assessment of potential impacts of energy-related transportation developments on North Carolina's coastal zone

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

Coastal Energy Transportation Study
Phase 2, Volume 2

An Assessment of Potential Impacts of
Energy- Related Transportation
Developments on,
North Carolina's Coastal Zone

Paul D. Tschetter
East Carolina University
Mark Fisch
East Carolina University
R. Daniel Latta
UNC Institute for Transportation
Research and Education

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

TD
195 Ceip Report No. 3
T83 July 1981
1981

COASTAL ENERGY TRANSPORTATION STUDY
PHASE II, VOLUME 2

AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF
ENERGY-RELATED TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENTS ON NORTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL ZONE

by
Paul D. Tschetter
East Carolina University
Mark Fisch
East Carolina University
R. Daniel Latta
UNC Institute for TransDortation
Research and Education

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

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

July 1981

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
Property of CSC Library 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

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 scenarious were developed,
and transportation needs were assessed. Concurrent with these tasks,
an impact assessment 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
Management 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 I, 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 teafn 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 exchanged energy projects. These project
proposals have been in response to changing e,-,onomic conditions, and dynamic
corporate and private investment strategies. For example, since the Phase
I report was written, the following captions from Raleigh and Wilmington

i i'i

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, Environmentalists at Odds"
3/08/81 "Low Demand (for petroleum products) Closing
Refineries"
4/28/81 "BECO to 'Re-evaluatr,' Brunswick Co. Refinery"
4/29/81 "BECO May Consi'der Selling Refinery Project"
5/15/81 "BECO Drops Plans -co Build Oil Refinery"
Continued 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Project Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Summary and Conclusfons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 Identffication of Impact Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Criteria for Defi'ning the Impact Area. * * ' * ' * ' ' * 2
2.2 Defi'nition of the Geographi'cal Impact Areas . . . . . . . 2

3.0 The Context of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
x
3.2 The Economic Cont@ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2 Labor Force Compositi on . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.3 Journey to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.4 Income and Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.5 Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.6 Commerci'al Ffshinq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.6.1 Magnitude and Economic'Value
of Commercial Fisheries . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.6.2 Commerctal Fisheries and
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.7 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 The Social Demographic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.2 Population Size an@ Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.3 Urbanizati'on 34
3.3.4 Age, Sex, and Racial 6mp'os'ft'1o*n* . . . 34
3.3.5 Educatfon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5.1 Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5.2 Educational Enrollments . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.6 Farm Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 Environmental Considerations for Pr@posed
Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4.1 Water Quantity and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.4.2 Ai'r Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4.3 Land Resources Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4.4 Solfd and Ffazardous Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . 53
3.4.5 Notse Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.4.6 Vological Activity and Qual-Ity . . . . . . . . . 55
3.5 The Recreation Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.5.2 Geography of Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.5.3 Recreational Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.5.4 Economic Measures of Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.5.5 Noneconomic Measures of Tourism . . . . . . . . . 64
3.6 Fiscal Context of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.7 The Land Use Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
3.7.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.7.2 CAMA Land Use Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.7.3 Brunswick County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.7.4 New Hanover County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.7.5 Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.0 Potential Impacts of Temporary OCS Support Bases . . . . . . 80
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2 Economic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3 Social Demographic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.1 Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.2 Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.3 Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4 Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4.1 Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4.2 Wanchese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.4.3 Southport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.4.4 Wilmington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.4.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.5 Recreational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
.4.6 Fiscal Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.6.2 Housfng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.6.3 Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.7 Land Use Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5.0 Potential Impacts of Coal Exporting Facilities . . . . . . . 91
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.1.2 Assumptions for Impact Assessment . . . . . . . 92
5.2 Economic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.2 Economic Benefits and Employment . . . . . . . . 94
5.2.3 Commercial Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.3 Soci.*al-Demograph.i'c Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.3.2 Population Growth . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.3.3 Social Impacts of Railroad Traffic . . . . . . . 100
5.3.4 Social Itpacts of Ship Traffic . . . . . . . . . 103
5.4 Environmental Assessment of Coal Terminal Operation - .103
5.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.4.2 Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4.3 Wilmington . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .110
5.5 Recreational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.5.2 Recreational Impacts of Rail Traffic . . . . . . 111
5.5.3 Recreational Impacts of Ship Traffic . . . . . . 112
5.6 Fiscal Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
5.7 Land Use Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

FIGURES
Number Page
1 Percentage of Employed Working Outside County of Residence . . . . . 16
2 Total Population, 1980, and Percentage Change In Total
Population, 1970-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3 Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Change
1970-1980, Brunswick County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Ch.ange
1970-1980, Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Change
1970-1980, New Hanover County . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6 Air Quality Control Regions for Coastal North Carolina . . . . . . . 50

7 Natural and Recreational Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

8 Beachfront Recreational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9 Land Use Plan, Cape Fear Council of Government . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10 Land Use Plan, Southport City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11 CAMA Land Use Plan, New Hanover County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
12 Land Use Classification, New Hanover County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
13 CAMA Land Use Plan, Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
14 Land Use Classification, Beaufort City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
15 Land Use Classification, Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79

16 Traffic Patterns for Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

vii

Number TABLES Page

1 Coastal Study Area Counties Impacted by OCS Support Bases
and Coal Export Terminals and Peat Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Employment Summary by Industry Groups by County, 1960, 1970 . . . 6

3 Total Employment, Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment,
and Industrial Employment by County, 1970, 1975, and 1979 . . . 10

4 Investments, Payroll, and Number of Employees in New and
Proposed, and Expanded Manufacturing Industries by County,
Cumulative Totals 1971 through 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5 Percentage of Workers Employed Outside County of Residence,
1960, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6 Median Famfly Income and Percent of Families Below Poverty
Line by County, 1960, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7 Per Capita Personal Income, 1970, 1975, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . 19
8 Average Percentage Unemployed, 1970, 1975, jq79 . . . . . . . . 20

9 Commercial Fishing Vessel Licenses, Pounds Landed, and
Dockside Value by County, 1975-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10 Estuarine Waters Closed for Shellfishing . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11 Total Cash. Receipts from Farm Marketing and Government
Payments by County, 1970, 1976, 1979 . I . . . . . . . . . . . 25

12 Total Population by County, 1960, 1970, 1980 and
Percent Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13 Net Migration by County, 1960-1970 and 1970-1980 . . . . . . . . 29
14 Total Population by County and Townships, 1970, 1980 . . . . . . 30

15 Percent Urban by County, 1960, 1970, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . 35

16 Median Age by County, 1960, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
17 Sex Ratio by County, 1960, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

18 Percent Nonwhite Population by County, 1960, 1970, 1980 . . . . . 38

19 Percent of Population 25 Years of Age and Older Who Are
High School Graduates, 1960, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

viii

Number Page

20 Public School Average Attendance, School Years Ending
1960, 1970, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

21 Total Farm Acreage, Value Per Acre, and Average Size of
Farms by County, 1969-, 1974, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
22 Federal Ambient Afr Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 49

23 Air Pollution Emission Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

24 Recreational Land and Water Acreage by County . . . . . . . . 59

25 Estimates of Travel and Tourism Expenditures by County
(Ruli'son Methodology) 1975 and 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

26 Estimates of Travel and Tourism Expenditures by County
(Copeland Methodology) 1975 and 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . 63

27 Annual Visits to Carolina Beach State Park, Fort Macon
State Park, and Fort Fisher, 1970, 1975, 1980 . . . . . . . . 65

28 Major Charter and Head Boat Ports by Port and County . . . . 66

29 Assessed Valuation and Total Property Taxes Levied by
County, 1972, 1977, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

30. County Tax Collections by Type, 1977, 1980 . . . . . . . . . 69
31 Employment Estimates (nonconstructionj Northern and
Southern Tract Group Development Scenarios . . . . . . . . . 82

32 Population Impact--Estimated New Resident Population'
and School Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

33 Potential Onshore Development Area Impact Indicators
for Community Services/Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

34 Proposed Coal Terminal Sites, Expected Startup Dates,
Capacities, Capital Investments, and Estimated New
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

35 Payroll and Ports Authority Benefit Stream Resulting from
Ports Authority (Morehead City) Three-year Coal Contract 96

36 Economic and Financial Benefit Stream from Unit-Trafn Coal
Movement Through N,C. to Morehead City . . . . . . . . . . . 97

37 Estimated Railroad Crossing Delays b,%( Speed of Trains . . . . 101

38. Estimated Potential Economic Impacts on Central Business
District and Historic District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

39 Summary of Source Water Control Technology . . . . . . . . . 107

40 Typical Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SPONSOR

COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CEIP)
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, Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University

Paul D. Tschetter, Co-Principal Investigator
Associate Professor, Socioloqy
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

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

Steve Benton, 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
NC Department of Transportation

Mary Ellen Marsden, Research Associate
Institute for Research 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.

xi. I

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

John Warren, President
Sunbelt Hydro Corporation

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

x i ij

ABSTRACT

In an earlier study (Phase 1) potential methodologies were identified
to assess the pos-sible i'mpacts of the transportation facili'ties necessary
to support the development of major energy projects for the coastal area
of North Carolina. This study concentrates on two projects: (1) on-shore
support bases for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oi'l and gas exploration
and (2) coal export terminals.

In order to examine the impacts of the proposed development, three
OCS-coal exporting siting countfes (Brunswick, Carteret, and New Hanover)
and eight transportation countfes (Beaufort, gladen, Columbus, Craven,
DuDlin, Lenoir, Pender, and Pi'tt) were identified. Baseline data describing
the economic,, social-demographic are provided, Additional baseline data
are provided for five peat counties (Dare, Hyde, Pamlico, Tyrrell, and
Washington) .

The examination of the potential impacts of locating temporary
OCS support bases assumes two alternatfve scenarfos - a low resource
estimate and a high resource estimate. Given these scenarios, economic,
social-demographic, recreational, environmental, and ffscal impacts for
Brunswick, Carteret, and New Hanover Countfes are developed.

The examination of potential impacts of locating coal exporting
terminals assumes the development scenarios announced by the respective
coal companies for the Morehead City area and the New Hanover-Brunswfck
County area. Gi*ven the proposed coal tonnaqe, estimates of rail and ship
traffic are used to identify economic, social-demographic, recreational,
environmental, and fiscal impacts for terminal siti'ng counties and
the rail transportation corridor counties.

-Xi'v

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Volume 2, An Assess-ment of Potential Impacts of Energy-Related
Transportation Developments on North Carolina's Coastal Zone," 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 baseline economic, social-demographic,
recreatfonal, environmental, and fiscal conditions in three OCS-coal
exporting siting counties, eight transportation corridor counties, and
five peat counties, separate assessments were made for potential impacts
from Temporary OCS support bases and coal exporting terminals respectively.

Impacts of Temporary OCS Support Bases

Potenti*al locations for temporary OCS support bases were identified
for Carteret and New Hanover Counties which will be requfred for the
1984 through 1988 time peri'od. Two development scenarios based on low
resource estimates and high resource estimates of OCS oil and gas
exploration are used to identi*fy potential impacts.

Economic impacts will result from direct, indirect, and induced
employment related to exploration. An estimated 1,100 jobs wi'll be
created between 1984 and 1988. Estimates indicate that between 45
percent and 75 percent of the jobs will be filled locally. Gi'ven the
present employment patterns fn Carteret and New Hanover Counties, the
potential for new local employment may be Tnitigated by workers who
presently are employed in other counties taking jobs i'n their home
counti'es. Additionally the latter fact would lessen the potential for
in-migration and population growth due to development. That jobs in
OCS related activity pay hi'gher than prevailing wages in the Siting
counties will improve economic conditions in Carteret and New Hanover
Counties.

Initial estimates indicate that because the recommended sites for
OCS temporary support bases make use of existing facilities, recreational,
environmental, land use, and fiscal impacts will beminiTnal during the
exploratory phase of OCS development.

Impacts of Coal Exporting Terminals

Seven corporations have proposed the development of coal exporting
facilities for coastal North Carolfna. The range of possible coal exports
extends from the three milli'on tons at the currently operating Alla-Ohio
Valley facility to approxtrately 10 million tons if all proposed facilities
became operational. The f-mpact analyses used projected coal-export figures

from the respective corporations to estimate the railroad and ship traffic
demand associated with the proposed sites (Table 34).

Coal export facilitiis tend to be capital intensive. Although
there presently is little empirical evidence about themagnitude of
new direct and indirect employment related to the operation of a
coal port,income generated will be significant. The major i-mpact will
be from the railroad activity to the port and ship trafftc from the
port. If all Carteret County projects were fully developed, an estimated
24 trains per day and 500 ships per year would be needed to move the coal .
Figures for the Brunswick-New ffanover County area would be approximately
40 trains per day and 800 ships per year.

The impacts on the transportation infrastructures of the respective
communiti'es are directly related to the historical development of those
transportation systems. The pace of development and community reaction
to that development will be directly related to attempts to deal with
transportation problems of coal exporting. The solution of these
transportation problems- will have important implications for the future
qrowth of the communities' employment sectors.

Given the preceeding, a list of recommendations relevant to
the development of coal exporti'ng facilfties would i'nclude;

Morehead City Sftes

1., No additfonal coal terminals should be approved in the Morehead
Cfty harbor unti'l major changes are implemented in the land transportation
link for coal inbound to the port. A rail bypass around Morehead City,
a conveyor system, or barae service should be investigated for thi's
purpose.

2. If increases in.throughput tonnage at the currently operating
or planned sites (Alla-Ohio C-16) and (Gulf Interstate C-12) are to
increase significantly, an off-loadina/ground storage terminal should
be developed at the junction of US 70 and NC 24 (Site C-14), with either
an overhead conveyor system, pneumatic pipeline systeyn or similar
technology (not a slurry pipeline) being used to move the coal to the
harbor to eliminate at-grade rail crossinq conflicts,

Cape Fear River Sites

3. No coal terminals should be sited on the east side of the Cape
Fear River because of the railroad grade crossing problems in Wilmington.

4. Site C-5 should be given priority in consideration for the
development of a coal terminal on the west side of the Cape Fear River,
this being the least environmentally daTnaging site.

@X,Vi

Other Considerations

5. All sites developed should use enclosed storage of stockpiled
coal (silos, bins, etc.) to minimize the particulate and coal dust emissions,
and to minimize coal-water interactions from precipitation and runoff.

6. All transport operations should use enclosed systems (conveyorsl
tubes, chutes) with suitable dust suppression technology, such as water
or chemical sprays, used at all transfer points.

7. A separate stormwater collection system for the entire terminal
site should be provided, with sufficient capacity to handle all runoff
and waste stream (dust suppression and wash down). This collected
wastewater should be adequately treated to remove pollutants prior to
discharge. Reuse and recycling of this wastewater for non-potable
usage is recommended.

8. Sufficient land should be available to allow for on-site
treatment facilities (air and/or water) and adequate buffer space to
minimize noise and aesthetic interference in the surrounding communities.
9. Identify and monitor alternative technologies for the operation
of coal export facilities with emphasis on their economic and
environmental impacts. The immediate emphasis should be placed on the
employment patterns at the Alla-Ohio Valley project in Morehead City.

10. Identify alternative technologies and routes for transporting
coal to terminal sites. The immediate emphasis should be on monitoring
th.e impacts of coal trains operating through New Bern and Morehead City.
11. Identify the environmental impacts of increased ship traffic
at proposed site and its effects on commercial fishing and recreational
activity.

