COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EA-13
8.00 COORDINATION ........................................ EA-13
9.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS .................................... EA-14
10.00 POINT OF CONTACT .................................... EA-16
11.00 REFERENCES ......................................... EA-17
12.00 FINDING ............................................. EA-18
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
FIGURES
(All figures, tables, and attachments follow page EA-18)
FIGURE 1: Area under consideration for Drum Inlet Navigation Channels
FIGURE 2: Pipeline route & disposal sites (Bar Channel A-C, connecting
Channel C-F)
TABLES
TABLE 1: Dimensions, initial volumes and grain size of the Drum Inlet Channel
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1: Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
ii
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) covers the dredging and disposal of
dredged material from Drum Inlet and the connecting channel to the Federally
maintained Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor (Waterway)
near Atlantic, North Carolina. The proposed channel would follow, to the extent
feasible, natural channels. The proposed channel alignment is indicated in Figure 1,
but since natural channels can vary considerably in location, the location of the
maintained channel could be anywhere in the area of consideration indicated in
Figure 1. The purposes of following natural channels are to reduce dredging volume
and duration which would also reduce potential adverse environmental impacts.
The connecting channel (reaches C-F, Figure 1 and Table 1) to be dredged
from the Waterway to the inlet is 9,650 feet long, 75 feet wide and 7 feet deep, plus 2
feet of required overdepth and 2 feet of allowable overdepth (Table 1). These
overdepths are to allow for a shoaling reservoir between maintenance dredging
events, to ensure a controlling depth of 7 feet, and to allow for any dredging
inaccuracies.
The first new dredging effort will remove approximately 298,500 cubic yards of
material by hydraulic pipeline dredge. This material will be pumped to the beaches of
Core Banks north or south of the inlet and placed below the limit of the wave uprush
zone to minimize alterations and impacts to the upland portion of the beach (Figure
2). The wave uprush zone is the part of the beach wetted by the normal wave
uprush. The beach is owned by the National Park Service, Cape Lookout National
Seashore (Service) and a Special Use Permit would be required from the Service
prior to any disposal activities. Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will
involve dredging approximately 104,000 cubic yards every 2-3 years. This
maintenance will be done at the same time as the maintenance of the Waterway in
order to eliminate the cost for separate mobilization.
The 2-3 year maintenance frequency, considering the proposed depth and
width, may result in higher shoaling rates in certain portions of the connecting
channel. If such shoaling occurs, the proposed overdepth dredging may not provide
an adequate shoaling reservoir between maintenance events. Therefore, the channel
cross-sections at these higher shoaling locations may be widened and/or deepened
as necessary to provide a shoaling reservoir of sufficient size to permit a 2-3 year
maintenance frequency. The size of these reservoirs, if any, can not be estimated at
this time, but before these reservoirs would be excavated, we would coordinate this
action with the appropriate agencies and individuals.
The material dredged during maintenance will also be excavated by a hydraulic
pipeline dredge and the material disposed in the same locations as indicated above.
Hydraulic pipeline dredging is restricted to reaches C-F (Figure 1 and Table 1)
because seaward of point C the wave environment is too intense for conventional
pipeline dredge operations. The proposed channel dimensions are too restrictive for
use of an ocean certified pipeline dredge.
Based on boring logs, the new work material averages about 95 percent sand
and 5 percent silt. The silt content averages 3 percent in reach CD to 6 percent in -
reach EF. A portion of reach EF near the Waterway contains a layer of sediment that
has up to 24 percent silt, and near the intersection of reaches DE and EF is a layer
of about 20 percent silt. No consolidated material is present. This dredged material
is compatible with existing beach material. The volumes and grain size by reaches
are indicated in Table 1. Maintenance dredging will probably involve dredging greater
than 95 percent sand with no significant silt layers since these layers will be removed
during the initial dredging. However, if the natural channel shifts during the
maintenance phase -?f the project, dredging in these new areas may have a silt
percentage similar to the new work dredging. If a major shift in the channel occurs,
additional borings will be taken prior to each maintenance event. This information will
be coordinated with the appropriate agencies and individuals prior to maintenance.
Dredging in the inlet and ocean (bar channel, reaches A-C, Figure 1 and Table
1) would be by either the hopper dredge Currituck with disposal in nearshore ocean
waters or more likely by a sidecast dredge with disposal adjacent to the channel.
The proposed bar channel is 5,120 feet long, 150 feet wide and 9 feet deep (plus 4
feet of overdepth: 2 feet allowable overdepth and 2 feet of required overdepth). This
increased width and depth compared to the connecting channel is for the higher
localized shoaling rates and for added safety for the vessels using the inlet. The first
new dredging effort will remove approximately 122,000 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent maintenance efforts in this channel will involve dredging approximately
