19960666 Ver 1_Complete File_19961017 (2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO November 17, 1995
ATTENTION OF
Environmental Resources Section
i.
Dear Sir or Madam:
O-C, +
We are scheduled to publish the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers Feasibility Study in
early February 1996. To assist us in preparing the DEIS, we request that
you attend an informal agency review meeting on December 13, 1995, at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers office, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina. The meeting will begin-at 10 a.m. in the Main Conference Room.
During the meeting we will discuss the proposed project in detail,
including construction methods, dredged material disposal options, and
associated environmental impacts. The proposed project and potential impacts
are summarized in the Project Description. We urge you to attend this meeting
to assist us in preparing a complete DEIS and thereby potentially reducing the
time needed to respond to official agency comments received on both the Draft
and Final Environmental Impact Statements. If you are unable to attend the
December 13 meeting, please provide any written comments you may have by
January 3, 1996.
If you have any questions before the meeting, please contact Mr. Frank
Yelverton of my Environmental Resources Section at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosures

JAA ?J (4)
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
NOV 2 ; 1955
. ENY?RUNMENIq 5?1,L,?C?S

Printed on 0 Recycled Paper
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CAPE FEAR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS FEASIBILITY STUDY
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
1. NAME OF STUDY: Improvement of Navigation, Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear
Rivers Feasibility Study, Wilmington, North Carolina.
2. LOCATION: Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North
Carolina.
3. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORIZATION: Deepening of the
existing channel from the ocean bar to the Port of Wilmington is the central
feature of the proposed action. Other features included in the proposed
action consist of widening one turning basin and extending the deep draft
project about 1.6 miles further up the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 1).
The total length of improvements is approximately 35 miles. Three alternative
depths are being considered for the ocean bar channel (42, 44, and 46 feet
plus overdepth) and generally three alternative depths for the river channels
(40, 42, and 44 feet plus overdepth). The May 1991 Reconnaissance Report
indicated that the economic benefits are maximized with the 42-foot bar
channel and 40-foot river channel (Plan of Improvement Recommended for Further
Study). However, it now appears that the 44-foot bar channel and 42-foot
river channel will be the recommended plan. This project would require
removal of about 12,900,000 cubic yards of dredged material of which about
2,800,000 cubic yards are rock. About 815,000 cubic yards of this rock would
require blasting for removal. The construction period for the entire project
would be about 3 years. The detailed project description is as follows:
The recommended project provides for a navigation channel 44 feet deep and
500 feet wide from the Atlantic Ocean through Baldhead Shoal Channel to
Battery Island Channel near Southport, North Carolina. From Lower Swash
Channel through the anchorage basin, located at the foot of Castle Street in
Wilmington, North Carolina, the channel will be 42 feet deep and 400 feet
wide. The five turn wideners and 6.2-mile passing lane (both a part of the
Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
(USACE 1994)) would be deepened to 42 feet. The 1,200-foot-wide anchorage
basin, which extends from the North Carolina State Ports Authority to the Cape
Fear Memorial Bridge near the foot of Castle Street, will be widened to the
north about 300 feet. The navigation channel will continue upstream from the
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to the Highway 133 bridge with a depth of 40 feet
and a width of 400 feet. The turning basin, located downstream from the
Highway 133 bridge, will remain at its present width of 750 feet. A channel
depth of 40 feet and width of 300 feet would be from the Highway 133 bridge to
the Hilton Railroad bridge. From the Hilton Railroad bridge to Chemserve 750
feet upstream, the channel will be 40 feet deep by 250 feet wide. The
existing 25-foot-deep and 200-foot-wide channel from Chemserve to the Arcadian
Plant will be deepened to 32 feet and widened to 250 feet. The 700-foot-wide
turning basin located at the Arcadian Plant will be widened to 800 feet. The
recommended project ends at the Arcadian Plant located 1.6 miles above the
Hilton Railroad bridge. Channel side slopes from the Baldhead Shoal Channel
to Battery Island Channel will be 5H:1V. Side slopes for the remaining
project reaches and turning basins will be 3H:1V. In addition to the required
project depths, dredging depths associated with all of the project features
4.

will include 2 feet of allowable overdepth in nonrock areas and 1 foot of
required overdepth plus an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth in rock
areas.
Excavation methods include the use of hydraulic pipeline dredges, bucket
and barge dredges, hopper dredges, and blasting. Hydraulic pipeline dredges
would be used from about 4 miles south of the State Port (Upper Big Island
Channel) to the upstream limit of the Federal Channel with disposal in
existing upland confined disposal facilities (CDF). Beginning about 4 miles
south of the State Port (Lower Big Island Channel) to Southport (Lower Swash
Channel), a bucket and barge dredge will be used with disposal in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency approved Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS). From Southport (Battery Island Channel) to the inner portion of the
ocean bar channel (inner portion of the Baldhead Shoal Channel), a hopper
dredge will be used with disposal in the ODMDS. On the outer portion of the
ocean bar channel (outer Baldhead Shoal Channel), the rock substrate will be
excavated by a rock cutter head dredge with disposal to complete the
Wilmington Offshore Fisheries Enhancement Structure (WOFES, Figure 2). In the
river from Lower Big Island Channel downstream, in areas requiring rock
blasting, the rock will be removed following blasting with a bucket and barge
dredge and placed on the WOFES. Rock requiring dredging or blasting at or
upstream of Upper Big Island Channel will be removed by pipeline dredge and
pumped to a CDF. Blasting and hydraulic pipeline dredging in the river would
be restricted to August 1 to January 31. Dredging by bucket and barge in the
river, hopper dredge in the lower river and ocean, and rock dredge in the
ocean will be performed year-round.
Benefits which will accrue from the deepening of Wilmington Harbor include
reductions in light loading of vessels and vessel delays. Shippers will also
be able to use larger, more efficient vessels. The first costs, average
annual costs, and benefit-cost ratio have not been finalized.
Two major changes have been made in the project since the May 1991
Reconnaissance Report. First, the 6.2-mile-long Passing Lane is no longer a
part of this study but is included in the Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening
Final EIS (USACE 1994). Second, the channels in the Northeast Cape Fear River
that were to be widened by 100 feet have been reduced to a width of 50 feet.
Authorization for the study is a resolution adopted September 8, 1988, by
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the U.S. House of
Representatives to investigate potential navigation improvements in the Cape
Fear River.
The Corps Technical Manager (Planning) is Ms. Beverly McKim at (910)
251-4086, and the Corps environmental coordinator is Mr. Frank Yelverton at
[phone].
4. FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE AREA AND PROBABLE IMPACTS: The study
area includes the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers at and above
Wilmington, the estuary below Wilmington, and the nearshore ocean water
including the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS. Activities potentially impacting fish
and wildlife resources include dredging of benthic resources; blasting impacts
2
on primary nursery areas, anadromous fish, the endangered shortnose sturgeon,
sea turtles, and marine mammals; potential increased salinity, especially in
upstream areas; and loss of wetlands and primary nursery area due to deepening
the channel and widening the one turning basin.
Benthic and epibenthic data have been gathered during the feasibility
stage. A report on the spring 1995 epibenthic sampling has been provided to
interested agencies, and the fall 1995 epibenthic and spring and fall 1995
benthic sampling reports will be provided when completed.
The project will require blasting of rock in areas where the rock is too
hard for conventional dredging. This volume of rock is about 815,000 cubic
yards. The blasting will occur in portions of the area from Keg Island
Channel upstream through the Hilton Railroad bridge. A total of about
800 blasts will occur in this area. The area requiring blasting would total
about 115 acres with all of this area in the existing channel bottom. The
potential impact area per blast on fisheries, turtle, and mammal resources
will be reduced to the extent feasible by.stemming each hole (placing rock in
the hole over the charge), single delays per charge, and other methods as
appropriate.
As indicated above, excavated material from Lower Big Island Channel
downstream that is predominantly rock will be used to finish construction of
the Wilmington Offshore Fisheries Enhancement Structure (WOFES, Figure 2).
The estimated volume of rock to be placed in the WOFES is about 2.4 million
cubic yards.
Because of the proposed deepening of the harbor, the potential for
saltwater intrusion was modeled. Preliminary results presented at an
August 22, 1995, meeting in Wilmington, North Carolina, indicated that during
low flow conditions deepening may slightly decrease salinities. Based on
comments received as a result of the meeting, additional model runs will be
made. These model runs will include historic depth conditions and normal flow
conditions at present and proposed depths. The results will probably be
presented in March 1996.
Due to the proposed dredging activities, approximately 12.6 acres of
primary nursery area (designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries) will be excavated to a depth greater than 10 feet mean low water
(mlw) and approximately 0.2 acre of mixed tidal marsh will be excavated. All
this impact is from the mouth of the Brunswick River upstream. Additionally,
4.7 acres of nonprimary nursery area will be excavated to a depth greater than
10 feet mlw. The nonprimary nursery area is all downstream of the mouth of
the Brunswick River.
The mitigation plan for the primary nursery and marsh areas at a
2:1 ratio results in the restoration of about 26 acres of estuarine/marsh
habitat. No mitigation is proposed for the nonprimary nursery areas
excavated. Mitigation sites are existing river disposal areas.
3
N
CD
ij,t,. u•
aZ pU)
w I7 .:? o>
€s +, ; ' _
?aa qty : ( ?' ? ? ? ? r r
z
10?
,n
ti:4iti r+a"r r ? C9 _ y Q d
U. d Z F-
41
O o V y? O. O
`?? S? ? d 41 ? ? w Z
a w N
"•
a6P1i8 IWdoI lepowaW jean ade0. » C = 5
` ! C 3 O
• • 1 #I .i p C
a LL
r
R
? v 1
< V I+
• 1 Z
1
11 13 ? t i
11 ? `r •
+ co
V7
N =
m
U cU-or.....
r CUv000
.L t N S le
am eq -C4
L
ee??
C 00
„3m
wife
( L H
1? 3
11 =
O
Y 1 Y
F ? 11
= a s„ j =
O W >
V 1 O
»
11 , ? V
COO
co 40 to to
C) ?ih b? C V , i,? vrv
y? ? s C 11 NNCV
I a
°
Y N?? t?iotNt
c •t .r
1 ? m
1
ca
'? sis 1,?„ 1,f3
F ti Iv
1'a
? t,a W
i
ca ra
X000
V d +O+ t N N N ?( •; ?i a
O p V L O t ee tt? t ?{5,? V
NeF?tto?rr?vy a ?` O
v E 00 ???+ ? _
/( t
v
9
V oc jai !%' ?.
!_ Gt + ??tp QGe???
N N N
C,ar+ t t `s
V R - r r
d'd' 1
m ?
m
?-
"I v

0
W '? N v.Niv

V N O N d•
L

Q IJ_Moo
a?i
m
U
Q ?
= N
O a
CV
=U?
m
co r "c
Q
M co +
T_ I) 0
C13
O M o
tm M o .?
Z3 •r- o0
?' N v
m ?
N
co +
m

rr
it's
? 1 1

Y
0 i
/?? • •
V•.
r }
?
?I
?I
i
7L
\arll
L`
? z
I l ' \ d
1 d
-?• I. peo 11n
?.,w;: ea uo;IlH t Iii
3>ECC i ""1 ? _ l ?
.gv I €
alto
Ylii.tl< i
N #, s I / k
.•saa? L ? /.?
a6p?? lr? t
v/ ?E ? N^?o
ti
Cc co a
??a W ?? i ° ? .L = d o
t 1 ?Q 1 ? m
\f',A 15 a. i ..
lit
C ° f
\ s ?
o I•$I ; ? ? 'r ?
I
??/ham p?JB.• y???c ?1
?ArLr ?,•?dy a /.
-?' YiTiM •-? IINL
0-200
ca ? t-I-
m xoo°o
?aN???
N N N
?-?ON .4
L= N M co) M
V ,,,m?;,,jj
YA IAN-„.?
/
/ j
/ I
// O 1
? v 1
I I

Z
6jd
I z
I
s [ o now
S U.
0'
3

•O ;
Z
m •
°
oo

1
? H
: ?R1019.
4.11 I ?N
vw 1
...
? "A +
Lo
co
I I
W t ?\ I1,' ?i
? I
`I I
I 1
i 1
I I
t
? 11 ? 11' L?
l a l
46
` 1 ? 1 c
u I
1 a
I 11 ?
I m
j. Z
I
I I
I I
I I
N I I
I I '
I I ? •
I I ?
I I• r
I V 1
I ?+ I .
..\ ;ul I
?, 1 .c I •
J
1 ?
1
I I,
I I
o ? I
I I
I
I
I
•1
? ? 11
I
.
I i
I I
. I
1 1
1 I
I
l\ ? 11
a
t
SIMI
a
Nome
an 00
19101
• O
Is

U
?
too
.Erb N .?.r vim..

D cc v M G N+
W
?d d
OO
>O ?
to
m
O
LL
\i
N
LL.
Oka
? r
LLJ
J2
Q d
aZ
r
LLI
0
LL.

tq
0-0
fi
0) U.
10 r It
10 CL
14
• "s-- R G1 ?
3 J
44- V
L V
S-S
RO=,\ _-.. e? •.? f _ k at """"ff`" i ; '{ • R i Y s y
fi`•!'?„•.??}= J ^ I e.<"'?4 `,•y.•'.,.q.J, y`S- R i i?`^ G?? a}??, Lam..
R >r e.. , Y . ` t 00
«b
X
^
_ J fi a fi " ?v `r :' N
1 oil
E 31.
it 0 3
R
R R A R c f +? w ?• ? ?=,
i
R p =? R q `s` i
R
fi R R fi R `
a R ? ^ a
R Y
fi R fi fi ? +
(3. R
R ?'V R
R
R- R { R -
R R F 1 N 8 _ .

jo L W/ s o v - ,tie.- f?arz
r n?? of
NC..Df*V1
-
;L
?/o - 3yj- 62?s'
Rc9- 733-/_?gb
Tito,
"?Z 1Z l??c NC K\oLri
'c1'
Aloi.,I q rdQ ?4 / j - Cod F-J, + t),,ldl,'-c
C? t"e k e vtiG -L/
- (?CcroC ew c Of 1115 J Z? Lr YVl h :.M C or?5 d? ?n ,, r
VV i r c
CPL l
Qr9c?l? ?1
iuc- De-w\
?D SHNFoRv ?o ?
?. RIK 57???''?BEiCG /1?C ?v?t ?1?toriTy
C v / ?o? ?rf SO?r?rq ?d
9/0- -39s= moo-
q1 v 3- S _35-0 \ ---
9(o-31t -39ab
9f? - .tea ? = y???
f/o - 3 91r- 3 ?s9
9iQ- 73.3 - zzl,3
ctlo- 251-?v??
?Pl -733- 22,'3
y? S 7 r- <S'?9-4/.
p
9,49 A5/ - y.So<o
9i0 - 3Y;-1,3Y3
9/'0- z51- Y5o1
E

March 24, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihar?';'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0732; US Army Corps of Engineers
EA/FONSI Project Modification and Mitigation Plan
Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, New Hanover
and Brunswick Counties
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality
Section has reviewed the subject document. The mitigation plan
presented in Section 4.0 of the document is not consistent with the
mitigation proposals presented by the COE to our Wilmington
regional office staff. The document should be revised to reflect
the proposals discussed in meetings with our regional office staff.
Additional questions should be directed to Jim Gregson in our
Wilmington office at [phone].
8626er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
Jim Gregson
?:.
:'?
..
AGENDA
DECEMBER 13,1995
AGENCY REVIEW MEETING
CAPE FEAR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS
FEASIBILITY STUDY
1. Opening Comments
2. General project description
a. Proposed improvements, locations and depths
b. Volumes of sediments/rocks to be dredged and/or blasted
c. Purpose, need, and benefits
3. Dredging alternatives and dredging locations in harbor
a. Bucket and barge
b. Hydraulic pipeline
c. Hopper
d. Blasting Plan
e. Alternatives to blasting
4. Disposal alternatives and locations
a. Confined disposal facility - Eagle Island
b. Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
C. Wilmington Offshore Fisheries Enhancement Structure
d. Beneficial uses
5. Mitigation plan
a. Dredging windows
b. Loss of estuarine bottom
c. Loss of tidal marsh
d. Blasting
6. Endangered Species
7. Saltwater intrusion
a. Groundwater
b. Surface water
8. Cultural Resources

P
i
December 13, 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CAPE FEAR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS FEASIBILITY STUDY
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
1. NAME OF STUDY: Improvement of Navigation, Cape Fear -
Northeast Cape Fear Rivers Feasibility Study, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
2. LOCATION: Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties, North Carolina.
3. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORIZATION: Deepening
of the existing channel from the ocean bar to the Port of
Wilmington is the central feature of the proposed action. Other
features included in the proposed action consist of widening one
turning basin and extending the deep draft project about 1.6
miles further up the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 1). The
total length of improvements is approximately 35 miles. Three
alternative depths are being considered for the ocean bar channel
(42, 44, and 46 feet plus overdepth) and generally three
alternative depths for the river channels (40, 42, and 44 feet
plus overdepth). The May 1991 Reconnaissance Report indicated
that the economic benefits are maximized with the 42-foot bar
channel and 40-foot river channel (Plan of Improvement
Recommended for Further Study). However, now the 44-foot bar
channel and 42-foot river channel will be the recommended plan.
This project would require removal of about 12,825,586 cubic
yards of dredged material of which about 3,424,000 cubic yards
are rock. About 564,000 cubic yards of this rock would require
blasting for removal. The construction period for the entire
project would be about 3 years. The detailed project description
is as follows:
The recommended project provides for a navigation channel 44
feet deep and 500 feet wide from the Atlantic Ocean through
Baldhead Shoal Channel to Battery Island Channel near Southport,
North Carolina. From Lower Swash Channel through the anchorage
basin, located at the foot of Castle Street in Wilmington, North
Carolina, the channel will be 42 feet deep and 400 feet wide.
The five turn wideners and 6.2-mile passing lane (both a part of
the Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (USACE 1994)) would be deepened to 42 .feet. The
1,200-foot-wide anchorage basin, which extends from the North
Carolina State Ports Authority to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge
1