12. Identify more clearly the elements of the recreational sector
of local economies to provide a more complete knowledge base for
predicting the recreational impacts of development.
13. Monitor community response to the development of proposed
development of coal export facilities. One method of doing this would
include a community survey.

)(Vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In Phase II of the Coastal Energy Transportation Study, the
impacts of alternative transportation modes for Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activity and coal exporting are examined.
OCS oil and gas exploration and coal exporting are defined in
terms of their respective transportation requirements and the effects
those transportation needs will have on the present and future coastal
transportation systems. A detailed discussion of the coastal
transportation systems can be found in the Phase I Report of the
Coastal Energy Transportation Study (ITRE, 1930). Discussion of
the sfte and transportation requirements required for temporary
support bases for OCS oil and gas exploration and coal export
terminals can be found in CEIP Report 2, Report of the Coastal
Energy Transportation Study: "An Analysis of Transportation Needs
to Support Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone"
(ITRE, 1981a).

In this report, transportation requirements for the respective
energy activities are examined for their economic, social-demographic,
environmental, recreati'onal, fiscal, and land use impacts. Impacts
are defined as consequences of the development of temporary OCS
support bases and coal export terminals. Both primary and secondary
development are addressed.

Primary (or direct) development refers to activity specific
to the constructfon and operation of an OCS support base and coal
export terminal. Secondary development refers to demands created
by the primary activity and includes indirect development and
induced development. Secondary fndirect development includes
industrial projects that serve and support the primary activity.
Secondary induced development refers to the expansion of community
services and facilities to serve the population attracted through
primary and indirect secondary development.

There are four rema.ininq chapters in this report: (1) the
identification of the geographical area affected by OCS oil and
gas support bases and coal export terminals; (2) the description of
the context of development within the impact area; (3) the impacts
of alternative sites for temporary support bases of OCS exploration;
and (4) the impacts of alternative sites for coal export terminals.

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT AREA

2.1 Criteria for Defining the Impact Area

The Impact area for OCS activity and coal exporting is
geographically defined. Criteria used for defining the affected area
include: (1) the specific sites for temporary OCS support bases
and coal export terminals; (2) the nature of the transportation activity
associated with OCS and coal facilities; and (3) the qeographical unit
of analysis to be used in assessing the iTnpacts of the respective activities.

When OCS oil and gas activity and coal exporting are viewed in
terms of their transportation requirements, there exists a key facility
which represents the primary node in the respective transportation systems.
For OCS activity the site of the temporary support base is that primary
node. For coal exporting, the port terminal represents the primary node.
These activity nodes serve to define the center of the primary geographical
impact area.

The nature of the transportation activity associated with OCS activity
and coal exporting serves to define the extent of the geographical area of
impact. Although both transportation activfties extend inland and seaward,
there are qualitative differences in the transportation activity for OCS
exploration and for coal export. The primary transportation emphasis in
OCS oil and gas exploration is the movement between the onshore support
base and drilling sites. In contrast, for coal activity, there is an equal
emphasis between the inland transportation of coal to the port and the
movement from the port seaward.

The geographical area of impact for the proposed OCS support bases
will extend from the specific site seaward. The aeoaraphical area of
impact for the coal export terminals will include the transportation
corri.dors that move the coal to the port and the transportation corridors
that move the coal seaward.

The principal geographical unit of analysis used to assess impacts
is the county. The county is the reporting unit for relevant data which
is generally available. Data for municipalities within impacted counties
will be used when available, especially for -municipalities which are
directly affected by OCS or coal transportation activity.

2.2 Definition of the Geographical Impact Areas

Although the coastal study area includes the 27 counties identified
in CEIP Report 1 (ITRE, 1980:6), the data presented in this report are
limited to 16 counties.1 Using criteria discussed in Section 2.1, the

lCounties in the study area not included fn this report are Bertie,
Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Gates, Hertford, Jones, Martin, Onslow,
Pasquotank, and Perquimans.

16 counties are included because: (1) they contain a proposed temporary
OCS support base site, and/or coal export terminal site, (2) they are part
of a transportation corridor for moving coal to a terminal site, or (3) they
contain peat mining and use sites.

As seen in Table 1, there is considerable overlap between counties
for the proposed OCS support bases and coal export terminals in the siting
areas of Brunswick and New Hanover Counties and in Carteret County.

The transportation corridors for the shipment of coal to the port
are delimited by existing rail services. There are two rail corridors for
each siting area. Pender and Duplin Counties represent the first rail
corridor for coal exporting si'tes in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties,
and Columbus and Bladen Counties represent the second.

Two rail corridors serve the Carteret County coal export terminal
sites. They follow the same rail route through Carteret and Craven
Counties, and split into two routes extending northwest from Craven
County. One route moves west through Lenoir County while the second
moves north and west through Beaufort and Pitt Counties.

For the purposes of analysis, a distinction will be made between
OCS support base and coal export terminal siting counties, transportation
corridor counties, and peat mining counties.

TABLE 1. COASTAL STUDY' AREA COUNTIES IMPACTED BY OCS SUPPORT
BASES, RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND PEAT MINING

OCS-Coal Export Counties Peat Mining Counties
Brunswick Dare
Carteret Hyde
New Hanover Pamlico
Tyrrell
Transportation Corridor Counties Washington
Beaufort Duplin
Bladen Lenofr
Columbus Pender
Craven Pitt

3.0 THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Introduction

Impact assessment of the development of temporary OCS support bases
and coal export terminals must take into account the context of development.
Specifically, trends and present conditions are identified for each of the
11 counties which may be impacted by sitina and/or rail transportation.
This section provides an overview of the economic, social-demographic,
environmental, recreational, fiscal, and land use conditions. A distinction
is made between the three OCS-coal export sfting-counties and the seven
rail transportation counties. The main emphasis will be on Brunswick,
Carteret, and New Hanover Counties which contain the proposed sites identified
in CEIP Report 2 (ITRE, 1981a) for the temporary OCS support base and coal
export terminals. Data for the five peat mining counties are included for
comparative purposes.

The characterization of the context of development depends on the
most recent data for each of the variables identified in Part B of the
Phase I Report, Coastal Energy Transportation Study (ITRE, 1980). The
extent to which the characterization of the economic and social-demographic
context of the study area is limited by the unavailability of the 1980
U.S. Census data will be discussed in the appropriate sections.

3.2 The Economic Context

3.2.1 General

The economic context of development is described. The focus of
the economic development is placed on the size and composition of the
labor force, how employment and income are changing, and the geographical
patterns of employment. The economic sectors of commercial fishing and
agriculture are described in some detail. The economic dimensions of
recreation are discussed in Section 3.5.

Although employment in fishing and agriculture remains economically
significant, particularly in terms of income, the composition of the labor
force in the 11 county study area is shifting toward employment in the
industrial and service sectors. The shift toward industrial and service
employment has been coupled with increased commuting to work in adjacent
counties. The income levels in the 16 counties, with the exception of New
Hanover County, are below the income levels of the state. The lower income
levels for the 16 counties are related to the types of available jobs.

3.2.2 Labor Force Composition

An important indicator of a local economy is the composition of the
labor force. As seen in Table 2, the composition of the employed labor

force underwent dramatic changes between 1960 and 1980. The shift away
from the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries category to other industrial
categories was significant. The shift was dramatic in terms of both absolute
numbers and relative proportions of the labor force.

The most consistent gains in employment were in the area of government.
The growth in government employment reflects increases in county and
municipal employment. The other occupational category which showed
consistent gains in all counties was manufacturing employment. Generally,
two types of counties showed the greatest gains in manufacturing employment:
counties with large or medium sized cities and counties fmmediately adjacent
to urbanized counties.

An important qualification must be placed on the interpretation of
growth in employment in specific industrial categories. The data in Table
2 reports industrial categories for residents of the respective counties
and does not imply that workers actually have jobs in their county of
residence. Although the journey to work will be dealt with specifically
later in this section, it must be noted that this pattern of working outside
the county of residence has important consequences in assessing the impact
of economic development on local communities.

Although the availability of the 1980 census data will provide
information on whether labor force trends in the 1970's were similar
to those for the 1960's, data on the patterns of economic development
during the 1970's are available through the North Carolina Employment
Securities Commission's estimates of total employment and nonagricultural
wage and salary employment by county of residence and industrial
employment by county of work. Industrial employment is broken down into
manufacturing and nonmanufacturing employment.

The data provide several points of information: (1) the change in
the total labor force of the residents of respective counties, (2) the
change in the total nonagricultural wage and salary labor force of residents
in the respective counties, (3) the change in industrial employment located
in the respective counties, (4) the change in the relative importance of
manufacturing and nonmanufacturing employment within the respective counties,
and (5) an estimate of whether the respective counties are net importers or
exporters of workers. Although the discussion focuses on the primary impact
counties, data is provided for all 11 counties.

All counties experienced growth in total employment and total
nonagricultural wage and salary employment during the 1970's, as well as
increased industrial jobs located in each county. There were changes in
the relative amount of employment in the manufacturing and nonmanufacturing
segments of the industrial sector. The proportion of manufacturing jobs
declined from 23 percent in 1970 to 19 percent in 1979 in Carteret County.
In New Hanover County, the proportion of manufacturing jobs declined from
30 percent in 1970 to 24 percent in 1979. In Brunswick County the pattern

TABLE 2. EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY BY INDUSTRY GROUPS BY COUNTY, 1960, 1970

Brunswick Carteret New Hanover Beaufort

1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Employed 5,417 7,828 8,068 11,225 25,935 32,750 11,061 13,183

Agriculture, 22.1 6.4 11.7 6.5 3.1 1.6 26.9 12.6
Forestry,
Fisheries

Construction 11.7 14.7 8.9 6.9 7.2 8.3 6.4 8.3

Manufacturing 21.2 25.9 10.3 14.4 20.2 25.6 16.7 24.0

Transportation 6.6 9.7 4.6 5.0 12.3 8.9 4.0 8.9
Communication
Utilities

Wholesale Trade/ 14.9 17.7 23.0 23.2 22.1 21.3 19.2 20.5@
Retail Trade

Services --- 6.1 --- 9.0 --- 10.6 --- 8.4

Education 2.8 5.9 4.2 5.8 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.1

Government 4.8 16.6 17.1 29.4 4.3 12.8 2.9 13.6

Source: U.S. Census of Populatfon, 1960 General Social and Economic Characteristics, North Carolina
Table 85, 1960. U.S. Census of Topulation, 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics,
Table 123.

MOM M M mom M M M

Tabl e 2
Continued
Bladen Columbus Craven Duplin

1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Employed 8,073 9,069 15,570 16,205 14,999 17,395 13,259 14,290

Agriculture, 30.5 13.7 40.6 18.9 15.9 6.0 44.6 20.6
Forestry,
Fisheries

Construction 5.8 10.4 4.8 7.5 6.4 6.8 6.7 7.9

Manufacturing 27.1 32.8 17.3 27.9 16.2 17.9 12.1 26.7
Transportation, 2.3 3.0 2.6 3.0 4.6 6.2 1.4 2.8
Communi cati on,
Utilities

Wholesale Trade/ 14.5 16.8 14.4 17.0 19.3 21.6 13.7 16.7
Retail Trade

Services --- 7.9 --- 7.9 --- 8.2 --- 7.6

Education 4.4 6.0 4.5 7.3 3.8 7.9 4.5 6.3

Government 2.6 13.5 2.0 12.7 13.0 28.9 3.2 14.3

Table 2
Continued
Lenoir Pender Pitt Dare

1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Employed 18,016 20,459 5,850 6,354 22,353 27,079 1,772 2,333

Agriculture, 21.6 11.0 36.1 14.0 29.1 15.0 15.8 7.8
Forestry,
Fisheries

Construction 7.6 10.2 6.3 9.5 5.6 7.4 13.2 13.5

Manufacturing 17.9 23.6 17.6 27.9 13.9 17.8 5.6 5.7

Trans po.rtati on, 2.9 5.9 2.3 4.2 2.8 3.9 9.7 6.8
Communication,
Utilities

Wholesale Trade/ 18.9 18.9 13.3 16.2 18.6 21.9 17.8 29.0
Retail Trade

Services --- 9.2 --- 7.8 --- 8.4 --- 13.9

Education 6.6 7.9 4.7 5.0 8.0 12.1 3.8 3.6

Government 3.3 16.9 5.4 19.2 2.2 19.2 9.4 22.1

maim M

MOM M M M M M =No= M

Table 2
Continued
Hyde Pamlico Tyrrell Washington

1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Employed 1,686 1,699 2,881 2,963 1,354 1,220 4,088 4,679

Agri cul ture, 44.7 26.0 30.3 13.2 27.7 18.4 16.9 9.8
Forestry,
Fisheries

Construction 5.3 10.0 4.8 7.3 6.7 11.7 3.8 5.9

Manufacturing 10.3 17.4 15.8 20.5 20.0 19.9 17.2 42.4

Transportation, 3.3 4.5 4.2 5.6 3.1 1.9 2.2 2.2
Communication,
Utiliti'es

Wholesale Trade/ 13.0 13.5 18.6 18.0 16.5 16.7 15.8 13.9
Retail Trade

Services --- 6.8 --- 6.4 --- 8.0 --- 8.5

Education 5.1 10.1 4.5 6.0 7.0 10.3 3.1 5.8

Government 4.4 25.1 10.7 24.5 2.0 18.4 3.4 13.0

TABLE 3. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT, NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE, AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT
AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTY 1970, 1975, 1979

Brunswick Carteret New Hanover
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979
Total employmenta 10,810 12,740 14,630 11,610 12,490 13,940 32,220 38,080 43,690
Nonagric. wage/salaryb 9,150 10,690 12,400 9,610 10,350 11,490 26,580 32,310 37,190
employment

Industrial employmentc 5,130 8,830 10,970 7,020 8,440 10,710 32,350 36,520 43,580
Manufacturing 1,690 3,320 3,320 1,610 1,740 2,070 9,830 9,710, 10,480
Non-manufacturina 3,440 5,510 7,650 5,410 6,700 8,640 22,520 26,810 33,100

a. Total employment is by "county of residence."
b. Nonagricultural wage/salary employment is by "county of residence."
c. Industrial employment is by "county of work."

