Coastal energy transportation study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

'%@@ YA @v -7 L J

Coastal Energy Transportation Study
Phase 11, Volume I

A Study of OCS Onshore.Support Bases
and Coal Export Terminals

Paul D. Cribbins
N.C. State University
c/o UNC Institute for Transportation Research
and Education
P.O. Box 12551
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

AAM&
North Carolina
Coastal Energy Impact Program
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development

HD
9567 CEIP EPORT NO. 2
.N8
C74 UGUST 1981
@
r"'
All

Jon

CC E
C'

1981

To order:

Residents of North Carolina may
receive a single copy of a
publication free upon request.
Non-residents may purchase
publications for the prices
listed. Because of the
production costs involved, some
of the publications carry a
minimal charge regardless of
residency. Prices for these are
indicated in the price list as
being "for all requests".

When ordering publications
please provide the publication
number and title and enclose a
check made payable to DNRCD. For
a complete list of CEIP
publications - or to place an
order - contact:

Coastal Energy Impact Program
Office of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611

Series Edited by James F. Smith
Cover Design by Jill Miller

Coastal Energy Transportation Study-
Phase 11, Volurne@ 1

A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and
Coal Export Terminals

by
Paul D. Cribbins
UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education
P.O. Box 12551
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

The preparation of this report was financed through a
Coastal Energy Impact Program grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds pro-
vided by the Coastal Zone Management Act. of 1972, as
amended, which is administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration. This CEIP grant wa's part of NOAA grant
NA-80-AA-D-CZ149.

Project No. 80-07
Contract No. C-6041

August 1981
U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
Z 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
I%
Z

CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

PREFACE

This report summarizes work on the second phase of a three-phase study
funded by the Coastal Energy Impact Program and conducted by the UNC Institute
for Transportation Research and Education. Phase I of this study, conducted
in 1980, identified and documented the transportation needs necessary to
support a group of energy projects proposed for the coastal area of North
Carolina.

Following a series of interviews with industry representatives, key
officials in coastal counties, and various State agencies in mid-1980, major
facilities were identified, energy use scenarios were developed, and trans-
portation needs were assessed. Concurrent with these tasks, an impact assess-
ment methodology was developed for conducting certain Phase II tasks.

The results of Phase I were documented in three reports:

1. A technical report entitled "Coastal Energy Transportation Study:
An Analysis of Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone," Phase I Report, December 1980
(180 pages);

2. A summary report entitled "Coastal Energy Transportation Study:
An Analysis of Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone," March 1981 (30 pages); and

3. An executive summary report issued by the Office of Coastal Manage-
ment entitled "Special Report: First Inventory of Coastal Energy
Facilities Reported," April 1981 (2 pages).

All of these reports are available from The UNC Institute for Transportation
Research and Education or the Office of Coastal Management in the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.

Phase II (September 1980-August 1981) is divided into two distinct parts:

1. An assessment of impacts of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil
and gas exploration and production activity with emphasis on the
transportation requirements and alternative locations for on-shore
support base(s) in'North Carolina, and

2. An assessment of impacts of coal exports from North Carolina with
emphasis on the transportation requirements of alternative loca-
tions and capacities of coal terminals.

Phase III (September 1981-August 1982) is an assessment of impacts of
transport and storage of all other energy feedstocks and products, including
crude oil, refinery products, liquified petroleum gas, peat, wood, and
biomass material. A more detailed analysis of coal transportation to North
Carolina's ports will also be undertaken during Phase III. Other energy-
related projects may be added at a later date.

This report is one of three volumes documenting the results of Phase
II as described above. These three volumes are entitled:

1. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 1, A Study of OCS
Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals;

2. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 2, An Assessment of
Potential Impacts of Energy-Related Transportation Developments on
North Carolina's Coastal Zone; and

3. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 3, An Analysis of
State and Federal Policies Affecting Major Energy Projects in
North Carolina's Coastal Zone.

Scheduling of tasks was designed to permit the study team to complete
key activities in advance of certain critical dates. For example, many of
the tasks related to OCS activity in Phase II have been completed so that
state, regional, and local decisionmakers involved in the OCS program will
have output prior to August 1981, the scheduled.date for OCS Lease Sale #56
by the Bureau of Land Management.

The movement of export coal shipments through North Carolina is now
underway. The contract with Alla-Ohio Coal Company to ship three million
tons annually through the State Ports Authority (SPA) facilities in Morehead.
City was announced in October 1980;. and the first shipment of export steam
coal left Morehead City for Holland on May 13, 1981. Although the situation
regarding the development of energy projects is constantly changing, this
report is based on the most up-to-date information available at the time of
printing.

An additional, parallel task of this study has been the monitoring of
the situation regarding all types of energy projects in the coastal zone.
The dynamics of the other projects that will be included in Phase III, as
well as those of the coal exports and OCS lease sale, are of interest.

Since this research project began in January 1980, a significant amount
of activity,has taken place in the North Carolina coastal zone with respect
to proposals for new or expanded energy projects. These project proposals
have been in response to changing economic conditions and dynamic corporate
and private investment strategies. For example, since the Phase I report

was written, the following captions from Raleigh and Wilmington newspapers
reveal the "shifting attitudes" surrounding the development of the Brunswick
Energy Company (BECO) refinery in Brunswick County, across-the Cape Fear
from Wilmington:

11/18/80 "Building Refinery"
1/04/81 "Refinery, Smelter Debated"
1/28/81 "U.S. Agency Not Taking Stand on Refinery"
2/22/81 "BECO, E-nvironmentalists at Odds"
3/08/81 "Low Demand (for petroleum products) Closing
Refineries"
4/28/81 "BECO to 'Re-evaluate' Brunswick Co. Refinery"
4/29/81 "BECO May Consider Selling Refinery Project"
5/15/81 "BECO Drops Plans to Build Oil Refinery"

Contin,ued monitoring of the local, state, national, and international
situations that affect the potential of energy developments in North Carolina
will be continued throughout this study.

CONTENTS

Section Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi
Tables . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Project Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1.0 Industry Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development
and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.1.2 Coal Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.0 Location Alternatives for OCS Support Bases . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Shore Support Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Service Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Siting Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Site Specific Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Optimal Number of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Identification of North Carolina Sites . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6.1 Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6.2 Wanchese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.3 Southport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6.4 Wilmington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Site Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . 26
2.8 Needed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.0 Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals . . . . . . . . 31
3.1 Export Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.1 Production and Export Projects . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.2 Export Constraints . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 32
3.2 Alternative Development Scenarios for
North Carolina Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 32
3.2.1 Terminal Development--U.S. East Coast . . . . . . . 32
3.2.2 Potential for New Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.3 Vessel Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.4 Export Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3 Long-Range Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4 North Carolina Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.1 Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.2 Wilmington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.5 Improvements Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

FIGURES

Number Paqe

1 Proximity of Support Base Sites to Lease
Area No. 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Prospective OCS Sites--Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

3 Port of Morehead City SPA Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4

4 Site 21--Radio Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6

5 Prospective OCS Support Base Site-Wanchese . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

110
6 Southport Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z.

7 Sites 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 Sites 2 and C-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

9 Sites 1, 9 and C-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

10 OCS Sites 10 and 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 217

11 Prospective Coal Export Terminal Sites
Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

12 Site C-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

13 Site C-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

14 Site C-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

15 Site C-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8

16 American Coal Export Company Site, C-20 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 510

17 Hampstead/Scotts Hill--Site C-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

18 Site C-17 Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

19 Site C-17 Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 54

20 Port of Wilmington--SPA Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

TABLES

Number Page

1 Estimated Resources and Offshore Infrastructure . . . . . . . 4

2 Estimated Recovery Rate for Offshore Infrastructure
Development Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Estimated Recovery Rate for Northern Tract Group
Offshore Development Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Port an d Marine Service Infrastructure Requirements
for Temporary OCS Service Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Prospective OCS Support Base Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6 Checklist of Industry Needs OCS Support Base Sites . . . . . . 12

7 Analysis of OCS Support Base Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8 Coal Production and Export Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

9 Capacities of Planned Coal Terminals--U.S. East Coast . . . . 35

10 Planned Coal Terminals-North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

11 Coal Export Capacity Estimates . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . 39

12 Port and Marine Service Infrastructure Requirements for
Coal Export Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

13 Prospective Coal Terminal Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

14 Analysis of Coal Terminal Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

SPONSOR

COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CE1P)
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development

Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director,
Office of Coastal Management
James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (ITRE)
The University of North@Carolina

Edwin W. Hauser, Project Manager and Chairman of
Advisory Committee;
Deputy Director, ITRE

Paul D. Cribbins, Co-Principal Investigator
Professor, Ci'vil Engtneering
North Carolina State University

Pau-1 D. Tschetter, Co-Principa] Investigator
Associate Professor, Sociology
East Carolina University

John R. Maiolo,, Research Associate
Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology
East Carolina University

Mark Fisch, Research Associate
Assistant Professor, Sociology
East Carolina University

R. Daniel Latta, P.E., Project Associate
Graduate Student, Business Administration
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Tom Marzilli, Project Associate
Graduate Student, Sociology
East Carolina University

Viii

Reba Lewis, Project Associate
Graduate Student, Sociology
East Carolina University

Paul S. Cribbins, Project Associate
Legal Consultant
Institute for Transportation Research and Education

Tom Messick, Project Assistant
Student, Mechanical Engineering
North Carolina State University

Pamela L. Godwin
Project Secretary
Institute for Transportation Research and Education

Zaneta G. Walker
Research Assistant
Institute for Transportation Research and Education

PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steven BeInton, Head, Technical Services
Office of Coastal Management
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

Jerry Ganey, Administrative Assistant to Executive Director
State Ports Authority

Ralph L. Godwin, Executive Director
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc.

Billy Ray Hall, Assistant Director
Division of Policy Development
NC Department of Administration

Edd Hauser, Deputy Director
UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education

Sam Holcomb, Transportation Planner
Systems Planning Division
K Department of Transportation

Mary Ellen Marsden, Research Associate
Institute forResearch in Social Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Bruce Muga, Professor of Civil Engineering
Duke University

Angela G. Skelton, Associate Director
North Carolina Petroleum Council

James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(ex-officio member)

Yates.Sorrell, Technical Director
Alternative Energy Corporation

Roy Stevens, Executive Director
Carteret County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Eric A. Vernon, Coordinator
OCS Task Force, Office of Marine Affairs
NC Department of Administration

John Warren, Senior Environmental Planner
Operations Analysis Division
Research Triangle Institute

Paul Wilms, Head, Planning and Environmental Studies
Environmental Management Division
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

ABSTRACT

Following an earlier study (Phase I) that focused on the identification
and documentation of transportation facilities necessary to support major
energy projects@ proposed.for the coastal area of North Carolina, this study
concentrates- on two of the projects (1) on-shore support base.s for Outer
Continental* Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and (2) coal export terminals.

In order to develop location alternatives for OCS support bases, shore
support requi-rements are identified, 16 alternative sites are described,, and
a parametric analysi's is utilized to select the most promising sites. Site-
specific recommendations regarding infrastructure requirements and transpor-
tation impacts are provided.

In the case of coal exports, it is anticipated that overseas demand for
steam-coal,_ whi,ch:exploded'in 1980, wi1l continue to grow during the decade.
But congestion at maj.or coal ports along the eastern seaboard--Hampton
Roads, Baltimore, and Philadel.phia--is not expected to be alleviated for
several years. Recent estimates of delays to colliers desiring to load at
Hampton Roads indicate that as many as 150 vessels are anchored and experiencing
waiting periods of'50 to 60 days each. These delays and the resulting
demurrage charges which average $15,.000 per day per ship are an understandable
source of concern to the industry.

In response to these problems, nearly two dozen U.S. ports have announced
plans for new coal export facilities. This study explores plans for coal
port expansion on.the east coast,. attempts to determine needed capacity,
identifies.major bottlenecks including vessel size and channel depths, and
seeks location alternatives for export terminals. It is evident that coal
shippers are not only expanding existing export facilities in traditional
eastern coal ports, but also turning to ports that have exported little or
no coal in the past. Projected annual throughput of coa] exports from North
Carolina's deepwater ports during the next decade are projected to be between
54 and 67 million tons by 1990. This report identifies eleven alternative
terminal sites and assesses their potential impacts on the Coastal Study Area.

Xii

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Volume 1, A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals,
addresses two major projects:

1. Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration
activity; and

2. Impacts of coal export movement from North Carolina.

Following an assessment of industry need s for each of these projects,
transportation requirements and location alternatives for OCS on-shore support
bases and coal export terminals were determined as follows.

Location Alternatives for OCS Support Bases

Sixteen prospective site locations for an OCS support base were identified
and briefly described. Following field inspection, each of these sites (see
Table 5) was reviewed to ascertain its compliance with a checklist of industry
needs. Specific port and marine infrastructure requirements needed to establish
temporary OCS service bases along the North Carolina coast were used as guide-
lines in this process. It should be noted that four of the 16 sites under
consideration (C-5, 'C-8, C-13, and C-17) are also evaluated in Chapter 3 as
potential coal terminal locations.

Sixteen measures of merit were used in an updated parametric analysis of
the support base sites. A preliminary-analysis was presented in Table 3-4 of
the Phase I report, but that analysis has been modified with respect to',sites
and merit measures to reflect the most current information available as of
April 1981.

If all of the merit measures were equally weighted, a simple summation
would reveal the best of the candidate sites. But this is obviously not the
case, and engineering judgment is needed to narrow the list of candidates.
Two outstanding sites were identified: Sites 17 and 23 (see Table 7).
Because of their location in an existing SPA terminal at Wilmington and Morehead
City, respectively, each is in the enviable position of having most of the
necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements already.provided.
Having relatively little demand for capital expenditures and the ability to
begin operation almost immediately will make each of these sites especially
attractive to the oil and gas drilling companies. Each has at least 1,000
feet of wharf and 35 feet of channel depth available at the site. Each is in
a port area previously zoned for industrial use; good rail and highway facilities
are available; and storage areas, cranes, fresh water, and bunkering facilities
are already provided. With the possible exception of Site 22, which has been
earmarked as a bulk phosphate facility for the North Carolina Phosphate Company,
all other sites would require substantial investments of time and capita] to
acquire the necessary infrastructure.