39,000 cubic yards every 2-3 years with the same dredging and disposal methods.
Based on boring logs, the new work material is about 97 percent sand and 3 percent
silt in each of the two reaches. No layers of silt, clay or consolidated material are
present. This sand/silt ratio is anticipated to be about the same whether or not the
inlet has a major shift. The volumes and grain size by reaches are indicated in
Table 1.
The initial new work and subsequent maintenance efforts would take
approximately 90 days to complete. Dredging activities in the connecting channel
with disposal below the limit of wave uprush would routinely take place between
December 15 and March 31 of any given year to minimize potential impacts to known
resources. No seasonal dredging restrictions are proposed in the inlet and ocean
area using side cast dredges or the hopper dredge Currituck.
EA-2
2.00 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND HISTORY
Drum Inlet was closed by natural forces in February 1971. The inlet was
reopened about 2 miles south of its former location by the Wilmington District in
December 1971. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in
August 1971 for this action (USAED 1971). This construction was approved under
authority of Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act. The authorized
dimensions for the connecting channel from the inlet to the Waterway were 7 feet
deep by 150 feet wide. The channel from the inlet to the deep water of the ocean
was 150 feet wide by 9 feet deep. Total channel length was about 11,500 feet, with
a straight alignment from the Waterway to the ocean. The proposed channel (total
length of 14,770 feet, Table 1) is some 3,270 feet longer because it follows the
natural meanders of existing deep water.
The reopened inlet was initially several hundred feet wide but quickly increased
to over 2,000 feet wide. Due to the instability of this new inlet, maintenance of the
channel was very difficult. In a 1977 report, the Wilmington District determined that
maintenance dredging of Drum Inlet was not economically feasible. Therefore, the
inlet has not been maintained since the mid 1970's.
In March 1991, the Wilmington District received a letter from Carteret County
requesting the District to resume maintenance dredging in the inlet. Local interests
contend that this inlet is very important to the economic survival of the commercial
fishermen in the county. A preliminary investigation was completed in June 1992
which indicated that the inlet appears to have stabilized and that maintenance
dredging is now feasible. However, since the project has been inactive for several
years, a Limited Reevaluation Report, a component of which is an EA, must be
prepared prior to commencement of maintenance.
3.00 PURPOSE AND NEED
Maintaining Drum Inlet to its proposed dimensions would save 500 commercial
fishing vessels the additional expense of having to use Barden or Ocracoke Inlets (25
miles south and north of Drum Inlet) to get to the fishing grounds. The annual value
of this transportation savings is $1,314,500. Additionally another $25,000 in annual
vessel damage, resulting from attempts to use the shoaled inlet, would be prevented.
The benefit-cost ratio for the proposed action is 2.3 to 1.
In the case of storm events, Drum Inlet would also allow ease of access from
the ocean to safe haven in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge.
EA-3
4.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
4.01 Disposal Alternatives.
4.01.1 Upland Diked Disposal. Mainland upland diked sites were not
sought for this project because of the potential problem of contamination of ground
water with saltwater. Use of liners to preclude this problem would be cost prohibitive.
The existing diked disposal island, New Dump Island (Figure 1, 10 acres), near
the proposed channel alignment is not a primary disposal site because it does not
have adequate capacity for maintenance of the project, and this disposal area is
currently being used for the maintenance of the Atlantic Channel and Atlantic Harbor
of Refuge. This island historically contained large nesting colonies of laughing gulls,
royal terns and sandwich terns. Brown pelicans also nested here along with several
species of herons and egrets. However due to development of dense cover of plants
on this site, the terns and most of the laughing gulls have abandoned the island. If
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) requests that a portion of
the sands from the Drum Inlet project be pumped to this island periodically for habitat
enhancement, we will accommodate this request if feasible and other concerned
resource agencies concur. Disposal would be avoided during the nesting season of
April 1 through August 31. This site is on the North Carolina Registry of Natural
Heritage Areas because of the waterbird nesting activity.
4.01.2 Beach Disposal Above the Limit of the Wave Uprush Zone.
Dredged material may be placed periodically on the upland portion of the beach.
This would only be done on a case by case basis, at the request of the Service and
after coordination with other appropriate agencies. The cost of this alternative is
similar to disposal in the wave uprush zone except that upland disposal may have a
potential to impact colonial nesting waterbirds (section 5.03) and threatened and
endangered species (section 5.04).
4.02 Alternative Channel Dimensions and Alignments. The authorized
Waterway dimensions are limited to 75 feet wide by 7 feet deep. Since these
Waterway dimensions are the limiting factors that would control connecting channel
egress and ingress, the connecting channel was limited to these dimensions (plus 4
feet allowable overdepth).
The inlet channel dimensions are authorized to 150 feet wide by 9 feet deep.
