MANTEO

MANTEO – (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NORTH CAROLINA

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project is a product of extensive investigation, analysis and coordination for over 30 years. In the process of developing the plan, the Corps has addressed, in great detail, the views and concerns of the other Federal agencies and interested parties and has properly considered alternatives, environmental consequences and mitigation. Following the Federal planning guidelines, Principles and Guidelines (P&G), consideration of project impacts on fish and wildlife has been central to the planning of this project and significant modifications are proposed that are intended to diminish or eliminate the environmental impacts of the project. The Corps believes the proposed project avoids or appropriately mitigates for environmental damage that might arise from its construction, while providing a safe and reliable channel for navigation projects. The project, as planned, satisfies Federal guidelines to develop a plan that contributes to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment.

Existing Project

The purpose of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project is to provide a safe, reliable navigable channel from the Atlantic Ocean through Oregon Inlet to Roanoke Sound and connecting channels to Pamlico Sound. The existing project provides:

Channel 6 feet deep and 100 feet wide extending 1.6 miles from Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay through Roanoke Sound to that depth in Albemarle Sound
Channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide from a basin in front of the town of Manteo extending 12.6 miles to and through Roanoke Sound to Old House Channel, including a side channel of the same dimensions 0.8 mile long to a basin at the town of Wanchese
Channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide extending 8 miles from Oregon Inlet via Old House Channel to the 12-foot contour in Pamlico Sound
Channel 14 feet deep and 400 feet wide from the Oregon Inlet gorge across the ocean bar.

Purpose and Need for Project Improvements.

The need for the proposed project arises from the fact that Oregon Inlet has heavy vessel traffic since it is the only navigable inlet between Cape Henry, Virginia, and Hatteras Inlet, North Carolina. Oregon Inlet is located about 45 miles north of Hatteras Inlet and 85 miles south of Cape Henry. A report projecting commercial fish landings through Oregon Inlet (Street 1997) indicated that vessels from many other North Carolina ports as well as other states use Oregon Inlet when conditions permit safe navigation. Vessels using the inlet represent both commercial and recreational fishing interests.

The Corps of Engineers has been attempting to maintain the 14-foot deep by 400-foot wide channel across the ocean bar at Oregon Inlet since 1962. Between 1962 and 1965, channel maintenance was accomplished with Corps of Engineers hopper dredges. Between 1965 and 1982 the channel was maintained primarily by Corps of Engineers sidecast dredges. During the early 90's, hopper dredge operations were limited to the months of December through March due to concerns over the safety of sea turtles. During that period, maintenance of the bar channel was accomplished with ocean certified pipeline dredges which deposited the dredged material on the north end of Pea Island between 1 and 2 miles south of Oregon Inlet.

Historical Review of Oregon Inlet - Manteo (Shallowbag) Project

Existing Project was authorized on May 17, 1950 (HD 310/81/1). That authorization provided for a 14' x 400' channel through Oregon Inlet; a 12' x 100' channel via Old House Channel to Pamlico Sound; a 12' x 100' channel from Oregon Inlet to a basin 200' x 600' at Manteo; and a 12' x 100' channel from the Manteo-Oregon Inlet channel to a basin 200' square at Wanchese.
Dec 1970 - The improved project was authorized on December 31, 1970 (HD 91-303/91/2). That authorization provided for stabilization of Oregon Inlet with a dual jetty system including a means to bypass sand around the inlet, a 20' x 400' channel through Oregon Inlet; 14' x 120' channel from Oregon Inlet to and through Roanoke Sound to and including a 15-acre basin of the same depth at the Harbor of Wanchese.
Apr 1977 - Final Phase I GDM and EIS published which contained responses to all comments received.
Dec 1978 - Contract awarded for Wanchese Harbor enlargement by NC.
Jul 1979 - COE officially requests Special Use Permits from NPS and FWS.
Dec 1979 - Contracts awarded for construction of on-shore facilities at Wanchese Harbor by NC.
Sep 1980 - Letter from Asst. Sec. For FWS and Parks sent to ASA(CW) indicating DOI would not issue Special Use Permits for the project.
Sep 1980 - GDM Phase II, Project Design published by the COE. Final EIS Supplement I filed with EPA.
Dec 1980 - DOI final review of EIS Supplement. DOI indicates it is not opposed to navigation project, but opposes jetties because jetties would be incompatible with NPS and FWS Congressional mandates.
Mar 1981 - Wanchese Harbor construction completed by NC; Seafood Industrial Park officially dedicated.
Sep 1983 - Supplement I, GDM Phase II published by COE. Supplement I addresses jetty spacing, structural design, hydraulic stability, geotec subsurface analysis, sand bypassing, and reanalysis of navigation channel dimensions.
May 1985 - Final EIS Supplement II published by COE. Supplement II includes cultural resource surveys, visual impact study, FWS Coordination Act Report, jetty spacing, and shore anchorage section of north jetty.
Nov 1989 - NCDOT awards contract for terminal groin/revetment at the northern tip of Pea Island to prevent further erosion, which threatens the Herbert Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet. Groin completed in 1991.
Jan - Aug 1991 - Eight meetings of the DOI/COE Task Force were held. Major issues discussed were jetty spacing and sand management. Issues raised were presented in a 1995 COE FDM on sand management.
Feb 1997 – Feature DM on Sand By-Passing was approved.
Aug 2001 - Supplement 2, GDM and Final EIS Supplement No. III published by COE with a B/C ratio of 1.6. Supplement 2 focuses on jetty impacts, sand bypassing on the adjacent shorelines, and a dredging alt.