Xiii

Although there is little to choose between the two sites, it is recom-
mended that Site 23 be given top priority as a support base site because of
its proximity to the Northern Tract Group in Lease Area No. 56. Both its
air and water distances to the lease area are approximately half of those
for Site 17, and Site 23 is much closer to the open ocean. It is further
recommended that, if exploratory drilling for OCS oil and gas is undertaken
in 1981 or soon thereafter, the State of North Carolina through its appropri-
ate agencies should take the steps necessary to make five to ten acres of
land at Site 23 on the SPA terminal property in Morehead City available for
use as a temporary onshore support base site. If a second support base is
needed, steps should be taken to make a similar amount of land available on
the SPA terminal in Wilmington at or near Site 17.

Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals

Utilizing U.S. coal production and export projections from a series of
recent national studies, estimates of East Coast coal terminal capacity were
prepared. Export potential for the South Atlantic range of ports, with
particular emphasis on North Carolina's two deepwater ports, was then explored.

Firm commitments or announced plans to locate coal terminals in the
State have been reported in the news media for five locations. If all of
these plans materialize and if the announced tonnages are realistic, as much
as 54 to 67 million tons of coal could be exported from North Carolina by
the end of the decade.

Finally, eleven prospective sites in the Coastal Study Area were
described and analyzed to ascertain their suitability as future locations
for coal export terminals. Specific recommendations for sites in Morehead
City, along the Cape Fear River, and offshore were itemized. It is anticipated
that, during Phase III of this study, alternative transportation modes or
systems that could relieve anticipated bottlenecks in the coal-haul railroad
network or other transportation networks will be investigated.

Analysis of the coal sites was complicated by the fact that several of
the sites, regardless of whether or not they are the best sites, have
already been selected by coal companies as export terminal sites. As a
result, Sites C-12 and C-16 in Morehead City and C-7 and C-20 in Wilmington
have been pre-empted for coal terminals in the past six months. In fact.,
most of the better sites have either been purchased or are presently under
option.

With these constraints in evidence and considering the findings revealed
in this chapter, the following tentative recommendations are proposed:

Morehead City Sites
1. That because the planned throughput of the Alla-Ohio Valley (C-16)
and Gulf Interstate (C-12) terminals will far exceed the practical
capacity of the railroad line through Morehead City, future expan-
sion of these terminals should be very carefully evaluated.

Xiv

2. That no additional coal terminals be approved in the Morehead
harbor until major changes are implemented in the land trans-
portation link for coal inbound to the port. These changes could
include a rail bypass, slurry pipeline, conveyor system, barge
service, or some combination of systems.

Cape Fear River Sites

3. That, other than a moderate-sized terminal on SPA property (Site
C-17), no additional coal terminals should be sited on the east
side of the Cape Fear River because of railroad grade crossing
problems in Wilmington.

4. That, if additional throughput capacity is required along the Cape
Fear River, Site C-5 (north of Pfizer Chemical Company) and Site
C-8 (north of Town Creek) should be considered as the best of the
remaining available sites.

Offshore Sites

5. That, if any coal companies desire to develop an offshore export
terminal complex to load coal in deep water (>60 feet), Site C-18
(Hampstead/Scotts Hill) and possibly Site C-14 (near U.S. 70 and
N.C. 24 west of Morehead City) should be initially considered.

1.0 INDUSTRY NEEDS

Seemingly endless increases in the price of imported crude oil coupled
with recent political upheaval in the Middle East have underscored this
nation's vulnerability in continuing to depend on foreign sources for a
large part of our energy supply. The need to increase our domestic resource
production and reduce our consumption of scarce fuels is well documented.
Recent administrations have stressed the need for greater energy independence.
The goal of reducing our oil imports in 1990 to one-half the current level
has been suggested.

One of the most desirable ways to attain this goal is to encourage
domestic production of oil and gas--both onshore and offshore. On the
demand side, the need for imported oil can be substantially reduced by
converting oil-fired electric generating plants to coal-fired plants. Each
of these means of attaining greater self sufficiency will impact different
areas of the country in varying degrees. In the Southeast, the most promising
location for increased domestic oil and gas production is the Proposed 1981
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 56, where the U. S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated there are 1.4 billion barrels of oil
and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas in the leasing area. It is assumed that
production, which is expected to peak in 1993, will be gathered from the
offshore production areas and transported ashore to landfalls in Georgia and
North Carolina.

The export of coal from the U.S. is currently increasing. Steam coal
is already beginning to move out of several South Atlantic ports other than
Hampton Roads, which has long been the world's leading coal port. Although
some of these shipments may be destined for domestic generating plants in'
New England and Florida, most of the initial demand for export steam coal is
originating in Western Europe where conversion from oil to coal in the
generation of electricity has taken place much more rapidly than it has in
this country.

Just how these two energy developments--OCS oil and gas production and
coal exportation--will impact the Coastal Study Area of North Carolina and
what specific concerns the State should address to mitigate their impacts,
will be described in the following sections.

1.1 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development and Production

The Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for proposed Lease
Sale 56 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) indicates that 286 tracts
totalling 1.6 million acres in Federal waters offshore North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida will be offered for sale in August 1981.
These tracts, which are located from 16 to 111 nautical miles off the coast
in water depths of 65 to 6,890 feet, are depicted in Figure 1. Sale

cln WANC14ESE

OREHEA
WILUINGTON 0

GEORGETOWN SOUTHPORT
CHARLESTON

SAVANNAH

00,
BRUNSWICK*

NORTHERN TRACT GROUP

)ACKSO ILLE

SOUTHERN RACT
GR P

LINITED s,rATES DEPARTMENT OF IN
41 BUREAU01' LAND MANA(;VMt:Nr
Nr,w OR LF-ANq ol'MR CONTINLN14 L 'it ku irriuv

0 10 10 10 40 10
rROPOcU0 TRACTS FOR S.At E -Sfi
,)TATIJTL MILES

FIGURE 1
PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT 6ASe SITES TO LEASE AREA No. 56

tracts are divided into two geographic groups according to their proximity
to likely shore-based services. The Northern Tract Group includes 130
tracts off the North Carolina coast while the Southern Tract Group encompasses
156 tracts off the coasts of north Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Existing commercial ports in the South Atlantic region are also shown.

Resource and offshore infrastructure estimates for proposed Sale 56,
which were furnished to BLM by the Conservation District, Eastern Region,
provide an insight into industry requirements. Tables 1 and 2 summarize
estimates for resources and offshore infrastructure and provide an estimated
timetable for development utilizing low (5% probability), mean, and high
(95% probability) recovery estimates. These estimates in turn provide the
basis for Northern Tract Group Offshore Development Scenarios (Table 3)
which help predict the estimated number of wells and platforms as well as
daily production of oil and gas.

Because the Coastal Study Area of North Carolina will most likely be
impacted only by exploration activities in the Northern Tract Group, estimates
of industry needs in Phase II of this investigation will focus on the 130
tracts in the Northern Tract Group. OCS oil and gas development activities
resulting from Lease Sale 56 could eventually produce a multiplicity of
impacts on the quality of life in the Study Area Chapter 2 (Location
Alternatives for OCS Support Bases) of this study will be concerned only
with the requirements for and impacts created by onshore support facilities
required during the exploratory drilling period. Support facility require-
ments for the development drilling period will be addressed during Phase III
of the study.

1.2 Coal Export

Overseas demand for,steam coal, which exploded last year, is expected to
continue to grow during 1981; but congestion at major coal ports along the
eastern seaboard--Hampton Roads, Baltimore, and Philadelphia--is not expected
to be alleviated for the next year or two. Recent estimates of delays to
colliers desiring to load steam coal at Hampton Roads indicate that up to
150 vessels are anchored and experiencing waiting periods of 50 to 60 days
each. Coal buyers are understandably concerned by the lengthy delays and
resulting demurrage charges which industry sources indicate have been running
at $18 per ton and higher. Not only are these demurrage charges passed
along to buyers, but the congestion has also cost the U.S. coal industry
about 8 to 10 million tons of lost sales over the past year.'

There appears to be little doubt that the demand for export coal will
increase drastically during the coming decade. According to a recent study
published by a federal government coal export study group, port authorities,
railroads, and coal products will provide the impetus for an order of magni-
tude increase in U.S. coal exports in the next five years. The Interagency
Coal Export Task Force projects that U.S. coal export terminal capacity
could expand from the congested 94.4 million ton level of 1980 to as much

"'Strong Demand for Steam Coal Expected Abroad," The Journal of Commerce,
February 17, 1981.

TABLE 1. ESTIMATED RESOURCES AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE

Low(5%) Mean High(95%)

A. Resources

1. Total Production
a. Oil (billion barrels) 0.8 1.4 2.1
b. Gas (trillion cubic feet) 1.4 2.5 3.5

2. Daily Peak Production
a. Oil (barrels) 216,700 326,800 490,100
b. Gas (million cubic feet) 384.9 617 841

B. Offshore Infrastructure

1. Wells Drilled
a. Exploratory/Delineation 101 101 101
b. Development 360 1,299 1,299

2. Platforms Installed 13 56 56

3. Pipelines Constructed (miles)a 140 340 540

Sources: USGS, 1979and BLM, 1980.
aBLM estimate.

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE FOR OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT TIMETABLE

Wells Drilled Pipelines Constructed
Exploration8 Developmentb Platforms Installed (miles)b

Year Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High

1982 15 15 15
1983 15 15 15
1984 15 15 15
1985 15 15 15
1986 15 15 15
1987 15 15 15
1988 21 96 96 3 12 12 40 60 90
1989 63 280 280 3 11 11 30 60 90
1990 84 264 264 3 11 11 20 60 90
1991 77 264 264 2 11 11 20 60 90
1992 62 264 264 2 11 11 20 60 90
1993 42 131 131 10 40 90
1994 12 0 0

TOTAL 101 101 101 360 1299 1299 13 56 56 140 340 540

Sources: USGA, 1979 and BLM, 1980.
aDelineation wells are included with exploratory wells in this and all subsequent tables.
bBLM estimate by year.

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE FOR NORTHERN TRACT GROUP
OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

Northern Tract Group Scenarios

Wells Drilled Daily Production
Exploratory Development Platforms Installed Oil (MBOPD) Gas (MMCFP)
Year Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

1982
1983 4 4
1985 9 9
1986 12 12
1987 12 12
1988 9 9
1989 0 16 0 2 0 6 0 10
1990 14 80 2 61 8 36 15 62
1991 42 160 2 8 34 96 60 165
1992 56 200 2 9 67 171 120 295
1993 42 124 92 218 165 378
1994 12 0 100 198 178 339
1995 90 179 160 307
2000 48 108 87 186
2005 30 66 53 113

TOTAL 46 46 166 580 6 25

Source: BLM, 1980.

as 277.8 million tons annually by 1985.2 This projection is based on terminal
'expansion of 23 million tons already underway plus commitments for another
160.4 million tons. Even the most conservative estimates indicate a doubling
of coal export capacity to 200 million tons by 1985 accompanied by a reduction
in port congestion by that time.

Nearly two dozen ports have announced plans for new coal export facili-
ties.3 On the East Coast, expansion is underway not only at Norfolk, Newport
News, and Baltimore--currently the most active coal ports--but also at
Camden, New Jersey; Philadel.phia; Morehead City; Wilmington, North Carolina;
Charleston; Savannah; and Brunswick, Georgia. In fact, if all the recently
announced plans for export terminals materialize, coal could become the
region's major export commodity during the 19801s. How the movement of
these tonnages of export steam coal through North Carolina and its major
ports will impact the Coastal Study Area will be explored in the chapter,
"Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals."

21nteragency Coal Export Task Force, "Report on Ports and Ocean
Transportation." December 1, 1980.
-3"S.haping Up to Ship Out," Forbes, February 16, 1981.

2.0 LOCATION ALTERNATIVES FOR OCS SUPPORT BASES

2.1 Shore Support Requirements

Three scenarios for OCS oil and gas development, which were prepared by
the Bureau of Land Management in 1980, were identified in Chapter.l.
Resources and offshore infrastructure needed for each scenario, as well as
development timetables, were also provided. From these estimates, assump-
tions can be made concerning the onshore facility requirements for proposed
Lease Sale No. 56. As previously indicated, the principal concern for the
Coastal Study Area is to determine the need for and potential location of
onshore support facilities in the form of service bases and/or heliports.

2.2 Service Bases

Previous exploration activities in this country, especially in the Gulf
of Mexico, suggest that onshore support needs are met by establishing
temporary service bases during initial exploration activities and permanent
service bases once the oil companies have identified commercial quantities
of oil or gas. Temporary service bases are usually established in existing
harbors where adequate wharfage, storage, supply, and bunkering facilities
are available. Ports that are congested by recreational boating or commercial
shipping are generally avoided if more desirable port facilities are avail-
able. Permanent service bases normally provide the same support services
available at a temporary base, but more storage area is required to handle
larger quantities or material associated with a higher level of offshore
activity. If existing developed ports are located within 100 to 150 miles
of the OCS activity, as they are in North Carolina, temporary bases will
most likely be developed.