These dimensions (plus 4 feet allowable overdepth) are proposed for the inlet area
because of increased localized shoaling rates in this area and for added safety of
vessel passage.
EA-4
The authorized channel is a straight alignment from the Waterway to the inlet.
The proposed alignment follows the natural deep water which will reduce dredging
volume and duration which also reduces costs and potential adverse environmental
impacts.
4.03 No Action Alternative. Failure to implement maintenance dredging of
the Drum Inlet would result in significant loss of cost savings to the local commercial
fishing industry and would preclude ease of access to the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge
during storm events.
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.01 Water Quality. The North Carolina water quality classification assigned
to the Drum Inlet area (White Oak Basin) is SA/ORW. SA waters are suitable for
commercial shellfishing and all other tidal salt water uses including primary and
secondary recreation, and fish propagation. ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters)
are unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreation or ecological
significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management will concurrently
review this EA and the Corps' request for a Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality
Certificate to authorize the work that may impact water quality under the proposed
action. Also, the Section 404(b)(1) evaluation for the discharge of dredged material is
included in Attachment A.
No significant adverse impacts to water quality are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed work. Turbidity associated with dredging and disposal will be
short-term in duration and end following dredging. Turbidity levels may be higher
during the initial dredging period since the average silt content will be about 5 percent
(Table 1), but two locations have layers with 24 and 21 percent silt. For subsequent
maintenance events, the silt content should be less than 5 percent. The sediments in
the area are not anticipated to be contaminated with toxic substances since the site is
well removed from any known sources of pollution.
If a portion of the dredged material is placed on New Dump Island to enhance
colonial waterbird nesting habitat, none of this dredged material will enter Core Sound
since the disposal island is diked. The 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2668
issued by the State of North Carolina on January 21, 1992, authorizes the discharge
of effluent from a diked disposal area since the discharge is covered under
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(16).
Salinity in the vicinity of the project is at or near ocean concentration (35 parts
per thousand (ppt)). No significant change in salinity of the area is expected to occur
EA-5
as a result of the proposed action, since the inlet has been opened for more than 20
years.
No adverse impacts to ground water resources are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed activity, especially since no upland disposal is proposed.
5.02 Estuarine and Marine Resources. The Drum Inlet area is heavily used
by commercial and recreational fishermen. For example, the area is open to the
mechanical harvest of clams (Marshall 1993). Excluded from this harvest area are
known eel grass (Zostera marina) beds and oyster and clam leases. Even though eel
grass beds are located along much of the sound side of Core Banks, no beds are
located in the immediate vicinity of the inlet due to shifting sand. These beds are
also not located within the proposed channel alignment (based on 1988 [existing]
mapping, Figure 1) since eelgrass beds generally do not occur in naturally deep
channels. Eelgrass beds will be remapped based on updated information and the
proposed channel alignment will also be field checked prior to the initial and
subsequent dredging efforts in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass beds. Bay scallops
are confined to eel grass beds and since these beds will be avoided, there should be
no impacts on bay scallops.
, The nearest oyster or clam leases are on the mainland side of Core Banks
near Atlantic and will not be impacted by the project (Marshall 1993). Little, if any,
oyster resources are located in the project area but hard clams (Mercenaria
mercenaria) are taken by hand in areas around the inlet where bottom sediments are
not shifted by tidal flow (Marshall 1993). Since the proposed channel will follow
natural deep water to the extent possible and since most of the channel is an area of
shifting sands, the impacts to this clam resource will be minimized.
Core Sound waters in the project vicinity provide habitat for an abundance of
other estuarine and marine organisms and support both commercial and recreational
fisheries for blue crab, shrimp, and flnfish. Also, larval fish do migrate through Drum
Inlet on their way to primary nursery areas on the mainland side of Core Sound. To
minimize impacts to these shellfish and fisheries resources (also to minimize impacts
on surf fishing, section 5.06; nesting sea turtles, section 5.04; and nesting waterbirds,
section 5.03), dredging with disposal below the limit of wave uprush would be limited
to the period between December 15 and March 31. Dredging will start at the
Waterway end of the connecting channel (reach EF) where the sediment with the
highest silt content is present. Placing this material on the beach during the early
part of the dredging period would minimize impacts of turbidity since this time period
is generally a lower recruitment period for many marine species (Miller et al. 1984,
Heftier and Barker 1993).
The impacts of disposal below the limit of wave uprush on marine resources
would be minor and confined to the immediate vicinity of the disposal area and to the