s near the foot of Castle Street, will be widened to the north
about 300 feet. No additional improvements beyond that indicated
in the Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project is
proposed between the Memorial Bridge and Chemserve. The existing
25-foot-deep and 200-foot-wide channel from Chemserve to the
Arcadian Plant will be deepened to 34 feet and widened to 250
feet. The 700-foot-wide turning basin located at the Arcadian
Plant will be widened to 800 feet. The recommended project ends
at the Arcadian Plant located 1.6 miles above the Hilton Railroad
bridge. Channel side slopes from the Baldhead Shoal Channel to
Battery Island Channel will be 5H:1V. Side slopes for the
remaining project reaches and turning basins will be 3H:1V. In
addition to the required project depths, dredging depths
associated with all of the project features will include 2 feet
of all overdepth in non-rock areas and 1 foot of required
overdepth plus an additional 2 feet of allowable overdepth in
rock areas.
Excavation methods include the use of hydraulic pipeline
dredges, bucket and barge dredges, hopper dredges, and blasting.
Hydraulic pipeline dredges would be used from about 4 miles south
of the State Port (Upper Big Island Channel) to the upstream
limit of the Federal Channel with disposal in the existing upland
confined disposal facility (CDF), Eagle Island. Beginning about
4 miles south of the State Port (Lower Big Island Channel) to
Southport (Lower Swash Channel), a bucket and barge dredge will
be used with disposal in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
approved Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). From
Southport (Battery Island Channel) to the Smith Island Channel, a
hopper dredge will be used with disposal in the ODMDS. On the
Baldhead Shoal Channel, the rock substrate will be excavated by a
rock cutter head dredge with disposal to complete the Wilmington
Offshore Fisheries Enhancement Structure (WOFES, Figure 1). The
non-rock material from the Baldhead Shoal Channel will be placed
in the ODMDS. In the river from Lower Big Island Channel
downstream, in areas requiring rock blasting, the rock will be
removed following blasting with a bucket and barge dredge and
placed on the WOFES. Rock requiring dredging or blasting at or
upstream of Upper Big Island Channel will be removed by pipeline
dredge and pumped to a CDF. Blasting and hydraulic pipeline
dredging in the river would be restricted to August 1 to January
31. Dredging by bucket and barge in the river, hopper dredge in
the lower river and ocean, and rock dredge in the ocean will be
performed year-round.
Benefits which will accrue from the deepening of Wilmington
Harbor include reductions in light loading of vessels and vessel
delays. Shippers will also be able to use larger, more efficient
2
vessels. The project is expected to produce average annual
benefits of 20-25 million dollars and have a benefit cost ratio
of 1.3 to 1.6.
Two major changes have been made in the project since the May
1991 Reconnaissance Report. First, the 6.2-mile-long Passing
Lane is no longer a part of this study but is included in the
Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening Final EIS (USACE 1994).
Second, the 25-foot project in the Northeast Cape Fear River that
was to be widened to 300 feet has been reduced to a width of 250
feet.
Authorization for the study is a resolution adopted September
8, 1988, by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of
the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate potential
navigation improvements in the Cape Fear River..
The Corps Technical Manager (Planning) is Ms. Beverly McKim
at [phone], and the Corps environmental coordinator is Mr.
Frank Yelverton at [phone].
4. FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE AREA AND PROBABLE IMPACTS:
The study area includes the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear
Rivers at and above Wilmington, the estuary below Wilmington, and
the nearshore ocean water including the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS.
Activities potentially impacting fish and wildlife resources
include dredging of benthic resources; blasting and dredging
impacts on primary nursery areas, anadromous fish, the endangered
shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles, and marine mammals; potential
increased salinity, especially in upstream areas; loss of
wetlands and primary nursery area due to deepening the channel
and widening the one turning basin; and cultural resources.
Benthic and epibenthic data have been gathered during the
feasibility stage. A report on the spring 1995 epibenthic
sampling has been provided to interested agencies, and the fall
1995 epibenthic and spring and fall 1995 benthic sampling reports
will be provided when completed.
The project will require blasting of rock in areas where the
rock is too hard for conventional dredging. This volume of rock
is about 564,000 cubic yards. The blasting will occur in
portions of the area from Keg Island Channel upstream to the
Memorial Bridge. A total of about 558 blasts will occur in this
area. The area requiring blasting would total about 82.7 acres
with all of this area in the existing channel bottom. The
potential impact area per blast on fisheries, turtle, and mammal
resources will be reduced to the extent feasible by stemming each
3
hole (placing rock in the hole over the charge), single delays
per charge, and other methods as appropriate such as bubble
curtains or physical barriers.
As indicated above, excavated material from Lower Big Island
Channel downstream that is predominantly rock will be used to
finish construction of the Wilmington Offshore Fisheries
Enhancement Structure (WOFES, Figure 1). The estimated volume of
rock to be placed in the WOFES is about 2.4 million cubic yards.
The use of single delays per hole, stemming, and bubble
curtains/physical barriers will minimize blasting impacts on
threatened and endangered species and other estuarine species.
Additional mitigating measures will be used for threatened and
endangered species including observers on dredges, and turtle
deflector heads on hopper dredges.
Because of the proposed deepening of the harbor, the
potential for saltwater intrusion was modeled. Preliminary
results presented at an August 22, 1995, meeting in Wilmington,
North Carolina, indicated that during low flow conditions
deepening may slightly decrease salinities. Based on comments
received as a result of the meeting, additional model runs will
be made. These model runs will include historic depth conditions
and normal flow conditions at present and proposed depths. For
historic conditions, the harbor was deepened to 32 feet in 1949
and to 34 feet in 1958. The current 38 foot project was
completed in the early 1970's. An average fall flow for the
period of record since Jordan Reservoir was construction is about
3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). Less than 1000 cfs was used
for the initial low flow model runs. The results of the
additional model runs will probably be presented in March 1996.
Modeling efforts related to potential groundwater impacts
are being developed. Preliminary findings of the Wilmington
Harbor groundwater study indicate that the aquifers primarily
exhibit a discharge to the Cape Fear River along the length of
the shipping channel as evidenced by the higher elevations of
water level contours relative to the elevations of the surface of
the river.
Due to the proposed dredging activities, approximately 13.2
acres of primary nursery area (designated by the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries) will be excavated to a depth
greater than 10 feet mean low water (mlw) and approximately 0.2
acre of mixed tidal marsh will be excavated. All this impact is
from the mouth of the Brunswick River upstream. Additionally,
4.7 acres of non-primary nursery area will be excavated to a
4
depth greater than 10 feet mlw. The non-primary nursery area is
all downstream of the mouth of the Brunswick River.
The mitigation plan for the primary nursery and marsh areas
at a 2:1 ratio results in the restoration of about 27 acres of
estuarine/marsh habitat. No mitigation is proposed for the non-
primary nursery areas excavated. Mitigation sites are existing
river disposal areas.
Regarding cultural resources, none of the known or newly
discovered shipwreck sites are sufficiently close to navigation
channels to required evaluation during dredging for this project.
Potential impacts of blasting are being assessed.
5. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS: If you have any comments or
questions on the proposed project, please contact Mr. Frank
Yelverton, Environmental Resources Section, 910-251-4640 by
January 3, 1996. If you have any written comments, please mail
them to the following address by January 3, 1996:
Mr. William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and Planning Division
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
5

LO
a
Z
a
in
0
w
0
w
cc
i.
C
N
C
C
7
O
a
2
N
4) E
N V
C >
t ?O
L (0
E a
02
V O
L C
d _
O
1= co
? d
d ?
LL ?C!
d x
Q.
CO C
V N
N m
t E
t o
O v
Z c
t Q
L ?
Cts
LL 3
ao
R N
V ?
O
rN+
C
N
L
(0
m
C
CO
V
O
L L L L t t L C L
co S. O O O O N Q O O
N
N
0
0
N
N
N
M L
N
N 0 0 :r0 «0
. :_0 0 :_0 0
:.
es
i- 7 ? : 0 E E E E E E E E E E 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
F
-
Q CO N co 0
t t 0
L 0 M M M of O M M O M M N N N (n (n (n :3
N N
U U U U U U U U U U
C (n (n (n U) (n (n U) (n (n U) U) U) U) U) (n U) vi vi vi vi vi co

o ? ? ? ? ? ? ? n n n n ? m a)
,
N p 0
Qz:? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W
O
N
W

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

(V

n

N

T

O

O

O

M

O

O
m
Z
V Nv C N n
d« 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O N ? M M O O O r O ?
£ W n o T

3 m N M
O

Y V
O
?
co O
n

n

N

1

M
co

r
O nn

n
O O m O O O a o O M 0 0 c o o N to r? M O
r
w
M
r N N N t
r
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O M M
M
M O r
Ict M

(O r m m v

M to

M r

r co

N ^^

1 M (O

w to

o O

M w

r to

N O

M O

O O

(O M

O In

to
W 00 M ^ :
I.
F - m M m 0 Lc)
V
V
C trn
(0
-,t O
1. M
r
0
V
q M
r N
M O
r` M
N 0
N w
O r`
d r
co O
r- -
(+o W
to
O
(0
It
r Q
?
N
O
F M r to r r Cl) N Cl) CO r co (O LO CO CO (O M LO N r M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
" N N N N

%
t T
N r
N r
N T
N T
N T
N r
N r
N r
N T
N T
N T
N T
N T
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N `
/
N r
N T
N r
N
N
t t t t f t t t t t f t t t t t t t t t f f t f f
G r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r ?- r r
f + + + + + + + f + t + + + + + + + + t f t + f f
It ? It '4' It It 'V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N It mt
st st It ? qt mt ? V -T ? ? ? ? mt qt q, qt q, V 'ct 14, 't M CO

0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 p
0 o
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
In 0 0
to 0
O
!L
... 0
to 0
to to to M M M ? Ict d' Ict CO CD (D V V V qt V It tO to N N GO
r
3
°
o
M
v
C

O
O (D
N
+
a) to C
to C
O C m
O O O N Q
Z to (n to r
O O N O
M

`° Cl)

0
r
`a

?

s

r

r

c
Y
c
Y
GJ
c
C
w

? c
O O O
U ? L
U) ..
C
. ..
7 .,
7 (
o
in u 3
(
in 3 ? (
o
t
m
O
(n
o U)
.0 U)
-o C:
cts
v
y co
3 N
`
o
CL C
° C
v
=
=
c
p
O1 C
2 .
(Na
c
m Ol (
A (c
?

w

(13

Ca

<A

Ca e

O

-

(n (
o

t

N

J

J

m

m ;

m; m

CO

W l
i
tt
cm
L C
N
L w
c w
L (D
L CL
L 2?
O `
N
3 to
0 Q)
CD
m
d
-
N y L
QJ L j L
(D! G) L"-
CD t
'C (D
:t a)
0
L

U`
co c° E d o 3 0 ` (° 3 a 3 n 3 a 3 U o
o cts
J
J
J
J
J
L
v
m m m U) m U) M (n S S Q Q Y Q Q L co Q
M
tL)

T
T

U)

N

q
M

co
lC?

N
GD
N
T
O
J

F
0

M
C
7 2
c
Q 8
` a
a m
7 c
0 cc
L
d
2
c
.Q
a
Q
N
LL
U
cc
w
r-
O
Zm
("i X
(V
N
U
W
D:
6
Y C
a CIJ
Z.
Y. TOM LINE _
o
O
d
j?l C O

? N 000
Q) •
NNNN
N V O
+
+ + '
p
p

U co

-? 1

i
1

Q?
d
cis `
I./
•Ue » e4ia? ; 1 ? ,
er• gel. ?•cYr J?a /? c•ou ar. ? '
1 I
eeoeo ?
Y.TOM LINE \? v I '
• ? •v 1
/ r - 00•=I i w 3
I :0000 1 d F
0 Q
1.0 x
/
' ®
! c 2 K
; ?• O W
! 00 Z

/ J
LL.
0

•ee. I •//a •_
ICJ ( ca ?°ooo
1 O m.crooo
N N N
W I [ 0 t r r r
\ I E ?m± x x x
egg $I , \ 1? C 0 + + +
0
1.6 0 C14 '10
.? ? ?{ I I ? tv H
Y ?I ? I 1 ~' .? m
?t•¦ ( I ?: ?? W II I Y:
\0. Ij a I •kl I i
i
."".. peoap?a ub?ily .a e l/ E g I a
?•L a 'YY ¢¢
awn
i.lf I a??' ? I z
I
.r.. U,
I I _ _
< Co
inn
y il:, , p •p I L: o0 0
N
?f// o•$' I • O
p+? IcC41 i$ 00
? 7J t. ,y? ? I U I ¢? ¦ O O
e r a, .? y e
00
F. 0011 ;P
w\ O w,, \ I I 18 U
rid[ it U
*s ' y (
LI
d d V o
} ? I I gg
0 'd, Lo WE
? ? I I I I o00
?• V1 +NNN
ooo` W 'co O N
'\t,`\ \ t v I I 000 •= yet et
I I O v,
\\?i?\ ' . I I ? ? LL m
e.\L
. I ..•.ar ( n 1 ¦ ¦
w l n r = LUJ 1 1
E 1 Y
r
I x I ? ? I! ? 1p
LL
OW)
Nom'
rLLJ C?
V Ir
Q ?
V
a?
0
w M
r e-
d
LLJ 4
LL
co
1
D
U
N
W =
I IN
8$
N
W 2
1 --?I M
c
r?
N
W Z

U

? N !09 R U M b
O ? N O N O N
t

i C v
W
L
r a
-
w O
J
d U. I. ?
F- O
I
- I-

aa
(
V ? N N .-y
N

-x _
? J
yW
s
H

t/f
V
m
?ffiffi?
Nil
W=
o I m a
t
r) 14-
IT I
Lo I

Q

= W
W
V III

?
U W
'
}}Y
$ g Z ?7T
O
> „
Z ?
•-• °

rn LLJ
V) _
a
i a Q?
L J C7

a W ••
®
?p
y?
N
O
T

Y
m

N

T
m Y
m Y
Q m
O
W
W

<
m
O
61
W O
1-
F
-
> Y ? ?
t O 1
G
W V ..
gg

a
0
LL
W
m
N ?" N
o s
a
Z J
I ?
S I
t- 2
a
0

N N
W
Z ? >

d
_ Qw,,
W
O N ?
L d C K ?
w C
'? V Q t
L N
Z >%.o
?- O
M Of
> z j
M
E a
a? .>

x O E
Z
w a
r' N
i 1Ji
2 :
z
O
1-
z
r
a? s
t
d
Ql
'O
'C
m
LL. 4)
V L
N
O
L R
R a
d N
d
w
a
o6pP8 (Wd0) IBIJOLYOW Jeaj odro
4; tl

` U
N ZN

. y

,
r

m
N m ? ?
dgo
U
c LL ,.,
r is C -OOO
L
V L N ?v??..
w
1,??
\V ?' Z co + + + `
r
w r? O N -e
(? d 3 met?et
+r N N ;
c

J
1
?i
?. t
N V z? -
? = r r
?N_OOO
pp
4) C4 N 04
w ,sb
C44 to
v m

i?
1

u

x 1? ? ?_ W
z

z
p? ; f
II
11
Q ?
I
V ?A
N
o°

%
1
fl rs
1

C
W E!=
.-. t
o ..,
V
t ...
r c o°o O o'c
r t + tLLU
.C
0 IM
bA O _
N
-
+ ti
}w C4 d
5 4 C4 a
m
Li. v 10
et e1' +
11 4
m
?
W
m

r+
d ? y
m N C
C N
O e4
C ? a
?mc
O Z
CO Q
Ir z
i J 3
O "
z Q s
0 u
(7 = j w
Z
Z W
J a.
3 0

s
1 ?=
1

1
1
o
• s
1 h ??
1
1 V
W EE
it
YY1

1 i 3

1
1 h ,?

I
i_
A' ?
? N
C-E o
?0
V a v
?
(g;

J
?.
N
O O O
=
OIL
C V ?,
000
v-
• C In
II N N N
• y O N +
Y (/? maa
L

{Y`
il'
• i
1?

' (
C
I

CM w
2 ?
.?
Q C
RI L

'G V w ?
C d N
i' to O .a; ?' d
O to v
? r CL
? y i+tO
3
? G
V O O 0
? to ?.?
O
•,•
. C
? °?
O Z ~ Ira

V z O
- a
Q ?
C6
V C
Q
co LL
OLO
O
r ?
r
U1J
0
^? u
0. Q
T- M
LLI
rn?
V
LL
ti

TABLE 1
BLASTING IMPACTS ESTIMATED FOR A GENERAL UNDERWATER BLASTING PLAN
(STEMMING THE TOP 1 FOOT OF HOLES AND INSERTING DELAYS AFTER ROWS)
Fish LD50 Acres for LD50 LD1 Acres for LD1
Weight Feet Feet
In Lbs.
0.125 1,610 196 2,780 573
1.000 899 63, 1,550 181
12.000 446 17 768 47
TABLE 2
BLASTING IMPACTS ESTIMATED FOR A GENERAL UNDERWATER BLASTING PLAN
(STEMMING THE TOP 1 FOOT OF HOLES AND INSERTING _A DELAY AT EACH HOLE)
Fish LD50
Weight Feet
In Lbs.
0.125 381
Acres for LD50 LD1 Acres for LD1
Feet
12.5
656 34.5
1.000 213 4.5 364 11.5
12.000 105 1.4 180 3.4
It is evident from the stemming and inserting delays (a minimum of 25 milliseconds) on
each hole reduces the size of the blast impact zone for the worst-case scenario, (i.e., LD1 for a
2-ounce swimbladder fish) by approximately 94 percent (from 573 acres to 34.5 acres). In
addition to requiring the contractor to stem and insert a delay in each hole, the Wilmington
District will require the contractor to construct a bubble/air curtain and/or a physical barrier
around the blast zone. In this way, the blast zone impact area (LD1) for a 2-ounce swimbladder
fish may be further reduced from 34.5 acres to about 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet).
10
>>-

NMI

CAPE FEAR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
FEAS1BIUTY STUDY
SALINITY CONTOURS, PPT
Figure 4. Surface isohalines for existing conditions (generally -38 feet.
mlw) and for 4 feet deeper conditions (generally -42 feet mlw), assuming
irregular bottom channel topography and low freshwater inflow.
Isohalines represent a particular three day average of salinities
calculated every half hour during the approximately 18 day low flow
period.
13
CAPE FEAR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SALINITY CONTOURS, PPT
13
12 Eagle Wilmington
Island 14
15 17
is N
13 18
?J6 14 19
Brunswick River
1 15
1
1 16
20
Cape Fear River
19 ?
2
-38 feet mlw 20 19
-42 feet mlw 19
22 one mile
V\23_?t20
21
24
Town Creek 25
?vrYl 26
24
Campbell Island
Figure 8. Surface isohalines for existing conditions (generally -38 feet
mlw) and-for 4 feet deeper conditions (generally -42 feet mlw), assuming
irregular bottom channel topography and low freshwater inflow.
Isohalines represent a particular three day average of salinities
calculated every half hour during the approximately 18 day low flow
period.
114
f
MAR-20-1992 ?14 20
MEMO LRODUM
Date:
To:
From :
Through:
FROM EHNR WILM REG OFFICE TO .89197331338 P.01
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT--L MANAGEMENT
September 7, 1990
Bill Mills
Planning Branch
James H. Gregson 7-
Wilmington Regiona Of

f ice
Dave Adkinn,
Wilmingt=n egional Office

it memo 76711 # of v ' c-)-

subject: Regional office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 9007-N
CD90-18
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Harbor - NE Cape Fear River Improvements
New Hanover County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
prepared a final supplement to the FEIS for Wilmington filed with
the USEPA on February 5, 1980. The supplement addresses only
changes to the authorized project and new information regarding
potential project impacts. Proposed harbor improvements consist
of the following elements:
A. Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the
west at the existing depth of 38 feet plus 1 foot of
allowable overdepth for a distance of 8000 feet.
B. Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth
of 32 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 400 feet between Castle Street and the NC HWY 133
bridge.
C. Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth
of the NE Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side
at a project depth of.38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth.
D. Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth
of 32 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 300 feet from the NC HWY 133 bridge to the Hilton
Railroad Bridge, located 2,600 feet upstream, and
deepening the navigation channel from a project depth
of 25 feet to 38 feet plus 1 foot overdepth at a width
of 200 feet from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point
750 feet upstream.
TOTAL P.01
MAR-20-1992 14:22 FROM EHNR WILM REG OFFICE
9007-N.SEP
Page Two
TO 89197331338 P.01
The major change in the project since the 1980 EIS is the
deferent and unscheduling of the acquisition of 2,800 acres of
environmental lands along the NE Cape Fear River for conservation
purposes. This component of the project was in the plan
authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
The proiect has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The project complies with the General 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 1273 for dredge spoil dewatering.
3_ The project as proposed will result in the loss of
approximately 0.85 acres of-fringe marsh and 20.2 acres of
estuarine shallow water primary nursery habitat. With no
mitigation proposed to offset the lost functional values of
these areas and with the enhancement/conservation proposal
now unscheduled, such a proposal is inconsistent with 15A
NCAC 2B .0201 (Antidegradation) and 15A NCAC 2B .0109
(Waters Affected by Dredge and Fill Activities). The
acquisition of environmental lands is a necessary component
of the project to mitigate both immediate and long term
project induced impacts.
4. Although the Final Supplement to the FEIS discusses the salt
water intrusion problem, it does not address potential
impacts from increased tidal, amplitude. It is recommended
that more studies need to be done in both these areas.
5. In areas where blasting will be used, blasting schedules
should not only be coordinated with DMF but water quality
monitoring should also be conducted and coordinated through
this Division to determine the extent and impact of sediment
suspension.
JHG:9007-N.SEP
cc: WiRo
CF
Jim Gregson
TOTAL P.01
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date: March 13, 1992
To: John Dorney
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregs
Wilmington gio a Office
Through: Dave Adkins
Wilmington Regional Office
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
DCM92-06 Draft Mitigation Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Northeast Cape Fear River project
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Due to the continued unscheduled status of
the proposed acquisition of 2,800 acres of environmental lands
along the Northeast Cape Fear River, and since this element of
the project will not be available to offset habitat loss, the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers has submitted a draft
mitigation plan for review. The purpose of the mitigation plan
is to gain consistency with the CAMA program to allow the Corps
to secure a Record of Decision so that implementation of the
project can begin.
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
Please find the attached copy of our earlier comments on
this project dated September 7, 1990.
It is my understanding that a meeting was held on December
17, 1991, to discuss the proposed project. Since this Division
was apparently not privileged to attend, it is unclear whether
concerns raised in our earlier comments were discussed. However,
those concerns still remain. Current estimates now indicate that
a total of 3.2 acres of wetland habitat and 9.6 acres of nursery
area habitat will be lost as a result of the project. Although
the draft mitigation plan states that wetland and nursery area
losses will be mitigated on a one-to-one ratio by creating new
wetland habitat, it does not indicate specific mitigation sites,
only that "as many as 170 acres of converted habitat may be
available within near vicinity of the project site", assuming
arrangements could be made to acquire them.