Beaufort Bladen Columbus
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979

Total employmenta 14,640 16,940 18,100 9,630 10,170 11,890 18,500 19,600 19,830
Nonagric. waqe/salaryb 10,400 12,750 14,050 7,020 7,680 9,560 12,130 13,510 14,560
employment

Industrial employmentc 10,460 12,860 14,820 5,250 5,790 7,510 11,210 12,610 14,170
Manufacturing 3,750 3,920 5,200 2,390 2,430 3,540 4,820 4,460 5,670
Non-manufacturing 6,710 8,940 9,620 2,860 3,360 3,970 6,390 8,150 8,500

m M Sam

M mom M M-M M M Mw

Tabl e 3
Continued
Craven Duplin Lenoir
1970 1975 @,1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979

Total employmenta 19,180 22,780 25,430 15,750 16,010 16,270 22,890 25,980 26,710
Nonagric. wage/salaryb 15,58C 19,170 21,810 9,900 10,530 11,570 16,610 19,650 20,890
employment
Industrial employmentc 17,260 19,700 22,870 8,320 8,900 10,310 19,350 23,030 25,740
Manufacturing 2,800 3,G60 4,290 3,720 3,820 4,320 7,280 8,670 9,090
Non-manufacturi'ng 14,460 16,640 18,580 4,600 5,080 5,990 12,070 14,360 16,650

Pender Pitt Dare
1970 1,975 1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979

Total employmenta 6,500 6,230 8,380 30,690 35,910 40,690 2,790 4,260 6,020
Nonagric. wage/salaryb 4,960 4,840 7,110 21,310 26,390 31,540 2,020 3,1.50 4,450
employment
Industrial employmentc 1,590 2,450 3,640 20,430 25,350 32,580 2,000 3,170 4,700
Manufacturing 580 290 710 5,150 6,520 7,450 50 140 140
Non-manufacturing 1,010 2,160 2,930 15,280 18,830 25,130 1,950 3,030 4,560

Table 3
Continued
Hyde Pamlico Tyrrell
1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979 1970 1975 1979
Total employmenta 1,820 2,120 2,520 2,760 3,380 3,770 1,260 1,640 1,230
Nonagric. wage/salaryb 11090 1,370 1,750 2,160 2,740 3,170 880 1,250 870
employment
Industrial employmentc 750 950 1,280 1,160 1,510 1,850 590 840 630
Manufacturing 170 140 180 400 270 420 170 200 200
Non-manufacturing 580 810 1,100 760 1,240 1,430 420 640 430

Washington
-1970 1975 1979

Total employmenta 5,150 6,270 6,290
Nonagric. wage/salaryb 4,130 5,250 5,300
employment

Industrial employmentc 2,090 2,590 3,160
Manufacturing 400 500 560
Non-manufacturing 1,690 2,090 2,600

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Employment Security Commission,.North Carolina Labor Force Estimates by
County, Area and State,

showed an increase in manufacturing jobs from 30 percent in 1970 to 38
percent in 1975 and then declined to 30 percent in 1979.

The data also allow an estimate of whether the respective counties
are net importers or exporters of workers by comparing the number of
county residents employed in nonaqricultural wage and salary jobs and
the total number of industrial jobs. If the number of industrial employees
in a county is less than the number of county residents in wage and salary
employment then the county is a net exporter of workers. Of the OCS-coal
exporting counties, Brunswick and Carteret are net exporters of workers.
If the number of industrial jobs is greater than wage and salary employment
of resi-dents then the county is a net importer of workers. Of the OCS-coal
exporting counties, New Hanover is a net importer of workers. The implications
of a county's being a net importer or exporter of workers and additional
data on workers' commuting patterns are provided in Section 3.2.3.

Additional information on the changes in one sector of the economy,
manufacturing industries, is provided by the North Carolina Department of
Commerce's data on investments, payroll and number of employees in new,
proposed, and expanded manufacturing industries. The data for 1971 through
1977 are shown in Table 4. The figures must be interpreted carefully
because proposed development is Included and such projects may or may not
actually be developed. Examples exemplifying this caution are the BECO
refinery in Brunswick County and the aluminum smelter operation in Columbus
County.

In the OCS-coal exporting counties, the balance between investment,
payroll, expansion, and new employment is roughly proportionate, with
@4e exception of Brunswi'ck County which had proposed far greater investment
in new manufacturing industry. This figure represents the BECO refinery
for which. plans have recently been dropped. In total the figures represent
a conti-nuing trend of expansion of manufacturing industry in coastal North
Carolina in general and the 16 county study area in particular,

3.2.3 Journey To Work

An important element in understanding the local economy, especially
in nonmetropolitan areas, is the journey to work, i.e.,, the relationship
between the place of work and the place of residence. Empirical research
has revealed the phenomenon of "economic leakage" in nonmetropolitan areas
(-Scott and Summers, -1974). A community trying to attract industry'assumes
that the economic benefits of growth will stay within the community. However,
a community is not a closed, self-sustaining unit. Workers may commute
from adjoining areas and spend their earninqS in their home communities.

To assess the possibility of economic leakage, census data is used
to provide information on workers who are employed outside their county
of residence. As seen in Table 5, counties witli medium-sized or large
cities are least likely to have workers employed outside their county
of residence. Additionally, the least urbanized counties are most likely

TABLE 4. INVESTMENTS, PAYROLL, AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
IN NE14 AND PROPOSED, AND EXPANDED MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIES BY COUNTY, CUMULATIVE TOTALS
.1971 THROUGH 1977.

Investment (000's) Payroll (000's) Employees
New Expanded New Expanded New Expanded

Siting Counties

Brunswick $144,515 $ 450 $ 3,787 $ 4,663 393 567
Carteret 3,570 2,935 3,342 2,617 495 490
New Hanover 79,198 62,043 7,707 8,610 926 964

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 4,343 168,102 4,143 6,175 846 797
Bladen 4,247 2,721 3,484 2,113 753 405
Columbus 20,099 246,216 6,250 5,964 1,066 671
Craven 34,450 17,768 4,212 1,162 744 164
Duplin 12,388 12,570 3,963 499 715 79
Lenoir 12,243 88,674 8,160 11,852 1,397 1,438
Pender 490 390 11011 159 165 27
Pitt 53,866 17,881 10,061 5,174 1,636 902

Peat Counties

Dare --- 215 --- 109 --- 15
Hyde 400 --- 154 --- 27 ---
Pamlico 40 230 116 314 35 73
Tyrrel I --- --- --- --- --- ---
Washington 380 --- 680 120

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Industrial Development Division.

TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE, 1960, 1970.
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties 1960 1970

Brunswick 24.9 29.6
Carteret 17.2 26.2
New Hanover 5.7 6.7

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 8.0 9.2
Bladen 14.3 25.4
Columbus 5.7 14.4
Craven 5.4 8.3
Duplin 11.5 17.9
Lenoir 7.0 9.2
Pender 26.8 40.3
Pitt 8.1 9.8

Peat Counties

Dare 4.0 3.2
Hyde 5.6 12.8
Pamlico 35.7 45.6
Tyrrell 8.9 19.7
Washington 25.3 36.1

North Carolina 10.5 14.3

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County
and City Data Book,, 1972, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, County
and City Data Book, 1962, Table 2.

VA. 61.8 OX0 51.50/40
C,
4
Gates >IX
80 /40.1%
t, * 0
'Hertford

43.2%
at is 34.2% >
22.7%

r its, `Tyrrell are
36.1 1/19.7% 3.2%
12.700 Ct
9.1%
IN 11 Pitt 9.7% Beaufort de
h 12.8%

0
ILenoir 12 .1 0
1 9 2 0% Crav n 6.10
44.1% P mlic
J o n a sil
16.60/, .441-1
0
j/,Duplin 2.400 'tote 27.90
Onslow Ca

24 9 0/1
0
e' an er
Blad n P n e'r
/3 .70
01

Columbus
1 .0 New Hanover
,P 4.1 X 6.7%
C,
Br nswick
3 .10

Counties > 10% Residents Employed Outside

Figure 1. Percentage of Employed Working Outside County of Residence, 1970.

to have experienced an increase during the 1960's in the percentage of
workers who were employed outside their county of residence.
Data on the journey to work helps explain the changes in the labor
force composition of the respective counties during the 1960's (See
Table 2). The shift away from agriculture is explained by increased commuting
to adjacent counties for jobs. For example, Brunswick, Bladen, and Columbus
Counties, which are adjacent to the Wilmington metropolitan area, all showed
increases in workers going to another couniy for employment, while the
proportion of workers in New Hanover County going to another county for a
job stayed relatively constant for the decade.

The availability of 1980 census data will indicate whether the
commuting patterns have decreased, increased, or remained stable. The
important implication of this data on journey to work is that new
jobs created may not be filled by the unemployed but rather employed workers
who leave jobs away from their home community and take the new jobs.

3.2.4 Income and Poverty

Measures of income are important indices of the economic well
being of a community. The income variables used are median family
income data from the decennial census and per capita personal income
estimates from the U.S. Department of Commerce's (USDOC) Bureau of
Economic Analysis.

Data on median family income and the percentage of families with
incomes below the poverty line is shown in Table 6. Median income shows
a positive correlation to the level of urbanization in each county.
Only the median income value for New Hanover County is above the North
Carolina median income figure. The median income figures are reflected
in proportion of families with incomes below the poverty line in 1970.
All of the counties except-New Hanover were above the state mean percentage
of families below the poverty line.

Trends in median family income observed in the 1960's reflect the
changing composition of the labor force in the counties during this time
period. The counties with the largest shifts away from agricultural
employment showed the largest gains in median family income as measured
by the ratio of the county average to the state average. For example,
the median family income for Brunswick County was 67 percent of the state
figure in 1960 and 82 percent of the state figure for 1970. With the
availability of the 1980 figures, the trends in median income for the
1970's can be compared with those for the 1960's.

Per capita personal income estimates developed by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis provide an estimate of income trends during the 19701s.
As seen in Table 7, the per capita income figures are below the state
values with the exception of New Hanover County. Again, per capita
income is positively related to urbanization and the labor force composition.

TABLE 6. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND PERCENT OF FAMILIES
BELOW POVERTY LINE BY COUNTY 1960, 1970

1960. 1970
Median % of Families Median % of Families
Family Below Poverty Family Below Poverty
Income Line Income Line
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick $2,678 N.A. $6,409 23.0
Carteret 4,058 N.A. 7,155 16.6
New Hanover 4,336 N.A. 8,269 14.4

Transportation Counties

Beaufort $2,409 N.A. $6,434 25.0
Bladen 2,446 N.A. 5,546 30.7
Columbus 2,572 N.A. 5,845 28.0
co Craven 3,708 N.A. 7,033 19.1
Duplin 2,151 N.A. 5,706 29.0
Lenoir 3,248 N.A. 6,985 23.8
Pender 2,376 N.A. 5,390 28.8
Pitt 2,675 N.A. 6,447 27.1

Peat Counties

Dare $3,226 N.A. $6,536 13.3
Hyde 1,979 N.A. 4,430 33.5
Pamlico 2,851 N.A. 5,761 27.6
Tyrrell 1,927 N.A. 4,307 37.9
Washington 3,495 N.A. 7,152 23.7

North Carolina $3,956 N.A. $7,770 16.5

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book,
1962, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book,
1972, Table 2.

M M M

TABLE 7. PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME, 1970, 1975, 1977

1970 1975 1977

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick $2,358 $3,483 $4,259
Carteret 2,624 4,292 5,030
New Hanover 3,363 5,030 6,074

Transportation Counties

Beaufort $2,693 $4,421 $5,268
Bladen 2,276 3,619 4,051
Columbus 2,412 3,879 4,349
Craven 3,048 4,685 4,806
Duplin 2,611 4,662 4,801
Lenoir 3,897 4,791 5,618
Pender 2,376 3,714 4,113
Pitt 2,786 4,570 5,428

Peat Counties

Dare $2,730 $4,685 $5,387
Hyde 2,204 3,612 3,901
Pamlico 2,176 4,005 4,588
Tyrrell 2,046 3,589 4,358
Washington 2,710 4,096 4,946

North. Carolina $3,200 $4,940 $5,916

Source: Local Area Personal Income, South East Region, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

TABLE 8. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE UNEMPLOYED, 1970, 1975, 1979

1970 1975 1979

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 3.9 9.8 7.3
Carteret 5.1 7.8 6.6
New Hanover 4.1 8.4 6.0

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 4.5 6.4 4.8
Bladen 6.4 14.1 6.2
Columbus 5.5 11.1 6.6
Craven 5.5 6.5 4.3
Duplin 4.5 9.2 5.4
Lenoir 4.5 6.9 5.1
Pender 6.6 13.2 6.3
Pitt 5.8 6.9 5.4

Peat Counties

Dare 4.8 5.5 5.3
Hyde 8.1 6.2 6.0
Pamlico 8.9. 9.9 5.3
Tyrrell 9.4 10.9 11.5
Washi'ngton 6.0 7.5 5.0

North Caroli:na 4.3 8.6 4.8

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Employment Security
Commission, Labor Force Estimates.

3.2.5 Unemployment

The standard measure of a community's economic well being is it's
unemployment rate. As seen in Table 8, unemployment varied considerably
over the decade with 1975 being the peak year for unemployment in North
Carolina. The variance in the unemployment rate among the 11 counties
was greatest in 1975. Interestingly, counties with small cities, i.e.,
Beaufort, Craven, Lenoir, and Pitt, had the lowest unemployment rates
for 1975. The explanation for lower unemployment rates depends on the
industry mix within a county and how recession proof those industries are.

3.2.6 Commercial Fishing

3.2.6.1 Magnitude and Economic Value of Commercial Fisheries

A key economic activity in coastal North Carolina is commercial
fishing. In 1980 the dockside ("exvessel") value of commercial fish
landings was over $61 million dollars, and the dockside value of
landings in the six impact counties in 1980 was $29 million. In
addition to direct activity in fish-ing, secondary economic activities
(fish processing and boat construction, supply, and maintenance) are
significant elements of the respective local economies resulting from
commercial fishing.

Data on commercial fishing vessel licenses, pounds landed, and
dockside value of landings are shown in Table 9. Between 1975 and
1979 there were tremendous increases in pounds landed and dockside
value for each of the counties, while the number of commercial vessel
licenses changed much less dramatically. Essentially, there was a 100
percent increase in landings and over a 200 percent increase in the
dockside value.

Several factors contributed to the tremendous increases in landings.
During the 1975-1980 period the fisheries landings of sea scallops,
hard clams, sciaenid fisheries (spot, croaker, trout, etc.), and crabs
increased dramatically. The increases in these fisheries were due to:
(1) the use of new technologies such as clam kicking and dredging; (2)
tremendous increases in the use of existing technologies such as crab
pots; (3) the intensified efforts of part-time commercial fishermen;
and (4) the improvement in statistical reporting in North Carolina
commercial fisheri*es.

Differences in landings between counties depend on the number of
commercial vessels operating out of county ports and the relative
proportion of full-time, part-time, and pleasure vessels. Thirty
percent of the commercial licenses were for full-time vessels in
Carteret County, 17 percent in Brunswick and Beaufort Counties, but only
seven percent of the commercial vessel licenses were full-time in New
Hanover, Craven, and Pender Counties. In all counties there is a pool of
part-time commercial vessels from which fish-ing activity could be increased.

TABLE 9. COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL LICENSES, POUNDS LANDED, AND DOCKSIDE VALUE BY
COUNTY 1975-1980.1

Commercial Vessel
Pounds Pounds Dockside Value Licenses
1-9,75 19M % Change 19-75 lq8o_ % Change jq75 -19@80. % Change
(000s) (000s) (75-80) (000s) (000s) (75-80) (000s) (000s) (75-80)
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 1,500 3,086 105.7 905 3,702 310.2 1,954 1,933 -1.1
Carteret 25,739 48,189 87.2 5,440 18,717 244.1 3,690 4,033 9.3
New Hanover 750 3,141 318.8 322 2,771 760.6 2,635 2,692 2.2

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 3,802 6,868 99.5 917 2,733 198.0 1,079 1,116 3.4
Bladen --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
r1a Columbus --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
NJ Craven 14 206 137.7 4 44 1000.0 1,866 1,713 -8.3
Duplin --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Lenoir --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pender 108 1,144 959.3 60 961 1501.7 775 893@ 15.2
Pitt --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Peat.Counties

Dare 16,372 41,585 154.0 3,707 13,731 270.4 1,075 992 -7.9
Hyde 3,204 13,056 307.5 770 4,182 443.1 448 415 -7.4
Pamlico 10,014 21,381 113.5 2,553 9,737 281.4 1,042 928 -10.9
Tyrrell 766 976 27.4 143 228 59.4 143 113 -21.0
Washington 604 532 -11.9 88 100 13.6 254 263 3.5

North Carolina 72,326 153,805 112.7 16,409 61,390 274.1 17,776 18,268 2.8
lThe figures do not include menhaden landings.