EA-6
timeframe in which the disposal occurred. Intertidal benthic invertebrates, including
mole crabs, coquina clams, amphipods, isopods, and polychaetes, would be covered
by dredged material in the beach disposal area. Some burrowing up through
overburden could occur. Impacts on recolonization would be minimized since
dredging/disposal would occur when biological activity is low, and recruitment would
occur from adjacent areas. These invertebrates serve as an important food source
for surf-feeding fish and shore birds. Other than affecting benthic food sources in the
immediate disposal area, no adverse effects to fishes should be expected in the
vicinity of the dredging and disposal activities.
However, there is some uncertainty regarding the impacts of beach
nourishment. Therefore, the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
contracted with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington to perform a literature
review regarding impacts of beach nourishment in the southeastern United States,
to make management recommendations to minimize impacts, and make
recommendations regarding additional monitoring efforts that may be warranted. A
report is anticipated in the summer of 1995 and will discuss fisheries, benthic, and
beach face organisms. This report will be coordinated with all interested agencies
and individuals. Based on the findings of this report and subsequent coordination,
the Wilmington District will take the appropriate action to minimize the impacts of
beach nourishment.
The dredge pipeline may cross over but not result in the fill of high or low
marsh to reach the disposal area. Where the pipeline crosses the marsh, joints
would be burlapped and welded to provide protection from leakage. Any impacts will
be temporary and thus impacts to wetlands should be minimal.
Dredging and disposal by the Currituck or side cast dredges of the
predominantly sandy material in the inlet and ocean areas should not adversely
impact resources during any season of the year.
5.03 Terrestrial Resources. Terrestrial resources on Core Banks in the
vicinity to be traversed by the dredge pipeline and the proposed disposal area include
mixed shrub thickets, beaches, and dunes. The area seaward of the primary dunes,
consists primarily of bare sand; however, vegetation in disposal area may include
beach spurge, sea rocket, panic grass, sea purslane, pennywort, and seabeach
amaranth.
Impacts to terrestrial resources on Core Banks are expected to be due to
discharge of dredged material above the limit of wave uprush (if the Service requests
such disposal) and due to pipeline placement. The disposal area may also be
impacted by the grading of the discharged dredged material by heavy. equipment.
EA-7
The pipeline route has not been specified but would be determined following
coordination with the Service. Easements would be required for the pipeline crossing
these public lands and a Special Use Permit required for disposal. No areas of
maritime forest would be affected by the pipeline route. If dune vegetation is
disturbed by the pipeline or equipment crossing to the beach, those areas would be
restored to pre-project grade and replanted following project completion.
The least tern, common tern, piping plover and other waterbirds have nested
on the beach just north and south of the inlet. These areas are posted to protect
nesting from April 1 through August 31. If dredged material is placed on the beach
above the limit of wave uprush, the nesting time will be avoided. The nesting areas
will also be avoided unless the appropriate agencies indicate that disposal in the
nesting areas would enhance nesting habitat.
Disposal on New Dump Island will only be at the request of WRC and with
concurrence of other appropriate agencies. Such disposal would be done to enhance
colonial waterbird nesting habitat which is considered an enhancement to terrestrial
habitat. Disposal would be avoided during the nesting season of April 1 through
August 31.
5.04 Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed work has been
reviewed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The following species may occur in the project area and must be considered:
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
Bald eagle
Arctic peregrine falcon
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Roseate tern
Piping plover
Hawksbill sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Green sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Shortnose sturgeon
Balaenoptera h salus
Megaptera novaeangliae
Eubaleana lacialis
Balaenoptera borealis
Physeter catodon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Picoides borealis
Sterna dou allii dou allii
Charadrius melodus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelys coriacea
Chelonia m das
Caretta caretta
Lepidochelys kemr)ii
Acipenser brevirostrom
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
EA-8
American alligator
Eastern cougar
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Seabeach amaranth
* - similarity of appearance
Alligator mississippiensis Threatened*
Felis concolor coug_uar Endangered
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Amaranthus umilus Threatened
None of the whales should be impacted by the proposed action since all the
dredging, disposal and maneuvering actions would be close to the beach and in less
than 20 feet of water.
The bald eagle and peregrine falcon would be expected to occur only as
migrants or winter residents within the project area. Due to their mobility, habitat
disturbances resulting from the project should not affect these species. The red-
cockaded woodpecker is a resident of mature pine forests of the project region. No
pine forest habitat would be affected by the proposed dredging and dredged material
disposal; therefore, the red-cockaded woodpecker would not be affected. The