DCM92-06.MAR
Page Two
This office supports the use of in-kind and on-site
mitigation for this project. However, specific in-depth comments
can not be provided on a proposed mitigation plan until a more
specific plan is proposed.
JHG:DCM.Mar
cc: Wilmington Regional Office Files
Central Files

State of North Carolina
r
m STArf a
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey Jr., Secretary
02/19/92
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Preston Howard
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
Roger N. Schecter
Director
441
FEB 24 1992
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Subject: Project Number DCM92-06, Dated 01/16/92
Draft Mitigation Plan, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear Proj
Proposed by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Multi County
The above listed document is being circulated to you for review
and com_by03/11/92
Type of Review Requested:
_ General Comments / FYI
_ Determination of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
_ NEPA / NCEPA Comments
_ Preliminary Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal / State Consistency Comments
Please contact me before the response due date if additional
review time is needed. Thank you.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
t

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 L• rn
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 2,
IN REPLY REFER TO January 16, 1992
Planning Division
Mr. Stephen B. Benton
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687 C
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 IFS
v?
Dear Mr. Benton:
During your visit on December 17, 1991, with the Environmental
Resources Branch, you reviewed several developments regarding the
Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River project. For the purposes
of review, this navigation project was authorized by the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act and presently consists of the following
elements.
a. Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the west at
the existing depth of 38 feet, plus 1 foot allowable overdepth, for a
distance of about 8,000 feet.
b. Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth of
32 feet to 38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width
of 400 feet between the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the N.C. 133
Highway Bridge.
c. Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side at a project depth
of 38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth.
d. Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth of
32 feet to 38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width of
300 feet from the N.C. 133 Highway Bridge to the Hilton Railroad Bridge
located 2,600 feet upstream and deepening the navigation channel from a
project depth of 25 feet to 38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth,
at a width of 200 feet from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point
approximately 750 feet upstream.
An additional element involving the conservation of approximately
2,800 acres of habitat along the Northeast Cape Fear River corridor
remains unscheduled at this time. Since this conservation element will
not be available to offset habitat losses, a mitigation plan will be
needed to gain consistency with North Carolina's Coastal Management
Program. We have all agreed that such a plan is now in order.

-2-
It is in the best interest of the State of North Carolina and the
Wilmington District that we manage to resolve the present need to secure
a Record of Decision (ROD) by June 1992 so that implementation of the
project can begin according to the present schedule (December 1993).
The ROD cannot be signed without a determination of consistency from
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. As you already
know, the State has been understandably reluctant to grant consistency
of this project without the scheduling of the congressionally approved
conservation element.
The District has resubmitted the request to schedule this important
conservation element of the authorized project. Considering it is
unlikely that this additional request will be granted, the Corps and the
State are faced with the need to reach an agreement as to the nature and
amount of mitigation that will be needed to compensate for losses of
wetland and nursery area that will be realized by project construction.
Since completion of the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FSFEIS, 1990) for this project, more intensive
engineering analyses by the Corps and changes in nursery area desig-
nation have resulted in changes to the potential impacts to wetland and
nursery areas benthic habitat. In the FSFEIS, it was reported that the
combined impacts to nursery areas in elements A and C would result in
the replacement of 20 acres (18.4 acres for element A and 1.6 acres for
element C) of established benthic habitat (table 3., page 15, FSFEIS)
by as many acres of newly exposed substrate, and the conversion of
0.85 acres of mixed brackish marsh (page 24, FSFEIS) to newly exposed,
subtidal substrate.
Preliminary recalculations combined with the elimination of the
navigation channel from consideration as nursery area indicate that
the area of nursery area benthic habitat that will be replaced is now
9.6 acres (4.6 acres for element A and 5 acres for element C). The new
area of wetland habitat that will be replaced by newly exposed benthic
substrate has been recalculated at 3.2 acres (1.5 acres for element A
and 1.7 acres for element C). An area of upland 0.6 acres in size will
be replaced, but is previously filled wetland and should require no
mitigation.
As a step toward reaching an agreement with the State concerning
mitigation for the above acreages, and hence obtaining a consistency
determination, we are enclosing a copy of the Draft Conceptual Habitat
Loss Mitigation Plan for the Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River
Project. You will note that the plan we have submitted is conceptual in
nature.
-3-
As you will recall, we pointed out that the mitigation plan for this
project must, by the very nature of the newly discovered inclusions, be
tentative. The newly discovered impacts and project changes have not
yet been considered in the Environmental Impact Statement process.
Should the State grant a consistency based on the above mitigation plan,
we understand that it would have to be conditioned. Such a conditioned
consistency would allow us to sign a ROD. Once the ROD is signed, the
District will be able to address the above project impacts and the final
mitigation plan in an Environmental Assessment.
During the above meeting, Mr. Fritz Rohde of the Division of Marine
Fisheries expressed some concern over the potential impacts of the
blasting during the onset of the anadromous fish migration. He
suggested that the Corps might try to move the period of blasting back
2 months so as to avoid the early portion of the annual anadromous fish
migration. This change would place the beginning of blasting in the
month of August. This modification has been made in our planning
schedule. The cessation of blasting will occur during the early part
of, or before the beginning of, December. Additionally, Mr. Rohde was
concerned about other aspects of the intensity and the longevity of
blasting. We believe we have communicated sufficient information to
satisfy his concerns.
We will appreciate hearing from you when you have finished your
review of the conceptual mitigation plan. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, please contact Mr. David DuMond, Environmental
Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunder
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
-4-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. Fritz Rohde
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Mr. Robert Stroud
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
DRAFT
CONCEPTUAL HABITAT LOSS MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE
WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER PROJECT
1.00 Introduction
The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project was authorized by
Congress under the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. The project consists
of four scheduled parts and one unscheduled segment that include harbor
facility improvements extending north from the confluence of the Cape Fear
River and the Brunswick River south of Wilmington to a point several hundred
feet north of the Hilton Railroad Bridge north of Wilmington (Figure 1).
Briefly, the project may be summarized in the following manner:
a. Widening-the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the west at the
existing depth of 38 feet, plus 1 foot allowable overdepth, for a distance of
about 8,000 feet;
b. Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth of 32 feet to
38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width of 400 feet between
the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and theN.C. 133 Highway Bridge;
c. Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side at a project depth of 38
feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth;
d. Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth of 32 feet to
38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width of 300 feet from the
N.C. 133 Highway Bridge to the Hilton Railroad Bridge located 2,600 feet
upstream and deepening the navigation channel from a project depth of 25 feet
to 38 feet, plus 1 foot of.allowable overdepth, at a width of 200 feet from
the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a point approximately 750 feet upstream.
An additional element involving the conservation of approximately 2,800
acres of habitat along the Northeast Cape Fear River corridor remains
unscheduled at this time. Since this conservation element will not be
considered as a portion of the present project, a habitat loss mitigation plan
is needed.
2.00 Project Description and Location
2.01 Project Details
The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project is located in the Cape
Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers west of Wilmington (Figure 1).
Modifications of the Fourth East Jetty Channel (Figure 2) and the lower
Northeast Cape Fear River Turning Basin (Figure 3), elements a and c, above,
are presently the only portions of the project that will require mitigation
for habitat losses. Both of these elements have been subjected to more
intense planning and engineering analysis since completion of the Final
Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USACE,
Wilmington District, 1990). As a result of this closer examination, it has
been determined that areal extents of the proposed channel and turning basin
improvements are now greater and include landscape not previously incorporated
as impacted parts of the project. These areas of impact include nursery area
(here quantified only as two dimensional area of bottom or benthic habitat)
and tidal brackish marsh habitats adjacent to the Fourth East Jetty Channel
associated with Eagles Island dredged material disposal area tidal fringe. At
the Turning Basin, nursery area, tidal brackish marsh habitat, and upland (or
previously converted tidal wetland) habitat are associated with eastern side
of the Point Peter Peninsula just north of the confluence of the Cape Fear and
the Northeast Cape Fear Rivers (Table 1).
Table 1. Preliminary acreage determinations for habitats within the proposed
Fourth East Jetty Channel and lower Northeast Cape Fear River Turning Basin
Improvements.
Habitat Name
*Wetland
**Upland
Fourth East Jetty Chan.
1.5
***Nursery Area
Total
4.6
6.1
Turning Basin Total
1.7 3.2
o.6 o.6
5.0 9.6
7.3 13.4
*Wetland acreage is the area between the shoreline (0 ft msi = 0.91 ft above
mlw) and proposed slope intercept that has been delineated as wetland.
"Upland acreage is the area between the shoreline (0 ft msl = 0.91 ft above
mlw) and proposed slope intercept that has been delineated as upland.
***Nursery area acreage is the benthic area between the shoreline (0 ft msi
0.91 ft above mlw) and the top edge of the existing side slope.
2.02 Relationship to the Surrounding Area
The two project sites are located within the greater drainage confluence of
the lower Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers at Wilmington in
southeastern North Carolina (Figure 1). These rivers in this area form a part
of the lower Cape Fear River Estuary where tidal brackish water bearing ocean
derived salts and freshwater from the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces
intermix within an extensive system of tidal, oligohaline marshes (Wilson
1962).
Much of the greater project area has been modified in the past during the
advent of rice culture. Indications of this previous land use from thg 1700
and 1800's are still readily visible on the landscape in the form of a system
of interconnecting ditches that were once used to control the movement of
freshwater to the rice fields. Most of the old rice culture areas are now
2
reverted to oligohaline marsh or incipient swamp forest, both subject to
regular daily tidal inundation. Some of the rice culture areas along the
rivers near Wilmington have since been converted to alternative uses such as
dredged material disposal areas and commercial enterprises..
Additional non-tidal habitats in the immediate project area include dikes and
attendant dredged material disposal areas, converted wetlands, and uplands.
Most of Eagles Island, south of the Battleship U.S.S. North Carolina, is
designated dredged material disposal area and is used for material generated
by the Wilmington Harbor Project. Point Peter, as well as some of the fringes
of Eagles Island, has been used repeatedly as commercial/industrial business
sites and contain large amounts of accumulated and abandoned materials such as
construction rubble, soil fill, wood debris, and salvage metal. These areas
as well as several scattered mounds of old, unconfined dredged material along
the margins of the rivers constitute some of the converted wetland habitats
that are now considered uplands. Other pre-existing upland habitats parallel
the edges of the river estuary. Most have been commercially developed for
many years.
2.03 Regional Wetland-and Estuarine Resources
The extensive assemblage of wetlands in the upper Cape Fear River Estuary has
not been well documented in the scientific literature. The presence of these
wetlands is only noted in several publications (Wilson 1962, Rozas and Hackney
1984, Hackney and Yelverton 1990).
Generally, two wetland growth forms and their intergrades are supported in
these wetland systems. Graminoid-herb communities, occurring in open marsh,
and tree shrub communities found in swamps, dominate and intergrade with each
other throughout the area.
Dominant or most abundant wetland graminoid plant species of the oligohaline
(or mesohaline) marshes in the upper estuary are narrow-leaf cattail (Typha
angustifolia), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), wild rice (Zizania
aquatica), common reed (Phragmites australis), giant cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides) and umbrella sedge (C erus strigosus). Wide-leaf cattail
(Typha latifolia) may be mixed in more nearly freshwater situations.
Herbaceous species are more abundant, lower in the grass-like cover, and often
include arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata),
water hemlock (Cicuta maculata), ludwigia (Ludwigia spp.), water hemp
(Amaranthus cannabinus), alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)and
lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis chinensis). Enclosed, diked dredged material areas
subject to standing water are frequently dominated by dense stands of common
reed or, in older areas, narrow-leaf cattail.
Tree species most commonly making up tidal swamp forest and shrub borders are
tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), ash (Fraxinus spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), red bay
(Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus). Shrub species are most characteristically represented by wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), alder
(Alnus serrulata), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), swamp rose (Rosa
palustris) and fetter-bush (L onia lucida).
3
3.00 Bio-physical Characteristics of the Project Site
As indicated above, the impact areas are in two locations. One segment
parallels the Fourth East Jetty Channel along the southern end of Eagles
Island in the Cape Fear River and the other is along the northern portion of
Point Peter along the Turning Basin south of the Northeast Cape Fear River
Bridge. Each of these areas is composed of a wetlands and an aquatic section
(nursery area or benthic habitat) as discussed below.
3.01 Estuarine Wetlands
Fourth East Jetty Channel
Much of the southern half of Eagles Island traditionally has been used for the
deposition of dredged material generated by the maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor. Small segments along the fringes of the island adjacent to the
channel have not been diked, but have certainly been impacted in the past by
some activities of the dredging or disposal process. Most of the brackish
marsh presently between the dike and the water is dominated by giant
cordgrass. Scattered patches of narrow-leaf cattail, umbrella sedge, and
soft-stem bulrush can be found in some of the wetter areas. Small amounts of
lilaeopsis grow on the surface of the mud along the eroded edge of the marsh
at the river. Red maple, black willow (Salix niEra), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and wax myrtle grow along the edge of the marsh at the
base of the dike.
Wetland soil and hydrologic conditions are prevalent throughout this portion
of the project area considering the soils are subject to regular tidal
inundation up to and including the base of the dike around the dredged
material disposal area.
Terrestrial and aquatic animal resources applicable for this area would be
expected to be similar to those for the turning basin.
Turning Basin
Soils
It was obvious from examination of the soils in the field that all original
habitats along Point Peter, though now heavily disturbed, had once been
wetlands associated with the larger lower Cape Fear Estuarine system.
Original soils of these wetlands are organic silts of the Dorvan Series, a
Typic Medisaprist (New Hanover County Soil Survey). Deposition of soil, sand,
and other materials is responsible for filling of most of the pre-existing
wetlands along the eastern shore of the point, and constitute an urban
modification of the Dorvan series. Salvage materials including construction
rubble, scrap metal, steel drums, portions of barges and tugboats, trailers,
junk cars, and various types of salvage wood materials were present in great
abundance. Most of the final decisions that were used to define the wetland-
upland boundary line were based on the soils characteristics and the extent of
fill materials included in and covering the pre-existing surfaces. -