Source: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, "Annual
Statistics on Fish Landings."

M M = M M M M = mom M M M M M mom M

The tremendous increases in the dockside value of commercial
landings are due to three factors: (1) the increases due to larger
harvests in the respective fisheries, (2) the "real" increases in
the prices paid in the respective fisheries, and (3) "inflationary"
increases in the prices paid in the respective fisheries.

3.2.6.2 Commercial Fisherfes and Development

An important component in the commercial fisheries is the shell
fish industry in the estuarine waters of coastal North Carolina. Of
particular interest is the closure of estuarine waters acreage to
taking clams and oysters. The Division of Health Services of the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources is responsible for
determining which areas are safe or unsafe. The primary reason for
closures is coliform bacterial pollution. The major sources of pollution
are discharges from sewage treatment systems, land disturbances during
construction, urban runoff, and recreational boating and beach use. In
short, pollution is positively correlated to development in general.

Data have been gathered for Carteret and New Hanover Counties on
water acreage closed to takfng clams and oysters. As seen in Table 10,
about 2 percent of the acreage in Carteret County and at least 50 percent
of the acreage in New Hanover County has been closed to taking clams
and oysters during the past twenty years. Research has shown that
development as measured by population growth is directly related to
acreage closures which is in turn related to landings and value (Maiolo
and Tschetter, 1981). For example, in Carteret County, the estimated
economic impact is that for every 1,000 person.tncrease in population
and value lost in clams is $31,459 and the total value lost (using a
multiplier effect) is $78,648.

TABLE 10. ESTUARINE WATERS CLOSED FOR SHELLFISHING

Carteret New Hanover

Open Closed Open Closed
Acres Acres % Closed Acres Acres % Closed
1960 298,480 6,520 2.1 6,865 9,185 57.2
1965 297,971 7,029 2.3 6,865 9,185 57.2
1970 297,379 7,621 2.5 6,865 9,195 57.2
1975 299,437 5,563 1.8 2,190 13,860 86.4
1980 299,613 5,387 1.8 8,468 7,583 47.2

Source: Compiled by Robert Davis and David Prewett, East Carolina
University, from data of N.C. Division of Health Services.

As part of another research project, data are being compiled
for the other coastal counties and an analysis of the relationship
between development and closures to shellfishing will be extended to
those counties. This research will be incorporated i.n Phase III,
of this project.
23

3.2.7 Agriculture

Reflecting the rural character of the coastal counties, agricultural
income is an important component of the local economies of the respective
counties. The North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service provides
annual estimates of the value of crops, livestock and livestock products,
and government payments. To measure the economic impact of agricultural
activity, total cash receipts by county are presented in Table 11.
As seen in Table 11, gross income from agriculture is higher for
the transportation counties than the OCS-coal exporting counties. In 1979
cash receipts for Brunswick County were $24 million, for Carteret County
they were $10 million, and for New Hanover County they were $2 million. In
the primary counties receipts were predominahtly from crops rather than
livestock or livestock products.

Although the absolute value of agricultural receipts is important,
the impact depends on the size of the farm population and the number
and size of farms. These data are discussed in Section 3.3.6.

3.3 The Social-Demographic Context

3.3.1 General

The social-demographic characteristics of a population describe
the change and stability in a social system, be it community or county.
Important variables are the size and the composition of the population
and how those numbers are changing. Change is measured in terms of
the population processes, i.e., natural fncrease and net migration.

With the exception of New Hanover County, the counties of the
study area are nonmetropolitan and predominantly rural. Preliminary
estimates indicate that all counties grew during the past decade. The
primary reason for this growth was the reversal of histori*cal trends of
out-migration to a consistent pattern of in-migration. This pattern of
growth caused by in-migration is significantly changing the population
composition of the coastal area.

3.3.2 -Population Size and Change

Although all the counties in the study area grew in population during
the 1970's, there was consi.derable variation between the counties. Generally,
the OCS-coal exporting counties grew faster than North Carolina's 15 percent
growth rate for the past decade, while with the exception of Pender County
for the transportation counties and Dare County for the Peat Counties, the
remaining counties grew more slowly than the state as a whole.

The OCS-coal exporting counties were among the twenty fastest growing
counties in the state. As seen i-n Table 12, Brunswick County, which grew

TABLE 11. TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM MARKETING AND
GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS BY COUNTY 1970, 1976, 1979

1970 1976 1979
(000s) (000s) (000s)

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick $ 8,514 $ 15,803 $ 24,076
Carteret 3,201 5,568 10,612
New Hanover 2,445 1,323 2,074

Transportation Counties

Beaufort $27,742 $ 52,123 $ 54,841
Bladen 19,782 34,277 41,502
Columbus 38,024 68,914 72,670
Craven 18,275 32,502 36,426
Duplin 75,899 144,593 172,305
Lenoir 32,578 60,636 66,143
Pender 16,878 22,450 30,593
Pitt 55,927 96,644 101,289

Peat Counties

Dare $ 76 $ 225 $ 355
Hyde 7,219 14,876 18,113
Pamlico 5,188 9,517 12,475
Tyrrell 3,522 9,628 15,501
Washington 8,066 17,998 32,074

North Caroli,*na 1,585,419 2,829,396 3,405,674

Source; N.C. Department of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock
Reportfng Service, farm Income, North Carolina.

by 48 percent in the 1970's, was the third fastest growing county in the
state. Additionally, the OCS-coal exporting counties showed dramatic
increases in their respective growth rates for the 1970's over the 1960's.
The growth rates for Brunswick and Carteret Counties roughly doubled while
the growth rate for New Hanover County increased by over half.

With the exceptions of Craven and Pitt Counties, the transportation
counties experienced population declines.during the 1960's. During the
1970's all the transportation counties showed population growth. Although
they grew slower than the rate for the state during the 1970's, the
transportation counties all experienced 100 percent increases in their
respective growth rates for the 1970's over the 1960's.

For the peat counties, Dare and Washington Counties showed population
growth during the 1960's and 1970's with Dare County being among the
fastest growing counties in the state during the 1970's. Hyde, Pamlico,
and Tyrrell Counties experienced a reversal with a trend of population
decline for the 1960's and population growth during the 1970's.

An essential consideration in interpreting these changes is knowledge
of the relative importance of net migration for the counties. As seen
in Table 13, the OCS-coal exporting counties had small net in-migration
rates in th-e 1960's followed by large increases in net migrati-on during
the 1970's. For all the transportation counties the 1960's were years of
net out-mi.gration, while for the 1970's, the net migration rates became
positive for all counties except Craven. With the exception of Dare
County, all the peat counties had net out-migration during the 1960's.
For the 1970's all counties except Washington had net in-migration. The
estimates for Pender County show in-migration on a magnitude equal to
that for the OCS-coal exportirg counties.

These figures for the 1970's indicate that the counties are not
only keeping residents who previously would have been candidates to
leave, but also are attracting new, additional residents. The
characteristics of these new residents, determinable from 1980 census
data, will have important implications for the composi.tion of the labor
force and demand for products and services.
Equally important to the overall growth patterns of the respecti-ve
counties is the geographical distribution of that growth within the
counties. Townships represent a unit of analysis which had permanent
boundaries during the .1970's and for which preliminary 19-80 census
data are available for comparisons with the 1970 population figures
(See Table 14). Focusing on the OCS-coal exporting counties because
they contai'n the proposed si.tes for the temporary OCS support bases
and coal export terminals, townships di'rectly adjacent to the coastline
grew the most. These townships represent areas where recreational and
retirement homes were developed during the 1970's. Interestingly, the
preliminary 1980 census figures i.ndicate Wilmington lost population during
the decade while the rest of New Hanover County grew. In Carteret County,

_Zra

TABLE 12. TOTAL POPULATION BY COUNTY 1960
1970, 1980, AND PERCENT CHANGE

% Change % Change
1960 1970 60-70 1980 70-80

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 20,278 24,223 19.5 35,767 47.7
Carteret 30,940 31,603 15.2 41,092 30.0
New Hanover 71,742 82,996 15.7 103,471 24.7

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 36,014 35,980 -.1 40,266 11.9
Bladen 28,881 26,477 -8.3 30,448 15.0
Columbus 48,973 46,937 -4.2 51,037 8.7
Craven 58,773 62,554 6.4 71,043 13.6
Duplin 40,270 38,015 -5.6 40,952 7.7
Lenoir 55,276 55,204 -.1 59,819 8.4
Pender 18,508 18,149 -1.9 22,215 22.4
Pitt 69,942 73,900 5.7 83,651 13.2

Peat Counties

Dare 5,935 6,995 17.9 13,377 91.2
Hyde 5,765 5,571 -3.4 5,873 5.4
Pamlico 9,850 9,467 -3.9 10,398 9.8
Tyrrell 4,520 3,806 -15.8 3,975 4.4
Washington 13,488 14,308 4.1 14,801 5.4
North Carolina 4,556,155 5,084,411 11.5 5,874,429 15.5

Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,
City and County Book 1972, Table 2.

Census of Population, Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce (Preliminary Counts),Table 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census of Population, North Carolina, 1980 (Preliminary
Counts), Table 1.

2-7

5,829 11,089
VA. (r..g%)-\ r (59.0%)
'IGates
4@368'L 8,8751
/ (4.4'/.T --.,(4.10/,
'Hertford 9<10.

tk- 8@46
Bertie % (..,%)
(P
21,024 2,558 (13.600)
(2.4%)

Tyrrell
Dare
'X 1) 25,948 gccl 4,7861 3 8 13,377
(4.9%) 14%6 (1. 3L/. I
,_ 'S (91.20
Oe
266
Pitt Beaufo Y'90 L- 5P 3
83,651 Hyde (54%)

/71)043
IlLenoir
1 59,819 'Fraven
OW 10,398
N1(S.4 / 9,705 NPamlic (9.8%)
(0.8%) 0
1 40,952 < Jones
(7.7%) Y--@
I 12,704----I\ I
Duplin (9.4%) L
11 (-,;1- tefe
I Onslow Caf

30,448 22 @215 41,092
(15%) (22.4%) (30.0%)
Bladen \1 Pander

rj
Columbus New Hanover
51,037
(8.7%) 1--/ 103,471
00 j Brunswick (24.7%)
35,767
(47,71

Figure 2. Total Population, 1980, and Percentage Change in Total Population, 1970-1980.

TABLE 13. NET MIGRATION BY COUNTY
1960-1970 and 1970-1980

1960-1970 1970-1980
% Change % Miqration % Change % Migration
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 19.5 6.9 47.7 35.8
Carteret 15.2 3.4 30.0 21.9
New Hanover 15.7 5.6 24.7 17.1

Transportation Counties

Beaufort -.1 -9.5 11.9 6.4
Bladen -8.3 -18.6 15.0 8.6
Columbus -4.2 -17.4 8.7 1.1
Craven 6.4 -14.9 13.6 -2.2
Duplin -5.6 -16.6 7.7 1.4
Lenoir -.1 -12.7 8.4 1.0
Pender -1.9 -11.7 22.4 16.2
Pitt 5.7 -8.4 13.2 5.2

Peat Counties

Dare 17.9 10.6 91.2 86.1
Hyde -3.4 -8.5 5.4 14.7
Pamlico -3.9 -10.5 9.8 6.3
Tyrrell -15.8 -21.3 4.4 2.9
Washi'ngton 4.1 -10.3 5.4 -2.9

North Carolina 11.6 -1.5 15.5 7.7

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, (P-25 Series) "Estimates
of the Population of Counties," Table 1.

TABLE 14, TOTAL POPULATION BY COUNTY AND TOWNSHIPS,
1970, 1980

% Change
1970 1980 70-80

Brunswick County 24,223 35,394 46.1

Lockwoods Folly Township 4,748 7,259 52.9
Northwest Township 3,356 4,638 38.2
Shallotte Township 4,877 6,492 33.1
Smithville Township 4,346 6,675 53.6
Town Creek Township 5,215 8,357 60.2
Waccamaw Township 1,681 1,973 17.4

Carteret County 31,603 40,794 29.1
Atlantic Township 814 814 0.0
Beaufort Township 6,147 6,950 13.1
Cedar Island Township 290 325 12.1
Davis Township 456 491 7.7
Harkers Island Township 1,639 1,903 16.1
Harlowe Township 762 940 23.4
Marshallberq Township 525 572 9.0
Merriman Township 330 428 29.7
Morehead Township 11,929 15,743 32.0
Newport Township 39926 5,383 37.1
Ports-mouth Township 2
Sea Level Township 347 546 57.3
Smyrna Township 517 636 23.0.
Stacy Township 257 321 24.9
Straits Township 1,166 1,514 29.8
White Oak Township 2,496 4,228 69.4

New Hanover County 829996 1039304 24.5
Cape Fear Township 6,734 10,152 50.8
Federal Point Township 5,113 8,507 66.4
Harnett Township 17,427 26,899 48.8
Masonboro Township 7,553 13,646 80.7
Wilmington Township 46,169 44!,100 -4.5

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census
of Population,-North'. Carolina, 1980 (Preliminary CouTt-S)
Table 1.

4,657

8,357
(60.2%)

1,982

7,361
r
J )J
6,582 6
(35.0%) '828
(5T.1 %)

A
BRUNSWICK COUNTY

Figure 3. Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Change 1970-1980,
Brunswick County.

.... 333

540

4 322
7.9
426

(13.7%) t 1,520 1637
130.4%)

956
4,302 5,469 (25.5-%/,)
(72.4%)

580
10.5
15,803
(32.5%)

16.5,6
CARTERET COUNTY

Figure 4. Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Change 1970-1980, Carteret Coun

Fender County

CAPE FEAR

TWR

10,184
(51.2%) HARNETT
7WR
26,961@
(5 4.9 11

C-
WILMINr-T N C--i
us 76 YW 7

44,000
(-4.7%)

MASONSORO
TWP.
13,777
(82.40/10)

0
o
FEDERAL POINT
TWP.
83524
(66.7%

SCALE IN MILES
2 1 0 1 2

NEW HANOVER COUNTY

U
Figure 5. Total Population by Township, 1980, and Percentage Change 1970-1980,
New Hanover County.

Morehead City declined in population while the rest of Morehead Township,
including Atlantic Beach and Pine Knoll Shores grew dramatically.

3.3.3 Urbanization

With the exception of New Hanover County, the counties are non-
metropolitan in character. As seen in Table 15, only in New Hanover,
Craven, and Pitt Counties do a majority of the population live in
urbanized areas. As of 1970 three counties, Brunswick, Bladen, and
Pender, were entirely rural. Preliminary estimates from the 1980 census
indicate that figures on percent urban will not change dramatically.
In Brunswick County, the town of Southport has met the census criteria
for urban places by 1980.