roseate tern is an infrequent visitor to the area, but is not known to nest here and
thus should not be impacted by the project.
The eastern cougar is not known from any locations in eastern North Carolina
and the American alligator and the rough-leaved loosestrife are not known for the
project area because of a lack of suitable habitat. The shortnose sturgeon has been
documented recently for the Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1993), but no other
populations are known from North Carolina. Therefore, these species should not be
impacted by the project.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual or perennial plant that usually grows between
the seaward toe of the dune and the limit of wave uprush zone. Greatest
concentrations of seabeach amaranth occur near inlet areas of barrier islands, but in
favorable years plants may occur away from inlet areas. During a survey of Core
Banks conducted by the Service in 1994, of the 704 plants found, 534 (76 percent)
were within 1 mile of the south side of Drum Inlet. Similar conditions existed in 1993
with 1,054 of the 1,290 plants (82 percent) within 1 mile of the south side of the inlet.
Since this plant can not survive in the wave uprush area, disposal in this zone will
have no adverse impact.
If dredged material is placed on the beach above the limit of the wave uprush
zone, it will be on a case by case basis and at the request of the Service with
coordination with other appropriate agencies. The primary purposes for such
disposal would be erosion control, improving nesting habitat for waterbirds and
improved habitat for Amaranthus. Widening of the beach, or the making of a more
gentle beach profile may make more habitat available to the plant, thus having a
EA-9
beneficial effect. Therefore, if the beach disposal occurs within the December
through April disposal window recommended by Weakley and Bucher (1992), impacts
to seabeach amaranth habitat is not expected.
However, recognizing that uncertainty still clouds this issue, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has instituted a long-term seabeach amaranth monitoring
program at every beach in North Carolina which routinely receives dredged material.
We will continue this program until such a time that enough data are available to
allow a reasonable prediction of the actual impacts of each planned disposal action
on the species in the future. For the Drum Inlet project, whether dredged material is
placed above or below the wave uprush zone, either the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or the Service will continue this monitoring effort.
The piping plover is a fairly common winter resident along the beaches of
North Carolina (Potter et. al., 1980). This species normally nests on the Atlantic
coastal beaches between April 1 and July 31. From 1989 to 1994, 7-15 pairs of
piping plovers have nested annually on Core Banks in the Drum Inlet vicinity (Rikard
1993 and 1994). If the dredged material is placed below the limit of wave uprush and
disposal takes place outside the indicated nesting season, impacts to this species
should be avoided. If disposal is requested by the Service on the beach above the
wave uprush zone, the potential impacts to this species would be evaluated and
coordinated with all appropriate agencies.
Sea turtles are known to nest on ocean beaches in North Carolina between
May 1 and November 15. The hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles are infrequent
visitors to the project area with no known nesting records. The Kemp's Ridley and
Green Sea turtles are also not known to nest in the project area but they may be
infrequent visitors in the coastal waters. For loggerhead sea turtles, from 1989 to
1994 there have been 1-5 nests, digs or crawls per year within 1 mile of Drum Inlet
(Rikard 1993 and 1994).
If the dredged material is placed in the wave uprush zone and outside the
nesting season, the sea turtle nesting habitat should not be impacted. However if
disposal would occur above or below the wave uprush zone during the nesting
season, such action would be coordinated with the appropriate agencies and
negotiated mitigation measures would be taken.
Loggerhead, green, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles may enter the project area
to feed, thus they may be in the dredging area. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) has determined that hydraulic pipeline dredges are unlikely to
adversely affect sea turtles. Also side cast dredges and the Currituck hopper dredge
are not believed harmful to sea turtles because of the small size of the dragheads,
slow speed of the vessels, and the low suction levels (NMFS 1991).
EA-10
Disposal in the wave uprush zone could take place past March 31, due to
unexpected scheduling problems and long-term dredging equipment problems. In
this unlikely event, loggerhead seaturtles and seabeach amaranth are not anticipated
to be adversely impacted since the location where the turtles nest and amaranth
grows should not be altered.
5.05 Archaeological/Historical Resources. An archaeological assessment
of the inlet was conducted during the fall of 1993 per the provisions of Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987. On the basis of the locations of known shipwrecks and
historic inlet locations, the assessment indicated that the inlet and adjacent off-shore
waters had a moderate probability for the occurrence of shipwreck sites, while the
interior portions of the sound proposed for the connecting channel were judged to be
of low probability (Kimmel 1993). This assessment led to a recommendation for field
studies in the vicinity of the inlet.
On the basis of the cultural resources assessment, a magnetometer and side-
scan sonar survey was conducted of the inlet vicinity and over a portion of Core