Soils seen in wetlands were both undisturbed and disturbed. Undisturbed soils
are generally dark gray (10 yr 3-5/1; Munsell notation) silts and silt loams.
Disturbed soils containing fill materials consisting of sand can be detected
by inclusions of brighter colors and coarser textures in the upper soil
profile. Some of the sandy fill materials have been in place for a
sufficiently long period of time to gain a gray color of their own or because
of close contact with the dark silts. Soils containing fill materials
consisting of gravel and rubble could not easily be examined.
Uplands consisted of soils that had been filled with sand, gravel, shell, or
rubble. Fill materials were placed over dark gray silts and silt loams that
constituted the pre-existing surface soils of the area. Where the surface
fill materials could be penetrated, the older soils were readily visible.
Vegetation
Two basic types of wetlands were found in the area delineated (Figure 3).
Disturbed wetland habitat could be found where a combination of rainwater
accumulation and irregular tidal action were responsible for wetland
hydrology. Somewhat less disturbed wetland remained where regular tidal
action alone was responsible for the presence of wetland hydrology. Less
disturbed wetland was found along the southern end of the area delineated.
More disturbed wetlands were found in the center and at the northern end of
the area delineated. Most of the southern area is interconnected at least
intermittently with the ditches that parallel the old alignment of U.S. Route
421.
Plant species associated with the regularly flooded portion of the area were
those predominantly characteristic of the transition zone between forested and
grass-dominated wetlands. Giant cordgrass, common reed, narrow-leaf cattail,
and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) were dominant with scattered bald cypress,
silverling, and wax myrtle. Alligator weed, water hemp, and lilaeopsis were
common along the eroded shores. Much of the shore line along the river has
been filled with rubble in an attempt to retard the progress of erosion. Such
heavily filled areas supported little or no vegetation.
Wetlands in more heavily disturbed areas support a less distinctive assortment
of plant species. The predominant grasses seen were panic grass, broomsedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), bamboo (Arundinaria gigantea), fall panic grass
(Panicum dichotomiflorum), common reed and Dallas grass (Paspalum urvillei).
Common herbaceous species other than grasses include verbena (Verbena scabra),
dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), sesban (Sesbania exaltata), umbrella
sedge, cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and hog peanut (Apios americana). A
mixture of woody species, some of which are characteristic of disturbed areas
and some of which are not, are to be found scattered or common throughout the
extent of the area. Two species which are introductions to the area and found
in both upland and wetland habitats are privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
cottonwood (Po ulus deltoides). Black willow, red maple and wax myrtle are
also common. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle, and
grape (Vitis sp.) are the most abundant woody vines.
Upland habitats support many of the same plant species that are found in the
wetlands. The disturbance factors contributed by the various kinds of fill
are mainly responsible for these similarities. The dominant tree is
5
cottonwood. Wax myrtle, silverling, privet and amorpha (Amorpha fruticosa)
are common shrubs. Most of the herbaceous species found in the wetlands are
also abundant in the upland soils.
Hydrology
Indications of wetland hydrology seen at the site were surface standing water,
water at or above the appropriate level in the soil, presence of tidal drift
lines, other indications of regularly occurring tidal flooding, and
indications of past surface water such as silt stains and deposited debris.
Water standing at the surface may be derived from tidal flooding from the
river or from accumulation of storm water in areas that tend to be poorly
drained. Active ditches and drainage ways were obvious at the site, but were
rarely part of the delineated wetlands under consideration.
Faunal Constituents
Few animal species were noted at the project site, but no attempt was made to
perform a detailed survey of these species. Considering the abundance of
seed-producing grasses, the habitat is most suitable for song birds and small
mammals. Indications of rabbits, most likely marsh rabbits (common names
follow those used in Burt and Grossenheider 1976), were noted frequently.
Hunting for this species in the general area is a frequent recreational
activity. Reptiles and amphibians are probably largely absent from the area.
Nesting and foraging habitat for red-winged blackbird (common names for birds
follow those used in Potter, et al. 1980), grackles, several sparrows,
rufous-sided towhee, starling, cardinal, mockingbird, Carolina wren, and brown
thrasher is abundantly present. Wintering habitat for a variety of sparrows
and the yellow-rumped warbler is also present. Winter resident raptors,
including kestrel and harrier, can be found associated with open habitats.
Mammal fauna is most likely limited to small rodents including several species
of rats and mice. House mouse, hispid cotton rat, cotton mouse, and rice rat
should find favorable habitat. Raccoon are probably the largest predator that
pass through the area on any regular basis.
3.02 Estuarine Waters
Much of the Cape Fear River Estuary within the project area has been
designated as primary nursery area by the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. Primary nursery areas are defined as those areas in the estuary
system that provide habitat for post-larval development of fin fishes.
Primary nursery area status is applied to all those aquatic habitats in the
estuarine system outside of the main navigation channel in the river.
The value of the nursery area is to the larval young of such species as
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia t ranus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogon
undualtus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus),
penaeid shrimp, mullet (Mugil spp.), and weakfish (Cynoscion re alis)
(Birkhead, et al. 1979). In addition, there are anadromous species that use
the aquatic habitats through the project area as a travel corridor between the
ocean and freshwater habitats used for spawning. Species of shad (Alosa
spp.), striped
6
bass (Morone saxatilis), and sturgeon (Acipenser spp.) are important (Nichols
and Louder 1970). American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is an important
catadromous species found throughout the estuary and its tributary streams.
The most recent study of benthic organisms applicable to the project area was
performed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1980). Among the most abundant
species of sandy substrates were the nematodes, the spionid polychaete
(Scolecolepides viridis), and the isopod (Chiridotera almyra). Finer
subdstrates were dominated by an oliogochaete (Peloscoles benedeni) and an
amphipod (Gammarus sp.).
3.03 Threatened and Endangered Species
No wetland dependent, threatened or endangered, plant or animal species are
known to regularly use the wetlands within the immediate project areas.
Intertidal wetlands and deep water areas constituting a portion of designated
nursery area in the estuary may serve as forage and cover habitat for several
species of juvenile fishes including shortnose sturgeon, but data are not
complete. Adult shortnose sturgeon are known to use the waters of the Cape
Fear Estuary as a thoroughfare (Ross, et al. 1988).
3.04 Ecological Functions and Social Values of Wetlands
No formal functional analyses or habitat evaluation procedures or techniques
have been performed at the above sites, but qualitative and somewhat less
regimented evaluations are provided based on evidence gained during the field
surveys. While wetlands can be subjectively evaluated, there is an
insufficient amount of data available on nursery area or aquatic habitats to
allow adequate habitat analysis.
It is generally assumed that the benthic portions of the nursery area
environments within the project area are of poor quality (North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, 1985, Assessment of Surface Water
Quality in North Carolina).
Wetland habitats next to the harbor have also been degraded as a result of
dredged material disposal and a long history of port facility support
enterprises and commercial/industrial establishments constructed along the
edge of the wetlands bordering the waters of the port.
As indicated above, much of the wetland along the eastern edge of Point Peter
has been filled and/or serves as a storage area for a variety of salvage
materials. Natural unfilled wetlands remain only in areas that have direct
daily connection with the riverine tidal regimes. Other wetlands containing
fill materials may have various minor tidal connections combine with storm
water accumulation from adjacent areas.
Wetlands along the southern end of Eagles Island are not as heavily disturbed
as those at Point Peter. From the base of the dike to the edge of the tidal
water, viable brackish marsh has been only lightly disturbed during the
process of dredged material disposal. Currently, a large plastic pipe,.Passes
through the marsh and into the diked area. Wood and other debris floated in
by tidal action is common through the marsh.
7
Several functions and values of wetland habitats have been recognized as
important and have been incorporated into the wetland evaluation technique
prepared by Waterways Experiment Station (Adamus, et al. 1987). These will
be listed here and reviewed briefly with respect to the two wetland sites in
the project area. Each function or value can be assigned a relative value
based on the opinion of the field observer. Informal field-based assessments
of each function or value are given below and are followed by a tabular
summary of the evaluations (Table 2).
>Ground water recharge--there is no opportunity for ground water to
recharge so close to a tidal system at either site.
>Ground water discharge--There is no opportunity for ground water to
discharge within a tidal system at either site.
>Floodflow alteration--The opportunity for floodflow alteration to occur
regularly at either site is low and likely only during the onset of a falling
tide.
>Sediment stabilization--The movement of sediment into and out of the
Point Peter site is not as likely an event as it is at the Eagles Island site
since regular tidal flux does not cover as much area.
>Sediment/toxicant retention--Toxicants retained by sediments at the
Eagles Island site would be those leached from dredged materials or adsorbed
from tidal river waters. At Point Peter, wetland soils have little
opportunity to function in this capacity.
)Nutrient removal/transformation--Removal of nutrients by tidal waters at
Eagles Island are assumed to be of moderate importance, whereas the value of
this function at Point Peter is diminished by lack of regular tidal flooding.
>Production export--There is little opportunity for regular export of
biomass from the Point Peter site due to lack of regular tidal flux. Export
from the Eagles Island site is assumed to be of moderate value.
>Wildlife diversity/abundance--Low habitat diversity at each site is
largely responsible for low wildlife diversity.
>Aquatic diversity/abundance--Low aquatic diversity can be attributed to
the disturbed character of the habitat.
>Recreation--No opportunity exists for recreational activities except for
minor hunting pressure at the Eagles Island site.
>Uniqueness/heritage--Cultural resource investigations have not been
completed for the Point Peter site, but it is assumed that the opportunity to
find significant materials or sites is low. No unique organisms are known to
be associated with either site.
8
Table 2. Summary evaluation of functions and values of portions of Eagles
Island and Point Peter wetlands proposed for conversion during new
construction in the Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project.
Function/Value Wetland Site Evaluation
Point Peter Eagles Island
Ground Water Recharge none none
Ground Water Discharge none none
Floodflow Alteration low low
Sediment Stabilization low moderate
Sediment/Toxicant Retention low low
Nutrient Removal/Transformation low moderate
Production Export low moderate
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance low low
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance low low
Recreation none low
Uniqueness/Heritage none none
The functional aspects of aquatic nursery habitat are the provision of cover
and food to young or larval fishery resources. These functional entities of
the estuary are provided through adequate benthic substrate, ample nektonic
medium, and a varied littoral environment where the deeper water habitats
interface with local wetlands. The project as planned would remove or modify
areas of benthic substrate that have been documented as being of low quality,
and wetland fringe that is here suggested to be of medium-to-low functional
value. Both of these habitat complexes are components of an already degraded
natural system.
4.00 Generalized Mitigation Goals, Methods, and Success Criteria
The aim of the mitigation effort with respect to the Wilmington Harbor-
Northeast Cape Fear River Project is to compensate in adequate and fare
measure for the loss of existing wetland and benthic (nursery area) resources
that will be converted to new benthic habitat through implementation of the
proposed new construction. Actual losses of wetlands will pertain only to the
3.2 acres of habitat located at Eagles Island and Point Peter. Benthic
substrate or nursery area will only be converted from an older, sparsely
utilized surface to new, unutilized surface. With both the wetland
replacement and the removal of the older benthic surfaces, the newly dredged
subaqueous surfaces will be available for subsequent pioneer organism
recruitment.
A further goal of the mitigation will be to replace, to the extent possible,
the functional aspects of the converted habitats. However, functional aspects
of these habitat complexes are not easily quantifiable. Units of habitat
acreage are relatively easy to quantify. If it can be assumed that on an
9

acre-for-acre basis one unit of previous marsh habitat will be at least equal
to a similar unit of new habitat, replacement and probably enhancement of the
former functional aspects of the old marsh can be accomplished by creation or
re-creation of marsh elsewhere in the river system.
The actual surface area of benthic habitat within the nursery area will be
increased by conversion of marsh and upland habitat (Table 1). All dredged
surfaces will be biotically unoccupied surfaces until benthic organisms can
once again become established. Replacement of benthic habitat by a direct,
in-kind mitigative effort is not yet scientifically or practically feasible.
Mitigation, which would create additional intertidal marsh as a substitute for
replaced benthic habitat, would be quite feasible.
The remainder of this conceptual mitigation plan follows the assumption that
creation of tidal marsh will be substituted for the replacement of existing
benthic habitat at an one-to-one ratio and that 9.6 acres of marsh will be
created to compensate for these losses. In addition, it will be assumed that
mitigation for losses of tidal marsh also will be accomplished at an one-to-
one ratio,and that 3.2 acres of tidal marsh will be created. A total of 13.4
acres of tidal marsh will be created to compensate for benthic habitat and
tidal marsh losses to be realized during new construction in the Wilmington
Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project.
Values and functional attributes of the marsh and benthic habitat presently
within the project area are generally understood as low in quality. Based on
a general assessment of the habitat available within the overall system, the
mitigation area will probably be of greater value than that of the original
habitats.
Several sites within the general vicinity of the project and located within
the greater Cape Fear River estuary could be used as viable sites for habitat
mitigation. Several old disposal areas have been used at different times
during the history of the harbor. Some have been used only once or twice,
have remained undiked and have been abandoned. Other areas, though they have
not formally been used for disposal of dredged material, have been filled for
the construction of now largely abandoned commercial and industrial sites.
Such areas are common along the major branches of the estuary. Some of these
areas have been filled well above the height of the tides, while some have
been filled below or just scarcely above the mean high tide range.
As many as 170 acres of converted habitat may be available within the near
vicinity of the project site (assuming fee-simple easement or lease
arrangements can be made). Additional acreage with fill below mean high water
could be used for wetland enhancement purposes. All of these areas are within
easy access of the tidal rivers and creeks within the system, and generally
occur in tidal wetlands that have been ditched in the past for rice culture.
The areas to be created would be very similar to adjacent tidal wetland
habitats and would possess most of the same sets of values and ecological
functions. Of the functions mentioned above (Table 2), the resulting created
wetlands will make the greatest contribution toward sediment stabilization,
production export, and wildlife diversity. Created marshlands within the
larger estuarine system will have a more specific value as nursery habitat for
foraging and cover by juvenile fishes as well as other aquatic forms.
10

The generalized method of wetland construction would involve the removal of
the fill materials to the level of the layers representing the original
wetland surface. Seeding or planting of the sites could then proceed. Based
on past experience in eastern North Carolina, greenhouse-grown seedlings have
a better survival rate than field-dug stock (Broome, et al. 1982)•
Some of the possible mitigation sites are of sufficient size to allow for
creation of more direct contact with tidal waters by construction of small
tidal streams that would carry water into the habitat more efficiently. Such
channels would also allow for greater habitat diversity and greater
interspersion of micro-habitat types, thus increasing the overall value of the
additions to the system. All such activities would, of course, necessitate
preliminary biological and cultural resource surveys.
The ultimate degree of success of the mitigation would be assessed by regular
(annual to begin with and then every two to three years) sampling that would
serve to compare the newly created wetland to the adjacent wetland habitats.
In this way, adjacent wetland habitats would serve as models. Similarity
indices could be used as numerical measures of the degree of success of the
mitigation. Regular checks would continue until it appeared that the
mitigation areas had reached the desired measure of similarity or stability as
compared to the natural wetlands.

5.00 Literature Cited
Adamus, P. R.; Clairain, E. J., Jr.; Smith, R. D.; Young, R. E. 1987.
"Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology,"
Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87-, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Birkhead, W. A.; Copeland, B. J.; Hodson, R. G. 1979. Ecological Monitoring
in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to the Carolina
Power and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.
Broome, S. W.; Seneca, E. D.; Woodhouse, W. W., Jr. 1982. Establishing
Brackish Marshes on Graded Upland Sites in North Carolina. Wetlands 2:
152-178.
Burt, W. H.; Grossenheider, R. P. 1976. A field guide to the mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.
Hackney, C. T.; Yelverton,-G. F. 1990. Effects of Human Activities and Sea
Level Rise on Wetland Ecosystems in the Cape Fear River Estuary, North
Carolina, USA. In: Whigham, D. F., et al (eds.). Wetland Ecology and
Management: Case Studies: 55-61. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Netherlands.
Nichols, P.; Louder, E. 1970. Upstream Passage of Anadromous Fish Through
Navigation Locks and Use of Stream for Spawning Habitat, Cape Fear River,
North Carolina, 1962-1966. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ. 252.
Potter, E. F.; Parnell, J. F.; Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the
Carolinas. UNC Press, Chapel Hill.
Ross, S. W.; Rohde, F. C.; Linquist, D. G. 1988. Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A Re-evaluation of the Marine and
Estuarine Fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological
Survey. North Carolina State Musuem of Natural Sciences.
Rozas, L. P.; Hackney, C. T. 1984. Use of Oligohaline Marshes by Fishes and
Macrofaunal Crustaceans in North Carolina. Estuaries 7: 213-224.
USACE, Wilmington District. 1990. Final supplement to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River,
North Carolina.
Wilson, K. A. 1962. North Carolina Wetlands: Their Distribution and
Management. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
12

s F-

O
n. Z
W 0
N

J W
L1..
a+
:3 1
i ?- ocp
Zf?W
i< ? d6. e ?1,?•J
Z ?
N
Q
m
c ? t' 0
Z_ '
Z
F- ?r
N J I l
W W
IW -j z
W Q
3: f
r• E
LLJI
Q ? W •
Ul 111 \ ? ?."?+.?
?i O
LL-
F- \ r
,.
i W
a
0
J `
_J \`I
LL.
W
OL
m
0
Q
Z
= 3 W
u
M ?
V ?
Z .
W

JO
Z -W
O wo
FO
Z
F-
U)
- O
a
w
0
.J
J
LL
a
1000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
SCALE IN FEET

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON HARBOR
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CAPE FEAR ESTUARY VICINITY AND
LOCATIONS OF FILL DEPOSITS
FIGURE 1
N
W
}
i \ O N LL
OD a °L Q ~ Z
H
I V ? > ?' UJ W
I "'t
? J C
Nye Q OCR ?
N II °W? co ce V) Lu cc -1 >
a „ W O
1- = W
II 5E z Zap 620-
Z- Z ? V Z
\\ W WO r
Q ayZ Z4Z LL-J
o w Q O Z F Z W Z
N 3oc- v>Z
\\ V v F
\\ 3 Z CLQ
S 3 Ou
a
\? °G
?? I I
?\ 1 ?
Q ?1 C I
J
Z I O
11 W I C7
II 3 I I Z L----J
I I J I I L
tJ4
! I
0 f
W /? I I
/OV I
LJ4 V)
r i-
Q ( 0
ui O o
oON°°
Lli
! WU
?LU
QLU
XZ
?a
CL o
I < to
d z - STATE
EcEIVEL.
f o MAR 5 199
(l' "k aAM
3- Wilmington Regional Office
DEM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor j 'onathan B. Howes, Secretary
d - ' ./•
7
03/03/93
40
rs?y,
MEMORANDUM Q0As
To: Mr. Jim Gregson d A4
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
Subject: Project Number DCM93-06, Dated 02/26/93
EA Project Modifications/Mitigation Plan Northeast Cape Fear River
Proposed by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New Hanover County
The above listed document is being circulated to you for review
and comment by 03/26/93.
Type of Review Requested:
?.L General Comments / FYI
Determination of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
_ NEPA / NCEPA Comments
Preliminary Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal / State Consistency Comments
Please contact me before the response due date if additional
review time is needed. Thank you.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
K) 1)().\ 27087, Raleigh, ?'lorth Carolina 27011-70Pale?phon - ? ?-11111 1
An I-qual Opportunity AI(irmative A.tion Emplovcr
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 22, 1993
To: John Dorney 7I
Planning Branch
L N 31993
From: James H. Gregson--
WETL,NDS GROUP
Wilmington Ygaional ' al O:'"fice n
Through: Dave Adkins WATER UALITYSECTION
Wilmington Office
Subject: Regional Office Reviek,,7 and Recommendations
Application for Permi for Excavation and/or Fill
EA and FONSI
Project Modification and Mitigation Plan
Wilmington Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The US Army Corps of Engineers is proposing
minor refinements to the authorized project as follows:
1. It was determined that the western edge of the Fourth
East Jetty Channel and Turning Basin extend slightly
further west and impact more benthic habitat than
previously expected.
2. Improvements to the Fourth East Jetty Channel will
impact more tidal marsh than previously expected.
3. Some areas in the project area previously designated as
Primary Nursery Areas are no longer so designated.
Therefor the acreage of Primary Nursery Areas to be
impacted by the project have been adjusted.
Previous Primary Nursery Area impacts totaled 24.6 acres.
Current Nursery area impacts total 7.2 acres. Previous marsh
impacts totalled 0.85 acres. Current marsh impacts total 1.5
acres.
The acquisition of
the Northeast Cape Fear
mitigation plan has been
plan. This supplement
compensate for the loss
habitats.
2800 acres of conservation lands along
River remains unscheduled. Therefor a
developed as part of the overall project
covers the proposed mitigation plan to
of Primary Nursery Area and salt marsh
Northeast Cape Fear River
Page Two
This project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments are provided.
This Office still supports the use of in-kind and on-site
mitigation for the Northeast Cape Fear River / Wilmington Harbor
improvements. However, it is my understanding, per the attached
letter from DMF, that the mitigation proposal in this Supplement
Document is not the one agreed upon in earlier meetings between
review agencies. Although our Division should certainly be part
of any mitigation review process, it is recommended that DMF
should be the key agency in determining what is and what is not
acceptable Primary Nursery Area Mitigation since they are by far
more knowledgeable in this area.
It is my understanding that a meeting is being scheduled for
the near future with the COE to discuss a feasible plan.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office Files
Central Files
S '.c.
1 1
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
Environmental Assessment
and
Finding of No Significant Impact
(EA/FONSI)
PROJECT MODIFICATION
AND
MITIGATION PLAN
WILMINGTON HARBOR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, N.C.
FEBRUARY 1993

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND MITIGATION PLAN
WILMINGTON HARBOR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 1993

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND MITIGATION PLAN
WILMINGTON HARBOR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Responsible lead agency is the U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
ABSTRACT: The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River project has been
the subject of two Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes to date;
The Final Environmental Statement, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear
River, Wilmington, North Carolina was released in 1979 (USACE 1979) and The
Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSFEIS) was
issued in 1990 (USACE 1990). One element of the authorized project was the
acquisition of 2800 acres of conservation lands along the northeast Cape
Fear River upstream of the project limits. As reviewed and explained in the
FSFEIS, the acquisition of these lands is unscheduled. The absence of this
project element lead the State of North Carolina to determine that the
project was inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program as no
mitigation was offered as part of the project plan. Since the time of this
determination, a mitigation plan has been developed and additional design
work has occurred. This environmental assessment covers minor refinements
in the authorized project and the mitigation plan proposed to compensate for
direct wetland and primary nursery area losses which will be realized as a
result of project construction.
If you would like further
information on this statement,
please contact:
Mr. William F. Adams
U. S. Army Engineer District,
Wilmington
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Phone # [phone]
i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND MITIGATION PLAN
Wilmington Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Paragraph No. Title Page No,
Abstract i
Introduction 1
1.0 Project Authorization 1
2.0 Proposed Action 1
2.1 Refinement of Project Design 2
3.0 Affects of the Project on Significant 3
Resources
3.1 Regional Wetland and Estuarine Resources 3
3.2 Terrestrial Resources 7
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 8
3.4 Water Quality 9
3.5 Cultural Resources 9
3.6 Socio-Economic Resources 9
3.7 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes 9
3.8 Consistency Determination 9
4.0 Mitigation Plan 10
5.0 Coordination 16
6.0 List of Recipients 17
7.0 Finding of No Significant Impact 18
8.0 Literature Cited 19
ii

T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S (cont. )
List of Tables
Table No. Title Page No.
1 Summary of habitat impacts 2
2 Previously and currently projected 3
impacts to marsh and primary nursery area
3 Physical and biological characteristics 10
of potential mitigation sites
4 Unweighted favorability rankings of 12
alternative mitigation sites
5 Weighted favorability rankings of 13
alternative mitigation sites
List of Figures
Follows
Figure No. Title Page No.
1 Currently proposed harbor improvements 1
2 Potential mitgation sites 10
3 Schematic of proposed mitigation site 16
4 Cross sections of proposed mitigation 16
site
5 Cross sections of proposed entrance 16
channels
iii
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND MITIGATION PLAN
WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Introduction
The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River project has been the
subject of two Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes to date; The
Final Environmental Statement, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, North Carolina was released in 1979 (USACE 1979) and The Final
Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSFEIS) was issued
in 1990 (USACE 1990). One element of the authorized project was the
acquisition of 2800 acres of conservation lands along the northeast Cape
Fear River upstream of the project limits. As reviewed and explained in the
FSFEIS, the acquisition of these lands is unscheduled. The absence of this
project element lead the State of North Carolina to determine that the
project was inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program as no
mitigation was offered as part of the project plan. Since the time of this
determination, a mitigation plan has been developed and additional design
work has occurred. This environmental assessment covers minor refinements
in the authorized project and the mitigation plan proposed to compensate for
direct wetland and primary nursery area losses which will be realized as a
result of project construction.
1.0 Project Authorization
The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project was authorized by
Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
2.0 Proposed Action
The proposed project consists of four scheduled parts and one unscheduled
segment. The scheduled portions of the project include harbor facility
improvements extending north from the confluence of the Cape Fear River and
the Brunswick River south of Wilmington to a point several hundred feet
north of the Hilton Railroad Bridge north of Wilmington (Figure 1).
Briefly, the authorized project may be summarized in the following manner
(project elements are keyed to Figure 1):
a. Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the west at the
existing depth of 38 feet, plus 1 foot allowable overdepth, for a
distance of about 8000 feet;
b. Deepening the navigation channel from the project depth of 32 feet tc
38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width of 400 feet
between the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the NC. 133 Highway Bridge;
c. Deepening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet at a project depth of 38 feet,
plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth at a width of 750 feet;
e o1 ?