2.3 Siting Considerations

Whether temporary or permanent, most service bases in the United States
have been owned and operated by the energy exploration companies. Each
company selects its service base sites independently, but there are certain
trends in selection that facilitate the identification of optimum sites for
development. During the initial stages of exploration, energy companies
might logically establish a temporary service base in an existing port if
adequate facilities are available and good service can be expected. The
companies may prefer to lease or rent such facilities to reduce initial
capital expenditures. Whether owned, leased, or rented to the exploration
company, state officials have a responsibility to the citizens of North
Carolina to see that the selected service base sites are those which promise
the optimum combination of economic and social benefits and will have the
least impact on the environment and quality of life in the Coastal Study
Area.

Because exploration on the South Atlantic coast is not yet underway, it
is reasonable to assume that one or more temporary service bases will be
required in North Carolina to serve the Northern Tract leases. The following
physical characteristics and facilitieS4 are usually required for a temporary
service base to be located in an existing harbor:

1. Least feasible distance to offshore activity,
2. All weather harbor,
3. Channel depth of 15 to 20 feet,
4. 200 feet of available wharf,
5. 5 to 10 acres of adjacent flat (<2% slope) land,
6. Highway access,
7. Railroad access, and
8. Air access.

From the Northern Tract Group Development Scenarios shown in Table 3
the following estimates of the required number of temporary service bases
have been developed by BLM: 1984, 1; 1986, 1-3; 1988, 1-3. (Note: The
number of service bases required would be the same for low, mean, and high
resource recovery estimates.)

The precise number of bases will be dependent upon such factors as the
number and distribution of offshore holdings, the number of companies
involved, the schedule of exploration activity, the availability of land and
facilities, and the number of companies served from each lease. Thus, it
appears that planning for a minimum of one temporary service base by 1984
and perhaps one or two additional bases by 1986 should be initiated.

2.4 Site Specific Needs

A temporary service base should be able to provide the necessary shore
support capability, including the transfer of workers, equipment, and
supplies, for offshore drilling operations. A typical service base will
provide berthage for crewboats and supply vessels, wharf space for trans-
ferring supplies, warehouse and open storage areas, and office space. A
heliport may also be provided at the support base, but there are strong
arguments for establishing helicopter facilities at existing airports where
air traffic control equipment already exists and where personnel can be
transferred more rapidly from commdi@@ial aircraft to the drilling sites.

Drilling companies will often seek service base sites in ports closest
to the offshore activity if land can be leased on a short term basis.

4R. F. Weston, Inc. "Methodology for Assessing Onshore Impacts for
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development," Volume 11, 1980.

As a result, ports with easy access to the open ocean, adequate turning
basis, and uncongested inner harbors are potentially attractive if they also
contain the necessary port and marine service infrastructure. Such infra-
structure includes water, utilities, transportation access, and medical,
waste disposal, and communication facilities. Specific needs for temporary
service bases in North Carolina, which are summarized in Table 4, are a
modification of requirements previously identified in the Weston study and
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lease Sale 56.

2.5 Optimal Number of Sites

A review of the geography of Lease Area 56 quickly reveals that the
Southern Tract Group would best be served by support bases located in
Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, or Charleston while the Northern Tract
Group most logically would be served by one or more bases in an existing
North Carolina port. Tentative site locations in each of the four ports--
Morehead City, Wanchese, Southport, and Wilmington--were identified during
the early-part of this study and were summarized in Table 2-1 of the Phase I
Report.5 Prospective site locations, which have been updated to reflect
certain changes in land use since late 1980, are listed in Table 5. Each of
the 14 sites was visited by the project staff in July 1980, and again in
March 1981 to ascertain its suitability for consideration as a future
temporary support base location.

Before an evaluation of alternative sites could be undertaken, it was
necessary to attain greater specificity in the site requirements.' To this
end the checklist of industry needs compiled in Table 6 enabled project
personnel to gather and screen data that would subsequently assist them in
reaching decisions relative to support base recommendations.

2.6 Identification of North Carolina Sites

A brief description of each of the 16 prospective sites, along with its
strength and limitations, is provided in the following paragraphs.

2.6.1 Morehead City--As indicated in Figure 2, the four prospective sites
in the Morehead City area are located in an industrial area near the existing
State Ports Authority terminal. Each is conveniently located with'respect
to the 40-foot deep turning basin and ship channel and is only A miles from
the open ocean. Sites preceded by a "C" designator indicate that the
location is being considered both as a coal terminal and as an OCS supply
base site.

Site C-13: Marsh Island--Marsh Island, which is located just north' of
the SPA terminal (extreme right side of Figure 3) is undeveloped and is
presently being used as a spoil dumping ground by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Some lightly wooded areas, along with some wetlands on the
northern side of the island, make up most of the terrain. The e@st side

51TRE staff, "Coastal Energy Transportation Study," Phase I Report,
.December 1980.

TABLE-4., PORT AND MARINE, SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY OCS SERVICE BASE

1. Land 5-10 acres of flat land (< 2% slope) on
an all weather harbor

2. Waterfront 200-400 linear feet of wharf

3. Channel Depth 1'5-20 feet

4. Fuel 26,000 bbl/rig/year during drilling

5. Fresh Water 5.2 million gall'ons/rig/year during drilling

& Solid Wastes Faci I ities to handle: up to 6 tons per day
(including hazardous wastes)

7. Noise Up to 85 decibels, 24 hours/day

8. Communication Telephone and radio facilities

9. Medical; Hospital within 10-15 minutes of travel time

110. Highway Access Minimum two-lane: service road that will
support truck loads,

11. Rail Access Spur line and storage tracks.

12. Air Access Helipad, on base or heliport at nearby airport
(less than 30 minutes travel time)-

TABLE 5. PROSPECTIVE OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES

Site Location Acreage.

Morehead City
C-13 Marsh Island 50
21 Radio Island 10
22 Existing SPA Terminal (NW corner) 10
23 Existing SPA Terminal (west side) 10

Wanchese
15 Adjacent to harbor 10

Southport

C-5 North of Pfizer Chemical Co. 350
6 South of Pfizer Chemical Co. 200

Wilmington
I Eagle Island 50
2 South of Barnards Creek 50
3 North of Snow's Cut 50-100
4 North of Snow's Cut 50-100
C-8 North of Town Creek 250
9 South of NC 133 on Brunswick R. 220
10 North of W. R. Grace Co. on NE 70
Cape Fear River
11 West of General Electric Co. on 50
NE Cape Fear River
C-1 7 North end of existing SPA Terminal 10

TABLE6 CHECKLIST'OF- INDUSTRY NEEDS OC&SUPPORT BASE SITES

Land Water Supplies@
0- Area Channel Depth 0, Water
w Topography Wharfr Length 9 Utilities
0 Land.;@Use 0: Access to Open Water 0: Fuel
w Ownership Proximity to Channel 0 Solid Wastes

Transportation Distance@ to Lease: Area Competition for Use
Highway. Access 0: Air Distance
Rail Access 0 Water Distance
Air Access

Employment, Ptrmittability

e, Direct
w Indirect

Bridge
Ca I ico Creek

le,
a (F.
Ig
iL. A
A bDI s 22 CONV
A A a r
I ne 0
IQ --------
cc U C_aj@_ ,
V. Towers
Oil
ChG 1. nk
rt T minal
21' V.
Beacon 0 Fag 110
1NrPACoASrAL
Beacon ight
0 Light WA rEpWA y
Dolphins oLight
N1

So UND
9
7,

'N,
Money 181and
r
Bay Fish ---------

mbstone Pt
Money
sland
:j 0 Al
Tar Landing
.?q 14 q Kj
Bay
ro MA MN 40RT MACON\L-7

,S.TATE PARK''
;7zz' Paco
m t
er n
14oney '114ind, Wnfd a

FIGURE 2
PROSPECTIVE OCS SITES--MOREHEAD CITY US Coast Gua,d
tation

-j

Sit,
@V,

r@7

!Lj

FIGURE 3

PORT OF MOREHEAD CITY
SPA TERMINAL
(Photo ColegooftN@ State Ports
ut ri y

of the island is approximately 500 feet from the 12-foot channel of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The 40-foot channel does not extend north
of the parallel bridges (U.S. 70 and B&MRR). Each of these bridges provides
a horizontal clearance of 80 feet for vessel traffic; the fixed highway
bridge has a vertical clearance of 65 feet mean high water (MHW) while the
bascule railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of 4.0 feet (MHW) when
closed. As shown in Figure 2, there is no rail or highway access to Marsh
Island.

Site 21: Radio Island--A site encompassing approximately ten acres of
land owned by SPA and located on the west side of Radio Island has been
identified as a prospective supply base site. As depicted in Figure 4, this
site is just north of the aviation fuel terminal on Radio Island and is
close to the 40-foot channel. Good highway and rail access are available on
Radio Island, but rail traffic may become congested when a planned coal
terminal (C-12: Gulf Interstate Company Site) on Radio Island becomes
operational.

Site 22: Existing SPA Terminal (northwest corner)--Figure 3 reveals
that there is little open land on the west side of :Eh-eMorehead City channel
for expansion of the existing SPA terminal. The open area near the water
tower in the center of the terminal has already been committed to Alla-Ohio
Valley Coal Company for an export terminal. One remaining parcel of undevel-
oped land still remains at the northwest corner of the SPA property, just
west of the phosphate storage area. The site indicated in Figure 2 is
adjacent to a relatively shallow access channel (Calico Creek) which serves
a yacht basin and barges discharging phosphate from the Texasgulf Company
facility on the Pamlico River. Because it is north of the bridges previously
described, Site 22 would have the same access problems inherent in Site
C-13, e.g., limited channel depths and bridge clearances.

Site 23: Existing SPA Terminal (west side)--Just south of U.S. 70 and
along the west side of the present State Ports Authority terminal is another
prospective support base location--Site 23. This site is the only one
identified so far that already meets most of the port and marine service
infrastructure requirements listed in Table 4. It has over 1,000 lineal
feet of wharf with a 35-foot channel alongside, good rail and highway
facilities into the site, paved storage areas and nearby warehouses, and
access to utilities and communications. Most importantly, it is ready for
almost immediate occupancy without major capital expenditures and presumably
would face less stringent permitting requirements because of the industrial
nature of present port activity at the terminal.

2.6.2 Wanchese

Site 15: Adjacent to Wanchese Boat Harbor--The general location of a
prospective OCS supply base site adjaceFt to-the Wanchese boat harbor on
Roanoke Island is illustrated in Figure 5. Site 15 is a 10-acre parcel of
land on the north side of the harbor between Broad Creek and the boat
harbor. Because of the relatively isolated location on Roanoke Island, the
site would have no rail access and somewhat limited highway and air access.

NORTH

N. c, S, P A.

200 100 0 200
7

FIGURE 4
SITE 21--RADIO ISLAND

Most of the prospective OCS support base sites in the Morehead
City area are clustered around the State Ports Authority
Terminal. Site 23 (above) along the west side of the terminal
and Sites 22 and C-13 (below) along Calico Creek are shown.

K31 @ I " @Ia@yii

8
14
714 14
12 16 'a 12 10
7 8-1
Isl du@ss
S.,,d d.r." TANK Ise It
,ivn I
do
3 2
3 2
3 d 00\t
pi SO@d F/.,, o C)
,_v 71 45
3 2
9
3
2 -10-d Fl.t, R 0 A N 0 K S 0 U N D
1411 0 3 2
-7- PA 2 c:::p
C '31 ZZZ
PA
cfeev
Cfee
90-@@2 PIP ?'(0
2 \\\Shallolb. 0
say 9 64 $(CP
15 ?
2 4
00
812 ql'
ROANOKE ISLAND

C)TOWER \t
mc ID x 0-
nteo,,,., 0 TANK
0
K
R 0 A N 0

STATUTE MILES
0 1 2 10

FIGURE 5
PROSPECTIVE OCS SUPPORT BASE SITE-Wanchese

Due to its proximity to the northernmost tracts in the Northern Tract
Group, Site 15 is closer to the Lease Area than most of the other prospec-
tive sites. However, this advantage is offset by the fact that supply
vessels would have to negotiate a relatively unstable channel from the oce 'an
at Oregon Inlet and then face draft limitations caused by the 8h-foot channel
restriction. Several miles of dredging would be required to deepen the
channel into Wanchese to the desired 15-20 feet.

2.6.3 Southport

Site C-5: North of Pfizer Chemical Company--A 350-acre site just north
of Pfizer Chemir'c"-al Company on the west banks of the Cape Fear River (Figure
6) has been identified as a prospective OCS supply base or coal terminal
site. Due to its size and a combination of location factors,'Site C-5 might
be especially attractive as a coal terminal location but will also be
discussed in this section. Most of the site is on relatively high ground
(farmland and woods) but is bordered along the river by marshlands and tidal
flats and along its northern boundary by the intake canal for Carolina Power
and Light Company's nuclear power plant. No wharf or pier facilities are
available. The site is approximately 1,500 feet from the 38-foot ship channel
and is only five miles from the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Highway
access to N.C. 133 is provided by a good two-lane road into the site. The
nearest rail access is the U.S. government-owned line serving the Sunny
Point Army terminal north of the site. A spur line almost five miles in
length and permission to use the federal rail link would be required. If
used as a coal site, a tressle over the wetlands and a 1,700-foot T-head pier
to the shipping channel would also be required.

Site 6: South of Pfizer Chemical Company--A 200-acre site next to the
ferry landing south of Pfizer Chemical Company (Figure 7) was identified in
the Phase I report as a tentative OCS support base site; however, it has
been learned that this parcel of land, which is owned by Pfizer, is not
available for sale. It will therefore not receive further consideration as
a potential site for a temporary support base.