Sound. This survey was conducted by archaeologists from Tidewater Atlantic
Research, Inc. (TAR) during the winter of 1993-94. This survey found only one
magnetic anomaly on the sound side of the inlet, close to the shoreline of core banks.
This anomaly was not recommended for further investigation due to its magnetic
characteristics and its distance from documented inlet locations (TAR 1994:12-13).
No further cultural resources surveys have been recommended for the project and the
North Carolina Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, by letter of April 6, 1994,
has concurred with this finding.
5.06 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources. The ocean, beach, dunes, and
beach vegetation offer natural scenery which is aesthetically appealing to many. The
area of wave uprush where disposal of dredged material is proposed is extensively
used for recreational activities such as swimming, walking, sunbathing, and surf
fishing. These activities have large seasonal fluctuations with peak use occurring in
warm months, except for surf fishing when peak activities occur during the fall
through December 15 (Harris 1994). To minimize impacts to surf fishing activities,
beach disposal would be limited to December 15 through March 31.
The impacts to beach recreation and aesthetics are expected to be short-term
and minor. The dredged material to be discharged contains some silt; however, this
fine-grained material would not be retained in the beach profile but would be quickly
winnowed by wave action. The appearance of the beach would likely be only
temporarily degraded. Disposal would result in a temporary widening of the surf
zone.
EA-11
5.07 Development. The commercial fishing fleet is not projected to increase
in the future. Development pressure for waterfront development will continue with or
without the inlet as will the desire for increased dock space for recreational craft.
Therefore, the inlet is not considered to be a significant factor affecting future
development of the area. The depth of the Waterway (7 feet) will limit the size of
vessels using the area.
Present recreation/commercial use of the inlet is infrequent due to the amount
of shoaling and subsequent draft restrictions. Users consist of a few fishermen with
small craft who use the inlet enough to be aware of the problems and changes.
There are 500 commercial vessels in the vicinity of Drum Inlet that want to use the
inlet but are not able to in its current condition.
5.08 Inlet stability. It is anticipated that side cast dredges will be used at the
ocean bar channel and through the inlet gorge. The side cast dredge operation will
have no appreciable impact on sand transport around the inlet since material is
merely deposited on either side of the channel and is not physically removed from the
inlet environment. A change in erosion rates is therefore not envisioned.
Furthermore, the connecting channel from the inlet to the Waterway will be dredged
by pipeline dredge, with the dredged material being deposited on the beaches at both
sides of the inlet, thus adding more sand to the beach profile.
Migration of inlets is a widely observed natural phenomenon along the Atlantic
coast. Drum Inlet will continue to migrate as it has historically. From 1976 to 1991,
the inlet centerline has migrated both northeast and southwest with a net movement
of about 120 feet southwest. During this same period, the inlet width has ranged
from 1,080 feet wide in 1991 to 3,420 feet wide in 1981.
Inlet instability in the 1970's was the result of a newly opened inlet establishing
itself (e.g., formation of the ocean bar and flood tide delta). Drum Inlet has matured
from this formative stage, resulting in a more stable condition. The inlet will continue
to migrate, whether dredging is resumed or not. However, the rate of migration will
not prevent the maintenance of a navigable channel across the ocean bar or through
the interior channels.
5.09 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. The proposed
disposal areas are located within the 100-year flood plain, but as discussed in section
4.00 there are no feasible alternatives. Also, as discussed in section 5.00, impacts to
resources have been minimized; therefore, the proposed action conforms to
applicable State and local floodplain protection standards.
5.10 Air Quality. The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of
the Wilmington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Carteret County has been
determined to be in compliance (attainment area) with the National Ambient Air
EA-12
Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the
air quality of this attainment area.
In accordance with 40 CFR 93.153 for nonattainment and maintenance areas,
conformity determinations with the State Implementation Plan are required for Federal
actions if certain exemptions are not meet. However, since the project is in an
attainment area, a conformity determination is not required.
6.00 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS.
The Carteret County Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan of
1991 classifies Core Banks as a national priority area and the waters of Core Sound
as ORWs (section 5.01). The proposed dredging and dredged material disposal
would not result in significant adverse effects to the lands and waters in and around
Drum Inlet; therefore, the proposed action does not conflict with the land use plans
for Carteret County.
7.00 RELATIONSHIP TO N.C. COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Based on the information presented within this EA, the proposed maintenance
dredging of the Drum Inlet, disposal on Core Banks or New Dump Island by pipeline
dredge, disposal in the inlet by side cast dredge, or disposal in shallow ocean waters
by hopper dredge are consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program of
