Posted on December 5, 2017
By Brad Rich, Carolina Coast Online
U.S. Congressman Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., has urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to more fully examine the potential consequences of its proposal to move the Morehead City Port channel 700 feet west, away from Shackleford Banks and toward Atlantic Beach.
In a Nov. 28 letter to Col. Robert Clark of the ACE’s Wilmington District Office, Rep. Jones said he recognizes “the importance of Morehead City Harbor and fully support(s) the Corps’ mission to maintain the channel and support navigation.”
But, he added, “It is my understanding that the Corps is proposing to shift the boundary of the navigation channel 700 feet to the west away from Shackleford Banks, which is intended to reduce maintenance dredging requirements and increase navigability.
“While I support these goals, I share concerns that the Corps has not evaluated potential impacts to the adjacent beaches and Fort Macon State Park,” Rep. Jones continues.
“Prior to authorizing moving the western boundary of the channel, I urge the Corps to fully evaluate the potential impacts of its proposed action, including the evaluation of potential impacts to adjacent beaches.”
Rep. Jones is referring to “concerns” expressed last month by Greg Rudolph, manager of the County Shore Protection office, in response to an environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed project by the ACE.
In his own letter to the ACE, Mr. Rudolph asked the agency to take measures to help ensure that the plan won’t result in serious erosion of the eastern end of Bogue Banks.
In addition, the county letter from Mr. Rudolph suggested a terminal groin or jetty at Shackleford Banks is a viable alternative method to ensure protection of the port channel.
Specifically, in his letter, Mr. Rudolph asked the ACE to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) or a mitigated finding of no significant impact (FONSI) before moving ahead with the project.
An EA is a far less extensive environmental review than an EIS.
Friday, Mr. Rudolph said he welcomed the continued assistance of Rep. Jones, who he said has long been attentive to and understanding of the needs of the port and the county’s beaches.
“We’ve had a great relationship with Congressman Jones and his staff … and we appreciate that relationship,” he said. “It’s great to know that we don’t have to explain things to them. They understand the issues.”
When asked about the significance of Rep. Jones weighing in with the ACE on behalf of the county, Mr. Rudolph compared it to getting a call from a member of the county’s N.C. General Assembly delegation.
“If I get a call from (one of them), I’m going to jump pretty high,” he said.
Late in October, in a memo to the County Beach Commission, Mr. Rudolph stated his concerns about the channel shift this way: “We are very concerned of unintended impacts to the inlet system and adjacent shorelines. Namely, the smaller flood channel that runs parallel to Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach.
“If the flood channel becomes deeper and wider as a result of the proposed project, additional losses of sand from Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach are likely (i.e., more erosion).”
He elaborated in his letter to the Corps.
“As indicated in its comments dated March 2, 2016, the County supports these objectives; however … the County continues to have concerns that potential impacts to eastern Bogue Banks were not evaluated and believes that the draft EA does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),” he wrote.
“NEPA requires federal agencies to factor environmental considerations into their discretionary decision-making and directs that federal agencies implement, ‘to the fullest extent possible,’ methods and procedures designed to give environmental factors appropriate consideration.
“Preparation of an environmental impact statement is required for ‘major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,’” Mr. Rudolph added. “An environmental assessment … may be prepared to determine the need for an EIS.
“To document that an EIS is not necessary, the EA must reach a Finding of No Significant Impact.”
In this case, Mr. Rudolph added, “The draft EA prepared by the Corps recognizes that the area in the vicinity of the channel is ‘dynamic and experiences a high degree of variability.’ In fact, the Corps recognizes that it is proposing ‘to establish a navigation corridor in the most dynamic section of the channel by shifting the western navigation channel boundary approximately 700 feet west, away from Shackleford Banks…’
“Without analyzing … potential, significant impacts, the draft EA does not comply with NEPA, and the Corps is unable to reach a FONSI.”
An EIS, he wrote, should “fully evaluate the potential impacts of shifting the western navigation channel boundary approximately 700 feet west. The environmental review should include a … model that fully examines the potential impacts to the inlet system and adjacent shoreline.”
The other option, Mr. Rudolph wrote, would be to “incorporate mitigation measures into the project to avoid the preparation of an EIS.
“To reach a mitigated FONSI, the Corps must ensure that the mitigation will be performed and will mitigate the impacts of the proposed project.
“The mitigation requirements should be clearly described in the mitigated FONSI, including measurable performance standards and adequate mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and reporting.”
Finally, Mr. Rudolph’s letter states that the county “is also concerned that the proposed realignment of the channel will not provide a long-term solution.
“As discussed in our prior comments, the proposed realignment may only last two to three years before intervention is again required.
“The County believes that a terminal groin or jetty at Shackleford is a viable alternative…
“To the extent that the east end of Shackleford Banks is migrating into the fixed channel and eroding, it would be appropriate to place a terminal groin or jetty to offset these impacts.”
The county, Mr. Rudolph concluded, “…understands the continuing shoaling and funding issues associated with the Morehead City Harbor Project. However, shifting the channel 700 feet to the west has the potential to cause significant impacts to the inlet complex and adjacent shorelines.
“The Corps must either prepare an EIS fully evaluating these potential significant impact or issue a mitigated FONSI.”
Rep. Jones’ letter obviously didn’t go as far as Mr. Rudolph’s. It didn’t request an EIS and didn’t mention groins or jetties. Still, Mr. Rudolph said Friday, he hopes a letter from the congressman will make a difference.
Mr. Rudolph believes the whole issue goes back about a decade, to when the eastern end of Shackleford Banks essentially began disappearing into the port channel, eroding fast.
As a result, Mr. Rudolph said, the Corps had to switch from using a hopper dredge, which just deposits sand in the water, to a pipeline dredge, which moves it elsewhere, in order to keep the port channel at a stable depth of around 45 feet. That cost more money, and the Corps has been having trouble making ends meet in its recent budgets.
He said the agency is looking for ways to reduce the amount of dredging necessary to keep the port channel open.
But, he added recently, the Corps shouldn’t take steps to do that without ensuring that those steps won’t cause erosion of Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach, both of which are crucial to the county and state.
Source: Carolina Coast Online