2.6.4. Wilmington

Sites 3 and 4: North of Snow's Cut--Two similar, 50 to 100 acre sites
just north of the Snow's Cut section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(Figure 7) were identified in Phase I as prospective OCS support base sites.
The sites are located between the 12-foot Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) channel and the U.S. Coast Guard Station. Good highway service is
provided by River Road which connects to U.S. 421. The nearest rail service
is about seven miles away. These sites are currently without wharf facilities
and lie almost a mile from the 38-foot ship channel in the Cape Fear River.

Site 2: South of Barnard's Creek--Site 2 encompases, about 50 acres on
the east side of the Cape Fear River just south of Barnard's Creek (Figure
8). The site is in a larger 2,000-acre area surrounded by residential
development and by the Echo Farms and Country Club Property. Rail service
ends about one mile north of the site, but River Road provides good highway

@x 21

SIVOKli-,
PT

Bm
3762

57'30"

@.4
Al
p 4
37fil

ol
c
5

3760

OUGHT

c 01-IGHT
6

3758
PT

FIGURE 6
SOUTHPORT SITES

-F)T FIFiqE'R
PCOQ@@iT-R YCLU&-'r

17-
t

cl
4'AD110 @7bWEPS"-,
@_ISLE
A
7@_
BR8E

b-
co
L Tto,
L 1@-,
01

I_op c
04'
LIGHTC
Nq
tA
C, IBM' CAR L
1511-
JND

Ire,

7: f
Q

Y
Nil,
-7
4.1
P/
R6 -A.Vk-

CAROLINA
A;;,
BEACH

AROLINA
5
KE
L

FIGURE 7
SITES 3 & 4

Several of the potential OCS support base sites are located
along the Cape Fear River. Sites 3 and 4 (above) along the
Intracoastal Waterway at Snow's Cut and Site 10 (below) on
the Northeast Cape Fear River are shown.

..... ..... ....

ee
-ee@

M
mum
NIP

00,
NO
M

LIGHT

LIG
0 1

OUGHT
OL

FIGURE 8

SITES 2 & C-8

access. Site 2 is approximately 20 miles from the ocean and would require
extensive dredging to reach the ship channel a1most 3,000 feet away. Primary
nursery ground in the Cape Fear River may restrict dredging activities.

Site C-8: North of Town Creek-A 250-acre site on the west side of the
Cape Fear River that might serve as either a coal terminal or an OCS support
base is identified in Figure 8. The site is mostly on high ground with
marsh areas and tidal flats bordering the site on the north and south sides.
Land in this area has not yet been developed there is no rail or highway
access into the site although the government-owned railroad is about three
miles west and N.C. 133 borders the site on the west. River frontage totals
3,000 feet and distance to the deepwater channel is also about 3,000 feet.

Site 1: Eagle Island--Relatively undeveloped Eagle Island (Figure 9)
includes over 1,000 acres of land that have been created by spoil disposal
from the Cape Fear River. This area has been used by the Corps of Engineers
for many years, and new dredge disposal areas would have to be found if
Eagle Island were to be utilized for other purposes. Its strategic location
across the river from the existing State Ports Authority terminal actually
makes it an extremely attractive site for future expansion of Wilmington
public port faci1ities. U.S. 17, 74, and 76 provide excellent highway access
at the north end of the island, and nearby rail access from the Seaboard
Coastline Railroad is possible. The east side of Eagle Island is very close
to the ship channel. Even if the island were designated for future development
of the SPA terminal, there also appears to be adequate space for possible
location of a temporary OCS supply base.

Site 9: South of N.C. 133 on Brunswick River--Just west of Eagle Is1and
across the Brunswick River (Figure 9), the SPA owns approximately 220 acres
of 1and, a portion of which might be considered as a prospective support
base site. Near the community of Old Towne, the site has good access to N.C.
133 but would require a two-mile rail spur. Also, the Brunswick River would
require extensive,dredging because of silting in much of the lower portion
of the river. No wharf facilities are presently available, and the site is
almost 3,000 feet from the ship channel in the Cape Fear River. Significant
environmental problems would have to be addressed at this location.
Site C-17: North End of Existing SPA Terminal--In the next chapter,
Site C-17 will be described in terms of its potential as a coal terminal
site. If present p1ans of the Carolina Coal Export Corporation to utilize
this location for an export terminal faiI to materialize, it should receive
serious consideration as an OCS support base site. For the same reasons
documented in the discussion of Site 23 in Morehead City--the existence of
most of the necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements--
this site should receive serious consideration. It has more than 1,000
lineal feet of wharf along the 38-foot channel of the Cape Fear River as
well as good storage, service, and transportation access. Port officials
have indicated that, should the site be developed as a coal terminal , other
open areas at the SPA terminal could be designated for support base activities.

a La
0
I

RTH

113

im
K4

F
tun

Co
te

C 71brM
WAS
@@WCK;
10.

I --T
ZA

rl A
CA r

A AU

A
All

FIGURE 9

SITES 1, 9 & C-17

Site 10: North of W. R. Grace Company on Northeast Cape Fear River--
Situated,on high ground along the westbank of the Northeast Cape Fear
River, Site 10 is located just north.of W. R. Grace Company (Figure .10). It
contains 70 to 80 acres of undeveloped land and has excellent highway and
rail access to U.S. 421 and the SCLRR whic.h border the site on the west.
Although no wharf facilities-exist,, the site is only about 3,000 feet from
the -upstream limit of the federal dredging.project and the nearby ship
turning basin where a 25-foot channel is maintained. An important concern
in considering Sites 10 and 11 for,prospective OCS supply bases is their
excessive distance (30 to 35 miles) from the open ocean.

Site 11: West of General Electric Company on Northeast Cape Fear
River--Just upstream from Site 10 and located on the east side of the Cape
Fe-ar River (Figure 10) Site 11 is the final OCS support-base.site under
consideration at this time. It contains approximately 50 acres of,high
-ground that would have to be provided with about two miles of access roadto
reach N.C. 133 and about three miles of rail spur to cannect-with Seaboard
Coa,st Line Rail-road (SCLRR) tracks. It isalso two miles further upstream
from the existing dredged channel and turning:basin.

2.7 Site Recommendations

Sixteen pros 'pective site locations were listed in Table 5 and briefly
described in the preceding s,ecti,on of this chapter. Following field i.nspec-
tion, each of the sites was revi.ewed to ascertain its compliance-with the
checklist of industry,needs. shown in Table 6. Specific port and mari-ne
infrastructure requirements (Table 4) needed to establis-h temporary OCS
servicebases along the North Carolina coast were used as guidelines in this
process. It should be noted that four of the 16 sites under.consideration
(C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-17) will also beevaluated in Chapter 3 as.potential
coal terminal locations.

Table 7 utilizes 16 measures of merit in an updated parametric analysis
of the support base sites. A preliminary analysis was.presented in Table 3-
4 of the Phase I report, but that analysis has been modified with respect to
sites and merit measures to reflect the most cur-rent information available
in April 1981.

If all of the merit measures were equally weighted., a simple summation
would reveal the best of the candidate sites. But this is obviously not the
case,and engineering judgment is.needed to narrow the list of.candidates.
Clearly the two outstanding sites i.n.,,Table 7 are Sites 17.and 23. Because
of their location on an existing SPA terminal at Wilmington andMorehead
City respectively, each is in the enviable position of having most of the
necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements already
provided. Having relatively little demand for capital expenditures and the
ability tobegin operation al.most immediately will make each of these sites
especially attractive to the oil and gas drilling companies. Each has at
least 1,.000 feet ofwharf and 35 feet of channel depth available at the
site. Each is in a port area previously zoned for industrial use; good rail
and highway facilities are available; and storage areas, cranes,.fresh

Ply

TIDAL

;agd

Ac'

FIGURE 10

OCS SITES 10 & 11

TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES

Wilmington Southport Morehead Wanchese

1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 17 5 6 21 22 13 23 15

Acreage 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 3
Topography 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Land Use 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2

Rail Access 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 3

Access to
Open Water 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 i 1 2 3 1 3

Proximity to
Channel 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 8 .3 1 1
Channel Depth 1. 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 i 1 1 3 2 1 2
(feet) (38) (3) (12) (12) (1) (16) (5) (5) (38) (38) (38) (46) (6) (12) -1136) (81/2)
Highway Access 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 2

Environmental
Sensitivity 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1
00 A@cheological or
Historical Site 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Competing
Energy Use 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 1

Distance to
Lease Area

Air 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2.
(miles) do (120) *0 10 0 26) --w- (58) (113)
Water 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 2 2 1 1 2
(miles) (155) (150) (144) (144) (150) (155) (160) (168) (156)(136)(136) (62) (62) (62) (62) (181)
Proximity to
Airport 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3
Proximity to
Amenities 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Permittability 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 2

water, and bunkering facilities are already provided. With the possible
exception of Site 22 which has been earmarked as an $18 million bulk phosphate
facility for the North Carolina Phosphate Company,6 all other sites in Table
7 would require substantial investments of time and capital to acquire the
necessary infrastructure.

Although there is little to choose between the two sites, it is recom-
mended that Site 23 be given top priority as a support base site because of
its proximity to the Northern Tract Group in Lease Area No. 56. Both its
air and water distances to the lease area are approximately half of those
for Site 17, and Site 23 is much closer to the open,ocean. It is further
recommended that, if exploratory drilling for OCS oil and gas is undertaken
in 1981 or soon thereafter, the State of North Carolina, through its appro-
priate agencies, should take the steps necessary to make five to ten acres
of land at Site 23 on the SPA terminal property in Morehead City available
for use as a temporary onshore support base site. If a second support,base
is needed, steps should also be taken to make a similar amount of land
available on the SPA terminal in Wilmington at or near Site 17.

2.8 Needed Improvements

If Sites 23 and 17 are selected, little in the way of transportation
and other improvements will be required to make either of the sites viable
support bases. As previously stated, most of the required infrastructure is
already in place, but minor changes in access roads, rail spurs, utility and
communication lines, waste treatment facilities, etc., may be needed to
serve the expected crew and supply boats and helicopters. Detailed engineer-
ing plans for the support bases have not been prepared at this phase of the
study, and no cost estimates have been developed. It does appear, however,
that no additional publicly financed transportation facilities will be
needed to serve either of these sites.

6"Carolina Cargo," January 1981, p. 24.

3.0 LOCATION ALTERNATIVES FOR COAL
EXPORT TERMINALS

3.1 Export Demand

World demand for United States,steam coal has mushroomed since late
1979. Seaborne coal exports increased from 45 million tons in 1979 to 67
million tons in 1980, resulting in a backup of ships waiting to load at
major U.S. coal ports. Especially at east coast coal facilities in Hampton
Roads and Baltimore, vessel delays have become a way of life. Average
demurrage in March 1981 was quoted at $15,000 per day per shi P. 7 Thus, a
collier loading 75,000 long tons, waiting 40 days, and paying $15,000 per
day in demurrage charges (total = $600,000) would add an $8 charge to each
long ton of coal delivered. It is not surprising that a major Japanese coal
user (Nippon Steel) recently announced that its demurrage bills for 1980
exceeded $40 million.8

Unfortunately, coal export terminals along the east coast of the U.S.
are not only inadequate in terms of throughput capacity but also in terms of
adequate channel depths. Vessel draft restrictions, created by channel
depths of less than 45 feet, generally limit bulk carriers to Panamax-sized
vessels (ships that can be accommodated fully loaded in the Panama Canal) of
approximately 70,000 deadweight tons (dwt). These size restrictions add
additional dollars to the delivered price per ton when compared with economy
of scale advantages accruing to competitive colliers in the 120,000 to
150,000 dwt class that can be accommodated at deeper ports.

3.1.1 Production and Export Projections

In an effort to determine the coal export potential for the South
Atlantic range of ports, projections of coal demand will be reviewed against
a background of U.S. coal reserves and production capacity.

Recent projections indicate that if U.S. coal production continues the
5% compounded annual growth rate it has experienced since 1973, production
by year 2000 should approach 2.2 billion tons annually.9 This production
level would more than satisfy a 1.1 billion ton domestic demand for steam
and metallurgical coal and a 350 million ton export demand. With actual

7R. Peckham, "United States Coal Ports--Time for a New Beginning,"
International Bulk Journal, April 1981.
8Ibid.
1R. L. Major, "U.S. Coal Reserves and Production Capabilities," paper
presented at AAPA Conference on Coal and Ports, Mobile, Ala., February 17, 1981.

U.S. production in 1980 at 830 million tons, most observers foresee little
restriction in supply potential although concern has been expressed over
U.S. supply stability during periods of labor negotiations.

A range of recently published production and export projections are
summarized in Table 8. These have been extracted from the following major
studies:

1. C. L. Wilson, Coal Bridge to the Future, Report of the World Coal
Study (WOCOL), 1980.

2. "Interagency Coal Export Task Force Report on Ports and Ocean
Transportation" (ICE), December 1980.

3. Forecasts by Economic Committee of the National Coal Association
(NCA), 1980.

4. "The United States in the World Coal Market," distributed by Coal
Exporters Association, 1979.

Despite the variability in those projections, it is readily apparent-that
coal exports, especially steam coal., will rise dramatically in the years
ahead.

3.1.2 Export Constraints

Production projections in Table 8 indicate that the United States could
become the world's leading coal producer since it is unlikely that supply
will be a future problem. Other factors, such as delivered cost and the
impact of federal policy towards exports and market competition, could
develop into major constraints. Delivered cost can be enhanced by the
elimination of demurrage and the accommodation of larger vessels. Federal
policy is more elusive, but certainly the posture of U.S. coal exports will
be dependent in large measure on governments' response to two sensitive
issues: channel dredging and the need to streamline environmental permitting.

3.2 Alternative Development Scenarios for North Carolina Ports

Detailed estimates of total U.S. coal export terminal capacity, which
were compiled by the Interagency Coal Task Force, were presented in Chapter
1. Expected increases in terminal capacity on the East Coast that are
either planned or underway will be reviewed before alternative-development
.scenarios for the North Carolina ports are determined.