NI
U.
w
?
.. :.n ..8 l

J oa ae
o!.
J

\`.I
1 j Z V = o?

I
soh ?' t o ? e ?
?
? ?.

.
•

I \

?, Y( .I I ; t 7? I
t

s
.
1
\ ?Tli

V f r

r
r

In addition to the changes resulting from refinements in the project
design, further changes have come about as a result of modifications to the
areas that are designated primary nursery areas in the project area by the NC
Division of Marine Fisheries. In the acreage totals of impacted nursery area
habitat presented in the FSFEIS (USACE 1990), the existing regularly
maintained channels were counted as primary nursery area as they were so
designated at the time. However, since the FSFEIS, the navigation channel and
its side-slopes have been removed from designated areas (NCAC 15A 3R .0003 19
a). Therefore, the acreages of nursery area to be impacted by the project
have been adjusted accordingly. Previous and currently projected impacts to
marsh and nursery area habitats are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Previously and currently projected impacts to marsh and primary
nursery area.
Construction Element Previous Estimate Current Estimate
Element # Reach Name Nursery Marsh Nurserv Marsh
A Fourth E. Jetty 18.4 0.85 4.6 1.5
B M. Bridge-133 Bridge 3.6 ---- * ----
C Turning Basin 1.6 ---- 2.6 ----
D 133 Bridle-above 1.0 ---- * ----
TOTAL ACRES 24.6 0.85 7.2 1.5
* Recent hydrographic surveys indicate that the proposed channel prism would
be contained within the boundaries of the existing channel side-slopes in
these areas.
3.0 Affects of the project on significant resources.
3.1 Regional Wetland and Estuarine Resources.
Background. The project area is located within a region dominated by the
drainage confluence of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers at
Wilmington in southeastern North Carolina. These rivers form a part of the
lower Cape Fear River Estuary where tidal brackish water bearing ocean
derived salts and freshwater from the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces
intermix within an extensive system of tidal, oli o alin marshes and swamp
forests (Wilson 1962).
Much of the project area has been modified in the past during the advent
of rice culture. Indications of this previous land use from the 1700 and
1800's are still readily visible on the landscape in the form of a system of
interconnecting ditches and dikes that were once used to control the
movement of freshwater to the rice fields. Most of the old rice fields have
largely reverted to oligohaline marsh or incipient swamp forest, both
subject to regular daily tidal flooding. Some of the past rice culture
areas along the rivers near Wilmington have been converted to alternative
uses such as dredged material disposal areas and commercial enterprises.
3
d. Deepening of the navigation channel from a project depth of 32 feet to
38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable overdepth, at a width of 300 Net
from the N. C. 133 Highway Bridge to the Hilton Railroad Bridge
located 2600 feet upstream and deepening the navigation channel from a
project depth of 25 feet to 38 feet, plus 1 foot of allowable
overdepth, at a width of 200 feet from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to a
point approximately 750 feet upstream.
An additional element involving the conservation of approximately 2800
acres of wetland habitat and river bluffs along the lower Northeast Cape
Fear River corridor north of Wilmington is unscheduled at this time. If
this element remains unscheduled for a period of 10 years following
authorization of the project, or if it fails to receive funding for that
period of time, an automatic deauthorization process begins. Since the 2800
acre conservation element cannot be considered as a portion of the present
project, a habitat loss mitigation plan is required in accordance with the
consistency guidelines of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
2.1 Refinement of Project Design
The Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River Project is located in the
Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Modifications of the Fourth East
Jetty Channel and the lower Northeast Cape Fear River Turning Basin,
elements a and c above, are presently the only portions of the project that
will have impacts requiring mitigation for habitat losses. Both of these
elements have been subjected to detailed engineering analysis and survey
since completion of the FSEIS (USACE 1990).
The western intercept, or top of the side slope of the channel, extending
upward and westward from the proposed channel bottom is to be constructed at
a 3:1 side-slope along the Fourth East Jetty Channel and as steep as 0.5:1
along the western edge of the Turning Basin. Steeper side-slopes are
possible in the area of the Turning Basin because of subsurface rock. In
spite of the steepening of the channel side-slopes in this area, it was
determined that the western edges of the channel and turning basin extend
slightly further west and impact more benthic habitat than previously
considered as parts of the project. In addition, improvements to the Fourth
East Jetty Channel will impact benthic and emergent tidal brackish marsh
habitats adjacent to the Eagles Island Disposal Area. A summary of habitat
impacts (and, therefore, mitigation needs) arising from the project is shown
on Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of habitat impact.
Habitat Name Fourth East Jetty Chan. Turning Basin Total
*Wetland 1.5 --- 1.5
**Nursery Area 4.6 2.6 7.2
Total 6.1 2.6 8.7
* Wetland acreage is the area between the mlw shoreline and proposed slope
intercept that has been delineated as wetland.
** Nursery area acreage is the benthic area between the shoreline and the top
edge of the existing side slope.
2
The extensive assemblage of wetlands in the upper Cape Fear River estuary
has not been well documented in the scientific literature. The presence of
these wetlands is only noted in several publications (Wilson 1962, Rozas and
Hackney 1984, Hackney and Yelverton 1990), but their extent, composition and
general ecology as important wetland community types have not been profiled.
Generally, two wetland growth forms and their intergrades are supported in
these wetland systems. Graminoid-herb communities, occurring in open marsh,
and tree-shrub communities found in swamps, dominate and intergrade with
each other throughout the area.
Dominant or most abundant wetland graminoid plant species of the
oligohaline (or mesohaline) marshes in the upper estuary are narrow-leaf
cattail (Typha angustifolia), soft-stem bulrush (Scir us validus), wild rice
(Zizania aquatica), common reed (Phragmites australis), giant cordgrass
(Spartina cynosuroides) and umbrella sedge (Cyperus strigosus). Wide-leaf
cattail (Typha latifolia) may be mixed in more nearly freshwater situations.
Herbaceous species are more abundant lower in the grass-like cover and often
include arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata),
water hemlock (Cicuta maculata), ludwigia (Ludwigia spp.), water hemp
(Amaranthus cannabinus), alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) and
lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis chinensis). Diked, dredged material disposal areas
subject to standing water are frequently dominated by dense stands of common
reed or, in older areas, narrow-leaf cattail.
Tree species most commonly making up tidal swamp forest and shrub borders
are tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), ash (Fraxinus spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum),
red bay (Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus). Shrub species are most characteristically
represented by wax myrtle (M rica cerifera), button bush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), alder (Alnus serrulata), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia),
swamp rose (Rosa palustris) and fetter-bush (L onia lucida).
Much of the southern half of Eagles Island traditionally has been used
for the deposition of dredged material generated by the maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor. Small segments along the fringes of the island adjacent
to the channel have not been diked, but have likely been impacted in the
past as they were associated with at least some activities of the dredging
or disposal process. Most of the brackish marsh presently between the dike
and the water is dominated by giant cordgrass. Scattered patches of narrow-
leaf cattail, umbrella sedge, and soft-stem bulrush can be found in some of
the wetter areas. Substantial amounts of lilaeopsis grow on the surface of
the mud along -the eroded edge of the marsh at the river. Red maple, black
willow (Salix nigra), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and wax
myrtle grow along the edge of the marsh at the base of the dike.
Wetland Functions and Values. No formal functional analyses or habitat
evaluation procedures or techniques have been performed at the affected
areas, but qualitative and somewhat less regimented evaluations are provided
based on evidence gained during the field surveys. Wetland habitats next to
the harbor have been degraded as a result of dredged material disposal and a
long history of port facility support enterprises and commercial/industrial
establishments constructed along the edge of the wetlands bordering the
waters of the port.
4
Wetlands along the southern end of Eagles Island are not as heavily
disturbed from past commercial activity as those elsewhere in the area of
the harbor. From the base of the dike to the edge of the tidal water,
viable brackish marsh has been only lightly disturbed during the process of
dredged material disposal. Wood and other debris floated in by tidal action
is common throughout the marsh.
Several functions and values of wetland habitats have been recognized as
important and have been incorporated into the wetland evaluation technique
prepared by Waterways Experiment Station (Adamus, et al. 1987). These will
be listed here and reviewed briefly with respect to the Eagles Island
wetland site in the project area. Each function or value can be assigned a
relative value based on the opinion of the field observer. Informal field-
based assessments of each function or value are given below.
* Ground water recharge--there is no opportunity for ground water to
recharge so close to a tidal system.
* Ground water discharge--There is no opportunity for ground water to
discharge within a tidal system.
* Floodflow alteration--The opportunity for floodflow alteration to occur
regularly at the site is low and likely only during the onset of a
falling tide.
* Sediment stabilization--The movement of sediment into and out of the
site will be marginal since regular tidal flux does not cover much
area.
* Sediment/toxicant retention--Toxicants retained by sediments at the
Eagles Island site would be those leached from dredged materials or
adsorbed from tidal river waters.
* Nutrient removal/transformation--Removal of nutrients by tidal waters
at Eagles Island is assumed to occur but only to a limited extent since
regular tidal flux does not cover much area.
Production export--Due to regular tidal flux export from the Eagles
Island site is assumed to be of moderate value.
Wildlife diversity/abundance--Low habitat diversity at the site is
largely responsible for low wildlife diversity.
* Aquatic diversity/abundance--Low aquatic diversity can be attributed to
the disturbed character of the habitat.
Recreation--Little opportunity exists for recreational activities.
* Uniqueness/heritage--Unique organisms which may occur in the area may
include the Rare Skipper butterfly (Problema bulenta).
Estuarine Functions and Values. While wetlands can be subjectively
evaluated, there is an insufficient amount of data available on nursery area
or aquatic habitats to allow adequate habitat analysis. It is generally
assumed that the benthic portions of the nursery area environments within
the project area are of poor quality (North Carolina Division of
5
Environmental Management, 1985, Assessment of Surface Water Quality in North
Carolina). Low population levels as well as low species diversity appear to
be present within these habitats. The reasons for these conditions are not
known, although poor water quality may partially be responsible.
The functional aspects of aquatic nursery habitat are the provision of
cover and food to young or larval fishery resources. These functional
entities of the estuary are provided through adequate benthic substrate,
ample nektonic medium, and a varied littoral environment where the deeper
water habitats interface with local wetlands. The project as planned would
remove or modify areas of benthic substrate that have been documented as
being of low quality, and wetland fringe that is here suggested to be of
medium-to-low functional value. Both of these habitat complexes are
components of an already degraded natural system.
Much of the Cape Fear River Estuary within the project area has been
designated as primary nursery area by the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. Primary nursery areas are defined as those areas in the estuary
system that provide habitat for post-larval development of fin fishes.
Primary nursery area status is applied to all those aquatic habitats in the
estuarine system outside of the main navigation channel in the river.
The nursery area is of value to the larval young of such species as
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia t ranus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogon
undualtus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus),
penaeid shrimp, mullet (Mugil spp.), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)
(Birkhead, et al. 1979). In addition, there are anadromous species that
use the aquatic habitats through the project area as a travel corridor
between the ocean and freshwater habitats used for spawning. Species of
shad (Alosa spp.), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and sturgeon (Acipenser
spp.) are important (Nichols and Louder 1970). American eel (Anguilla
rostrata) is an important catadromous species found throughout the estuary
and its tributary streams.
The most recent study of benthic organisms applicable to the project area
was performed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1980). Among the most abundant
species of sandy substrates were the nematodes, the spionid polychaete
(Scolecolepides viridis), and the isopod (Chiridotera almyra). Finer
subdstrates were dominated by an oliogochaete (Peloscoles benedeni) and an
amphipod (Gammarus sp.).
Impacts. Generally anticipated impacts of this action were fully
coordinated previously in the FSFEIS. Approximately 1.5 acres of estuarine
wetland habitat along the Fourth East Jetty Channel would be converted to
shallow or deep water bottom habitat by construction of the proposed project
(see Table 1). An acreage equal to twice the amount of marsh that would be
converted will be constructed or restored from an old dredged material
disposal site within the estuarine system near the impact site.
Dredging of these additional portions of the western slopes of the Fourth
East Jetty Channel and the Turning Basin will take place during the period
from October 1 to March 31 to ensure that impacts to estuarine resources are
minimized. In an agreement with the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries, blasting and subsequent removal of rock by dredge will be
performed between the first of August and the first of December so as to
avoid possible impacts associated with this work during the main portion of
6
anadromous fish spawning migration. Dredged material generated from these
sites will be deposited in the Eagles Island Disposal area or the Point
Peter Disposal Area.
A total of approximately 7.2 acres of nursery area would be converted to
freshly exposed bottom substrate during the course of dredging of the Fourth
East Jetty Channel and the Turning Basin. The newly exposed bottom
substrate will, of course, be deeper than the previous surface. Of the
above acreage, 4.6 acres of primary nursery area would be impacted during
construction of the Fourth East Jetty Channel and 2.6 acres of nursery area
would be impacted at the Turning Basin. Dredged material generated at these
sites will be deposited at the Eagles Island or the Point Peter Disposal
areas.
For mitigation, an acreage of shallow estuarine bottom equal to twice the
amount of the impacted nursery habitat will be created by removal of
material from a high ground area to a subtidal level. This plan is
described in Section 4.0.
3.2 Terrestrial Resources
Background. Some of the previous wetlands along the rivers near
Wilmington have been converted to alternative uses. Non-wetland habitats in
the immediate project area include dikes and attendant dredged material
disposal areas, converted wetlands, and uplands. Most of Eagles Island,
south of the Battleship U.S.S. North Carolina, is designated dredged
material disposal area and is used for material generated by the Wilmington
Harbor Project. Other, smaller disposal areas are located near the west
side of U. S. Route 421 near Point Peter and south of the mouth of Brunswick
River opposite the southern tip of Eagles Island (proposed mitigation site).
Point Peter, as well as some of the fringes of Eagles Island just south
of the Battleship U. S. S. North Carolina, has been used repeatedly for
commercial/industrial business sites. Point Peter contains large amounts of
accumulated and abandoned materials such as construction rubble, soil fill,
wood debris, and salvage metal. These areas as well as several scattered
mounds of old, unconfined dredged material along the margins of the rivers
constitute some of the converted wetland habitats that are now considered
uplands. Other pre-existing upland habitats parallel the eastern edges of
the river in Wilmington. Most have been commercially developed for many
years.
Non-wetland habitats containing long-stabilized fill materials support a
variety of plant species. Plant cover and species composition are
influenced by the age and the contents of the soil materials. Important tree
species are laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cottonwood (Po ulus
deltoides), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple. Shrubs
include privet (Ligustrum spp.), arrow-wood (Viburnum recognitum),
silverling, and wax myrtle. Woody vines are particularly abundant through
most of the modified habitats supporting an arborescent canopy. Rattan
(Berchemia scandens) and grape vines (Vitis spp.) are commonly occuring in
trees. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is frequently an extensive
ground cover.
7
Impacts. The generally anticipated impacts of the project were coordinated
previously in the FSFEIS. The area of proposed impact at the Fourth East
Jetty Channel supports little in the way of well developed upland habitats.
Upland dredged material constituting the dikes of the disposal area along
with the dredged material not subject to wetting or flooding form the
substrate available for upland plant growth. Plant species occurring in
such soils include common reed, camphor-weed (Heterotheca subaxillaris),
pig-weed (Chenopodium ambrosioides), poke-weed (Phytolacca americana) and
blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Upland habitats support many of the same plant species that are found in
the wetlands. The disturbance factors contributed by the various kinds of
fill are mainly responsible for these similarities. The dominant tree is
cottonwood. Wax myrtle, silverling, privet and amorpha (Amor ha fruticosa)
are common shrubs. Many of the herbaceous species found in the wetlands are
also abundant in the upland soils.
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
No wetland-dependent, threatened or endangered, plant or animal species
are known to regularly use the wetlands within the immediate project areas.
Intertidal wetlands and deep water areas constituting a portion of
designated nursery area in the estuary may serve as forage and cover habitat
for several species of juvenile fishes including shortnose sturgeon, but
data are not complete. Adult shortnose sturgeon are known to use the waters
of the Cape Fear Estuary as a thoroughfare (Ross, et al. 1988). More
recently, tagged individuals of this species have been monitored moving
through the Brunswick River and the Wilmington Harbor area between Sunny
Point and the city of Wilmington and on to near the vicinity of Lock and Dam
Number One on the Cape Fear River (Mary L. Moser, 1992, letter reports to
the Wilmington District).
A determination of no jeopardy to threatened and endangered species has
been made with regard to the proposed project by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FSFEIS, USACE 1990). The
inclusion of the modifications in the project will not constitute any
further danger that listed threatened or endangered species will be
significantly affected. The methods of avoidance and assessment of impact
to the shortnose sturgeon will remain the same as those outlined in the
FSFEIS.
A rare species of butterfly commonly known as the Rare Skipper (Problema
bulenta) has been found in the vicinity of the proposed project area in the
past. The species is under consideration for listing as threatened or
endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The species was apparently
first collected from the project area over ditches and marsh paralleling the
old causeway across Eagles Island between Wilmington and Belville (Harris
1972). This species is characteristically found in abandoned rice culture
marshes, at least in the southeastern part of its range where the habitat is
described as "brackish river marshes with scattered bald cypress,
buttonbush, cattails, wild rice, pickerelweed, and other marsh plants (Opler
1984)." Surveys to locate populations of this species in the project area
during the spring and summer of 1992 met with no success. Additional
attempts will be made in 1993. Any observations of this species in the
project area will be reported to the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
8
3.4 Water Quality.
Water quality impacts of the proposed project were fully addressed in the
FSFEIS.
3.5 Cultural Resources.
Cultural Resource impacts of the project have been fully discussed in the
FSFEIS.
3.6 Socio-Economic Resources
Socio-economic impacts of the project were fully addressed in the FSFEIS.
3.7 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes
There are no known HTRW's in the marsh fringe or river bottom areas to be
affected by the project.
3.8 Consistency Determination.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program contingent with development of an acceptable
mitigation plan. With the incorporation of the mitigation plan described in
this document into the project plan, the project is considered consistent.
4.0 Mitigation Plan
Mitigation normally includes avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying the impacts (rehabilitation or restoration), reducing or
eliminating impacts over time, and compensation of impacts (replacement).
Throughout planning for the project, impacts have been avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. As the proposed channel modifications
would be permanent (maintained), there will no opportunity for eliminating
these impacts over time; therefore, mitigation must be in the form of
compensation of impacts. Section 906(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (PL 99-662) gives the authority to the Corps of Engineers to
approve post-authorization mitigation.
The aim of the mitigation effort with respect to the Wilmington Harbor-
Northeast Cape Fear River Project is to compensate in adequate and fair
measure for the loss of existing wetland and benthic (nursery area)
resources that will be converted to new benthic habitat through
implementation of the proposed new construction. Actual losses of wetlands
will pertain only to the 1.5 acres of habitat located at Eagles Island.
Benthic substrate or nursery area will only be converted from an older,
sparsely utilized surface to new, unutilized surface. With both the wetland
replacement and the removal of the older benthic surfaces, the newly dredged
subaqueous surfaces will be available for subsequent pioneer organism
recruitment.
A further goal of the mitigation will be to replace, to the extent possible,
the functional aspects of the converted habitats. However, functional
aspects of these habitat complexes are not easily quantifiable. Units of
habitat acreage are relatively easy to quantify. If it can be assumed that
on an acre-for-acre basis one unit of previous habitat will be equal to two
9