the State of North Carolina and the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan. During
coordination of the EA, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management will
review the information presented herein and furnish a consistency position on the
proposed work.
8.00 COORDINATION
Representatives from the following agencies were contacted regarding the
proposed action and preparation of the EA.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
EA-13
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Carteret County
Cape Lookout National Seashore
9.00 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
This EA is being circulated for 30-day review to the following agencies and
individuals.
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Environmental Health
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Naval Port Control Office
U.S. Department of Energy
United States Coast Guard
Postmasters
State Agencies
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
State Clearinghouse
Libraries
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Librarian, North Carolina Environmental Resources Library
UNC-Wilmington Library
EA-14
Libraries (con't)
State Library of North Carolina
Duke University Library
East Carolina University - Joyner Library
Elected Officials
All United States Senators and Congressman Martin Lancaster
Honorable Bruce Ethridge
Honorable Paul Tyndall
Honorable G. Malcolm Fulcher, Jr.
Chairman, Carteret County Commissioners
Mayors
Local Agencies
North Carolina Council of Governments Region P
Carteret County Development Council
Morehead City Building Inspector
Conservation Groups
Conservation Council of North Carolina
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Sierra Club
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Carteret County Crossroads
Izaac Walton League
Colleges/Universities
UNC Institute of Marine Science
Duke University Department of Geology
Cape Fear Community College
Companies and Individuals
Carteret-Craven EMC
Jacksonville Daily News
Carteret County News-Times
EA-15
Companies and Individuals (con't)
Morehead City Shipping Co.
Williams and Haywood, Inc.
T.D. Eure Construction Co.
Wilmington Shipping Company
Sailcraft, Inc.
Texasgulf, Inc.
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
Stevens Towing Company
Stroud Engineering
Timber and Land Management
Aviation Fuel Terminals
George Davenport
Grady Davis
John Hooten
T. O. Talton
Don Taylor
R. T. Jones
Luther Smith and Son
Lloyd Wood
Alex Malpass
Galvin Mason
R. W. Chambers
John Fussel
Frank Hatsel
Walter Gentry
Haywood Weeks
William Whaley
Anne McCrary
Vince Bellis
Ray Brandi
Orrin Pilkey
James Parnell
Claude Brown
W. D. Aman
10.00 POINT OF CONTACT
Any comments or questions regarding this EA should be addressed to Mr.
Frank Yelverton, Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890.
Telephone contact is 910-251-4640.
EA-16
11.00 REFERENCES
Harris, W. 1994. Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Personal
Communication, March 14, 1993.
Hettler, W.F. and D.L. Barker. 1993. Distribution and abundance of larval fishes at
two North Carolina inlets. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 37:161-179.
Kimmel, Richard H. 1993 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Drum Inlet Vicinity,
Carteret County, North Carolina. Memorandum, dated 7 October 1993, on file,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Marshall. M. 1993. Chief, Resource Enhancement, North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. Personal Communication, December 13, 1993.
Miller, J.M.; J.P Reed and L.J. Pietrafesa. 1984. Patterns, mechanisms and
approaches to the study of migration of estuarine dependent larvae and juveniles.
From: Mechanisms of Migration in Fishes, Edited by J.D. McCleave et al., Plenum
Publishing Company, 1984.
Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose
Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower
Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Final Report to the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Biological Opinion, Dredging of Channels
in the Southeastern United States from North Carolina Through Cape Canaveral,
Florida. November 25, 1991.
Potter, E. P.; Parnell, J. F.; and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Rikard, M. 1993 and 1994. Resource Management Specialist, Cape Lookout
National Seashore. Personal Communication. November 3, 1993 and
December 5, 1994.
Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR). 1994. Remote Sensing Archaeological
Survey, Vicinity of Drum Inlet, Carteret County, North Carolina. Prepared by TAR,
Washington, North Carolina (Contract No. DACW54-93-D-0030). Submitted to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1971. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Drum Inlet, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. and M.A. Bucher. 1992. Status Review of seabeach amaranth
EA-17
(Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition
(After Hurricane Hugo). Report to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, N.C. and Endangered Species
Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
178 pp.
12.00 FINDING
The proposed action should not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will probably not be
required. If this opinion is upheld following circulation of this EA, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed and circulated.
EA-18
tr» Steep Pt
?LP?CJ'
White Pt. C?l
CO
rrl0
V?
I
Seag-ass (1988)
VA. N
NORTH
eClAW1
O
RA EEM
CAROLINA
t e[HDFap
C A T L A N T I C
OCEAN su ev
I
n rmsti
FEAR
VICINITY MAP
APR70.?OT14TE CQMM LDTM , i
v HLv I
n rron I
TYPICAL OCEAN BAR D iW EL
DREDGING SECTION
NOT TO SCXE
APPA30MTE G;EDGDG LDUTS
I
. ,.
VAR=
I
TYPICAL CCEt?ECTING DAW El_ I
NOT TO SCMF
Ilk
c
j
ATLANTIC
OCEAN