3.2.1 Terminal Developments-U.S. East Coast

Planned coal port expansion on the east coast is a dynamic process and
much of the information related to these plans is necessarily proprietary.
Significant uncertainties concerning timing, capital expenditures, and land
acquisition make any compilation of future terminal capacity a risky endeavor;
however, some attempt to determine present terminal commitments, especially

TABLE8. COAL PRODUCTION AND EXPORT PROJECTIONS

Exports (million tons annually)

Year Production (million tons annually) Metallurgical Steam Total

1980 830 90

1985 971-1118 (5) 55.2 (avg. of 9) 39.1 (avg. of 12) 94.3

1990 1223-1620 (4) 62.4 (avg. of 9) 68.8 (avg. of 12) 131.3

2000 1905-3077 (4) 74.4 (avg. of 4) 173.2 (avg. of 7) 247.6

Sources: WOCOL, ICE, NCA, and "International Bulk Journal"
Note: Number of forecasts are in parentheses.

in competing east coast ports, is essential to the development of export
pap acity scenarios for Wilmington and Morehead City.

According to a review of east coast coal ports, the 1980 annual capacity
was 51 million tons for Hampton Roads, 14 million tons for Philadelphia, and
25 million tons for New York. But expansion of existing ports is underway,
and new terminals are planned along the entire coast. As illustrated in
Table 9, specific plans for new coal terminals along the east coast are well
developed and, if only a portion of them become a reality, the impact on
local area economies and life styles may be substantial.

3.2.2 Potential for New Ports

Bulk handling experience has shown that optimum effective capacity of
a coal export terminal is about 65% of its maximum capacity.10 Above this
level, vessel waiting time increases and congestion occurs. This is the
present situation at Hampton Roads where loading facilities have been operating
at about 90% of capacity. Part of the problem at Hampton Roads is that the
loading system was designed to meet the multi-grade standards of the metal-
lurgical coal trade where the required blends of coal are transferred from
rail cars directly to the loading vessel. Practically all of the new coal
terminals will be designed to handle steam coal, which,only requires ground
storage and permits much faster rail car turnaround.

It might be inferred from Table 9 that the east coast is rapidly moving
from an undercapacity candition in 1980 to one of overcapacity by the late
1980's. Indeed, if all proposals were implemented, this could be a risk.
But coal. port developments are a function of opportunity and market timing,
and many of the new terminal facilities are being implemented only after
firm, long-term contracts with importers have been signed.

3.2.3 Vessel Requirements

Channel depths of 38 feet in the Cape Fear River and 40 feet in the
Morehead City harbor somewhat restrict the size of ships that presently
utilize North Carolina's two deepwater ports. This same criticism can be
leveled at most U.S. ports where restricted channels limit the draft and
therefore the deadweight capacity of entering vessels. Although the United
States has the greatest number of coal export terminals, most are restricted
to ships of the 50,000 to 70,000 dwt (Panamax) size. Few major coal-loading
facilities for ships of 100,000 dwt and over exist anywhere in the world,
and these are located in Western Canada, Australia, and South Africa. Most
of the discharging terminals accessible to these bulk carriers over 100,000
dwt are concentrated in Western Europe and Japan. The share of these large
vessels in world coal trade is steadily increasing (from 21% in 1980 to a

10J. Bowersmith, "Overview of U.S. Coal Port Capabilities and Deficiencies,"
Proceedings, AAPA Coal and Ports Seminar, February 17-19, 1981.

TABLE 9. CAPACITIES OF PLANNED COAL TERMINALS-U.S. EAST COAST

Existing Throughput Planned Throughput
Terminal (million toni annually) (million tons annually)

New York-New Jersey
0 Jersey City
0 Stapelton, Staten Island
0 Port Reading 0.25 3-7

Port Camden
0 Alla-Ohio Valley 3

Philadelphia
0 Greenwich
0 Pier 124 3.5 10
0 Port Richmond
0 Northern Shipping Co. 1-5

Baltimore
� Marley Neck (SOROS) 15-35
� Curtis Bay (Ky-Ohio Transp. Co.) 14 12
� Canton Marine Terminal (Consol.) 10-20
� Hawkins Point 10

Hampton Roads
� Newport News (Chessie) 27
� Lamberts Point (N.&W) 34
� Newport News (A.T. Massey) 12
� Newport News (Utah I nt., et al.) 15
� Craney Island (VPA) 20

Morehead City
� SPA (Alla-Ohio Valley) 3-12
� Radio Isiand (Gulf Interstate) 15-20

Wilmington
0 American Coal Export 6
0 Utah International 5
0 SPA

Charleston
0 A.T. Massey 8-12

Savannah
Elk River Resources-SCL 12-15

Brunswick
Colonel's Island (SOROS) -

Sources:
"Marine Engineering/Lot," March 1981,
"Journal of Commerce," February 17, 1981.
W. White, Remarks summarizing "Atlantic Coast Port Potential" at Coal and Ports Conference, Mobile, Ala.,
February 18, 1981.

projected 36% in 1990 and 43% in 2000),11 and herein lies a basic problem
for those concerned with coal termi,nal location. As vessel sizes increase,
a large percentage of the bulk carriers loading in U.S. ports can-not be
fully loaded. The maritime industry will be faced with either partially
loading the larger vessels and "topping" them off at deeper ports, dredging
deeper channels, or building new deepwater terminals offshore.

This is the dilemma faced by North Carolina's ports, and its resolution
to a large degree will control the number and location of future coal term-
inals. Since several companies have already made commitments to export
steam coal from Wilmington and Morehead City, it is apparent that they have
opted, at least temporarily, to utilize smaller ships. The possibility of
constructing a terminal with a submarine pipeline to deliver coal in slurry
form to larger vessels at an offshore loading buoy is also being explored.

3.2.4 Export Scenarios

It is evidence from Table 9 that traditional eastern coal ports--
Hampton Roads, Baltimore, and Philadephia--have plans to expand existing
facilities and build new terminals. It is also evident that coal shippers
are turning to ports that have exported little or no coal in the past (e.g.,
New York, Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, and Brunswick) as
potential locations for new terminals. Although it is beyond the scope of
this study, it should be noted that similar plans for increasing export
capacity are underway on the Gulf, Pacific, and Great Lakes coasts. Develop-
ments at the ports of Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston, and Long Beach in
particular suggest that the problem of increased export capacity is not
unique to the east coast or to Appalachian coal. As world demand expands,
growing amounts of western coal--6specially from the Powder River Basin--
will be produced and most likely exported from noneast coast ports. In the
meantime, because of a well developed rail infrastructure for handling
Appalchian coal, additional port capacity will be required along the Atlantic
Coast.

Since June 1980, numerous coal shippers, railroad officials, and consul-
tants have explored the possibility of exporting coal from one or both of
North Carolina's deepwater ports. Firm commitments or announced plans to
locate in North Carolina have been reported by the news media for the loca-
tions shown in Table 10.

In addition to these five sites, an official of Wheelabrator-Frye
Company announced at a recent coal conference that his firm is considering
Alabama and/or North Carolina sites for a future coal slurry export terminal
with offshore loading facilities to handle 12 to 15 million tons per year.12
If all of these plans materialize and no additional site selections are
announced, it appears that as much as 54 to 67 million tons of coal could be
exported from the state when all terminals are onstream. It should be

""Interagency Coal Export Task Force Report on Ports and Ocean Trans-
portation," December 1980.
12W. McDonough, "A Slurry Export Terminal Concept," paper presented at
AAPA Coal and Ports Conference, Mobile, Alabama, February 18, 1981.

TABLE 10. PLANNED COAL TERMINALS - NORTH CAROLINA

Initial Ultimate
Startup Capacity Capacity
Date Terminal Site (Company) (mta) (mta)

Morehead City
April 1981 1. State Ports Authority Terminal (Alla-Ohio Valley
Coal Co.)a 3.0 10-12
April 1984 2. Radio Island (Gulf Interstate, Inc.)b 15.0 15-20

Wilmington
April 1982 3. Northeast Cape Fear River (American Coal Export Co.)c 1.5 6
4. Pleasant Oaks Plantation Brunswick Co. (Utah
International)d 5
5. State Ports Authority Terminal (no contract announced)e 6-9

a Estimates announced by "Journal of Commerce," February 17, 1981.
bEstimates announced by "Journal of Commerce," April 3, 1981 and "Engineering New Record,"
March 12, 1981.
cEstimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," February 25, 1981 and February 28, 1981.
dEstimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," March 12, 1981 and March 21, 1981.
e Estimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," January 20, 1981.

noted that 54 to 67 million tons represent a maximum capacity and the
effective capacity would probably be about 65 percent of this total.

A summary of these estimates arranged in logical time frames has been
assembled in Table 11. Obviously, delays in environmental permitting,
financingi or construction of one or more of the projects could significantly
reduce these estimates, and the totals for the decade probably represent an
optimistic scenario of coal exports.

3.3 Long-Range Needs

As of May 1981, only the three sites identi fied in Table 10 with fixed
startup dates have announced specific intentions to begin exporting coal.
Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company loaded its first vessel in early May 1981,.
while American Coal Export Company and Gulf Interstate, Inc. expect to be
operational in 1982 and 1984 respectively. Detailed plans for the other
firms in Table 10, plus any plans of companies yet to make public announce-
ments, suggest the need for a delineation of long-range needs in terms of
land, port facilities, channel depths, utilities, transportation links,
easements, and other peripheral facilities.

In the Phase I Report, a throughput of 6 to 10 million tons of coal
annually was assumed for the prospective terminal(s) in Morehead City and a
similar amount for the Wilmington terminal(s). In light of more recent
data, these estimates will have to be increased and the infrastructure
requirements modified. Table 12 presents recommended long-range requirements
for coal export terminals.

3.4 North Carolina Sites

Prospective coal terminal sites listed in Table 13 are numbered so as
to provide consistency with the OCS support base sites listed in Table 5.
Four of the sites (C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-17), which were identified both as
potential support base and coal terminal sites, have already been described
in Chapter 2. The remaining 7 coal terminal sites will be described in the
following paragraphs.

3.4.1 Morehead City (Figure 11)

Site C-12: Gulf Interstate Engineering Company Site on Radio Island:
The Phase I Report indicated that Gulf Interstate Engineering Company had
announced plans for a liquified petroleum gas terminal on this site in 1978.
However, in February 1981, the Houston-based company made public plans to
construct a $60 to 70 million coal export facility on Site C-12. The company
intends to develop a privately-owned 74-acre parcel (Figure 12) on Radio
Island with storage and loading facilities capable of handling 15 to 20
million tons of coal annually. A T-head loading pier would be constructed
on the west side of the site parallel to the 40-foot ship channel. Excellent
rail and good highway access is available on Radio Island. Following the
issuance of environmental permits, construction would take 18 to 24 months
with the first coal shipment expected in 1984.

TABLE 11. COAL EXPORT CAPACITY ESTIMATES
(million tons annually).

Morehead City Sites Wilmington Sites

. Gulf American Utah SPA
Date Alla-Ohio Interstate Coal International Terminal Off shore Total

1981 1.5 - - - 1.5
1982 3.0 1.5 5 3 - 7.5
1983 3.0 - 1.5 5 6 6 21.5
1984 6.0 15 6.0 5 6 12 45.5
1985 7.0 15 6.0 5 6 12 51.0
1986 8.0 15 6.0 5 7 12 63.0
1987 9.0 15 6.0 5 8 12 55.0
1988 10.0 15 6.0 5 9 13 58.0
1989 11.0 20 6.0 5 9 14 65,0
1990 12.0 20 6.0 5 9 15 67.0

TABLE 12. PORT AND MARINE SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
FOR COAL EXPORT TERMINALS

1. Land 100 to 200 acres of relatively flat land for ground storage
of steam coal.

2. Wharf length 1,000 linear feet per berth.
3. Channel depth 38-40 feet.
4. Turning basin Accommodate vessels up to 60,000 dwt.
5. Reclaiming and loading capacity 6,000 net tons per hour.
6. Rail facilities Accommodate 100-car unit trains dumping 10,000 tons
each into hopper. Coal can be conveyed either to stockpile
or directly to shiploader.
7. Vehicular traffic Internal roads should be paved, curbed, and guttered to
facilitate routine cleaning and dust suppression.
B. Drainage Settling ponds sized to accept runoff from entire site.
9. Noise levels Maximum allowable noise emissions should assure that
combined operational noise will not be a nuisance to near-
by residents.
10. Coal dust suppression System to suppress coal dust at transfer points, including
enclosed conveyors and equipment for washdown.

---- --- --- - ---------

TABLE 13. PROSPECTIVE COAL TERMINAL SITES

Site Location Acreage

Morehead City

C-13 Marsh Island 50
C-16 Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Co. site in existing SPA terminal 5
C-1 2 Gulf Interstate Engineering Co. Site on Radio Island 74
C-19 Brant Island 50
C-14 Near junction of US 70 and NC 24 200

Southport

C-05 North of Pfizer Chemical Co. 350

Wilmington

C-07 Utah International Site-South of Sand Hill Creek 350
C-17 North end of existing SPA terminal 58
C-18 Hampstead/Scotts Hill 100
C-20 American Coal Export Co. site on Northeast
Cape Fear River 85
C-08 North of Town Creek 250

B0 ge C-reek
Calico

"ew
7-

ar vy Al R,
Ig f
CONV
SP
Ia 1-J
no
0
ta -------

16
v-
T@
11agb0'r Port minal
J"VrR-4C04SrA1. Beacon 0
-7@ 10
Boom
0 Beacon
ight
0 Light WA rCRWAe co-o@ Jo
Dolphins Aw ol-Ight
N'

S U N D

/C
\L9

Jv.
Money Island
Uh
Bay
7-

ombstone Pt
Tfa
money
der
ark
Island
in g
Tar Land
Bay
0 N11

oRr @.FOP@T MAC
�TATE PAKK-
V@,
J.