units of new habitat, replacement and probably enhancement of the former
functional aspects of the old habitat segments can be accomplished by
creation or restoration of similar habitat elsewhere in the river system.
Mitigation Alternatives
Construction of the proposed project necessitates the implementation of a
mitigation plan to compensate for losses of both benthic and wetland
habitats. As can be seen from Table 1 above, compensation is required for
1.5 acres of wetlands and 7.2 acres of shallow water habitat. As the State
of North Carolina's mitigation policy requires that compensation for such
losses occur at at 2:1 ratio, mitigation needs were determined to be 3.0
acres of wetlands and 14.4 acres of shallow water habitat.
Site Selection Process. As many as 100 acres of previously filled wetland
or open water habitat are available within seven sites located in the
vicinity of the project site (Table 3). All of these areas are within easy
access of the tidal rivers and creeks within the system, and generally occur
in tidal wetlands that have been ditched in the past for rice culture.
Table 3. Physical and biological characteristics of potential mitigation
sites.
Site # Substrate Surrounded by Acres Dredged Material
1 sand and marl Giant cord grass marsh 35 yes
2 sand Giant chord grass marsh 6 yes
3 silt, sand common reed 6 unknown
4 sand, marl grasses,trees 14 yes
mixed marsh
5 sand, silt tree, shrub 21 no
6 sand, marl mixed marsh 5 yes
7 sand mixed marsh 16 yes
Total Acreage 103
Each of these high ground sites have been previously filled, either
through placement of dredged material or by some other economic activity in
the past history of the harbor. The locations of these sites are shown on
Figure 2. The utility of these potential mitigation sites were evaluated
using the following criteria:
Proximity to the Authorized Project.
Achieving the mitigation objective is most effective when the mitigation
measures are implemented in the same environmental regime where the
project related adverse impacts are occurring; therefore, it was
determined that mitigation actions should take place within the general
vicinity of the authorized project improvements.
10
FIGURE 2
Proximity to Disposal Areas.
Sites available for disposal of dredged material are in very short supply
in the Wilmington Harbor area. Since creation of wetland and nursery
area will require excavation of material and construction of new disposal
sites was considered to be impractical, only sites which were within the
vicinity (within 2 miles) of available disposal areas were considered.
Size.
Size of the available site is an important consideration. A single site
which can accommodate all mitigation requirements is the most desirable
for ease of construction and monitoring; however, multiple sites are
acceptable if the cost of their use does not become prohibitive.
Cost of Acquisition.
Cost of acquiring a site to construct mitigation measures was a major
consideration. High ground areas adjacent to a deep-water navigation
channel are expensive and, within this group of lands, those with the
greatest development potential (size and accessibility) are the most
expensive. Therefore, only lands with limited development potential were
given serious consideration.
Environmental Impact.
Construction of the mitigation feature can also carry environmental costs
associated with site access impacts and loss of interspersed wetlands,
wildlife habitat, etc. It is important that these costs be minimized
during the site selection process.
Potential for Cultural Resources.
Some available undeveloped high ground areas along the waterfront are a
product of filling associated with economic activity in the area many
years ago. These areas are now a part of the Wilmington Historic
Waterfront. Using sites within this area would require cultural
resources surveys and extensive coordination with Federal, state and
local government. Due to the additional time and cost likely to be
incurred by using sites within this area, they were excluded from further
consideration.
Presence of Hazardous. Toxic or Radioactive Waste (HTRW).
Due to evaluation and remediation costs which would be associated with
using a site containing HTRW, any area which had a high probability of
containing such features was dropped from further consideration.
Accessiblity.
Sites which are readily accessible usually have lower construction
and, frequently, less environmental impact since temporary
haul/construction roads do not have to be built. While not usually
defining importance, accessibility problems are always reflected in
increased construction costs.
costs
of
Construction Cost.
Once application of the above criteria has narrowed the field of
acceptable sites, the cost of constructing the desired mitigation becomes
the determining factor.
Mitigation Alternative Evaluation
Each of the seven sites shown in figure 2 was evaluated in light of the
above evaluation criteria and a field assessment by Corps, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and N. C. Division of Coastal Management personnel. The
results of this evaluation process are illustrated in tables 4 and 5, below.
Table 4. Unweighted favorability rankings of alternative mitigation sites.
Evaluation
Proximity to Project
Proximity to Disposal Area
Size
Cost of Acquisition
Environmental Impact
Cultural Resource Potential
HTRW's
Accessibility
Construction Cost
TOTAL
* 3 = High Favorability
2 = Moderate Favorability
1 = Low Favorability

1

2 Favorability
Site
3 4 Rankin

5 gs

6

7
3 3 3 3 3 1 1
3 3 3 2 3 1 1
3 1 2 2 2 1 1
2 3 3 2 1 3 3
3 2 3 3 3 2 1
3 3 1 1 1 3 3
3 3 1 1 1 3 3
2 2 3 3 3 1 2
2 2 3 3 3 2 2
24 22 23 20 20 17 17
12
necessary mitigation. Additionally, the old disposal deposit
is considered of such a unique nature that it enhances the
present marsh habitat rather than detracts from it.
Destruction of this habitat for the purpose of marsh creation
would constitute a loss to the system rather than a gain. No
cultural resource or HTRW surveys would be required before
use.
As a result of this evaluation, Site 1 was selected as the most
suitable and cost effective area for constructing the required mitigation.
The mitigation at the site will consist of the restoration of wetlands and
creation of shallow water habitat by removing existing fill material and
planting appropriate vegetation cover in intertidal areas. Open water
access from the river to the site will permit benthic organisms and fishes
to use open water portions of the site upon completion. Existing fill
material will probably be removed from the site through use of a hydraulic
pipeline dredge with disposal within the dike at the Eagles Island
disposal area.
Construction Plan
As mentioned above, site 1 is an old diked dredged material disposal
area which now contains some woody vegetation. Accordingly, prior to
excavation approximately 20 acres of the site will have to be cleared and
grubbed. This will provide a clear construction area and will give
adequate room as a construction staging area. Precise construction
methods which will be used to excavate the necessary material and achieve
the desired grades are unknown as the contractor(s) will be allowed to
select the most efficient and cost effective methods. Due to the
remoteness of the site and the fact that it is surrounded by broad
expanses of water and marsh, temporary haul roads are impractical;
therefore, it is probable that the contractor will use a small dredge to
access the site and will pump the material to the Eagles Island disposal
area. Grading to achieve the desired depth would probably be done with
draglines, bulldozers or other earth moving equipment. Construction of
the mitigation site will require the excavation of approximately 420,000
cubic yards of material.
Two 150' wide by 350' long entrances to the site are to be constructed
at a depth of -6' mlw to facilitate water circulation and ingress and
egress of aquatic organisms. These will also serve as pilot channels for
the pipeline dredge to enter and exit the site, if needed. The interior
of the primary nursery area embayment will be constructed to achieve a
depth of -2' mlw. The sides of the embayment will be sloped upward at 6:1
and marsh will be planted along the fringe between 0' mlw and +2' mlw.
Planting of Spartina alterniflora and other appropriate marsh species at
the site would be performed using greenhouse-grown seedlings since, based
15
on past experience in eastern North Carolina, such seedlings have a better
survival rate than field-dug stock (Broome, et al. 1982). Total
mitigation yield of this design will be 3.0 acres of wetland and 14.4
acres of primary nursery area habitat. The currently proposed layout of
the mitigation site is shown on Figure 3, and cross sections of the
embayment and access channels are shown on Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The embayment shape of the site was selected in order to minimize
costs of needed mitigation. Greater juxtaposition of habitats would be
desirable but this could only be done by including more acreage within the
mitigation site (i.e., greater interspersion of habitats would result in
more than 3 acres of marsh but a net primary nursery yield of less than
the required 14.4 acres) which would, in turn, increase site acquisition
costs, the volume of material that has to be reMoved, and construction
complexity.
The construction of the mitigation site will occur prior to
construction of navigation improvements. Upon completion of construction,
the habitats of the mitigation area should be similar to adjacent habitats
and will possess most of the same cultural values and ecological
functions. Regular monitoring will take place until it appears that the
mitigation areas have reached the desired measure of similarity or
stability as compared to other natural wetlands in the area. Monitoring
will include; 1) periodic comparison of planted marsh with reference
shoreline marsh sites using similarity indices (e.g. species composition,
stem counts per square meter, infauna, etc.) and, 2) comparative
(qualitative and quantitative) benthic sampling between the mitigation
site and nearshore river. Two or three years of monitoring will be used
to assess the course of the mitigation area. Additional plantings of
marsh grasses will be made, if necessary, to achieve a stable, functioning
shoreline marsh system.
5.0 Coordination
The draft and final environmental impact statements and subsequent
supplements for the authorized project were coordinated with federal,
state, and local agencies as well as the known interested public. This
EA/FONSI is being coordinated with the interests mentioned above plus all
property owners in the area of the proposed conservation lands and other
interests which would have been directly affected by its conservation. A
list of recipients of this Supplement is provided in Section 6.0.
Notice's of Intent and scoping were performed during previous stages
of project planning. The USFWS has been an active partner in the planning
of the project since 1971 and has provided input in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
16
The above table attempts to quantify many of the subjective judgments
used in the analysis of alternatives on the previous pages. Essentially,
the higher the score, the more favorable the alternative. However, not
all of the evaluation attributes identified in the left-hand column
carried the same weight in the decision-making process. For example, the
potential for having to assess and clean-up of HTRW's, frequently a time-
consuming and expensive task, was given great weight in the decision-
making process. Table 5, below, attempts to quantify the weighting which
influenced the evaluation process by applying a multiplier. The larger
the multiplier, the greater the weight given that evaluation attribute in
the decision-making process.
Table 5. Weighted favorability rankings of alternative mitigation sites.
Evaluation Favorability Rankings
Attribute Site
1 2 3 4 5 6
Proximity to Project (X 1.0) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0
Proximity to Disposal Area (X 1.5) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 1.5 1.5
Size (X 2.0) 6.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0
Cost of Acquisition (X 2.5) 5.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 2.5 7.5 7.5
Environmental Impact (X 1.0) 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
Cultural Resource Potential (X 2.0) 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 6.0
HTRW's (x 3.0) 9.0 9.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
Accessibility (X 1.5) 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 3.0
Construction Cost (X 2.5) 5.0 5.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0
TOTAL 44.5 42.0 39.0 35.0 34.0 35.5 36.0
* 3 = High Favorability
2 = Moderate Favorability
1 = Low Favorability
A narrative description of each of the alternative mitigation sites
under consideration follows:
13
Site 411 This site is an old diked dredged material disposal area
which is of sufficient size (approximately 35 acres) to allow
construction of all of the required mitigation acreage. It
is located within the appropriate salinity regime along the
river and has a fringe wetland along the river shoreline.
Portions of the site now support young loblolly pine
woodlands. Access to this site would have to be by water.
No cultural resource or HTRW surveys would be required before
use.
Site #2 This site is too small (approximately 6 acres) to contain all
of the required mitigation activities. It supports young
mixed pine/hardwood forest around its perimeter and probably
has high wildlife value. It is an old undiked dredged
material disposal area. No cultural resource or HTRW surveys
would be required before use.
Site 413 This site is desirable in that little material would have to
be removed to reach the original wetland soil; however, it is
too small (approximately 6 acres) to contain all of the
required mitigation activities. The addition of other open
land adjacent to the site could expand its size to about 10
acres, still well short of the needed amount. Cultural
resource and HTRW investigations would be required.
Site #4 This site has been used for commercial-industrial purposes in
the past and bears ample indications of that past usage. The
past usage and the shallowness of the fill make this a very
desirable site for mitigation purposes. However, only 14 to
15 acres could be made available at this site. In addition,
cultural resource and HTRW investigations would be required,
a public road would have relocated and land costs are
expected to be high.
Site #5 This site, adjacent to the Turning Basin, has been heavily
impacted by past and present land uses. As much as 21 acres
could be available for mitigation purposes at the site;
however, prior investigation indicates that there is a very
high probability of HTRW's occurring on the property.
Site #6 This site has multiple drawbacks including small size
(approximately 5 acres), difficult access, and being in an
area that has a salinity regime that is different from that
of the proposed impact sites. No cultural resource or HTRW
surveys would be required before use.
Site #7 Like site 6, this site is also considered out-of-kind and is
too small (approximately 16 acres) to accomplish all
14

W
cr
C?
LL
°
z V)
:D W
O
? rr,
CD Q

I-
U) >
'q W
x J
W W

-1

Z
Q CC)
-i n N
? I Q
w
Q
W
Q O W
w ~ 0
Q? t`- a
Q U Ir w
W0

>
O
N a
o

Li N

W J W o
- Q 2 F--
Li UV) ?
o
z IL Z
>- .-,

o
QD F- LL-
° z
-
z cn a `
:D w w
0- co
w
c? a

c n > r?
w
x?
ww
N
+
J
W
d'
W
cr
D
C7
LL
m
? I
co
z
O
?O W
F- Z
C )Z Ln WQ a
W U N
J o
Q Ln ?
U (n E--
. -W O
fl U z
>- U
F- Q
Z cn
W
0-
Fr rr
C? Q
Un >
F-+ W >-
x _II-
w w ---
to
W
cr-
C?
LL

An evaluation of the project in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, was prepared and included with
the FEIS. That evaluation is applicable to the currently proposed
project. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Management program (see Section 3.8). Effluent
from upland diked dredged material disposal areas is covered under Section
401 (P.L. 95-217), General Water Quality Certificate No. 1273, issued on
November 10, 1978.
6.0 List of Recipients
This EA/FONSI is being circulated for 30-day review to the following
agencies and individuals.
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable Lauch Faircloth
Honorable Charlie G. Rose
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
State Clearinghouse
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League
Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Energy
Cape Fear Community College
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.
Duke University Department of Geology
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Librarian, N.C. Environmental Resources Library
UNC-Wilmington Library
North Carolina State Library
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
17

7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I have determined that the construction, operation and maintenance of
the improvements to the Wilmington Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River
project, as discussed in this document, will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment, therefore an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared.
Lawrence W. Saunders Date
Chief, Planning Division
Walter S. Tulloch Date
COL, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
18
,..
8.0 Literature Cited
Adamus, P. R., Clairain, E. J., Jr., Smith, R. D., Young, R. E. 1987.
"Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology,"
Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87-, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Birkhead, W. A., Copeland, B. J., Hodson, R. G. 1979. Ecological
Monitoring in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to
the Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.
Broome, S. W., Seneca, E. D., Woodhouse, W. W., Jr. 1982. Establishing
Brackish Marshes on Graded Upland Sites in North Carolina. Wetlands 2:
152-178.
Hackney, C. T., Yelverton, G. F. 1990. Effects of Human Activities and Sea
Level Rise on Wetland Ecosystems in the Cape Fear River Estuary, North
Carolina, USA. In: Whigham, D. F., et al (eds.). Wetland Ecology and
Management: Case Studies: 55-61. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Netherlands.
Harris, Lucian. 1972. Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press.
326pp
Nichols, P., Louder, E. 1970. Upstream Passage of Anadromous Fish Through
Navigation Locks and Use of Stream for Spawning Habitat, Cape Fear
River, North Carolina, 1962-1966. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ.
252.
Opler, P. A., G. 0. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains.
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. 294pp.
Ross, S. W., Rohde, F. C., Linquist, D. G. 1988. Endangered, Threatened,
and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A Re-evaluation of the
Marine and Estuarine Fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina
Biological Survey. North Carolina State Musuem of Natural Sciences.
Rozas, L. P., Hackney, C. T. 1984. Use of Oligohaline Marshes by Fishes
and Macrofaunal Crustaceans in North Carolina. Estuaries 7: 213-224.
USACE, Wilmington District. 1979. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear
River Wilmington, North Carolina. Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Plan For Improvement Navigation and Environmental Quality.
USACE, Wilmington District. 1990. Final supplement to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear
River, North Carolina.
Wilson, K. A. 1962. North Carolina Wetlands: Their Distribution and
Management. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
19
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
L U Center for Marine Science Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 26403
919-259-3721 9 M a r 1993
Steve Benton
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cooper Bldg., V O . Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Steve:
John Taggart recently gave me the Corps of Engineers EA/FONSI
report on the Wilmington Harbor and mitigation project. Some time
ago I discussed this project with Fritz Rohde (NC Div. Marine
Fish.), Dave Dumond (then at the COE), and, maybe, you (??3)• The
enclosed mitigation plan dues not incorporate any of the things
that we thought were important in those earlier discussions. I am
disappointed in this plan and will elaborate below.
The estuarine functions and values section (p. 5-6) was not
very good. The few literature citations here were not the best or
the most recent available. Papers by Weinstein, Rozas and
Hackney, and my own Phd work were relevant but not included. The
statements beginning on p. 5 indicating that nursery area quality
in this area is poor are not well documented and the description
Is so vaguely written that it is unclear what is referred to. The
1985 report referenced by DEM is a not a good reference to use to
document PNA's ability to support animals. Low species richness
(diversity is not the proper term here) is characteristic of these
environments and is not, by itself, a sign of poor health. Both
DMF and CP&L have collected much data (largely unpublished) on
nursery and adult fishes from these areas (or nearby). The COE is
aware of these data, and I think they should have addressed them.
The description of PNA and other fishes (middle p. 6) was
weak and did not adequately treat the subject. Such technical
errors as using a 10 year out-of-date scientific name for croaker,
use of marginal literature, inclusion of inappropriate species
(e.g., StellifEL Ianceolatu.S Is not a PNA species of the area
being discussed), and omission of important speoles (e.g., blue
crab, red drum, flounders) support this negative criticism.
In my opinion the dredging window described at the bottom p.
6 (1 Oct-31 Mar) is inappropriate. I generally do not support
dredging in any estuary anywhere in NC from January - August for
two reasons: 1) this time period is when most nursery area animals
are travelling through inlets and up estuaries to PNA's, 2) It
includes the time of adult anadromous fish upriver spawning
migrations. The dredging window I would recommend is mid-August -
31 December, although even this is an environmental compromise In
the estuary.
The determination of no jeopardy to endangered species is not
well supported. In fact the COE has just received a final report
from Mary Moser and myself that they funded documenting usage of
the area and problems encountered by the endangered shortnose
sturgeon, Although this report is still considered a final draft
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Deserve is a cooperative program between the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Oceank and Atmospheric Administration.