Recommended Plan

The proposed project provides for stabilization of Oregon Inlet with a dual rubble-mound jetty system. The north jetty length is 10,950 feet and includes a 1000-foot long weir section. The south jetty including the terminal groin is 6,575 feet long. After shoreline adjustment, the jetties would extend approximately 2500 feet into the ocean. The plan also includes a sand by-passing system for adjacent beaches, a channel 20’x400’ through the ocean bar, and a channel 14’x120’ from the gorge in Oregon Inlet to and through Roanoke Sound to and including a 15-acre boat basin of the same depth at Wanchese. A physical and biological monitoring plan will be developed to address long term implications of the project. The following table presents the real estate requirements for the project on DOI lands.

The average annual cost of the project is estimated to be $4,520,000 and the estimated average annual benefits are $7,237,000. This results in net project benefits of $2,708,000 and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.6. The total first cost of the project is $91,758,000 (October 1997 price level). The current fully funded total project cost is estimated to be $111,000,000. The schedule for completion of the GDM and EIS is presented in the following table.

Schedule for Completion of the GDM & EIS Supplements

Milestone Event Schedule

Complete Revisions to Draft Supplement III                                                08-Jan-99
   Submit Draft Supplements to Public & Agency                                               00-Jan-00
   Public Review notice in Federal Register                                                         00-Jan-00
Public and Agency Review Complete                                                       00-Jan-00
Comment Responses, Draft Revisions Complete                               03-Aug-01
Print Revised Supplements, Submit Final to SAD/HQ                             06-Aug-01
HQ Approves Final Release                                                                        04-Sep-01
Notice of Final Supplement in Federal Register                                             21-Sep-01
Public & Agency Review                                                                                   23-Oct-01
Final Comments to SAW                                                                           06-Nov-01
Prepare Draft ROD Package                                                                    30-Nov-01
Submit Draft ROD Package to ASA(CW)                                                       07-Dec-01

Planning Process and NEPA Requirements

The Presidentially directed Planning Guidelines (Principles and Guidelines), used by the Corps, incorporate NEPA requirements into the planning and decision making process. The planning steps are logical and address 4 Accounts:

National Economic Development (NED)
Environmental Quality (EQ)
Regional Economic Development (RED)
Other Social Effects (OSE).

The 4 accounts are designed to capture ecological, cultural, and aesthetic resource considerations required by NEPA. These steps and system of accounts have been carefully and repeatedly followed for the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project. In fact, since 1970, this process, as depicted in the following table has been repeated numerous times.

The Federal objective for plan selection is to recommend the NED plan, which is the alternative “with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment”. The proposed plan meets this criteria.

Alternatives evaluated in the 35+ years of planning and engineering on this project include:

Continued maintenance of the existing 14’ channel (No Action Plan)
Dredging deeper channel – various depths (Dredging Only)
Jetties and channel deepening (Recommended Plan)

Sand by-passing
Jetty positioning, length and spacing
Wiers
Breakwaters

The following table presents a comparison of the alternative solutions. Costs and benefits are shown as incremental changes between the with and without condition (continued maintenance of a 14’ channel)

Plan	Average Annual Costs	Average Annual Benefits	Net Benefits	Benefit/Cost Ratio
Dredging Deeper Channel (20’)	$8,148,400	$6,237,000	-$1,911,400	.8
Jetty Alternative	$4,520,000	$7,237,000	$2,717,000	1.6

Documentation and Coordination

The existing project was authorized in 1950 and constructed beginning in 1960. Since then the following major reports have been prepared and coordinated:

1970 Feasibility Report for improved project (jetties and deeper channel)

1977 Final Phase I General Design Memorandum (GDM) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

1980 Phase II General Design Memorandum and Final EIS Supplement I

1985 Final EIS Supplement II

1997 Feature Design Memorandum on Sand By-Passing

2001 Final GDM Supplement II and Final EIS Supplement III

The supplemental GDM’s and EIS’s were prepared to address modifications in the project to address economic reevaluations and agency concerns concerning larval transport and shoreline erosion.

Project Issues

The areas of controversy associated with the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, project are numerous and long-standing as evidenced by the four environmental impact documents which have been prepared for the project dating back to September 1977. The controversies can be distilled to four categories: concerns about the effects of the proposed jetties on the movement of larval organisms through Oregon Inlet; concerns about the effects of the jetties and sand bypassing system on natural littoral processes; concern about the adequacy and commitment to mitigation needs; and concern that the no action plan and dredging only plan have not been adequately evaluated. The Department of Interior has denied special use permits required for the proposed plan, citing incompatibility with management philosophy and guidelines for their lands.

These issues are long standing and have been addressed in each of the NEPA reports and further detailed in response to the referral from NOAA. The following presents the major actions taken by the Corps to address these concerns.

Corps Actions

GAO Audit

Senator Edwards, North Carolina and Senator Baucus, Montana, requested a GAO audit of the project. The audit is currently underway with the following objectives:

Is the Corps’ economic analysis of the project reasonable and useful for decision making?
Will the Corps still require dredging of the Inlet once the project is completed and, if so, how much and at what cost?
Did the Corps consider lessons learned from similar jetty projects in its decision maki9ng on the Oregon Inlet project?

At present, their findings are expected in the spring of 2002.

Project Support

The State of North Carolina, as the project sponsor, continues to show strong support for the project. Active support comes from the governor’s office and the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Congressman Walter Jones, Jr. and Senator Jesse Helms also continue to be active supporters of the project.