J O
O

w I co
a
O
I
1

W
V)
?' I 0 W J
=
I ~ IL.
v
i o
M I z

m

i

_ 0

s
W=
L
i ID W a
Q
'
> 7N I z
<0 ° O
I o w .J

I L`- t-
C13 U
0M =W
J w0 UN
0 Q
I
LL. W N
w o° w m N
in U O
O
W o Q
°
~ W U
K I a
> of O V
i
N N
A
;
0 0 a_
DO
.
.

x
0 O o.

s
( o
- m.
W
I C,

CO IG i' N O N
?O m O N i w
r
1 1 1 1
UlSW) 1333 NI NOI1VA313
00
O
X
/
000.
o v /
gym. /
2
0 ?
4 ?•r? ?/
Z
it X
V Q i
tAj
?. W
t4i
? 4J
V
°
X000 N
X.
0
0
0
N

O
0
O
v
W

N
J
Q
N O F-
W O O W
to w
L
D -
? w
Z
?...
C
OI
000
A10, X
O
O
O
0
0
0
N
W
J
U
V)
Cs.,
U
a
M W
Z
W
E- z
.? Q
U
W C7
V)z
O E-
0,0
Cr] W
Z
r? z
0
0,6 U
W U
E-+ d
C) a
C? w
z
W z
z Q
?x
a U
W a
C\2
a?
s~
C=.
OZ
W
N
J
Q
N
O
N_
w Q
J
FW-
a
z
F-
J
Q
0
W
N
O
Q.
0
Ix
a_
Q
w
v
0
Q)
Z
Q
J
Q
Table 1. Dimensions, initial volumes and grain size of the Drum Inlet Channel.
See Figure 1 for proposed reaches.
Area Reach Length Depth Width Volume Percent
(feet) (feet) (feet feet3 Sand/Silt'
Bar Channel AB 3,500 9 150 103,200 97/3
(+4 overdepth)
BC 1,620 9 150 18,800 97/3
(+4 overdepth)
Subtotal A-C 5,120 1220000
Connecting CD 2,750 7 75 411450 97/3
Channel (+4 overdepth)
DE 2,770 7 75 138,250 95/5
(+4 overdepth)
EF 4,130 7. 75 118,800 94/6
(+4 overdepth)
Subtotal C-F 9,650 298,500
Total A-F 14,770 420,500
ATTACHMENT A
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
MAINTENANCE OF DRUM INLET
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-E-95-16-0003
Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose (if no,
see section 2 and NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
YES;_; NO;_;* YES; X ; NO;_
YES;_; NO;_;* YES; X ; NO;_
YES;_; NO;_;* YES; X ; NO;_
YES;_; NO;_;* YES; X ; NO,
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6.
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X 1
1 I , ,
I 1
! , ,
X ! I
'
I I X
1
I I , ,
I I I I
X 1 I
I 1
I 1
X ! I
1
I I I I
I I I I
X ! I
I
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
1 1 1
1 1 X 1 I
? I
1 X 1
I I ? ,
I I I 1
i ' X
1
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
X
I I I I
X
I X
X ! I
I
I X I
1 I t
,
! X ! !
Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
I 1
I I
' X
I
i ?

! 1
I 1
1 I I I

I I
1- I I
X
I
1 !
I X I
,
I I ,
X
I 1
1 I
1 I
I 1 I I
, ,
I I
, ,
I I
I 1
I I
1
1 1
? I
I I
I I
1 I

X
Remarks: Where a check is placed under.
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6.
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics .......................................'X'
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants ................... .
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project .....................................
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation ..................................... 1-1
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances .............................. ..
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources ................................... i
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities ............... ................
(8) Other sources (specify) ......................................
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA "Maintenance of Drum Inlet, Carteret County,
North Carolina," dated January 1995.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES I X I NO ;_;*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6.
3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site ................................. :X
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site ..................................... :X
(3) Degree of turbulence ........................................ :X
(4) Water column stratification .................................... :X
(5) Discharge vessel speed and _
direction .................................................:X
(6) Rate of discharge .......................................... :X
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities) .................................. :X
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time ....................................................:X
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: EA "Maintenance of Drum Inlet,Carteret County,
North Carolina," dated January 1995.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable ................... YES NO
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed _
discharge. List actions taken ................................ YES NO
For water quality see Section 5.01 of the EA.
For benthos see Section 5.02 of the EA.
For fisheries see Section 5.02 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 5.04 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
*See page 6.
4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site

(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). _
YES NO
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES NO
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES NO
d. Contaminant availability

(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). _
YES NO
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES NO
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES NO
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES :Xj NO 1_1*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES NO
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the

Section 404(b)(1) guidelines ................... _
.............. 'X'
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the

inclusion of the following conditions: ............. _
.........
.....
*See page 6.
5
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative .....................
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem ............................
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem ...........................
8.
Wilbert V. Paynes OBERT J.
Acting Chief, Planning Division COL, EN
Commanding
Date: l 5 11 95 Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance
with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed
projects may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent
portions of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does
not comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to
be evaluated in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short-form" evaluation
process is inappropriate.
6