it should be referenced in this document, Shortnose sturgeon can
be In this area at any time, they may move close to dredges, and
there are inadequate data (because of the fish's rarity) to judge
impacts from harbor dredging and blasting. As an aside, we did
feel there were adequate data to determine that the locks and damn
were detrimental to anadromous fishes, including the sturgeons.
Neither the US FWS nor the NMFS had adequate data to judge
shortnosse sturgeon In this area.
The above problems are mainly technical and can be addressed
easily. The re81 place the COE failed in this document was In the
proposed mitigation plan, I have no real problems with the site
location choice, but the drawing and description of the proposed
"thing" Is totally inadequate to represent PNA mitigation.
Nursery areas do not look like that, and there is no expectation
that the proposed structure will work at all; therefore, it can
not be considered mitigation. The COE would benefit from a
multi-agency consultation, Including estuarine biologists, to
adequately design the mitigation. The statement on p. 16 that
upon completion these areas should have ecological functions
similar to surrounding areas is unsupported wishful thinking. In
fact, extensive studies, funded by Texas Gulf Sulfur in South River
indicated that it took several years for man made creeks to
equilibrate and even then these areas were not always similar to.
natural areas,
The proposed monitoring (p, 16) is inadequate and would
provide no useful data. There was no monitoring proposed for PNA
nekton which is why PNA's are classified such in the first place.
The attention to the amount of marsh and subsequent plantings may
have little relation to PNA function or productivity. When this
project was discussed earlier, I had hoped that this would be an
Ideal opportunity to learn something worthwhile and useful by
conducting an adequate mitigation monitoring program.
Sinop my initial review of this proposal I have discussed my
concerns with Bill Adams and Fritz Rohde. Bill said the proposed
plan was strictly a compromise with funding and the requirement
for a 2:1 mitigation, My belief is that we would be better off
with a mare sound plan that leaves money for adequate monitoring
even if we had to reduce the 2:1 acreage ratio. Within the range
of funds available we could design a better PNA and have ample
money left for substantial monitoring, gill thinks the COE is
very much in favor of this, but the word of approval would have to
come from you. I suggest, with Bill's endorsement, that you, me,
him, and Fritz (and perhaps others?) meet to discuss a plan that
we can all be happy with and that will produce useful data and
mitigation. Please call me so we Gan discuses this approach.
gino@reIy,
Stove W. Ross
co: Fritz Rohde, Rich Shaw, John Taggart
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
WATER QUALI'T'Y SECTION
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:
FAX NUMBER:

FROM:__
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THE C(

PHONE:
VER SHEET:

TRHHSMISSIOH REPORT
h:;f:%k%kh:?k%k;?` h::+:;+:;f:;+'-f.::k-+i:k'k.;+::k.?k:?;+:;+:%I::f::kk %k?k
( MAR 24 '93 04:57PM )

+ DATE START REMOTE TERMIfJHL MODE TIME RESULTS TOTAL DEPT. FILE
TIME IDEHTIFICATIOIA PAGES CODE NO.

MAR E4 04 515-PM 919 733 9919 GJE ST u l OK 04
x

k k
h: %k
>k %k

%k
h,
%Y
%k

+:%k+K;?:h:'X. h:,k%k%k ?>k>k>k%kX%k>I:?k?k?Mok>kk*:k' ?>k?+:%k?*????????X k X h?.K-+,k ??? %k?* ??Y:?:;k>Y•Y.? h: ,K>k;?X:k?, %k?>k>k>k;k:>k>k>K %1,>K>k>k%k * %k>k?k?k::A?%kk??:
AAJZ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
October 15, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
2
FROM: Monica Swihark, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping for a Feasibility Report/EIS for Navigation
Improvements for the Cape Fear-Northeast (Cape Fear)
Rivers and Improvements to Wilmington Harbor, Project No.
93-0205
The Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject document
and requests that the following topics be discussed in the
Environmental Impact Statement:
A. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total wetland impacts".
vii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
B. Will waste locations be in wetlands?
C. Discuss efforts to minimize impacts to water quality.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Please be aware that 401 Certification
may be denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible.
7033er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919(395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

d_' 6

1?? Aw ? 1w -

._
?. .. ,.,,,...
OF MA
DIVISION
RINE FTSHER
IE--'
L7 DIVISION OF CO ASTAL monoo kmim

21992 ,

:f__..
AND WATER
WETLANDS GROUP
;:.:. !-:..!N . WATER UADS SECT AT._MI N:_: O N REG IONAL OFFIC E
ION
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT , t •< ::., .
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PARKE AND RECR EATION Tp
AWATER PLANNING

a <7,,r
OCT

MANAGER SIGN-OFF/REGION: DATE:
FN-HOUSE REVIEWER/AGENCY:
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
? lf:.? iJD i+ Cf ' ,:.. TO PROjECT AS PROPOSED

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
CONSISTENCY STATEMENT NEEDED VOT NEEDED
OTHER (SPECIFY AND ATTACH COMMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT ....?. ?i;I{?'ii UNDER
THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 18, 1992
Planning Division
h
1.
Dear Sir or Madam:

In May 1991, the Reconnaissance Study on Improvement of Navigation,
Cape Fear - Northeast (Cape Fear) Rivers, was completed to investigate
the feasibility of improving Wilmington Harbor. The study was conducted
under authority of a resolution adopted September 8, 1988, by the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, United States House of
Representatives. As indicated in the study, improvement of Wilmington
Harbor appears to be potentially feasible. Therefore, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, recommends that feasibility-
phase studies be conducted. A Feasibility Report and an Environmental
Impact Statement (FR/EIS) are to be completed for the proposed improve-
ments to the Wilmington Harbor, along the Cape Fear River, in New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. This scoping letter
is provided to ensure that the content of the FR/EIS is consistent with
your current information needs and includes an up-to-date assessment of
impacts on significant resources in the study area.
Wilmington Harbor is a Federal navigation project located along the
Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers in southeastern North Carolina.
The Federal navigation project extends from the Cape Fear River Ocean
Bar upstream to a point 1.7 miles above Hilton Railroad Bridge on the
Northeast Cape Fear River (see figure 1). Total length of the existing
Wilmington Harbor project is about 35 miles. Depths and widths have
been increased incrementally in the harbor for over 100 years. However,
existing channel depths are not adequate for the fleet now calling at
the Port of Wilmington. As a result, shippers are required to lightload
vessels and wait for tidal advantage to enter the port. Due to these
depth constraints, shipping costs are increased. In response to the
study authority quoted above, the Corps of Engineers recommends that
further studies be made of improvements to Wilmington Harbor. During
the reconnaissance study, three alternatives were considered, each of
which included a deeper channel across the ocean bar and into the Port
of Wilmington (see table 4 in the enclosure). Depths of 40, 42, and
44 feet were considered for the river channels. Two additional feet
would be provided on the ocean bar. The Plan of Improvement Recommended
for Further Study (Plan A, see table 4) includes deepening the ocean
bar channel to 42 feet and deepening the river channel into the Port of
Wilmington to 40-feet. Several other improvements, including construc-
tion of a passing lane, widening of two turning basins, and extension
-2-
of the existing deepdraft project for a short distance up river are
also recommended for further study. The enclosure provides additional
information on the project and is taken from the Reconnaissance Study
on Improvement of Navigation, Cape Fear - Northeast (Cape Fear) Rivers,
Comprehensive Study.
Feel free to also provide any comments that you may have on the Cape
Fear - Northeast (Cape Fear) Rivers, North Carolina, Feasibility Study.
Any recent data that you may have on the status of significant resources
under your regulatory jurisdiction or interest that may occur-in the
project area would be useful to us in the completion of this study.
We request that you provide written comments by October 19, 1992.
If we have not received your comments by then, we will assume that you
have no comments on this letter. Comments should be addressed to the
District Engineer, (Attention: Mr. Hugh Heine), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28402-1890.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Mr. Heine, Environmental Resources Branch, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosure
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION
CAPE FEAR - NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION I - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
EXISTING NAVIGATION FACILITIES, WILMINGTON HARBOR
Wilmington Harbor includes two primary components: a system of deepdraft
channels which is maintained by the Federal Government, and berthing and
loading facilities, including the North Carolina State Port. Each of these
components is discussed below.
EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECT
The authorized, existing Federal project for Wilmington Harbor is
described below. Reference to figure 2 is suggested. A detailed view of the
harbor is presented on plates 1 and 2, at the end of this report.
o A channel 40 feet deep and 500 feet wide from the Atlantic Ocean
through the ocean bar and entrance channels (includes Baldhead Shoal, Smith
Island, Baldhead-Caswell, Southport, and Battery Island Channels). As noted
previously, the authorized depth of 40 feet has not been achieved in the bar
channel (Baldhead Shoal Channel and Smith Island) due to dredging inaccuracies
and rock obstructions.
o A channel 38 feet deep and 400 feet wide to the upper end of the
anchorage/ turning basin at the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge at Wilmington. The
basin extends from the State Port Authority Terminal to the Cape Fear Memorial
Bridge.
o A channel 32 feet deep and 400 feet wide from the Cape Fear Memorial
Bridge to the Hilton Railroad Bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River,
including a 32-foot-deep turning basin opposite the principal terminals
(Almont Shipping).
o A channel 25 feet deep and 200 feet wide to a point 1.7 miles above the
Hilton Railroad Bridge, including a turning basin of the same depth located
1.25 miles above the Hilton Railroad Bridge.
IMPROVEMENTS ASSUMED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY BASE YEAR
As discussed in the preceding report section on prior reports, the
improvements assumed to be constructed by the base year include the Turns and
Bends project (figure 2) and the Northeast Cape Fear River project (figure 3).
Elements of each of these projects are summarized below.
TURNS AND BENDS PROJECT
The turns and bends project, illustrated on figure 2, consists of widening
six turns and bends by 75 to 140 feet. The depth of the widening will be 38
feet.

NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER PROJECT
The Northeast Cape Fear River project includes the following improvements
(see figure 3):
o Widening the Fourth East Jetty Channel 100 feet to the west at the
existing project depth of 38 feet for a distance of about 8,000 feet.
o Deepening the navigation Channel from the project depth of 32 feet to
38 feet at a width of 400 feet between Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the NC
133 Highway Bridge.
o Widening the turning basin just upstream from the mouth of the
Northeast Cape Fear River by 50 feet on the west side at a project depth of 38
feet.
o Deepening the navigation channel from a project depth of 32 feet to 38
feet at a width of 300 feet from NC 133 Highway Bridge to the Hilton Railroad
Bridge, located 2,600 feet upstream, and deepening the navigation channel from
a project depth of 25 feet to 38 feet at a width of 200 feet from the Hilton
Railroad Bridge to a point approximately 750 feet upstream.
PORT FACILITIES, WILMINGTON HARBOR
There are 47 major piers, wharves, docks, and mooring dolphins in
Wilmington Harbor. The intensity of the development at the port is evident
from the detailed map of the harbor shown on plate 2. Fourteen of the major
docking facilities in Wilmington Harbor are owned by the North Carolina State
Ports Authority. The State Ports Authority facilities include 11 berths and
approximately 6,800 feet of berthing. Five container cranes are now in
operation at the State Ports.
WILMINGTON HARBOR COMMERCE
Recent-year vessel calls and tonnages for Wilmington Harbor are shown in
table 1, below.
TABLE 1
Wilmington Harbor Commerce, 1986-1990
Vessel
Year Calls Commerce (tons)
1986 949 6,806,915
1987 945 7,928,981
1988 921 8,347,779
1989 901 Not Available
1990 881 it
2
7
Approximately 82 percent of the commerce in Wilmington Harbor is
deepdraft, oceangoing trade. This percentage is almost equally divided
between foreign trade and coastwise receipts, with petroleum products and
industrial chemicals constituting the majority of the tonnage.
VESSEL FLEET
As shown in table 1, on the previous page, Wilmington Harbor had 881
vessel calls in 1990. Twenty percent of these vessels required some amount of
tidal assistance for underkeel clearance and 9 percent could enter only at
high tide. As discussed in the following report section, the larger vessels,
with drafts greater than 36 feet, must be lightloaded to transit the ocean
bar, regardless of tide.
While draft limits are most severe for larger vessels, they affect
practically all traffic in Wilmington Harbor. Over the last 4 years, an
annual average of approximately 240 ships calling at the Port of Wilmington
were "Panamax" class ships. Ships in this class are 750 to 950 feet long,
have a beam of about 106 feet, and a draft of 38 to 40 feet. The term
"Panamax" indicates that this is the largest class of vessel which negotiate
the 38.5-foot draft limitation of the Panama Canal. However, these vessels
cannot enter Wilmington Harbor without being lightloaded, even during high
tide.
NAVIGATION CONSTRAINTS, OCEAN BAR CHANNEL
Table 2, below, illustrates the problems associated with inadequate depths
in the ocean bar channel. The reviewer should note that the data presented in
table 2 is rounded to the nearest foot. The tidal utilization shown reflects
actual operating practices.
TABLE 2
Maximum Vessel Drafts for Existing Conditions
Wilmington Harbor Bar Channel
(Assuming available channel depth of 38 feet)
Maximum Draft
Any Tide
Inbound Vessels 32' (38' channel - 6' clearance)
Outbound Vessels 32' (38' channel - 6' clearance)
Maximum Draft
High Tide
36' (38' channel - 6'
clearance + 4'
tidal advantage)
35' (38' channel - 6'
clearance + 3'
tidal advantage)
As illustrated in 'table 2, above, vessels with drafts of more than 32 feet
cannot cross the ocean bar without waiting for the tide; the larger vessels,
drafting over 36 feet, must be lightloaded to leave the harbor, regardless of
tide. Therefore, since many of the vessels now serving Wilmington Harbor have
loaded drafts in excess of 38 feet, there is an obvious need for greater
3
depths on the ocean bar. With a controlling depth of 38 feet, the bar channel
effectively limits the use of the entire Wilmington Harbor project. Draft
constraints associated with the river channels to Wilmington are discussed
below.
NAVIGATION CONSTRAINTS, WILMINGTON HARBOR RIVER CHANNELS
As indicated, the authorized 38-foot depth of the principal channel in
Wilmington Harbor cannot be fully utilized due to the inadequate depths
associated with the ocean bar channel. Table 3, below, shows the maximum
vessel drafts for the river channels into the Port of Wilmington. The
reviewer should note that these drafts are theoretical only, since access to
the harbor is limited by bar channel depths (see table 2). Under existing
conditions, vessels drafting over 36 feet must be lightloaded to enter the
harbor, regardless of tide.
TABLE 3
Maximum Vessel Drafts for Existing Conditions
Channel from Southport to Wilmington
(Assuming ocean bar channel is deepened to authorized depth of 40 feet)
Maximum Draft Maximum Draft
Any Tide High Tide
Inbound Vessels 34' (38' channel - 4' clearance) 38' (38' channel - 4'
clearance + 4'
tidal advantage)
Outbound Vessels 34' (38' channel - 4' clearance) 37' (38' channel - 4'
clearance + 3'
tidal advantage)
As shown in table 3, the authorized, existing channel into the Port of
Wilmington provides access for vessels drafting 38 feet, with high tide.
However, the maximum draft vessel which can actually enter the harbor is
limited to 36 feet due to the condition of the bar channel. Deepening the
ocean bar channel to its authorized 40-foot depth would allow full utilization
of the river channels to the Port of Wilmington. However, based on historical
data and projections of future vessel sizes developed during this study,
lightloading and tidal delays would still occur, even if the bar channel is
deepened to its authorized 40-foot depth. Accordingly, shipping interests and
river pilots contacted during this study have requested that consideration be
given to deepening the Federal project, both across the ocean bar and into the
Port of Wilmington. Improvements desired are summarized below.
IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED
The principal public concern associated with Wilmington Harbor is
inadequate depths across the ocean bar channel and in the river channels to
Wilmington. However, several other improvements have also been requested by
local interests and will be evaluated in this reconnaissance study. A summary
4
of improvements desired is presented below. As shown on plate 1, Wilmington
Harbor is divided into three reaches for this analysis. Reach 1 is the main
harbor channel from the ocean bar to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge; Reach 2
extends from the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to the Hilton Railroad Bridge; and
Reach 3 extends from the Hilton Railroad Bridge to the upstream limits of the
Federal project on the Northeast Cape Fear River.
IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED, REACH 1 - OCEAN BAR CHANNEL TO CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE
As shown on plate 1, this reach constitutes the existing, 38-foot channel
from the ocean bar channel to the State Port; it also includes the anchorage
basin, or turning basin, upriver from the State Port (see plate 2). Local
interests, including the North Carolina State Port Authority, have requested
that the Federal Government evaluate the feasibility of deepening these
channels. Local interests have also requested that two other improvements be
constructed in Reach 1; these improvements include widening of the turning
basin above the State Port and construction of a passing lane downstream from
the State Port. Both improvements have previously been evaluated under the
Continuing Authority Program and were determined to be economically feasible.
The passing lane feature and turning basin widening in Reach 1 have now been
incorporated into this reconnaissance study and will be included in the plans
of improvement evaluated.
IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED, REACH 2 - CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE TO HILTON RAILROAD
BRIDGE
Reach 2 extends from the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to the Hilton Railroad
Bridge. As shown on plates 1 and 2, this reach includes the confluence of the
Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Deepening of this reach from its
authorized depth of 32 feet to 38 feet was authorized as part of the Northeast
Cape Fear River project (see figure 3). Local interests have requested that
this reach be deepened to 40 feet in order to allow more efficient shipment of
bulk commodities which are handled in this reach.
IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED, REACH 3 - HILTON RAILROAD BRIDGE TO UPSTREAM PROJECT
LIMITS
As shown on plates 1 and 2, Reach 3 extends from the Hilton Railroad
Bridge upstream to the limits of the Federal navigation project on the
Northeast Cape Fear River. The authorized project ends at river mile 30.8.
However, the actual end of the Federal project is approximately 1,500 feet
downstream from this point, at the natural gas pipeline shown on plate 2.
As shown on plate 2, the existing, 35-foot project in the Northeast Cape
Fear River extends to the Hilton Bridge; with the Northeast Cape Fear River
project in place, this channel will be deepened to 38 feet and extended
upriver a short distance (see figure 3). However, this channel extension will
not reach the last user which would benefit from the 38-foot depths. As shown
on plate 2, the channel to the anchorage basin in front of the W.R. Grace
facility (now Arcadian Nitrex) has an existing depth of 25 feet. Arcadian
Nitrex currently uses 'small liquid gas tankers to bring in ammonia fertilizer
from the Caribbean. Draft limits require even a 15,000-ton tanker to be
several feet lightloaded for the voyage.
5
Because of the age, limited capacity,
transportation savings can be realized wi
interests have requested that the Federal
of deepening the existing 25-foot channel
Widening of this channel segment from its
feet and widening of the turning basin at
also been requested.
and size of these ships,
th larger vessels. Therefore, local
Government evaluate the feasibility
to the Arcadian Nitrex facility.
existing width of 200 feet to 300
the upstream end of the channel have
SECTION II - PLAN FORMULATION
As discussed in the preceding report sections, the principal navigation
problem at the Port of Wilmington is inadequate depths across the ocean bar
and in the river channels to Wilmington. Plan formulation for Wilmington
Harbor consisted primarily of evaluating alternative channel depths and
identifying the channel depth which produced the maximum net benefits. Net
benefits are the difference between average annual benefits and average annual
costs.
IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED
Improvements for each of the three
below. Following this discussion, the
into alternative plans for benefit and
IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED, REACH 1
reaches shown on plate 1 are discussed
improvements considered are combined
cost evaluation.
For the Main Channel (Reach 1) depths of 40, 42, and 44 feet were
considered, with 2 feet of additional depth across the ocean bar and entrance
channels. This range of depths was chosen for evaluation since 40 feet is the
minimum depth considered to be compatible with the Panamax vessels and other
large vessels utilizing Wilmington Harbor. However, with a 40-foot river
channel, many user vessels would still require tidal advantage to enter or
leave the port. Therefore, 42- and 44-foot channel depths were also
evaluated. Channel widths would remain the same for the 40-foot alternative;
a wider ocean bar channel would be provided with the 42- and 44-foot
alternatives. Other improvements considered in Reach 1 include a 6.2-mile
passing lane downriver from the State Port and widening of the
turning/anchorage basin upriver from the State Port by 150 feet. For each
alternative, the turning basin and passing lane would be dredged to the
project depth.
IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED, REACH 2
Reach 2 will be deepened from 32 to 38 feet as part of the Northeast Cape
Fear River project (see figure 3). As discussed previously, local interests
have requested that greater depths be provided to accommodate the bulk
carriers using this reach of the river. A 40-foot channel appears adequate
for these vessels. Thus, dredging of this reach to 40 feet is included as a
feature of each alternative plan evaluated.
6