The pattern of population settlement for the counties is a series
of small, nonurban places (less than 2,500 people), a series of small
towns (2,500 to 5,000 people), a few small 'cities (10,000 to 35,000
people), and one metropolitan area. In the OCS-coal exportinq counties,
apart from the Wilmington metropolitan area, there is no urban place of
more than 5,000 people. In the transportation counties, there are a
series of medium size towns, i.e., New Bern (Craven County), Washington
(Beaufort County), Greenville (Pitt County), and Kinston (Lenoir County).
The peat counties include only the small town of Plymouth (Washington
County).

There is an important exception to this pattern of settlement that
should be noted and is related to the recreational population that moves
in and out of the OCS-coal exporting counties on a regular, predictable
basis. Although this population will be discussed more specifically in
Section 5.0, it is important to realize that on any given day during the
recreational season specific locations in the respective counties change
from sparsely settled rural areas to congested, quasi-urban areas. For
example, the populations of Carteret and Brunswick Counties more than
double during the height of the summer recreational season.

3.3.4 Age, Sex, and Racial Composition

Examination of the age, sex, and social composition trends of the
11 counties in the impact area indicates that the respective populations
are becoming older and contain a decreasing proportion of males and
nonwhites. The age trends for the respective counties show little
variation with the exception of Craven and Pitt Counties which have
significantly younqer populations than the remaining counties (See
Tables 16, 17, 18). The sex ratio (the number of males per 100 females)
trends indicate a declining proportion of males. The counties with the
lowest sex ratios, New Hanover, Lenoir, and Pitt are among the most urban
counties of the group. The proportion of the population whAch is nonwhite
is declining for all counties. The counties with the smallest proportions
of nonwhites are Carteret and New Hanover.

I
b TABLE 15. PERCENT URBAN BY COUNTY, 1960, 1970, 1980

1960 1970 1980
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 0,0 0.0 12.3
Carteret 27.5 27.2 19.9
New Hanover 69.0 69.5 86.7

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 27.6 24.9 20.8
Bladen 0.0 0.0 11.6
Columbus 9.6 8.9 16.2
Craven 26.7 55.2 49.6
Duplin 0.1 14.9 14.1
Lenoir 44.9 46.6 47.4
Pender 0.0 0.0 0.1
Pi'tt 42.8 50.0 49.7

Peat Counties

Dare 0.0 0.0 0.0
IP Hyde 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pamlico 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tyrrell 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vashington 34.6 34.0 30.9

Sources: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City
and County Data Book, 1962, Table 2.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City
and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census
of Population,.Number of Inhabitants North Carolina, 1980,
Table 3.

TABLE 16. MEDIAN AGE BY COUNTY 1960, 1970

1960 1970

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 23.9 26.4
Carteret 25.6 28.3
New Hanover 28.6 27.8

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 26.2 29.0
Bladen 20.6 25.9
Columbus 22.3 26.3
Craven 22.8 23.2
Duplin 23.8 27.5
Lenoir 23.8 26.5
Pender 23.5 27.4
Pitt 22.5 23.9

Peat Counties

Dare 32.4 33.6
Hyde 28.8 29.8
Pamlico 24.9 29.4
Tyrrell 25.7 31.8
Washington 22.8 24.8

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1962, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

-36

TABLE 17. SEX RATIO BY COUNTY 1960, 1970
(Number of Males Per 100 Females)

1960 1970

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 101.7 99.0
Carteret 137.8 97.1
New Hanover 98.8 91.5

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 97.5 91.6
Bladen 98.4 95.8
Columbus 96.9 94.5
Craven 112.0 108.4
Duplin 97.0 94.0
Lenoir 99.1 90.4
Pender 97.6 97.7
Pitt 98.4 91.5

Peat Counties

Dare 97.2 94.7
Hyde 98.2 95.0
Pamlico 97.8 93.6
Tyrrell 99.5 93.4
Washington 102.7 98.7

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1962, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

TABLE 18. PERCENT NONWHITE POPULATION BY COUNTY 1960, 1970, 1980

1960 1970 1980

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 35.4 30.7 23.7
Carteret 12.4 11.5 10.3
New Hanover 27.9 22.9 22.3

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 36.9 33.3 31.9
Bladen 42.3 39.5 40.1
Columbus 34.9 31.8 32.6
Craven 28.9 26.0 29.0
Duplin 37.6 34.3 34.5
Lenoir 39.6 36.9 38.5
Pender 48.1 43.9 39.1
Pitt 43.6 34.8 34.7

Peat Counties

Dare 6.8 7.3 6.8
Hyde 42.2 41.3 35.7
Pamlico 36.7 33.2 31.7
Tyrrell 43.7 43.4 39.2
Washington 45.1 41.5 43.6

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1962, Table 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

Data from the 1980 census on the racial composition are available.
Brunswick County showed a continuing decline in the percentage of
the population that fs nonwhite, a trend which reflects the increased
in-migration during the 1970's. Other counties which showed a significant
drop in the percentage of the population that is nonwhite are Hyde and
Tyrrell Counties. For the remaining counties, the proportion of the
population that was nonwhite remained relatively constant between 1970
and 1980.

Census data for the sex and age composition of the counties in
1980 are not yet available. However, given the general pattern of
lower birth rates and high in-migration rates during the 1970's, the
respective county populations should be older and have a larger proportion
of females.

3.3.5 Education

3.3.5.1 Educational Attainment

Educ ational attainment serves as an indicator of the potential
skill level of the adult population. The measure of educational
attainment used is the percentage of the population 25 years of age
and older that has graduated from hiqh school. As seen in Table 19,
the proportion of adults that have graduated from high school has
increased, mirroring state and national trends. Variations between
counties are related to migration patterns and levels of urbanization.
Migrants are more likely to be better educated and more likely to move
to urban areas. New Hanover County, followed by Craven and Carteret
Counties has the largest proportion of high schcol qradua@tes. The
most rural counties, Brunswick, Bladen, Columbus, and Pender, have the
smallest proportion of high school graduates.

Although the 1980 census data is not yet available, the trend
toward higher educational attainment should continue. This conclusion
is based in part on the estimated migration patterns for the 1970's
and the general characteristics of migrants, and in part on the trends
for local school districts.

3.3.5.2 Educational Enrollments

Other important considerations are educational enrollments and
chool expenditures for local populations. Development, particularly
as it attracts new residents, places demands on educational i.nstitutions
s

and local expenditures. Examination of average daily attendance
statistics for the public school systems of the counties reveals some
interesting facts. While enrollments tended to increase during the
1960's, the pattern for the 1970's shows a decline in enrollments
with a few exceptions. The pattern for the 1970's shows declines in
average daily attendance despite the population growth experienced
by all counties.

TABLE 19. PERCENT OF POPULATION 25 YEARS OF AGE AND
OLDER WHO ARE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 1960, 1970

1960 1970

OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 20.8 29.5
Carteret 36.7 40.3
New Hanover 38.0 50.0

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 25.8 34.8
Bladen 21.2 27.7
Columbus 23.9 29.7
Craven 36.7 47.4
Duplin 24.4 33.6
Lenoir 30.0 35.6
Pender 23.7 29.2
Pitt 29.2 38.3

Peat Counties

Dare 28.4 33.5
Hyde 23.3 22.7
Pamlico 25.7 27.4
Tyrrell 21.0 18.6
Washington 24.0 36.5

North Carolina 32.2 38.5

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
City and County D ta Book, 1962, Table 2.

U.S. Department rJ Commerce,.Bureau of the Census,
City and County Data Book, 1972, Table 2.

TABLE 20. PUBLIC SCHOOL AVERAGE ATTENDANCE
SCHOOL YEARS ENDING 1960, 1970, 1979

i960 1970 1979
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 5,187 5,507 7,116
Carteret 5,969 7,105 7,008
New Hanover 15,542 17,739 19,056

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 8,819 8,155 8,171
Bladen 8,103 6,926 6,517
Columbus 13,672 12,097 11,488
Craven 11,423 13,710 12,587
Duplin 10,199 9,198 8,544
Lenoir 13,311 13,300 11,493
Pender 4,862 4,431 4,680
Pitt 16,612 17,095 15,734

Peat Counties

Dare 11180 1,371 1,964
Hyde 1,316 .1,269 1,146
Pamlico 2,454 2,372 2,053
Tyrrell 1,127 1,003 804
Washington 3,437 3,619 3,268

North. Carolina 1,003,455 1,104,295 1,095,412

Source; N.C. Department of Education, Division of Statistical
Services. Statistical Profile North Carolina PUblic Schools.

Two factors help to explain the decline in enrollments. One
consideration is the general decline in the birth rate which affects
the size of the pool for enrollment. A second factor is that population
growth is disproportionately related to net migration, and migrants
are likely to have fewer children. More imporiantly the trends in
enrollment are likely to continue with increased net in-migration
likely to help schools hold current enrollment levels rather than
dramatically increase enrollment levels. Forecasts of future likely
enrollments are dependent on the final 1980 census data on the age
structure and the characteristics of migrants in the 1970's.

3.3.6 Farm Population

As seen in Section 3.2.7, farm income is an important part of
the respective counties' economic structures. However, the farm
population is declining in absolute and relative terms. Figures
from the 1970 U.S. Census indicate that during the 1960's, the farm
population declined by over 50 percent in all of the counties except
New Hanover (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970). Although data for
the 1970's are not available, the trend of declining farm population
should have continued through the 1970's.

The trends on farm population do not provide information on the
acreage in farms and the average size of farms during t4is same time
period. Data for these variables from the U.S. Census of Agriculture
in 1969, 1974, and 1978 are presented in Table 21. As Indicated from
the data in Table 21, the 1970's were a volatile time in coastal
agriculture. While value per acre and the average size of farms
increased throughout the decade, the amount of land in farms fluctuated
dramati cal ly.

For the OCS-coal exporting counties, Brunswick County showed a
consistent decrease in farm acreage. Carteret County showed an initial
decline in farm acreage and then a dramatic'increase in farm acreage
between 1974 and 1978. New Hanover County first showed a slight increase
in farm acreage and then a sharp decline in acreage between 1974 and 1978.

Among the transportation counties, Columbus, Duplin, and Pender
Counties showed consistent decreases in farm acreage throughout the
decade. Although, Beaufort, Bladen, Craven, Lenoir, and Pitt showed
overall loses in total farm acreage for the decade, the actual pattern
saw a decline between 1969 and 1974 followed by an increase between 1974
and 1978.

For the Peat Counties, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties
showed consistent increases in total farm acreage during the decade.
Only Pamlico County showed a decrease in total farm acreage during the
1970's.

MOM M M M M M =%=== M M M

TABLE 21. TOTAL FARM ACREAGE, VALUE PER ACRE, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF FARMS BY COUNTY
1969, 1974, and 1978

% Change % Change % Change
1969 1974 1978 74-78 1969 1974 1978 74-78 1969 1974 1978 74-78
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties
Brunswick 86,968 71,631 67,368 -6.0 286 591 995 68.4 90 96 100 4.2
Carteret 31,028 25,330 68,663 171.1 352 764 746 -2.4 105 103 375 264.1
New Hanover 18,091 20,166 12,943 -35.8 347 512 1,058 106.6 148 232 156 -32.8

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 195,996 159-565 169,958 6.5 309 670 1,081 61.3 134 134 162 20.9
Bladen 195,884 159:750 177,167 10.9 244 468 893 90.8 106 113 139 23.0
Columbus 241,382 207,744 197,036 -5.2 380 655 1,159 76.9 76 82 91 11.0
Craven 111,032 103,459 106,664 3.1 328 605 1,200 98.3 110 129 152 17.8
Duplin 283,867 271,215 261,718 -3.5 321 519 1,116 115.0 91 105 117 11.4
Lenoir 163,182 168,966 157,306 -6.9 512 717 1,491 107.9 112 151 155 2.6
Pender 112,483 102,162 98,323 -3.8 234 504 942 86.9 115 130 151 16.2
Pitt 248,688 228,802 241,478 5.5 512 815 1,553 90.6 114 145 180 24.1

Peat Counties

Dare --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Hyde 79,473 91,636 92,881 1.4 280 435 939 115.9 270 409 436 6.6
Pamlico 45,466 46,130 42,597 -7.7 235 434 870 100.5 159 205 245 19.5
Tyrrell 33,603 37,979 56,492 48.7 321 486 899 85.0 158 220 327 48.6
Washington 90,870 97,633 110,699 13.4 333 576 1,213 110.6 190 256 288 12.5

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1969, Table 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, -Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1974, Table 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, -Census of Agriculture, North Carolina, 1978, Table 1.

3.4 Environmental Context for Proposed Projects

The protection of environmental quality has become a major factor
associated with increased development. Coal export operations and
outer continental shelf oil and gas exploratfon will produce onshore
development. Such development must be managed to promote the
optimum benefits from the mari'ne and coastal resources, while ensuring
the adequate protection of these resources.

The coast is an attractive yet fragile environment. The rivers,
bays, and sounds provide for a well developed, protected water
transportation network including two major ports and the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway. The long, narrow barrier islands, the coastal
sounds, and wide shallow estuaries magnify the impacts from the
development of transportation facilities.

No single methodology or guideline has been accepted as "the
correct approach for determining the impacts on the environment
from all levels of development activity. Many federal agencies
CCounci-1 on Environmental Quality, 1974), consulting organizations
(,Weston, 1978; Conservation Foundation), and academic institutions
have developed different guidelines and techniques, usually adapted
for specific projects under consideration at the time the methodologies
were formulated. However, no single approach has been adopted over
other methods as offering superior advantages in all cases. Impact
assessment is still a subjective art requiring significant judgement
and experience.

The objective of an environmental impact assessment is to identify
and describe the changes in the environmental systems of an area as
a result of some development or activity. Two recurring realities
must be recorzed by those performing the analysis of environmental
impacts: (1 a proposed project (and alternatives) may cause dozens
of potential impacts--not all of them harmful; and (2) how may one
single out the "significant impacts" of an activity or development?
The emphasis of an environmental analysis is on the physical environment
or on mants use of that environment. The analysis focuses on projects,
activities associated with the Droject, the disturbances or alterations
to the physical environment, and the effects that these alterations
have (Conservation Foundation, 1978: Volume II).

The environment, for purposes of an environmental impact
assessment, may be broken into two subdivisions: the physical
environment and the social environment. Components of the physical
environment which ar-e -often'considered in an impact assessment include
(Camougis, 1981: 98):

bedrock geology
surficial geology
water quality
water quantity
aquati'c flora
aquatic fauna
terrestrial flora
terrestrial fauna
terrestrial habitat
aquatic habitat
wetland habitat
air quality
precipitation
temperature
wind conditions

The components to be considered in the assessment of the social
environment include (Camougis, 1981: 99).

demography
economics (including agriculture)
transportation
utilities
sociology
public safety and health
educational resources
historical resources
archeology
cultural resources
recreational resources
conservation
preservation
aesthetics

The social environment, for the most part, is examined elsewhere in
this report. This section will consider the components of the
physical environment.

An environmental assessment begins with the compilation of
data to form a baseline--the reference point from which to measure
changes resulting from development activities. Forecasts are
then made of the effects of a "normal growth" (i.e., the economic
and social development of a region without the proposed project)
on the environment. The proposed project and the development
associated with- the project is then added to the growth projection
to determine the best estimate of the impacts on the environmental
systems of the area.

Appendix A lists major environmental impact statements, studies,
and references pertaining to the Coastal Study Zone, estuaries of
proposed projects and developments within the region. While all
references do not specifically deal with either energy projects or
transportation facilities required for those projects, the Appendix
will serve as the environmental data baseline for the assessment of
coal export and OCS support base projects included in this report.