M
Money' 1@)tiihd- r

FIGURE 11
PROSPECTIVE COAL EXPORT TERMINAL SITES
. ... .... US Coast Guard
MOREHEAD CITY Station

............

9.7
20. 2 oc,

100,

1.0 a

RADIO ISLAND
If 1/0L. 4 .7

Scale: I"=400'
a C. SITE C-12
0C.

FIGURE 12

SITE C-12

Site C-16: All a-Ohio Valley Coal Company Site in Existing SPA Terminal--
In late T9-80,Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company (AOV) of Washington, D.C. announced
plans for construction of a $3 million coal handling facility on land owned
by the State Ports Authority. A sketch of the stacker, reclaimer, conveyor,
and coal storage area that comp,rises the AOV facility on Site C-16 is shown
in Figure 13. A four--track addition to the existing rail lines permits the
storage and dumping of rail cars at the terminal. Coal is stored on the
ground, reclaimed, and transferred to the existing phosphate conveyor system
for loading aboard ship. The existing ship berth on the east side of the
SPA terminal will accommodate bulk carriers up to about 60,000 dwt. This
berth and the existing conveyor belt will be shared with vessels loading
phosphate for export.

Initially, the AOV terminal will have an annual throughput capacity of
three million tons, but the company hopes eventually to increase this level
to 10 to 12 million tons. In order to achieve this magnitude of expansion,
additional storage area and a new rail line bypassing Morehead City will
probably be needed. Because of limited open area at the existing SPA terminal,
any expansion of the AOV facility from 3 to 10 million tons throughput will
almost certainly have to be provided for elsewh6re--perhaps on 38 acres of
SPA-owned land on Radio Island. The possibility of a new rail line or
alternative facility (slurry pipeline, conveyor belt, etc.) to relieve the
present track located in the median of the main street of Morehead City is
being addressed in a study performed by SOROS and Associates for Alla-Ohio
Valley, the Southern Railroad, and the SPA.

Site C-19: Brant Island--A low-level site within the Morehead City
Harbor known as Brant Island is revealed in Figure 11. The island is presently
uninhabited, has no highway or rail access, and is bounded on the south by
Fort Macon State Park. Although it is conveniently located with respect to
the deepwater channel, major environmental problems would have to be overcome,
and it probably should be viewed only as a potential site for the long term
future.

Site C-14: Near Junction of U.S. 70 and N.C. 24--This site was identified
in the Phase I Report as a 200-acre parcel of land just west of Morehead
City and adjacent to the A&ECRR (Southern) at the junction of U.S. 70 and
N.C. 24 (Figure 14). It would eliminate the movement of coal trains through
the city but would require an offshore loading facility for large bulk
carriers. It is identified here as a prospective site for ground storage of
steam coal, but in order to be a viable undertaking, would require a slurry
pipeline or similar technology to connect the storage area with the offshore
loading facility. Excellent rail and highway access is available at the
site.

3.4.2 Wilmington

Site C-7: Utah International Site South of Sand Hill Creek--Utah
International, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Company,
confirmed in March 1981, that it holds an 18-month renewable option to buy
a 350-acre tract of land on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, where it

loll-
AIWW NEWPORT RIVER
loll

0
%%%,
00 r
cj

0
Zz-

c
C
-16

C=3:
0 Q
'IK

-0000
@0
z

U)
X/

fit
ji I

,ri

SCALE: 1"=400*
FIGURE 13

SITE C-16

P @HHHH

M
RM
I'Ii N,

Mg,
IM,
a

Export coal bound for Western Europe began flowing out of
North Carolina in May 1981. After moving through the State
by unit train (above) Appalachian coal is loaded aboard the
"S.S. CHIHAYA" (below) at the Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company
facility in Morehead City.

0
Q\

/'c
14

St arks
lal)il
I v
77

j
ne

aybeacon
o Light oDaybeacon INTRACOASTAL
Foul, o Daybeacon WATERWAY

FIGURE 14

SITE C-14

hopes to build a coal export terminal. This location was previously identified
in the Phase I Report and is depicted in greater detail in Figure 15.

The site is part of a larger 3,000 to 4,000 acre tract known as Pleasant
Oaks Plantation. Entrance to the plantation is at the junction of N.C. 133
and S.R. 1518, roughly one-half mile south of Town Creek. The property is
within a riverfront corridor largely zoned for industrial use in the Brunswick
County Land Use Plan. Much of the tract is on high ground, but substantial
wetlands are also present.

Besides the Brunswick County site, the company is also considering
sites in Baltimore and Newport News. If Site C-7 is selected for development
by Utah International, the company would ship coal from their mines in
Kentucky and West Virginia Via the Seaboard Coastline Railroad system to the
export terminal. This presumably would require federal approval for the use
of the rail spur leading to the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point.

The company anticipates exporting at least five million tons of coal a
year through whichever site is chosen.

Site C-20: American Coal Export Company Site on Northeast Cape Fear
River--Preliminary plans for a coal exporting facility on an 85-acre tract
on the Northeast Cape Fear River were submitted to government regulatory
agencies in February 1981. American Coal Export Company plans to develop a
$20 to $25 million facility at Site C-20, which is.bounded by U.S. 421 and
the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks (Figure 16). The site is zoned for
heavy industry, and the company's option to purchase is good until August
15, 1981. The company hopes to begin exporting 1.5 million tons of coal to
Europe by early 1982* With completion of a second phase in 1983, the facility
will be exporting about 6 million tons annually.

The site has several obvious advantages with respect to location and
transportation access. Excellent highway access is available from U.S. 421
which has a five-lane cross section. The main rail line linking Wilmington
..with the Seaboard yards at Navassa runs along the south side of Site C-20
and under U.S. 421. Thus, unit coal trains would not have to pass through
Wilmington to reach the site. The major limitations of the site relate to
constraints imposed upon shipping. The ship channel opposite the site is
presently only 22 feet deep, the turning basin is almost a mile north of the
site, and any ships loading at the site will have to pass through the
restrictive Hilton Bridge (Bascule R.R.) after a 30-mile trip up the Cape
Fear River. Relatively shallow channel depths will severely restrict @
vessel size unless further channel dredging is approved. The channel is now
38 feet deep upriver to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. From that point
north to the turning basin (Figure 16), the project depth is 25 feet.
Apparently, as part of an agrement with other industries upstream (W. R.
Grace Company and Rumsey Marine and Drydock), the entire channel north of
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge will soon be dredged to 25 feet.

Site C-18: Hampstead/Scotts Hill--With a view towards the possibility
of an offshore coal loading facility Seing constructed in the future, a

t@t I "I

(n 0
NEW HANOVER
NSWICK CO

V4.

TJ LJ

f-lo
- Zvi @q-

.............

fun"..

Plans to construct coal export terminals are being considered
at several locations along the Cape Fear River. American Coal
Export Company plans to develop Site C-20 (above) above the
Hilton RR Bridge while Utah International holds an option on
Site C-7 (below) south of Sound Hill Creek.

OHE

@N j

@NHWH

Igd:

j Q.
RIVER

IK
@4f 311 1

iy.

Et.:

tentative site north of Wilmington has been identified for further study.
Site C-18 (Figure 17) would be located on a portion of a 2,000 acre tract of
land on the east side of U.S. 17 between the communities of Hampstead and
Scotts Hill. The site is on relatively high ground overlooking the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, some low lying uninhabited islands, and the ocean to
the east.

If utilized for a coal terminal at some future date, coal would arrive
by unit train on a rail spur from the SCL main line and be dumped at the
site. A submarine pipeline from the storage area would then carry the coal
in slurry form approximately six miles out into the ocean where an offshore
loading terminal in 60 feet of water could accommodate bulk carriers up to
120,000 dwt. If larger vessels are contemplated, 90 feet of water is available
about 22 miles offshore. Tradeoffs in cost of additional pipeline versus
economy of scale provided by larger ships would have to be evaluated.

It should be emphasized that, while no offshore coal terminals are in
existence in the U.S. today, such a concept is receiving serious attention
in the coal transportation community. In essence, the concept of an offshore
coal terminal bypasses the existing bottlenecks at coal ports and results in
new export ports without the need for conventional port infrastructure--new
harbors, piers, ground transport, and expensive waterfront property. It can
be implemented quickly, it may be more environmentally acceptable, it can
accommodate larger ships and provide a lower ocean transport cost, and it
can be readily expanded to meet growing demand. In the case of Site C-18,
it offers the additional advantage of probable public acceptance in that
both the coal storage area and the offshore loading facility could be designed
and located so they would not be visible from or impact on inhabited areas.

Site C-17: North End of Existing SPA Terminal--Although a description
of Site C-17 in terms of a prospecti e OCS support base site was provided in
Chapter 2, some additional remarks relative to its potential as a coal
terminal are in order. An indicated in Figures 18 and 19 ' a two-phase
project is envisioned that would utilize a portion of the north end ofthe
SPA terminal (Figure 20) to construct a coal export terminal.

Phase I (Figure 18) would include the development of a 6-acre tract
east of Warehouse No. 3 to construct several 15,000 ton silos for storing
coal. Coal would arrive by unit train on the SCL tracks, be stored in the
silos, and then transferred by conveyor belt to Berth B for vessel load'i"ng.
Annual throughput capacity of Phase I is expected to be about three million
tons.

Phase II would encompass plans for a 52-acre undeveloped area shown in
Figure 19. Coal would arrive in the existing rail yard and be stored on
the ground in 80,000 ton stockpiles. Initially, this coal would move south
by conveyor belt to Berth B for shiploading. After a new loading pier,
which could accommodate 65,000 dwt vessels, is constructed alongside the
Phase II storage area (Berth C), the conveyor system would permit simultaneous
loading of two ships.

uf]

LIGHTS
51
PE
_77
P.

U
c
@_@,NG
A:w

av.
0

,t@,r
P.@

A3
UNCIL is i_:;/

..TIL)A

t3;

fs-
GL I G'H T

FIGURE 17

HAMPSTEAD/SCOTTS HILL--SITE C-18
wN

NZ,

4,4

AREA
OPEN '15 000 TON CAP"'.
SILOS

4
np@ IV T-T 4N*v,
STORAG, SE NO
*AFIE"OUSE No 3

t!-t@ -S-

TRANSIT SH D 101 TRANSIT SHED NO 2

CAPE FEAR RIVER

SCALE IN FEET p
200 100 0 200 400 fg%o ow

FIGURE 18

SITE C-17 PHASE I

A -BA L L PA
L.E@CUE BASf
is LITTLE

T14 N
El
-4RT
PIEDU

-@7
rA

L)C)

Oo
*s
tt

OF-
OND

:.X.
6-11
000 7'
v ulv
S'SCL

r
40

SC:ALE IN FEET
2 200 400 wo

FIGURE 19

SITE C-17 PHASE II

Ln
Ln

_RF

FIGURE 20
Port of Wilmington--SPA Terminal

(Photo Courtesyof NC State Ports
Authority)

Total capacity of the entire project is estimated at nine to twelve
million tons annually. Actual implementation of this project will depend
upon negotiations with prospective coal shippers, since a firm contract does
not presently exist. Many inherent advantages can be credit to this site as
a potential coal export terminal--the SPA already owns the land, Berth B and
the necessary rail facilities are in place, and of course, the SPA terminal
is presently zoned and in use as an industrial entity.. Offsetting these
advantages is the need to move the unit coal trains through the city of
Wilmington where numerous grade crossings are encountered.

3.5 Improvements Needed

Eleven prospective coal terminal sites were listed in Table 13 and
described in Chapter 2 or in the preceding section of this chapter. After
field inspection, each of the sites was evaluated to determine compliance
with the infrastructure requirements listed in Table 12. As in the case of
OCS support base sites, an updated parametric analysis for coal terminals
was performed; and the results are summarized in Table 14.

Analysis of the coal sites is complicated by the fact that several of
the sites, regardless of whether or not they are the best sites, have
already been selected by coal companies as export terminal sites. As a
result, Sites C-12 and C-16 in Morehead City and C-7 and C-20 in Wilmington
have been pre-empted for coal terminals in the past six months. In fact,
most of the better sites have either been purchased or are presently under
option.

With these constraints in evidence and considering the findings revealed
in this chapter, the following tentative recommendations are proposed:

Morehead City Sites

1. That because the planned throughput of the Alla-Ohio Valley
(C-16) and Gulf Interstate (C-12) terminals, which may total up to 32
million tons annually by 1990, will far exceed the practical capacity
of the railroad line through Morehead City, future expansion of these
terminals should be very carefully evaluated.

2. That no additional coal terminals be approved in the Morehead
City Harbor until major changes are implemented in the land transportation
link for coal inbound to the port. These changes could include a rail
bypass, slurry pipeline, conveyor system, barge service, or some combi-
nation of systems.

Cape Fear River Sites

3. That, other than a moderate-sized coal terminal on SPA property
(C-17), no additional coal terminals should be sited on the east side
of the Cape Fear River because of railroad grade crossing problems
in Wilmington.

TABLE 14. ANALYSIS OF COAL TERMINAL SITES

Morehead City Southport Wilmington
C-12 C43 C44 C-16 C49 C-5 C-7 C-8 C-17 C-18 C-20

Gulf Marsh- US 70 Alla- Brant Northof Utah Town SPA American
Interstate Island I and NC 24 Ohio Island Pfizer I nt. Creek Terminal Hampstead Coal

Acreage 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
Land Use 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1
Rail Access 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Access to Open Water 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3
Proximity to Channel 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1
Channel Depth 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3
Highway Access 2 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Environmental Sensitivity 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 1
Archeological or Historical Site 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
Competing Energy Use 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1
Permittability 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1

Legend:
1 - Good
2 - Fair
3 - Poor

4. That, if additional throughput capacity is required along the
,Cape Fear River, Site C-5 (north of Pfizer Chemical Company) and Site
C-8 (north of Town Creek) should be considered as the best of the
remaining available sites.