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED, REACH 3
Reach 3 has an authorized depth of 25 feet and a width of 200 feet.
Alternative depths of 30, 35, and 38 feet were considered. With each
alternative depth, widening of the channel to 300 feet and widening of the
turning basin opposite the Arcadian facility (shown as W.R. Grace on plate 2)
by 100 feet were also considered.
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Each plan of improvement considered includes the following common
features: (1) widening of two turning basins; one of these basins is the
anchorage/turning basin located upriver from the State Port; the other is
located at the upstream end of the existing Federal project, across from the
Arcadian (formerly W.R. Grace) facility; (2) each plan includes provision for
a 6.2-mile-long passing lane downriver from the State Port (see figure 2); the
passing lane will be constructed by widening the existing 400-foot channel by
200 feet; (3) each plan also includes provision for widening the channel in
the upstream (Reach 3) portion of the project from its existing width of 200
feet to 300 feet. The distinction between the plans considered, illustrated
in table 4, is the depth provided. For all alternatives, existing alignments
and river- channel widths would be maintained. However, with Plans B and C,
the ocean bar and entrance channels would be widened. Channel side slopes are
also considered to be generally satisfactory, although minor modifications may
be desirable.
TABLE 4
Summary of Dimensions, Alternative Plans Considered
Reach 1
Ocean Bar and River
Plan Entrance Channels Channels Reach 2 Reach 3
Existing 40' x 5001* 38' x 400' 38' x 300'** 25' x 200'
A 42' x 500' 40' x 400' 40' x 300' 30' x 300'
B 44' x 600' 42' x 400' 40' x 300' 35' x 300'
C 46' x 800' 44' x 400' 40' x 300' 38' x 300'
*Not constructed to authorized depth; controlling depth is approximately
38 feet.
**Assumes existing 35-foot channel is deepened to 38 feet with
construction of Northeast Cape Fear River project (see figure 3).
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Each incremental increase in channel depth provided by the three plans
considered would allow larger ships to enter the Port of Wilmington. As
channel depth increases, time spent waiting for tidal advantage is reduced, as
is lightloading. Also, larger, more efficient vessels can be used.
7
RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF NED PLAN
Plan A is the plan of improvement recommended for further study. Based on
analyses to date, this plan is the plan which, among the available
alternatives, maximizes net benefits. For this reason, Plan A is tentatively
designated the National Economic Development (NED) Plan. However, additional
plans will be evaluated in the feasibility phase. Generally, Federal
participation will be limited to the NED Plan unless there are overriding
considerations which favor implementation of another plan. The plan
recommended for further study is discussed in detail in the following report
section.
SECTION III - PLAN RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY
The purpose of this report section is to summarize data concerning the
plan recommended for further study. For brevity, this plan will be referred
to as the "Recommended Plan." Features of the Recommended Plan are discussed
below, followed by a discussion of project operation and maintenance, economic
,justification, plan accomplishments, and environmental impacts.
PROJECT FEATURES
The Recommended Plan includes, as its central feature, a deeper navigation
channel into the Port of Wilmington. Improvements recommended for each of the
three reaches of Wilmington Harbor are described below (see discussion of
project reaches). The Recommended Plan is illustrated on plate 1.
REACH 1 - OCEAN BAR TO CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE
This reach of Wilmington Harbor constitutes the deepdraft navigation route
from the Atlantic Ocean to the State Port. The Recommended Plan includes
deepening the ocean bar channel and entrance channels (Baldhead Shoal, Smith
Island, Baldhead-Caswell, Southport, and Battery Island) to 42 feet. The
river channel will be deepened from 38 to 40 feet from the Lower Swash Channel
(see plate 1) to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Other improvements
recommended for further study include a 6.2-mile-long passing lane downriver
from the State Port and widening of the anchorage/turning basin upriver from
this facility.
REACH 2 - CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE TO HILTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
As shown on plate 1, this reach includes the confluence of the Cape Fear
and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Deepening of this reach from its authorized
depth of 32 feet to 38 feet was authorized as part of the Northeast Cape Fear
River project. The Recommended Plan includes deepening of this reach to 40
feet. For purposes of cost and benefit analyses presented herein, it is
assumed that the 38-foot Federal project will be in place prior to
construction of the improvements included in the Recommended Plan.
8
REACH 3 - CHANNEL ABOVE HILTON BRIDGE
As shown on plate 1, this reach of the project extends upstream on the
Northeast Cape Fear River from just upstream of the Hilton Railroad Bridge to
a point opposite the Arcadian Corporation (formerly W.R. Grace Company). This
reach begins at the upstream limit of the 38-foot project authorized in the
Wilmington Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River project, which is assumed t6 be
in place prior to construction of the Recommended Plan. The Recommended Plan
includes deepening this reach of the Northeast Cape Fear River to 30 feet and
widening the existing 200-foot channel to 300 feet. Widening of the turning
basin opposite the Arcadian facility from 700 to 800 feet is also included in
the Recommended Plan.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The improvements described above would be constructed using a hopper
dredge in the deeper channels from the Baldhead Shoal Channel north through
Battery Island Channel with disposal in an offshore disposal area. The
offshore disposal area is a 2.3-square-mile area located about 4 miles south
of Baldhead Island. This site has been designated by the Environmental
Protection Agency as an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). Water
depth at the ODMDS ranges from 32 to 35 feet below mean low water.
A bucket and barge system would dredge from Lower Swash Channel through
Upper Big Island Channel with disposal also in the offshore disposal area.
From Lower Brunswick Channel north to the end of the project, a pipeline
dredge would dredge the material with disposal on Eagle Island, an existing
diked disposal area (see plates 1 and 2 for location).
The reviewer should note that the construction and maintenance techniques
and disposal locations described above appear to be the most effective among
the available options based on reconnaissance level studies. However, several
other construction and dredged material disposal options have been considered.
These options include disposal of dredged material in the littoral zone or on
beaches near the project area where it would provide beach nourishment.
Because of increasing interest in disposal in the littoral zone, consideration
of this alternative in the feasibility phase may be justified.
Dredging quantities for the Recommended Plan are shown in table 6. As
shown, significant rock removal will be required. The rock to be removed is
limestone. The sediment dredging would be conducted first, followed by rock
blasting. The rock would then be picked up by special rock handling equipment
and disposed of in the offshore disposal area. If necessary, the dredges
would return to obtain project dimensions. A summary of dredging quantities
for the Recommended Plan is presented on the following page.
TABLE 6
Summary of Initial Construction Volumes
Plan of Improvement Recommended for Further Study
Rock Sand
(cubic yards) (cubic yards) Total$
Ocean Bar Channel 2,060,650 118,170 2,178,820
River Channel 977,540 9,055,460 10,033,000
As shown in table 6, construction of the Recommended Plan will require
excavation of 12,211,820 cubic yards of material (3,038,190 cubic yards of
rock and 9,173,630 cubic yards of sand). Dredging quantities include material
to be dredged for construction of the passing lane and widening of two turning
basins. However, dredging requirements were computed based on the assumption
that the Northeast Cape Fear River project and the Turns and Bends project
will be constructed prior to implementation of the Recommended Plan.
Maintenance dredging requirements, discussed below, were also computed based
on the assumption that these improvements will be constructed.
PROJECT MAINTENANCE
The improvements included in the Recommended Plan will be maintained in
conjunction with the overall Wilmington Harbor project. Maintenance dredging
quantities used for estimating project costs represent additional incremental
dredging requirements associated with the Recommended Plan. These quantities
do not include dredging to maintain the existing channel or channel
modifications assumed to be completed before the Recommended Plan is
constructed. Maintenance dredging quantities are summarized in table 7,
below.
TABLE 7
Summary of Annual Maintenance Dredging Requirements
Plan of Improvement Recommended for Further Study
Oceans Bar Channel
River Channel
Total Annual Additional
Dredging Dredging Requirements
Requirements Due to Channel Deepening
(cubic yards) (cubic yards)
781,100 83,700
1,400,000 0
10
As shown on the previous page, no increased dredging is expected to be
required due to deepening of the river channel. Historical data indicate that
the amount of dredging in the river channel has not increased appreciably as
the channel dimensions have been changed; it appears that the amount of
channel shoaling is much more dependent upon cyclic freshwater inflow than on
any other factor. Therefore, deepening the channel should not increase annual
river channel dredging by an appreciable amount. Additional shoaling due' to
the channel widening north of Hilton Bridge was considered to be negligible.
Widening of the passing lane and the two turning basins included in the
Recommended Plan will increase annual dredging requirements by approximately
200,000 cubic yards per year; costs for maintenance of these areas are
included in the average annual costs for the Recommended Plan.
ENVIRONM ENT AL CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT PLANNING
The major environmental concerns regarding channel. deepening include the
potential direct impacts associated with rock blasting, dredging of bottom
material, and placement of dredged material in new locations. These
activities may create indirect but detectable effects on salinity ranges
within the Cape Fear River Estuary. Changes in the salinity regime may resul
in conversion of freshwater wetlands to brackish marsh. Wetlands will also t
excavated {but not filled) as a result of the widening of the turning basins.
Channel alterations may have an indirect effect on water quality, marine and
estuarine benthic communities and other life, aquatic and terrestrial specie!
listed or proposed as endangered and/or threatened, and cultural resources
(including important historical shipwrecks). Channel alterations may also
affect coastal shoreline erosion.
The selection of the most appropriate time of year for dredging and
disposal will be a complex exercise due to the possible presence of
endangered/threatened whales, shortnose sturgeons, sea turtles, piping
plovers, and roseate terns in the potential impact areas, as well as other
factors such as anadromous fish, juvenile fish in the surf zone, and beach
recreational activities. Potential impacts depend upon the type of dredge
employed, the effects of rock blasting, and whether beach or littoral disposal
is employed. A trade-off analysis must be made since various life phases of
the important species occur in different parts of the project area at various
times of year. The results of this analysis will then require interagency
coordination and negotiation to arrive at an acceptable dredging window. For
purposes of reconnaissance planning, it is assumed that blasting along the
present channel alignment could not be conducted during the period 1 January
through 30 April of any year due to the potential presence of migrating right
whales (endangered) in the project area. The remaining 8 months may be open
for blasting, but interagency coordination will be required for confirmation.

v Z ?-
0

<
o
o
00' a-
Q

w
zo
Ir
to

o C
G
m U
g
? Z

O I-

s
z 6fy?R z 0-1
o

f• gt /

N
<
O
0
n
W
oa
m
d
df
o z
?0
m 'c
m
m v
z
I m z
_J
z
O
W
u
J

.r ? H .
W
W
3i?r m v
<
z
a {?
<`-` z= .?
U Z U W ????
AIN= H3AONVH M3N? o
W
Y e
' .
' d 1
17 ,' sz
. 44
ALNnoo xomsmmm
cf
i
o

K i
W
a J
Q
?
v m
W
W
CL ?
0

a a
8
h
n
N Z
t
N
O

Q. .

W
a
?
U

5
S <
F W
? W
O
3
J
` ` - END OF FEDERALTO (Sp
- PROJECT (30.8 MI't
3o W. 17
HILTON RR BRIDGE
TURNING BASIN
74 76
` 2e
WILMINGTON
za UL .
STATE
- - - - PORT
II
BETWEEN IPYwo mow'
FOURTH EAST JETTY 24 1&
UPPER ( 13
r
BRUNSWICK i
LOWER L2'
UPPER
BIG ISLAND LOWER D
_ U
KEG ISLAND - - -- - 11 W
- 11 \ D 421 i
} 11 ?` _ rp
1- a ?a
j UPPER 1JJ oii ,1
O . emu( 3 p
X11 ?[ W r6C
l1WPUT Y oil \ Z ie
- - - a UL 8
1
N - r it
j LOWER ??
m . Ir
m 4 ?
1 14 My-
UPPER CAROUN
it
I112 ?1. BEACH
MIDNIGHT ?
1
uoTSU it
j
(SUNNY POINT) I I; i
LOWER 1PL„ f G,
r ? r
li r10 lA
REAVES POINT
,, - FORT f191ER
HORSESHOE SHOAL "s •
SNOW MARSH O/.? fJ
LOWER SWASH - 4 W. r
BATTERY ISLAND 1 O ??r\I
SOUTHPORT¢T
BALDHEAD-CASYfELL
Is?.aTHTsuND " -
°" 1 `
,:' - - Mileages or* measured
landward and seaward from
SALDHEAD mouth of ricer (Intersection
of Sold Hood bland and
SH AL 8aldhead shod reaches)
VA.
RALEIGH
N.C. •
S.C.
V0.R1. el
CITY y
wTaN t
SITE,
VICINITY MAP
o®
SCAU N WU:S
N
'CAROUNA BEACH
08 ET
P?
G?
0
Q.
G
TURNS & BENDS
l0 Location of Bend
Improvements
2
5
zz
Vi
CAPE FEAR-NE CAPE FEAR RIVER. N.C.
TURNS AND BENDS
AND PASSING LANE
I j ! ?4 S
SCALE IN WLES
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
FIGURE 2
t i F
? Y 1 Y
? R F
< 1?
, r
t i 60.
` r
Czh
1f11 I i ?55 ?? i ? j ?
t I
t 1
o;
s'
„ k e
• 1
o ? m
41
u
d
0
p
a
14
H k'
W p
U
a
c?
m
c
z
i i
BATTERY ISLAND
SOUTHPORT
;---BALDHEAD-
`\o CASWELL
0? Island `1
SMITH ISLAND"\
VI BALD
BALDHEAD SHOAL---/-r/?

HEAD
Smith
Island

C)
VIC\
/
/ tea.

AT?ANTIC OCEAN
WH1R
4000 2000 0 4000 8000
SCALE IN FEET
WILMINGTON HARBOR. NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON HARBOR
BAR CHANNEL

FIGURE 4
N
r
W
F-
Q.
J
M
CL
S-4)
(a W
••'1
0
n, a.
V L.
N
>
O•.a
vv?

C
w ?
CO 11
M

M
(D
0=
9. 41
k.i L.
-+ a
cw
Sr- O w
MO O

8 W 0

a .gipp L
p LL O C
4) Q
cti L O C~ .a
O a) •)
:j 0 V) 0
wco CaOW
N "-1 4-) 7
CAp8popf?
(4 0.4 M-4 C ?
k 3 C L. 41 N
O i0 >
.1 N
Oo O
a
O c?+CG•O co
L CT c-1
4. O L. m 06
-+ Q) 0 81 c
c-Vro-4 o k
C 0) C 0•44

C

=

E
E

w
0 0
O M

W O
O?

O O
N U
Oo i
•,a
k3

m
L.
`" c
U C
cd L
L O
04-)

3 W
a
Opp
a

O C O
c
b4O?
rn•4
fd 3 0
.0 4 M
c8?
L? 8 b)o

N yG 11 4)
4 v? 4ai
A C pp

• 83
c?
?s

N G 4L1 ?.1 w N.
GL 10 M
Q 4)i W L. ap c?

•44:42Z4 U d O O
N
3 C

09'0 ti
W C 4G
?
3 ?p
• 48 .3

z)
W
U-
0
IrI
Q
.r
P4
L
L O
8w
[j? w

45 S.
AA C

Y rr ICI
44 P-4
to 0
d? 0
C

?4?N
O O
G
yo cc
o ".+ •?
a? +? a L

0 z Q >
d tQ 1 L
•N 4. Z to
p ..
C4 N8
o c ?°
? O L.

L G O
?q 4
t we

0 41 tko ?
1-4 c
0 C
0 41 4) O
L.

r
U q
V Q)
i
41 3 G ? .. y .,4 > ?

4+ Co V
M V)
c0 W
41 O e
Q. N
CL L V o > ?w
G G1
? Li 0 ?
V C t
L? q) to
G 'G •9. ••Ci 0
>•C ?L W? 3 y
e
.
w p L. y
4j 6-? 0
41 $
V r
c
d
a O
?
O W 4.) C 164 q)
4
>, O O
O bo 4)
3
pO
? 1-1 41
L
G
OC b O b w 1-4 10
c t4
C
s 41
. N
C
W
H .
co O .G C
t y c cd
cd
L.
O L
c GC
co O O
O rl X
? O •1-4
U >C w

^+
V
C
! O

I
2
,G .
d1
O
@ N
0 p

cd
O
N
?
V
1. 4. . f
.-1
0
c
N.
\
Q.
O
?
^vy?1 l0 0 O G .-I L L -4 C cd
^
C 67 4,1 3 W > N110 3 y C
O ?•04 oV L •
?
• x r..

O
8 4.)
.0
I c 04.) O G C G L. H 1 L O
p
GL. '" yy
CL o .0
0 0 Ijw 10 C c > O

W 3
V
G? 4r L
43
4 Z D O r•1 M1 •rl •. r .1 O
"
0 V
fi C Ca co A 3
N
L 3

C ..
r
$

? d ?U)
? co Q)
6 .s ?v •.. •C • G.C. •v?w
j
•
al c
.
00-
1
1
J
to
It 1
I 1

11
i?
I ?
I I
81
r?
?I
I
W \`
r
/ t ii?
?
0u
/ fl > ?
09
/( I 000
a i :k
N / . II
I ? I
t
\ \ I
t ? 1
t
W
w'
V
1 3'
• set ??I k? •
? I s 1
W I
t 1 ?
sr
W i I
? I
I ? I
.z I
? I
.• •
I // I o°o 0 of
.?
Y.TGM ? LIM
I I
I I
I s
k
.I
:I
I 1
I
I I
I
I I
? I
I _
i I
I I
I •• t
I•j ?
E
I?.
? s I
.
' J
•MSN?Y?
i I
I
= t O
I i
? I I
I
? s I
= lil
ICI
I I ;
I 1
s 1 I
1 I
.. I I
I 1
J.

z
L
J
s 3
W
?
3

0 O z

C
3
i

r
.? o
?
, o
a
? . CC
.w
N L.
O 000 0 c.
O
00
00
0
D OAA
{•
f O p •:i 0
0
o O ?1 OO O
L
Ld U)
td
° 'S ; 8
°0 M° y W
p cd „, cd
O00 a
O 0 0 co;
'
CL L?
?
p,C6.
N d
•' c?Q c
• 1.3c
? a 'v o
? N
d
° 0 L
(
z d

n t
N
G
Q.
0
.,?.?•
......?