The environmental systems to be evaluated under the Weston
Methodology include: biology, geology, land use, air, and water
quality, recreation, and aesthetics (Weston, 1978, Vol. II). A
description and analysis of the requirements and limitations of
this methodology is found in Chapter 7 of the Phase I report. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the OCS Lease Sale
No. 56, di*scusses the following nine issues which it considers as
major impact issues: air quality, West Indian Manatee, commercial
fisheries, live bottoms and reefs, community services and facilities,
recreational fishing, shoreline recreation, tourism, and water
quality (U.S. Department of Interior, 1981: 65).

This section will describe the factors to be considered in
general in the assessment of impacts on the physical environment.
These factors are: water quality, air quality, land resources
usage, solid and hazardous wastes, noise control, and biological
activity. Subsequent sections in Chapters 4 and 5 will deal with
specific considerations for analysis in assessment of impacts from
the development of OCS support bases and coal export operations,
respectively.

3.4.1 Water Quantity and guality

North Carolina has been fortunate in maintaining, for the
most part, the inherent quality of its coastal waters. Except for
domestic sewage pollution, which tends to impact more on a localized
basis rather than coastwide, relatively little toxic materi*al
contamination has been documented. Fish kills have occurred periodically
and several large areas of estuarine shellfishing waters have been
closed because of excessive bacterial contamination. Eutrophication,
the enrichment of nutrient levels in a body of water caused by
agricultural runoff or point-source pollution (sewage disch-arges),
can result in significant and perhaps irreversible deterioration of
water quality.
One of the major concerns of developmental activity is the effect
of such development on water tables and groundwater recliarge. Most
drainage systems in the coastal study area are surface draining rather
than subsurface draining networks. Water tables are quite sliallow,
fluctuating with precipitation and evapo-transpiration rates.
Differences in water table depths between developed and undeveloped

46.

sites are often less than one foot, causing only slight effects on
groundwater recharge in the different areas (N.C. Marine Science Council,
1980: 31). The lowerfng of the water table to provide water supplies for
increased economic and industrial development may lead to salt water
intrusion of the major aquifers of the coastal area, effectively
rendering the groundwater supply permanently unfit as a source of
fresh water.

Many factors must be included in any analysis of impacts upon
the water resources of an area. These factors, including both biotic
and abiotic factors, will require close scrutiny to determine "significant
impacts" of the proposed projects. Many of the impacts will be very
project and/or site specific fn nature, and will often overlap into
other areas of analysis, such as land resources or biological activity.
The following list contains many of the factors which need to be
addressed i'n the analysis of impacts on the water resources of the
area (Camouqis, 1981: 129):

effects on water quality (general)
erosion/sedimentation/turbidity
oxygen depletion
temperature effects
hydrologic changes
loss of aquatic habitat
loss of terrestrial habitat
loss of unique or critical habitat
effects on wetlands
threatened and endangered species (plant
and animal, aquatic and terrestrial)
impingement of fish
entrainment of fish eggs and larvae
effects on fish migration
public health matters
toxic substances

3.4.2 Air Quality

The North Carolina coastal region is divided into two Air Quality
Control Regions (AQCR) by the Environmental Protection Agency, in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (See Figure 6). This act also
establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards. There are
two maximum acceptable levels for each of a number of pollutants:
particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
nitrogen dioxide. The primary standard is for the protection of
public health, with the secondary standards to protect values other
than human health, such as vegetation and visibility. Table 22
lists the current standards. Table 23 gives the EPA estimate of
pollutants emissions for the two AOCRs and 18 counties in the
coastal study area.

TABLE 22

FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

PARAMETER STANDARD
PARTICULATE MATTER: Primary Secondary
Annual Geometric mean 75 ug/m3l/ 60 ug/m3
24-hour maximum 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m3
SULFUR OXIDES (Measured as S02):
Annual arithmetic mean 80 ug/m3 ---
24-hour maximum 365 ug/m3 ---
3-hour maximum --- 1300 ug/m32/

CARBON MONOXIDE:
8-hour maximum 10 mq/m33/ 10 mg/m3
1-hour maximum 40 mg/m3 40 mg/m3

HYDROCARBONS:
3-hour maximum 160 ug/m3 160 ua/m3
NITROGEN DIOXIDE4/:
Annual arithmetic mean 100 ug/m3 100 ug/m3

OZONE:
1-hour maximum 235 ug/m3 235 ug/m3
LEAD: 1.5 mg/m3 mg/m3
Quarterly maximum 1.5
l/ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

2/ not to be exceeded more than once per year
3/mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter

4/ in addition to Federal restrictions, North Carolina also has a 24-hour
maximum limit of N02 of 250 ug/m3

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No.
56. USDI, BLM, 1981; and Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease
Sale No. 43, USDI, BLM, 1977.

TABLE 23

AIR POLLUTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

Emissions in Tons/Year

AQCR Parti- Sulfur Nitrogen Hydro- Carbon
or_County culates Oxides Oxides carbons Monoxides

168 24,492 26,495 30,020 41,859 151,615

170 84,626 70,165 69,077 66,588 324,756

Beaufort 2,781 9,602 3,417 3,429 15,721

Bertie 3,418 268 1,580 2,409 11,511

Brunswick 2,915 2,066 5,320 5,442 20,812

Camden 440 130 927 1,073 4,102

Carteret 11100 960 3 734 4,586 18,179

Chowan 325 520 589 1,177 5,051

Craven 3,071 5,10.7 5,720 6,281 34,562

Currituck 490 337 2,434 1,672 5,685

Dare 201 249. 1,321 2,549 8,922

Hyde 11010 403 2,982 3,027 9,367

New Hanover 13,377 25,728 16;033 10,836 27,534

Onslow 5,162 921 6,541 11,267 55,050

Pamlico 367 325 2,229 1,538 5,208

Pasquotank. 5,454 568 1,144 1,682 7,070

Pender 1,220 349 2,628 3,280 13,035

Perquimans 309 102 523 958 4,542

Tyrrell 3,037 67,157 44,008 2,097 6,280

Washington 1,202 149 832 1,825 7,458

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 43.
Dept. of Interior, BLM, 1977.

49-

VA.

Gates
NO
L---
,Hertford

Bertie

%
I Afart. /Tyrrell Dare

Pitt
Be@aufort Hyde*

J-
1 -1
It-enoir
-C, Craven
I
-9,8
Npanifico W
Jones

Duplin
L
L--:.-
IOnslow Cal

Bladen Pander

Columbus New Hanover

Brunswick

Figure 6. Air Quality Control Regions for Coastal North Carolina.

Air quality in the study area is generally good. The counties
with major urban areas - Carteret, New Hanover, and Brunswick - in
which most of the proposed projects will occur, have higher concentrations
of pollutants than the other counties in the coastal study area.
This indicates a direct correlation between pollutant concentrations
and population. Thus, any major development activities which cause an
influx in population, and specifically the associated increase in
automobile usage, will contribute to the deterioration of air quality
in that location.

The pollutant produced in the largest volume is carbon monoxide.
Over 90 percent of this emission is from automobile exhaust, the balance
coming from miscellaneous fndustrial operations such as process heath
generation. Particulate emissfons result from industrial processes
such as mineral and wood products, area burning, fugitive dust, and
roads. Sulfur oxides (SOX) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) result from
fuel combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas. Hydrocarbons have
various sources, depending on the specific location (U.S. Department
of Interior, 1977).

The influence of particulate and sulfate concentrations on
increased mortality has been demonstrated. Over the past 30 years,
there has been an increase fn death rates due to respiratory and
cardiovascular ailments that have been strongly correlated with
the increase in particulate and sulfate pollutant concentrations
(U.S. Department of Interior, 1977)..
The impacts of the proposed projects on the air quality of
Vie coastal area appear to be minimal. The specific impacts of
the OCS support bases and coal export activities are discussed
fn sections 4.4 and 5.4 respectively. The permitting requirements
@nd proceddres for development of these activities are described
in sectfon 2.3.4, Air Quality, in CEIP Report 4 (ITRE, 1981).

3.4.3 Land Resources Usage

The North Carolina coastal area has developed a water oriented
tourist industry as a-major component of its economic activity, a
result of the protected waterways and water transportation facilities
(rntracoastal Waterway, marfnas, and the two state ports). The
beaches and Outer Banks areas are a vital part of the tourist
recreational industry. Private development, whether fndustrial or
for personal recreational use (vacation homes), will restrict the
availability of land for other uses. While not actually a consumption
or degradation of a remurce, as is water usage or pollution, land
qevelopment is an impact on natural resource which must be considered
in any evaluation of assessment of activities in the coastal area.

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) are the major regulations

governing the development of facilities within the coastal area. Any
development activities which occur in a designated area of environmental
concern (AECs) require a CAMA permit. The AECs include coastal
wetlands, estuari*ne waters and shoreltnes, ocean hazard areas, public
trust areas, and natural and cultural resource areas. Section 2.3.6, CAMA
Regulations, of CEIP Report No. 4 (ITRE, 1981) discusses the permitting
process and regulations for development under these two acts.
There are three major activities associated with most development
within the coastal area which could have adverse envirornental
consequences: dredging and fill operations, constructfon of piers,
bulkheads and other marine structures, and erosion whfch may result
from these or other activities, either during or followi*ng construction
of the faci'lities. Engineeri'nq actfvities related to dredgfng and
the construction and operation of marine facili'ties rust receive careful
analysis of potential impacts on the biotic and abi*otic environmental
systems.
Dredging is the primary method used for improving and maintaining
navigation channels and harbors. It is estimated that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dredges about 10 million cubic yards of material
annually for navigati'on purposes ("Camougis, 1981: 130). Tke Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency specffically
address the di'spos-al of @redgedmatertal. Dredqi'ng and the associated
disposal of the dredge spoil may release toxic materials from the
disturbed sediments, including heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and organic
and inorganic compounds. Dredgfng may also release or resuspend settled
nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates whfch could cause an increase
in the primary productivi*ty of the area. Dredging will also increase
short term turbidi'ty on a localized basis. The effects on aquati'c life
of this fncrease are in general, temporary.

An additional consideration for any dredging operation is the
problem of where to dispose of the dredge spoil. Wilmington and Morehead
Cfty both have high ground sites for spoil disposal which preclude the
need to dump the dredged materials into water areas, However, these
si-tes- will become less avaflable as the demand for land for development
increases. North Carolina may experience pressure to use the ocean or
wetlands for disposal of dredge spoil, a practice that has not been used
in the past and which is unlikely under CAMA. Section 2.3.1 and Table
2-2 of CEIP Report No. 4 (ITRE, 1981) discuss the requirements and
regulattons pertaining to dredging and filling activities.
The construction of piers, wharves, dams, dikes, bulkheads, pipelines,
cables, and any other type of construction activity within, across, or
adjacent to navigable waters is controlled by permit requirements th-rough
the Amy Corps of Engineers (See Section 2.3.5, CEIP Report No. 4, ITRE,
1981). This constructfon will usually have localized effects on the
envi.'ronment, including increased turbi'dity of the water, changes in

solar radiation on various sections of the area, changes in the hydro-
dynamics of the area, and the loss of some habitats, such as shellfish
beds. A positive impact that often results from the construction of
piers is the increase in algae and other organisms, thus improving the
productivity of the waters around the pier.

Any such structure or development will have increased industrial
and human activities. This increased activity may lead to secondary
effects on the environment, due, for example, to discharges of chemicals,
oils, or wastes from the ships, equi-pment, and human activity at the
facility.

Sedimentation from the actual sites of construction is regulated
at the state level, through the Division of Land Resources, and often
at the local level also by ordinances. The majority of sediment at
the sites of potential development as an OCS base or coal port are
due to sources upstream, either agricultural or nonagricultural in
origin. These sediments, transported to the coast via the major rivers,
are responsible for the siltfng of the navigable waterways and harbors,
which must be dredged occationally. The -environmental impacts of
dredging and disposal of dredge spoil have been"previously discussed,
Control methods have been developed which will effectively eliminate
any discharge of sediments from a site during construction. These
methods include silt fence, sedimentation basins, and protective
linings for drainage and runoff channels. It is anticipated that
any major construction activfty, especially one involving large areas
of vegetation strippfng and earthwork, will be required to develop an
approved erosfon control plan prior to receiving the required pe.rmits
for construction, effectfvely minimizing the environmental impacts of
such activities.

3.4.4 Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal

The disposal of solid and hazardous wastes has become of crucial
concern to the public in the last 10 years or so. While there is no
direct th.reat of hazardous waste generation from either the coal export
operations or OCS support bases, the associated development, such as
increased populatfon and related economic activity, will contribute to
the amount of solid waste that must be managed by the local community.
Coal and coal slurries, and "Drilling fluids, produced waters
and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy" (40
C.F.R. S261.4(b) (5) ) are specifically exttuded from the requirements
of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (See Section 2.4.2.,
CEIP R@port No. 4 (ITRE, 1981). Most drilling muds and wastes will
be returned to the sea immediately, except for those muds and fluids
which contain oil, which must first be treated prior to disposal.
Drilling muds and fluids have been found to have a negligible effect
on open ocean water quality (U.S. Department of Interior, 1981: 117).

Sanitary landfills are the predominant method of disposal of
solid waste throughout the coastal are.a. Increased growth in the
area, not necessarily related to the proposed projects, may cause
existing landfills to become fnadequate within the near future.
Thus, the municipalities and/or county-governments-must plan for
the development of facilities requfred, with or without the development
of an OCS support base or a coal export terminal. Hazardous wastes
may not be disposed of in a santtary landfill; rather they rust be
-disposed of in approved facilities or Tnethods under the Resources
Conservation and Recovery Act guidelines. To date, there is no approved
hazardous waste disposal site in North Carolina. New legfslati'on has
recently passed in the North Carolina General Assembly dealfng with the
sfti'ng and operatfon of these facilities.

3.4.5 Noise Control

Information on effects of noise is best documented for hearing loss
due to noise at work (industrfal situations), Other effects of occupational
noise are less certain. Tkese are changes in p5ychologfcal and
physi.ological states, tncluding annoyance and sleep fnterruptions. Property
damage by actual vibrational destruction or deprectation because noise
paths and patterns i.-mpinqe on tFte property has been documented, and is to
some degree measurable and predictable. Noise effects are examined as
hearing changes and losses, interference with speech communication, annoyance
and sleep i'nterrupti'on, other physiological or psychological responses, and
the impairment of property values in the work place, the communfty, and on
wildlife (Chanlett, 1979: 540).
Noise is an objectionable sound. It is in the wrong place at the
wrong time. By defining noise as "unwanted sound", noise thus becomes
subjective, since different segments of the population have dffferinq
levels of tolerance for noise. Th-e-majority of research on the effects
of noise on communitTes has primarily dealt with nofse levels surrounding
jet ai-rcraft operatfons (take offs and landings) at airports. These
studies, often based on questionnaire surveys of area residents, produce
data which is not "scientific" enough to develop strong conclusions.
Biasesmay result from the researchers, the participants, the questionnaire
ftself, or as a result of the lenath of the survey: over time, noise whfch
is at first regarded as "tolerable" will become "unacceptable" (Chanlett,
19-79: 545). Community reaction to noise resulting from coal port
operations (including coal train movements). and OCS support bases are
expected to be similar to airport noise responses-subjective and
wide rangfng. Noise originating from or surrounding the operation of
a partfcular piece of equipment (air compressor, crusher, etc.) would
be governed by the laws and regulations concerning exposure to
occupatfonal noise, as administered by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration COSHAJ, Department of Labor.

The Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. S49,01) sets
federal noise emission standards for rail and motor carriers, but not
specifically noise from transfer (loading, unloadi'ng) operations.
The EPA is developing standards limiting the noise arising from railroad
yard activities (switching, humping, and loading/unloading), and not
just from the equipment itself (Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1980).

The effects of noise on animals have not been extensively
researched. The effects would, however, be similar to the effects
on man. There is hearing loss wh4ch. deprives the ani-mal of signals
of danger or the presence of prey. Animals depend on hearfnq for
territorial stakeouts, courtship, and mating. Noise which makes
natural sounds can be detri-mental to animal survival, Noise around
construction, airports, or factories can disrupt habitats. Impulse
noises can startle, panic, or produce violent behaviors in animal
population. Animals migrate from such conditions if alternate
habitats can be found. Noise may therefore have detectable impacts
on area wildlife (Chanlett, 1979: 551).

The potential for noise, pollution problems, and -mitigating
actions for coal terminals and OCS support base activities are
discussed in Section 4.4 and 5.4, respectively.

3.4.6 Biological Productivity and Diversity

Wetlands comprise unique habitats which combine many features
of both aquati'c and terrestrial ecosystems with some unique features.
National i*nterest in conservation and environmental protection has
lead to the enactment of various laws whose provisions include th-e
protectfon of such wetlands as th.e habitat for waterfowl, wildlife,
and many of the endangered species.

Wetlands are highly productive systems. Coastal marshes are
among the most productive of all ecosystems. Primary producers in
the marshes supply energy to nearby estuaries and marine environments.
Detri'tus forms an energy source for the entire estuarine food chain,
including the marshes used as nursery grounds for-menftaden and other
species.

Physical changes of the wetlands and estuarine environments,
such as those caused by dredging, filling and other development
activities, can have-major impacts on the biotic systems of the
area by changing the habitats and food chains of the organisms in
these areas. Dredging, filling, bulkheading, and channelization
projects will increase turbidity, change hydrodynamic patterns,
destroy or inhibit growth of aquatic and terrestrial plants, and
eliminate areas of productivity such as shellfish beds and breeding
grounds. Increased commerctal activity at ports and waterways
could lead to increased concentrations of chemical substances or
compounds in the waters whi'ch may be detrimental to aquatic biotal
in spite of the stringent relations or controls qoverning the

use and discharge of such substances. The effects of coal port and
OCS support base operations on the biota of the coastal area will be
discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.4 respectively.

An estuary is a semi-isolated body of water near the coast
sgarated from the open sea by a partial barrier (Camougis, 1981:
56 . The estuary has a free connection to the sea, with the water
in the estuary being of medium salinity (5 - 18 parts per thousand)
a result of the dilution of seawater by the freshwater from land
drainage (river systems). Water temperatures vary seasonally, ranging
from near freezing to 300, Dissolved oxygen concentrations range
from zero to saturation levels. The estuaries are highly nutritious,
the rivers contributing nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. Biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) is quite high due to large amounts of decaying
organic materials in the bottom sediments. Turbidity is often high,
resulting from the suspended sediments brought in from the river and
the constant mixing action in the estuary caused by tides, wind, and
thermal currents. Flooding of the estuary, resulting from tides
and/or excessive upland runoff causes most of the above parameters to
be constantly changing.

North Carolina's sounds constitute the largest estuarine
system along the Atlantic Coast,largenthan the Chesapeake Bay
system. This system, of the plankton-based type, functions as
a nursery or temporary home for migrating nekton, including striped
bass, menhaden, and shrimp.
Two documents provide the baseline data for the evaluation of
development activities on the biota of the North Carolina coastal
area. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No.
_T_
43 (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1977) is included by reference n the
Fi-nal Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 56 (U.S.
Dept. of Interior, 1981) for much of the description of the aquatic
and terrestrial biota of the region. The Atlantic Coast Ecologi'cal
Inventory, prepared in 1980 by the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, is of particular significance to this report.
The accompanying maps (.1:250,000 scale) show locations of gamelands,
wildli-fe refuges and natural areas, and aquatic and terrestrial
flora and fauna, including locations of species of special status,
within the coastal study area. While the map scale prevents use in
identifying speciffc sites, the inventory does serve as an excellent
baseline for identifying areas which should be avoided to minimize
potential conflicts between development and environmental concerns.
Many other Environmental Impact Statements also provide abuddant
baseline data but of uneven quality.

3.5 The Recreation Context

3.5.1 General

Geography and climate combine to make the 16 counties an important
part of the recreational resources of the coastal area of North Carolina.
The public recreational resources of the area can be stated in terms of
the number and acres of parks, beaches, marinas, piers, and boat launching
sites. Additionally, the private sector has large investments in the
recreational resources of the area in the form of motels and hotels,
restaurants and nightclubs, rettil stores, and private vacation homes
and condominiums.

An important point is that the population using these resources
can be analytically separated into two broad categories. First, there
is the permanent resident population. This group represe-nts the year-
round residents and was discussed in detail in Section 3.2. Second,
there is the temporary population which is comprised of two subgroups,
i.e., the temporary overnight population and the temporary day population.
In this section only the temporary populations will be discussed.

3.5.2 Geography of Recreation

An inventory of the recreational sites in the 16 impact counties
indicates that the extensiveness of recreational areas varies dfrectly
with inclusion in the Coastal Zone Management Area. A measure of the
extensiveness of recreational areas is provided by the "North Carolina
Recreational Areas Inventory" (N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, 1976), which identifiet public and private
lands primarily used for outdoor recreation. Types of areal classification
include high density recreational areas, general outdoor recreational
areas, natural environment, areas, natural areas, wilderness areas, and
hfstorical or cultural areas.
Using this classification the counties with the largest proportions
of land classified as recreational are Dare (82.7 percent), Pender
(53.3 percent), Tyrrell (51.4 percent), Brunswick (36.1 percent), Hyde
(33.8 percent), Carteret (25.8 percent), Washington (21.5 percent) and
Craven (19.4 percent). Although counties with the smallest proportion
of land classiffed as recreatfonal are among the secondary impact counties,
New Hanover County has only 3.9 percent of its land classified as
recreational.

Another indicator of the possible extent of recreation is the
area of the county that is covered by water. The figures in Table 24
include only inland water. Dare and Hyde Counties, with Pamlico Sound
and Albermarle Sound, have the largest fntracoestal recreaticnal area
(.564,600 and 471,000 acres, respectively). Carteret County, with Core
Sound, Bogue Sound, and Pamlico Sound, has the next larqest intracoastal
water recreational area (342,300 acres). The remaining coastal counties
have relatively small, but significant water acreages comprised mainly
of the area between the barrier islands and the mainland.
In addition to the total recreational acreage it is important to

locate recreational sites within therespective counties, Figure 7 provides
a map of national, state, and private recreational areas. State parks
within the primary impact countfes area include Fort Macon (Carteret)
and Carolina Beach (New Hanover). State natural areas include Roosevelt
Natural Area (Carteret) and Masonboro Island (New Hanover). These major
recreational sites are in the immediate coastal area.

3.5.3 Recreational Populations

As mentioned previously, the recreational populations-may be
analytically separated into two categories, i.e., the temporary
overnight population and the temporary day population. The temporary
overnight population stays one or more nights in the local county.
The temporary day population enters and leaves the county in the same
twenty-four hour period.

The recreational populations are important because of the.pressure
they put on recreational resources and the economic advantages
(disadvantages) they provide to the respective countfes. Although
both types of temporary populations put pressure on recreational
resources, the overnight population is considered to be economically
more important than the day population because the latter are likely
to spend more money on a per capita basis.

An immediate methodological problem is measuring the size of
the recreational population and breaking that population into the
two subcategories. Although a few limited counts of the recreational
population and activities exist most cover an entire region rather
than specific localities. Additionally, such counts that do exist
rarely make the distinction between the temporary overnight and day
populations.

Thus, the characterization of recreational populations is based
on estimates from a variety of sources. Used as estimates, the fntent
is to indicate the relative magnitude of recreation within speciffc
counties and the trends in those estimates.

3.5.4 Economic Measures of Tourism

One method of estimating the magnitude of recreational activity
is to use estimates of travel and tourism expenditures. Although
such estimates do not provide actual numbers of recreationists, they
do give an estimate of the dollars generated and the relative importance
of travel and tourism to the local econoffy.

Although the Travel and Tourism Dii-Vision of the North Carolina
Department of Commerce has made estimates of expenditures, their
estimates for individual counties during the 1970's contain inconsistencies
that make intra-county comparisons for selected years impossible. The
reason for these inconsistencies are changes in the methodology for
attributing expenditures to counties.. One methodology CRulison, 1980) was

TABLE 24. RECREATIONAL LAND AND WATER ACREAGE BY COUNTY

Total Acres % of Total Total Acres
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties Recreational Land Land Area of Water
Brunswick 200,559 36.1 23,200
Carteret 87,904 25.8 342,300
New Hanover 4,811 3.9 22,200

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 29,549 5.6 88,800
Bladen 44,221 7.9 7,700
Columbus 14,767 2.5 10,400
Craven 89,209 19.4 42,400
Duplin 14,448 2.8 1,300
Lenoir 2,036 .8 3,300
Pender 288,541 53.3 6,900
Pitt 1,411 .3 2,000

Peat Counties

Dare 204,365 82.7 564,600
Hyde 136,985 33.8 471,000
Pamlico 5,549 2.6 151,000
Tyrrel 1 130,837 51.4 109,200
Washington 46,245 21.5 55,000

Sources: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Parks and Recreation, "N.C. Outdoor Recreation Areas
Inventory."

N.C. Department of Administration Division of State Budget and
Management, Profile: North Carolina Counties, Fifth Edition, 1977.

VA.
00
Gates
E --1-0 C.
'Hertford 0,
1 9

C,
0
Bertie 4

4fapt. Tyrrell are
,Ool-j,
le

Pitt Bea6fort Hyde
t

ILenoir
craven
IL Npa lico
Jonfj

Dupiin
0 n s 1104 \1 L-.
Cat
-4\
//10
Bladen p9der

Columbus ew Hanover

C,
Brunswick

National designation

State designation

Private holdings

Figure 7. Natural and Recreational Areas.

VA.

Gates

"o
'Hertford to,
ItI B
Bertie
x,

I "Tyrrell Dare
.1014@ b4c@, 11
'Oe &- -.r --I f

Pitt Beaufort
Hyde

IL*noir
Craven

% \ p fico
Jo 61
I<i nos

Duplin
I Onslow Cal telet

7-W-

Bladen Ponder B

Columbus. B
New Hanover

Brunswick

Fishing pier
Major port
B Major recreational beach

Figure 8. Beachfront Recreational Facilities.

TABLE 25. ESTIMATES OF TRAVEL AND TOURISM EXPENDITURES
BY COUNTY (RULISON METHODOLOGY) 1973 and 1979

1973 1979
Estimated % County % State Estimated % County % State
Expenditures Retail Travel Expenditures Retail Travel
($1,000) Sales Expenditures ($1,000) Sales Expenditures
Siting Counties

Brunswick 6,112 10.7 .66 16,740 16.9 .79
Carteret 25,964 29.5 2.81 61,563 35.4 2.93
New Hanover 44,293 19.4 4.80 86,033 13.1 4.08

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 5,488 5.1 .59 8,447 3.8 .40
Bladen 1,827 3.7 .20 2,922 3.5 .14
Columbus 1,876 1.7 .20 4,836 2.3 .23
Craven 8,464 4.9 .92 14,213 4.8 .68
Duplin 562 .6 .06 1,498 1.0 .07
Lenoir 6,210 3.5 .67 10,055 3.0 .48
Pender 3,223 11.7 .35 5,264 10.8 .25
Pitt 5,194 2.6 .56 22,853 5.4 1.08

Peat Counties

Dare 50,627 133.6 5.48 120,788 124.0 5.70
Hyde 2,252 32.8 .24 7,705 50.4 .36
Pamlico 136 1.4 .01 98 .5 .01
Tyrrell 20 .3 .00 153 1.3 .01
Washington 391 1.3 .01 614 1.0 .03

a. These estimates were prepared by Dr. Michael Rulison, Center for Population and Urban Rural Studies,
Research. Tri'angle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Division of Travel and Toursim, "Travel Survey for North Carolina."

MMOMMMMM ==No= mirm

TABLE 26. ESTIMATES OF TRAVEL AND TOURISM EXPENDITURES
BY COUNTY (COPELAND METHODOLOGY) 1975 and 1978

1975 1978
Estimated % County % State Estimated % County % State
Expenditures Retail Travel Expenditures Retail Travel
($11000) Sales Expenditures ($1,000) Sales Expenditures
Siting Counties

Brunswick 4,354 7.7 .40 7,084 7.2 .36
Carteret 9,714 9.3 .89 16,937 9.7 .86
New Hanover 33,270 8.6 3.05 59,745 9.1 3.03

Transportation Counties

Beaufort 5,343 4.6 .49 8,846 4.0 .45
Bladen 2,573 4.9 .24 4,253 5.1 .22
Columbus 5,095 4.1 .47 8,447 4.1 .43
Craven 8,615 5.0 .79 14,355 4.8 .73
Duplin 2,776 3.7 .25 4,615 3.0 .23
Lenoir 8,892 4.5 .82 14,644 4.4 .74
Pender 1,622 5.6 .15 2,677 5.6 .14
Pitt 10,177 4.4 .93 16,709 3.9 .85

Peat Counties

Dare 17,961 36.3 1.65 27,522 33.9 1.40
Hyde 11119 18.3 .10 1,831 13.1 .01
Pamlico 588 5.7 .05 970 5.7 .00
Tyrrell 231 4.1 .02 383 3.8 .00
Washington 879 2.9 .08 1,479 2.6 .01

a. These estimates were prepared by Dr. Lewis Copeland, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Division of Travel and Tourism, "Travel Survey for North Carolina."

employed for 1973, 1979, and is being used for the 1980 estimates currently
being prepared. A second methodology (Copeland, 1975) was used for the
county estimates for 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978. There is consistency
between methods for comparisons across years for total state travel and
tourism expenditures. Since expenditures for speciffc counties using
different methodologies cannot be compared across years, the estimates
for the study areas using the different methodologies are presented
separately in Tables 25 and 26.

A brief comparison between the tables shows that, as expected,
travel and tourism is more important for the primary impact counties
than the secondary impact counties. However, there is a tremendous
difference between the two methodologies in the county expenditures
especially for the primary impact counties. For the most recent years
(1978 and 1979) the difference for Brunswick County is over 9 million
dollars, for Carteret County the difference is over 44 million dollars,
and for New Hanover County the difference is over 25 million dollars.

Although the estimates of total expenditures for the state are
calculated in the same manner using either methodology, the procedures
for allocating expenditures to counties differs between Tnethodologies.
In the Rulison approach (Rulison, 1980) the county's proportion of the
state's total hotel and motel receipts is used to calculate the county's
share of the estimate of the state's travel and tourism expenditures.
The Copeland Approach provides a conservative estimate of travel and
tourism expenditures using hotel and motel receipts, food receipts,
transportation receipts, and auto service transactions.