Offshore Sites

5. That, if any coal companies desire to develop an offshore
export terminal cpmpl,@ex to load coal in deep water (>60 feet), Site C-18
(Hampstead/Scotts Hill) and possibly Site C-14 (near U.S. 70 and
N.C. 24 west of Morehead City) should be initially considered.

3.6 Summary

Finally, eleven prospective sites in the Coastal Study Area were described
and analyzed to ascertain their suitability as future locations for coal
export terminals. Specific recommendations for sites in Morehead City,
along the Cape rear River, and offshore were itemized. It is anticipated
that, during Phase III of this study, alternative transportation modes or
systems that could relieve anticipated bottlenecks in the coal-haul railroad
network or other transportation networks will be investigated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The references cited in this bibliography are classified under the
following topics:

North Carolina Transportation

Ports

North Carolina State Ports

OCS Impacts and Oil and Gas Studies

Coal

North Carolina Energy Statistics

Environmental Assessments and Studies

Water Resources

Land Use Plans

Bibliographies and Data Sources

NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1976. Statewide Transportation Plan:
Phase I Summary Report. Prepared for North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Evanston, Illinois.

Mulligan, Paul F. 1975. Executive Summary: Analysis of Transportation
Services in North Carolina and Their Relationships to_Economic Growth
Management. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Administration.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute.

Mulligan, Paul F. 1975. Final Report: Analysis of Transportation Services
in North Carolina and Their Relationships to Economic Growth, and Manage-
ment. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Administration.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Board of Transportation. 1979.
North Carolina's Transportation Improvement Program, 1980-1986. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. 1980.
Highway and Road Mileage. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute.
1979. North Carolina Airport System Plan: Executive Summary. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North,Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Assitant Secretary
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute.
19'79. North Carolina Airport System Plan: Technical ReRort, Book 2.
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Office of the Governor. 1981. "Hunt Pledges Cooperation with New Bern
Officials." News Release of March 20, 1981. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Smith, Wilbur, & Associates. 1979. North Carolina Rail Plan: 1979.
Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Planning. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Smith, Wilbur, & Associates. 1979. Report of Governor's Blue Ribbon Com-
mission on Transportation Needs and Financing. Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Stone, John R. 1981. The Impacts of Coal Movements Through North Carolina."
Presented at the North Carolina Urban Affairs Conference. Charlotte,
North Carolina.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
and North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1979. Pro osed
Primary Highway Extension from 1-40 Terminus (at 1-95) near enson
to Wilmington, Johnston, Sampson, Duplin, Pender, and New Hanover
Counties. Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement.

PORTS

Architecture Research Center. 1972. Port and Harbor Development System:
Phase 2-Planning Summary. Texas A&M University, College of Architecture
and Environmental Design. College Station, Texas.

American Association of Port Authorities. 1981. Coal and Ports Seminar.
Proceedings of seminar. Mobile, Alabama.

Bowersmith, J. 1981. "Overview for U.S. Coal Port Capabilities and Defi-
ciencies." Proceedings of AAPA Coal and Ports Seminar. February 17-
19, 1981.

Coal Age. November 1980. pp. 66-84. (Port Traffic & Development Status).

Goodman, A. C., and Hess, A. L. 1980. Middle Atlantic Region Port Handbook:
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Hampton Roads. Paper prepared for the Trans-
portation Freight Conference. Baltimore, Maryland.

Harlow, E. H. 1975. Artificial Offshore Islands. Lecture for Department.
of Civil Engineering, State University. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Harris, Frederic R., Inc. 1975. An Evaluation, Multi-Purpose Offshore
Industrial-Port Islands: Civ n2ineering Considerations. Prepared
for NSF/RANN. Great Neck, New York.

Interagency Coal Export Task Force. 1980. "Report on Ports and Ocean
Transportation." A working paper. Maritime Administration. Washington,
D.C.

Mascerik, John, ed. Ports '80. Proceedings from Specialty Conference spon-
sored by Committee on Ports and Harbors, Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Division of ASCE. May 1980. Norfolk, Virginia. New York: ASCE.

McDonough, W. 1981. "A Slurry Export Terminal Concept." Presented at
AAPA Coal and Ports Conference. Mobile, Alabama.

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Policy and Inter-
national Affairs. 1980. Landside Transportation at Ports: A Prelim
inary Assessment of Transportation Connectivity Problems at United
States Ports. Washington, D.C.

Office of Technology Assessment, Congressional Board of the 97th Congress.
1981. "Coal Exports and Port Development: A Technical Memorandum."
Washington, D.C.

Peckham, R. "United States Coal Ports-Time for a New Beginning." 1981.
International Bulk Journal.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Waterborne Commerce of the
United States-1977.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. 1973.
Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division.
1973. Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisiana
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Appendix E: Transportation and
Costs Analysis. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division.
1973. Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilit.ies: Texas, Louisi-
ana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Appendix F: Environmental
Assessment; Environmental Impact. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philade lphia District. 1973.
Ifterim Report: Atlantic Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study.
Eastport, Maine to Hampton Roads, Virginia. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Atlantic
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton
Roads, Virginia: Economic Analysis. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.. 1973. Atlantic
'toast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton
Roads', Virginia: Econoif-cs -of Tanker Size Selection. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Atlantic
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton
Roads, Virginia: Soc.io-Economic Considerations. Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific
Divisions. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study: Summary
Report.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific
Division. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study: Appendix
C, Transportation Economics.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific
Division. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Appendix
E, Environmental Assessment.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and National Ocean Survey. 1979. United States Coast Pilot--Atlantic
Coast: Cape Henry to Key West. 17th Edition. Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, Comptroller General. 1979. Report
to the Congress of the United States: American Seaports--Change Affect-
ing Operations and Development.

United States Department of the Interior. 1974. Final@Environmental Impac
Statement--Deepwater Ports. 2 volumes.

United States Department of Transportation, Office of University Research.
1977. Federal Port Policy in the United States. Final Report. Spring-
field, Virginia: National Technical Information Service.

NORTH CAROLINA PORTS

A.. T. Kearney, Inc. 1980. Water Transportation Users: Element C of the
National Waterways Study. Prepared for the Institute for Water Resources,
Water Resources Support Center, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. The Marine News-
letter. Vol. 2, No. 2 (March-April 1980). Wilmington, North-E-a-rolina.

Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. The Marine News-
letter. Vol. 2, No. 3 (May-June 1980). Wilmington, North Carolina.

Godwin, G. 1980. Coal Export Potential and North Carolina Ports, In-House
Work Paper. North Carolina Ports Authority. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Lockwood-Greene Architects and Engineers. 1979. North Carolina State
Ports Authority, Port of Wilmington: Expansi6n -Development Study.
Prepared for North Carolina State Ports Authority. Spartanburg, South
Carolina.

Mulligan, P. F., and Collins, R. L. 1975. Executive Summary: Report of
Impact of the North Carolina Ports on the State EconoTy. Prepared for
North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety.

Mulligan, P. F., and Collins, R. L. 1975. Final Report: Impact of the
North Carolina Ports on the North Carolina Economy. Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transport@@tionand Highway Safety.

North Carolina State Department of Transportation. 1973. Report: Stu
of Plans for Development of.North Carolina State Ports@
Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina State Ports Authority. 1980. North Carolina's Ports and
Waterways. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., and Coastal Zone Resources Corporation.
1975. The Coastal Plains Deepwater Terminal Study. Prepared for the
Coastal Plain Regional Commission. Washington, D.C.

Stover, William T., Jr., ed. Carolina Cargo, December 1979-January 1980.
North Carolina State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina.

Stover, William T., Jr., ed. Carolina Cargo, February-March 1980. North
Carolina,State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina.

Stover, William T., Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, January 1981. North Carolina
State Ports Authority. Wilming n, North Carolina.
Stover, William T., Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, February 1981. North
Carolina State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina.

Stover, William T., Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, March 1981. North Carolina
State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina.

Water Resources Support Center. 1980. The Ports of Wilmington and Morehead
City, North Carolina. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. Washington, D.C.

OCS IMPACTS AND OIL AND'GAS STUDIES

Centaur Associates. 1976. Mana2ing the Social & Economic Impacts of Energy
Developments. Prepared for the United States Energy Research and
Development Administration. Washington, D.C.

Center for Natural Areas. 1979 A Summary and Analysis of Environmental
Information on the Continental-Shelf and Blake Plateau from Cape
Hatteras to Cape Canaviral. United States Department of Commerce.
Washington, D.C.

Clark, John. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for
Management of.the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation. Washington,
D.C.

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976. A Process for Coastal Resource Manage-
ment and Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Louisiana State Planning
F_iana.
Office, Baton Rouge, Louis

Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas--An Environmental
Assessment: A Report to the President. 5 volumes. Washington, D.C.

Exxon Production Research Company, 1976. Deepwater Capabilities. New York,
New York.

Gillman, Katherine. 1977. Oil and Gas in Coastal Lands and Waters.
Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Kilpatrick, J. E. 1975. The Role of North Carolina in Regulating Offshore
Petroleum Development, UNC Sea Grant Program, N.C. State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. 1976. Effects of
Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development in the Coastal Zone. Prepared
for the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Outer Continental Shelf. Washington,
D.C.: House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session.

Macpherson, G. S., and Bookman, C. A. 1979. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and Th-eir Onshore Impacts: A Summary
Report. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey in
Cooperation with Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 80-17. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Management Consultant Services. 1974. Construction Impact Study. Prepared
for the Construction Impact Group. Seattle,* Washington.

Marine Affairs Office, North Carolina Department of Administration. 1976.
The North Carolina Petrocomplex Study. For the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural and Economic Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Marcus, Phillip; Smith, Ethan T.; Robertson, Sidney A.; Wong, Albert T.
1977. DEROCS: Development of Energy Resources on the Outer Continen-
tal Shelf: A Computer Program to Simulate Offshore Energy Development
Scenarios and Onshore Service Base Requirements. United States Geo-
logical Survey Open File Report 77-130. Washington, D.C.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1974. Primary, Physical Impacts of
Offshore Petroleum Developments. Prepared for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
t
National Supply Company. 1979. Oil and Gas Pocket Reference 1979. Houston,
Texas..

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Factbook. NERBC and U.S.G.S.
Resource and Land Investigations. Boston, Massachusetts.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs.
1976. "Planning for North Carolina's OCS." Bibliographies with abstracts.
Developed with U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration grant # 04-6-158-44095. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs.
1976. The North Carolina Petrocomplex. Study. Prepared for the North
Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Energy Division,
Allocations Section. 1975. North Carolina Petroleum Distribution.
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Petroleum Extension Service, The University of Texas. 1976. A Primer of
Offshore Operations, First Edition. Austin, Texas.

Pipeline Planning Committee, Pipeline Division of American Society of Civil
Engineers. Final Report of the Task Committee on Pipeline in the
Ocean. New York.

Robert R. Nathan Associates and Coastal Zone Resources Commission. 1975
The Coastal Plains Deepwater Terminal Study. Wilmington, North Carolina.

United States Department of the Interior. 1976. The Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Development Process: A Background Paper for State Planners
and Managers. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of
the Interior.

United States Department of the Interior. 1978. ;Study Design for Resource
I
Management Decisions: OCS Oil and Gas Deve 1opment and the Environment.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980.
Draft EIS for Pr02Osed 1981 Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas
Lease Sale No. 56. New Orleans, Louisiana.

U.S.@Department of the Interior, Coastal Zone Management Office and Bureau of
Land Management. 1977. State Information Needs Related to Onshore
and Nearshore Effects of OCS Petroleum Development.

Roy J. Weston, Inc. 1978. Methodoloqy for Assessing Onshore Impacts for
O.C.S. Oil and Gas Devef-opment. West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Williams, D. C. 1976. Rapid Growth from EnergX Projects: Ideas for
State and Local Action. Prepared for the Office of Community FTanning
and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington,
D.C.

Williams, David C., and Hom, Kathleen B. 1979. Onshore Impacts of Offshore
Oil: A User's Guide to Assessment Methods. Prepared for Department
of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, D.C.

Williams, David C., and Zinn, Jeffrey A. 1977. Sourcebook: Onshore
Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas DevelopTent. Pripared
by the Conservation Foundation for the American Society of Planning
Officials.

COAL

Alla-Ohio Valley Coals, Inc. 1980. "Proposed Coal Facility Development."
Minutes,of Citizens' Meeting. Morehead City, North Carolina.

Baker, C. R., and Hensley, C. 1981. "Financing Coal and Coal Handling
Facilities." Prepared for the American Association of Port Authorities,
Coal and Ports Seminar. Mobile, Alabama.

Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad. 1979. Bessemer Coal Manual, 1979. Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania.

Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1976. A Procedures Manual for AssesESL'nj
the Socioeconomic Impact of the ConstructioF and-operation of Coal
Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region. Prepared for the Old
West Regional Commission. Washington, D.C.

Campbell, T. C. "Coming: New Coal Transportation Modes," Mechanical
,Engineering, Vol. 101, No. 9. September 1979.

Coal: 1985 and Beyond. 1978. Published for the United Nations. New York:
Fergamon Press.

Coal Exporters Association. 1980. Report on Coal Export Port Capacity
and Port Congestion. Washingt , D.C.

Coal Exporters Association. 1980. The United States in the World Coal
Market. Washington, D.C.

Ebling, K. 1979. Multi-Modal Analysis of the National Coal Transportation
System. Paper prepared for the Conference on Coal Transportation,
Arlington, Virginia.

Exxon Corporation. 1977. Coal: Energy Bridge to the Future. New York,
New York.

Fettweis, Gunter B. 1979. World Coal Resources Methods of Assessment and
Results. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. New York, New York.

Forbes. "Shaping Up to Ship Out." February 16, 1981.

Harvey, C. E. 1980. Revitalization of Port Capacity and the Foreign Demand
for United States . Paper prepared for the Transportation Freight
Conference. Baltimori, Maryland.

Interagency Coal Export Task Force. "Report on Ports and Ocean Transpor-
tation." December 1, 1980.

Journal of Commerce. "Strong Demand for Steam Coal Expected Abroad."
February 17, 1981.

Lin, King. 1980. Coal Traffic Annual, 1979. National Coal Association.
Washington, DC.

Maritime Transportation Research Board, Commission on Sociotechnical Systems,
National Research Council. 1979. Critical Issues in Coal Transporta-
tion Systems: Proceedings of Symposiu National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, N-.C.

McGraw-Hill Mining Information Services. 1980. 1980 Keystone Coal Industry
Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Coal Age. "Port Traffic." November 1980.

National Coal Association. 1975. Coal Facts 1974-1975. Washington, D.C.

National Coal Association. 1979. Coal Facts, 1978-9. Washington, D.C.

Noyes, Robert, ed. 1978. 'Coal Resources, Characteristics and Ownership in
the U.S.A. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.

Pelham, L. 1980. The Environmental Impact on Coal Transfer and Terminal
Operations. U.S. Envfronmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/7-8T--169.
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Proceedings of the Conference on Coal Transportation. October 14-15, 1980.
Arlington, Virginia.

Proceedings, Transportation Freight Service Conference. October 15, 1980.
Baltimore, Maryland.

Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina State University and Appalachian
Regional Commission. 1977. An Assessment of the Effects of Coal
Movement on the Highways in the Appalachian Region. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.

Schwartz, G. G. 1980. Economic Revitalization and Port Development.
Paper prepared for the Transportation Freight Service Conference,
October 15, 1980. Baltimore, Maryland.

Szabo, M. F. 1978. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation. U..S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/7-78-081. Ci.ncinnati, Ohio.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration-;
Department of Energy; Department of Transportation. 1980. Moving
Coal to United States Export Markets: An Assessment of the Transpor-
tation System's Capability to Handle Future Coal Traffic. Draft Report.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1975. "Long Distance
Coal Transport: Unit Trains or Slurry Pipelines." Bureau of Mines..
Circular No. 8690.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, and U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, Office of the Secretary. 1980. National Energy Trans-
portation Study. A Preliminary Report to the President. Washington,
D.C.

Wilson, C. L. 1980. Coal-Bridge to the Future: Report of the World Coal
Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ballinger Publis-hing Company..

NORTH CAROLINA ENERGY STATISTICS

Enviro nmental Studies Council, University of North Carolina. 1978. Energy
Technologies and Policies for North Carolina: Conference Proceedings.

North Carolina Department of Administraton, Division of State Budget and
Planning, Research*and Planning Services. North Carolina State Govern-
ment Statistical Abstract; Fourth Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Commerce, North Carolina Energy Institute.
1979. Anuual Report-1979. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Commerce. 1980. The North Carolina Industrial
Data File. A Concise Presentation of North Carolina's Resources for
TTant Location Decision Makers. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Utilities Commission. 1979. 1978 Report-Vol. XII. Statis-
tical and Analytical Data Through 1976. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Research and Planning Services Division of State Budget and Management.
1979. North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract. Fourth
Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Research and Planning Services Office of State Budget and Management. 1980.
1980 North Carolina Statistical Guide. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Researc h Triangle Institute, The Center for Development and Resource Planning,
and North Carolina Department of Administration. 1974. Final Report.
A State Energy.Management Plan for North Carolina.. Phase I: A Quanti-
tative Description of the Current Situation and Analysis of the Determi-
nants and Consequences of Future Energy Use. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND STUDIES

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 1978.
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental_Policy Act.

Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1980. Coastal Effects of Coal Trans2hip:
ments in Michigan: An Evaluation Survey. Prepared for the Michigan
Department Of Natural Resources.

Little, Arthur D. and Co- 1973. Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater
Ports. NTIS (PB 224 018). Springfield, Virginia. For Council on
Environmental Quality.

Neal, Leon.. 1976. Impact of Continental Shelf Development. North Carolina
Science and Technology Research.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission. Rules and Regulations for Erosion and Sediment I
Control. Promulgated Pursuant to Provisions contained in Sedimentation
T-ol-1-u-t-iron Control Act of 1973. (GS chapter 113A, Article 4).

North Carolina Department of Transportaton, Division'of Highways. 1978.
Final Environmental Statement: Marine Maintenance Facility, Manns
Harbor, Dare County. July 1978.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1978.
"Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands-Revised Guidance and
Prcedures.": December 21, 1978. Memo to Project Engineers.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1979.
"Coastal Area Management Act.": December 6, 1979. Memo to Project
Engineers.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1980.
"Procedures to Follow to Comply with the Endangered Species Act-1978
Amendments.": February 18, 1980. Memo to Project Engineers.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division.
1981. "Coal Train Movements Through the City of New Bern." Working
paper.

"Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts; Policies and Procedures."
Federal Register. Vol. 44, No. 191. Monday, October 1, 1979.

Schoebaum, Thomas J., and Silliman, Kenneth G. 1976. Coastal Planning:
The Designation and Management of Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern. Raleigh, North Carolina: UNC Sea Grant Program.

Shuldiner, P. W.; Cope, D. F.;. and Newton, R. B. 1979. National Coo era-
tive Highway Research Program Report 218 B: Ecological Effects of
Highway Fills on Wetlands, User's Manual. Transportation Research
Board. Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Proposed Coastal Management Program for the State of North
Carolina.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Final Environmental Impact State-
ment: Proposed Costal Management-Program for the State of North Carolina.
Appendices.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1977.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 43. New
Orleans, Lousiana.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1981.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 56. New
Orleans, Lousiana.

WATER RESOURCES

Howells, David H. 1976. Water Resource Problems and Research Needs of
F-h, North Carolina: Water Resources Research
North Carolina. Raleig
Institute of ihe University of North Carolina.

McJenkin, Frederick Eugene; Coe, Mary Jordan; and Knarr, Bruce Allen. 1968.
Water Resources of North Carolina: An Inventory of Information and
Data. Report #22. Raleigh, North Carolina: Water Resources Research
Institute.

National Association of Conservation Districts. 1979. The Role of Conserva-
tion Districts in the Coastal Zone Management Program. Written and
compiled under contract from the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department
of Commerce.

North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Marine Science
Council. 1972. North Carolina's Coastal Resources: A Preliminary
Planning Report for Marine and Coastal Resource Devil-opment in North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Caroli-n-a.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1977. Public Water Supplies of North Carolina. North Coastal Region.
South Coastal Region.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Coastal Management. Subchapter 7J--Procedures for Handling Major
Development Permits, Variance Requests, and Appeals from Minor Develop-
ment Permi.t Decisions. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Record of the First Annual Review Conference on Marine Resources Develop-
ment. December 7-8, 1978. Charleston, South Carolina. Sponsored by
the Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Service.

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States.
December 6-7, 1979. Wilmington, North Carolina. Sponsored by the
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services.

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States.
December 9-10, 1976. Jacksonville, Florida. Sponsored by the Coastal
Plains Center for Marine Development Services.

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States.
December 11-12, 1975. Savannah, Georgia. Sponsored by the Coastal
Plains Center for Marine Development Services.

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States.
December 8-19, 1977. Williamsburg, Virginia. Sponsored by tFe -Coastal
Plains Center for Marine Development Services.
Stream Channelization and Wetland Drajn@. 1970. Proceedings of works.hop
sponsored by North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources and
Water Resources Research Institute held at Rougemont, North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina. Report #45.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Water Resources Development.
North Carolina.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1975. An Assessment of Estuarine
and Nearshore Marine Environments. Gloucester Point, Virginia:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Wurfel, Seymour W., Principal Investigaqtor. 1974. Emerging Ocean Oil
and Mining Law. Raleigh, North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant Program, N.C.
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

LAND USE PLANS

Camden County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Camden County Land Use Plan
1975-1985. Camden County, North Carolina.

Camden County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Camden County Land Use Plan
Synopsis. Camden County, North Carolina.

Dare County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act:
Dare County Land Development Plan. Manteo, North Carolina.

Dare County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Dare County Land Use Plan:
Summary. Manteo, North Carolina.

Hyde County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act:
Land Development Plan for Hyde County, A. Swan Quarter, North Carolina.

Hyde County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Hyde County Land.Use Plan:
Summary. Swan Quarter, North Carolina.

Mid-East Commission. 1976. Overall Economic Development Program Update.
Washington, North Carolina.

Neuse River Council of Governments, Division of Planning and Management.
1976. Craven County Land Development Plan. New Bern, North Carolina.

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. 1978. Coastal Area Manage-
ment Act: Land Use Plan, Carteret County, North arolina. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

North Carolina Outdoor Recreation Plan: Summary. 1970. Raleigh, North
Carolina.

Onslow County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act:
Land Use Plan. Onslow County, North Caro-lina. Jacksonville, North
Carolina.

Onslow County Planning Department. 1976. Onslow County Land Use Plan:
Summary. Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Pasquot'ank County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Pasquotank County Land
Use Plan: Synopsis. Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Pasquotank County,
North Carolina: Land Use Plan, 1975-1985. Elizabeth City, North
Carolina.

Reeves, Lenora, ed. 1979. The Mid-East Commission, Annual Report, 1978-
1979. Washington, North Carolina.

Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act:
Tyrrell CountyLand Development Plan. Columbia, North Carolina.

Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners. 1976.' Tyrrell County Land Use Plan:
Summary. Columbia, North Carolina.

Washington County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Washington County Land
Use Plan. Plymouth, North Carolina.

Washington County Board of Commissioners. 1976' Washington County Land
Use Plan: Summary. Plymouth, North Carolina.

Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Department. 1976. Coastal Area Manage-
ment Act: Land Use Plan V. Wilmington, North Carolina.

Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Department. 1976. Wilmington-New Hanover
County Land Use Plan: Summary. Wilmington, North Carolina.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND DATA SOURCES

American Waterways Operators, Inc. 1970. The Barge and Touring Industry
Catalog of Publications, Films and Inf-ormation Resources. Washington,
D.C.

Clay, James W., Orr, Douglas M., and Stuart, Alfred W., eds. 1975. North
Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State. Chapel ffTTTT
North Carolina: The U5'1versity of North Carolina,Press.
Emmett, Robert C. 1978. The Trans2ortation of Energy Materials in the United
States: A Bibliograp7hy. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern Unversity
Transportation Library. Prepared for Argonne Laboratory, Energy and
Environmental Systems Division Transportation Energy Systems Section.

Garrett, Wilbur E., ed. 1981. "Energy: Facing Up to the Problem, Getting
Down to Solutions." National Geographic Special Report, February 1981.
Washington, D.C.

Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 1977. The
North Carolina Costal Zone and Its Environment: A Compilation Of
Resource Materials Covering the Costal Plain, Estuaries, and Offshore
Waters. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy.

UNC Sea Grant Program, 1980. Publications List. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

UNC-CH Center for Urban Studies, 1981. Outer Continental Shelf Development
and the North Carolina Coast: A Guide for Local Planners, Annotated
Bibliography, UNC-Chapel Hill.

CEIP Publications

1. Hauser, E. W., P. D. Cribbins, P. D. Tschetter, and R. D. Latta.
Coastal Energy Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #1. September 1981.
$10.

2. P. D. Cribbins. A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export
Terminals. CEIP Report #2. September 1981. $10.

3. Tschetter, P. D., M. Fisch, and R. D. Latta. An Assessment of
Potential Impacts of Energy-Related Transportation Developments
on North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #3. September 1981.
$10. (Available spring 1982)

4. Cribbins, P. S. An Analysis of State and Federal Policies Affecting
Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #4.
September 1981. $10.

5. Brower, David, W. D. McElyea, D. R. Godschalk, and N. D. Lofaro.
Outer Continental Shelf Development and the North Carolina Coast:
A Guide for Local Planners. CEIP Report #5. August 1981. $10.

6. Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and the Environment,
.Inc. Mitigating the Impacts of Energy Facilities; A Local Air Quality Program
for the Wilmington, N.C. Area. CEIP Report #6. September 1981. $10.

7. Richardson, C. J. (editor). Pocosin Wetlands: an Integrated Analysis
of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Stroudsburg (Pa):
Hutchinson Ross. 364 pp. $25. Available from School of Forestry,
Duke University, Durham, N. C. 27709. (This proceedings volume is
for a conference partially funded by N. C. CEIP. It replaces the
N. C. Peat Sourcebook in this publication list.)

8. McDonald, C. B., and A. M. Ash. Natural Areas Inventory of Tyrrell
County, N. C. CEIP Report #8. October 1981. $10 for all requests.

9. Fussell, J., and E. J. Wilson. Natural Areas Inventory of Carteret
County, N. C. CEIP Report #9. October 1981. $10 for all requests.

10. Nyfong, T. D. Natural Areas Inventory of Brunswick County, N. C.
CEIP Report #10. October 1981. $10 for all requests.

11. Leonard, S. W., and R. J. Davis. Natural Areas Inventory for Pender
County, N. C. CEIP Report #11. October 1981. $10 for all requests.

NOTE: Please note renumbering of reports 5-10.

QATE- DUE,

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRIWED IN U.S.A

@@3 i66@6i8 @14106 1905
ri