The conclusion is that both methodologies are inadequate when
dealing with counties with large ratios of recreationists to permanent
residents such as found in Carteret County. For these particular
countfes the Copeland methodology underestimates expenditures and the
Ruli-son methodology overestiTnates expenditures. Further research on
allocating travel and tourism expenditures to counties is suggested,
especially since any assessment of impacts fro-m development may affect
this important segment of a local economy. The Brunswick County CEIP
Project on oilspi'll i'mpacts will be useful in-assessing the economic
significance of travel and tourism.

3.5.5 Noneconomic Measures of Tourism

Noneconomic indicators of recreational activity are also useful.
Collectively these estimates help to geographically locate recreational
activity and identify the types of recreational activity. The measures
include visits to state parks and historic sites and the location and
number of.charter recreational fishing boats.
Table 27 provides information on visits to state parks and
historic sites in the primary impact counties. Measured fn terms
of total visitors, Fort Macon is the second largest state park in
North Carolina. In any of the three years shown nearly 20 percent

TABLE 27. ANNUAL VI'SITS TO CAROLI'NA BEACK STATE PARK
FORT MACON STATE. PARK AND FORT FISHER 1970,
1975, 1980.

1970 1975 1980

State Parks

Carolina Beach-
New Hanover N.A. 186,616 135,240

Fort Macon-
Carteret 756,653 778,945 879,426

Historic Sites

Fort Fisher-
New Hanover 122,911 112,322 106,942

Sources: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Parks and Recreation.

N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History.

TABLE 28. MAJOR CHARTER AND HEAD BOAT PORTS
BY PORT AND COUNTY

Number of Number of
Charter Boats Head Boats

Brunswick

Holden Beach 3
Shallote 3
Southport 5

Carteret

Atlantic Beach 10
Beaufort 2
Harkers Island 3
Marshallberg 3
Morehead City 20

New Hanover

Carolina Beach 11
Kure Beach 2
Wilmington 3 4
Wrightsville Beach 1 1

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 56.

of all state park visitations are to the Fort Macon site with 879,426
visitors during 1980. Attendance at Carolfna Beach State Park declined
in the last five years of the decade, but there were still 135,240
visitors during 1980. In terms of numbers of visitors, Fort,Fisher is
the most attractive historic site in North Carolina. For any given
year over 20 percent of all visitations to state historic sites were
to Fort Fisher with 106,942 visitors in 1980.

Taken together the data indicate the magnitude of recreational
activity in the respective counties. Using North Carolina Division
Parks and Recreation estimates, approximately 140,000 people visited
Fort Macon during July, 1980, this in a county of approximately 40,000
permanent residents. It should be noted that the visitation figures
for state Parks, in particular, are biased in the direction of the
temporary, day population since temporary overnight visitors have
access to beaches and other recreational activities.

Another indicator of recreational activity is recreational
fishing. A study by Centaur Management Consultants (1977) indicates
that for the South Atlantic region in 1975 total sales related to
marine recreational activity were approximately $288 million. Although
information on recreational fishing are not broken down by state or
county, data on the location and number of charter fishinq boats are
available.

As shown in Table 28, there is extensive charter boat activity in
the three primary impact counties. There were 38 charter boats and two
head boats in Carteret County with. activity centered in Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach. There were 17 charter boats and 5 head boats in
New Hanover County with activity centered at Carolina Beach. There were
11 charter boats and one head boat in Brunswick County with activity
centered in Southport. It i's assumed that private fishing boats also
operate through these ports and that the extensiveness of recreational
fisheries in these counties is underestimated by the figures shown.
3.6 Fiscal Context of Development
The fiscal base on which the potentially impacted areas rest
is intrinsfc to an understanding of the extent and nature of the
growth process. The types and quantfty of services currently required
by parti'cular counties allows an insight into available resources
and future needs.

Information is presented in Table 29 pertaining to assessed
valuation and total property taxes levied by the counties in the
study area. It should be noted that the generally massive percentage
changes i*n assessed valuation between 1972 and 1980 (96 percent for
Brunswick County, 500 percent for Carteret County, etc.) are due
largely to reassessments rather than addttional investments.

TABLE 29. ASSESSED VALUATION AND TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED BY COUNTY 1972, 1977, 1980

Percent Percent Percent
Total Property Total Levies Total Property Total Levies Total Property Total Levies
Assessed Tax For Are Of Assessed Tax For Are Of Assessed Tax For Are Of
Valuation All Purposes Assessed Valuation All Purposes Assessed Valuation All Purposes Assessed
(000s) (000s) Valuation (000s) (000s) Valuation (000s) (000s) Valuation
OCS-Coal Exporting Counties

Brunswick 85,899 1,922 2.24 1,418,269 6,762 .48 1,683,456 9,449 .56
Carteret 91,609 2,182 2.38 461,373 3,555 .77 555,026 5,455 .98
New Hanover 696,195 8,973 1.29 1,610,280 17,480 1.09 1,860,258 20,860 1.12

Transportation Counties
Beaufort 118,583 2,433 2.05 425,595 3,414 .80 793,456 4,138 .52
Ch Bladen 72,709 1,428 1.96 296,759 2,518 1.19 364,469 3,786 1.04
00 Columbus 141,924 3,123 2.20 348,458 5,068 1.45 406,391 5,942 1.46
Craven 167,746 3,693 2.20 482,170 5,099 1.06 756,349 6,537 .86
Duplin 116,537 2,380 2.04 319,073 3,842 1.20 585,991 4,821 .82
Lenoir 174,509 4,039 2.31 554,298 5,835 1.05 707,135 8,401 1.19
Pender 53,530 959 1.79 194,852 1,938 .99 401,871 2,627 .65
Pitt 228,224 5,936 2.58 870,536 10,654 1.22 1,067,178 13,822 1.30

Peat Counties
Dare 56,932 1,230 2.16 317,012 2,555 .93 376,436 3,931 1.04
Hyde 18,448 308 1.67 63,369 651 1.03 176,910 1,073 .61
Pamlico 37,634 463 1.23 63,250 847 1.34 80,098 1,073 1.34
Tyrrell 16,909 258 1.52 43,028 500 1.16 50,137 683 1.36
Washington 32,169 802 2.49 124,868 1,446 .78 158,646 1,821 1.15

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Tax Research Division, Statistics of Taxation.

MOM M M M M M M-00M M M M M

TABLE 30. COUNTY TAX COLLECTIONS BY TYPE 1977, 1980

FY1977 FY1980
County-wide County-wide
Total County County Share County Share Property Other Total County County Share County Share Property Other
Taxes of State Taxes of Sales Tax Taxesa Taxesb Taxes of State Taxes of Sales Tax Taxesa Taxesb
(OOOS) (000s) (000s) (000s) (000s) (OOOS) (000s) (000s) (000s) (OOOS)
Primary Counties

Brunswick $ 6,788 $113 $ 642 $ 5,957 $ 76 $ 9,068 $134 $ 983 $ 7,912 $ 39
Carteret 3,228 157 713 2,307 51 5,050 214 1,032 3,719 85
New Hanover 13,863 494 2,157 11,111 101 17,781 654 3,211 13,766 150

Secondary Counties

Beaufort $ 3,682 $220 $ 784 $ 2,639 $40 $4,508 $291 $ 999 $3,174 $44
Bladen 2,648 67 378 2,166 37 3,734 114 499 3,098 23
Columbus 5,151 126 826 4,181 17 6,121 166 1,055 4,877 23
Craven 5,540 323 1,207 3,954 56 7,181 383 1,577 5,143 78
Duplin 3,799 86 542 3,159 12 4,825 117 703 3,985 20
Lenoir 5,831 310 1,319 4,157 45 8,487 379 1,678 6,364 66
Pender 1,858 92 194 1,559 13 2,665 128 296 2,210 32
Pitt 9,796 331 1,392 8,009 64 12,686 485 1,954 10,138 108

a. Does not include school district levies.
b. License tax and excise tax on conveyances.

Source: N.C. Department of Commerce, Tax Research Division, Statistics of Taxation.

A significant difference exists in the percent that total levies
are of assessed valuation between the OCS-coal exporting and transportation
counties. For the OCS-coal exporting counties of Brunswick, Carteret, and
New Hanover, the downward trend appearing between 1972 and 1977 has begun
to reverse itself by 1980 while the trend for the transportation counties
is a continuing reductiou in the percent of the total valuation on which
levies are assessed.

In terms of ranking the OCS-coal exporting counties in a continuum
consisting of percentages of the assessed valuation, Brunswi'ck County
assessed the next to the lowest rate, while Carteret and New Hanover have
rates that place them at the higher end of the continuum. Table
30 presents the tax sources of revenues for both OCS-coal exporting and
transportation counties for 1977 and 1980. All counties experienced an
increase in total county taxes received over this period as well as in
virtually all categorfes within counties.

For 1980 the table shows that property taxes are the main source
of tax revenue, followed by the counties' share of local government
sales taxes, their share of state taxes and lastly "other taxes."
New Hanover and Brunswfck Counties rank one and three respectively
in total amount of county taxes, for OCS-coal exporting and transportation
counties, while Carteret ranks seventh out of the 11 counties.

3.7 The Land Use Policy Context

3.7.1 General

Potential development in the OCS-coal exporting and transportation
counties will not occur in a land use policy vacuum. In 1974 the North
Carolina General Assembly passed the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) for the purpose of requiring committees and regions
to plan for the management and long-term use of North Carolina lands and
resources. While many of the resulting land use plans and their accompanying
land classification maps are currently undergoing revision, a community
or Council of Government's (COG). percepti'on about its future can be
gleaned from its most current maps and plans.

3.7.2 CAMA Land Use Definitions

The classification system for the following graphics generally
corresponds to the North Carolina State Land Use Classification System
and includes the following categories (Cape Fear Council of Governments,
1978).

DEVELOPED - Lands currently in urban use with an overall density
of 2,000 persons/square mile or greater.

TRANSITION - Lands being developed with. urban services to accomodate

7CL

future population growth at an average density of at least 2,000 persons
per square mile by the year indicated, according to the following
priorities:
1) Areas not presently serviced with water and sewer with
a minimum population density of 2,000 persons per square mile.
2) Areas experiencing septic tank problems and/or facing
potential public health threats by contamination of
on-site wells or pollution of estuarine waters to which-
existing residential development is adjacent.
3) Areas where future development is expected and can be
clustered for the provision of services.
4) Lands located along existing or proposed service corridors
where higher density development is to be encouraged.

COMMUNITY - Lands characterized by a cluster of residential
and commercial land uses in rural areas, limited municipal type
services. May have public water but no public sewer unless necessary
to correct existing or projected public health hazards. Overall
density not to exceed 640 persons per square mile.

CONSERVATION - Lands that contain major wetlands are unique,
fragile or hazardous for development, and are appropriate for
natural resources management; or lands with one or more limitations
that would make development costly or hazardous.

RURAL - To provide for agricultural, forest management,
mineral extraction, and various other low-intensity uses on land
sites, including residences where urban serVices are not required
and natural resources will not be unduly impaired.

CONSERVATION - INDUSTRIAL - To provide for planned industrial
access and simultaneously provide protection to estuarine wetland
areas by the elevation of industrial access corridors.

3.7.3 Brunswick County

Although the Cape Fear Planning Region had the largest percentage
population growth rate of the North Carolina Planning Regions between
1970 and 1975, the increase is primarily a consequence of growth in
New Hanover rather than Brunswick County. Figure 9 shows that moderate
change is expected in this largely agricultural/rural/conservation
county with much of the predicted change occurring as a consequence of
the construction of transportation corridors and recreation development.
Figure 10 illustrates the pattern of present land use in Southport,
an important urban center in Brunswick County which was classified as
an urban place with the 1980 U.S. Census.

3.7.4 New Hanover County

Figures 11 and 12 reveal the current pattern of land use in
New Hanover County as well as predfctions for future growth, given
the continuation of present trends.

Development in this county centers around the port of Wilmington,
and over the past twenty-five years th.is development is a "fan-like
pattern extending from the northeastern to the southeastern parts of
the county . . . development to north and northwest part of the city
(being) primarily industrial sites accompanied by a scattering of
relatively compact subdivisions. In the northern part of the county
agriculture fs still a significant land use" (Wilmington, New Hanover
County Planning Commission, 1976).

While long-range future development is expected to occur primarily
in the south and northeast sections of the present urban area, along the
intercoastal waterway, short-term growth is expected to occur in a
pattern similar to that of the past twenty-five years, i.e., along
proposed transportation routes.

Figure 12 illustrates the present pattern of land use in New
Hanover County revealing it to be dominated by single family residential
housing with industrial areas adjacent to the river and railroad on
the western side of Wilmington.

It should be noted that not all of New Hanover County is included in
this planning process - Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach-have
opted to prepare their own plans.

3.7.5 Carteret County

As indicated by Figure 13 current development as well as
predicted growth in Carteret County, an area with considerable
conservation and rural lands, is expected to occur around the
developed communities of Newport, Beaufort, and Morehead City.
In addition, Bogue Banks is expected to grow significantly as
a consequence of the increasing importance of the recreational
sector. For a more detailed view of the present pattern of land
use in Beaufort and Morehead City (See Figures 14 and 15, See
Section 5.7).

72,

=mom M M M M

en Co

e wer
-4 C My

os
mRK

C LL
+ couN
AIRP
:EGI
RID
STAT
-tR
.1o
sEco

LAND USE

D VE
TRAN
M
TRAN
PME
@OMM
CO.S
0 CO.S
RURA

APE MIL

Figure 9. Land Use Plan, Cape Fear Council of Governments.

Transportation, Communication, Utilities

Agriculture , Forestry , Fisheries

.. . ........
Single Family Residential
T

......... ....
Multi-Family Residential .......... .......

Private Institution

.. .................
Public Institution .................

Mobile, Homes ...................
. ..... ME
........... .......
..................
IF] Undeveloped ......... .......
.... ............ .......... .......... ::'

Recreation,:::::::::::::::::::::::: ......... IS-
................ ...... ......... ........
............... ........
..................................... ......
industry @::i:: i::@ i::::@ i::::i:: i: T.
i 01fice
............... ..........

..........
..... sa
..........

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

. .........

Figure 10. Land Use Plan, Southport City.

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
WILMINGTON-NEW HANOVER
PLANNING COMMISSION
NO
SCA. I@ I IUE

WRIGHTSVILLE REACH

Of-\

c ROU.. EfACH

IvIE _c.

liz "I GENERALIZED
EXISTING LANDUSE 1980
I= SINGLE FAN LY RESIDENTIAL
MILTI-FAM LY RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE 5 INSTITUTIONAL
COMMERCIAL CITY of W"INGTON INSET
TRANSPORTATION. COMMUNICATION,
AND UTILITIES
INIUI IRIAL
OPEN SPACE 8 RECREATION
NOT IN PLANNING AREA

Figure 11. CAMA Land Use Plan, New Hanover County.

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

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

;. .. ... ....... ,tt,,

LAND
Vie CLASSIFICATION
MAP

Developed
ME Transition
Rural Comrnunity
Rural
Em Conservation
4ot In Planning
N
Gil, Area J
(N. "I

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
WILMINGTON-NEWHANOVER
PLANNING COMMISSION

Figure 12. Land Use Classification, New Hanover County.

F 0

1 0

Figure 13. CAMA Land Use Plan, Carteret County.

E-I

j
j
j
J

0.0
8 I%LA V. a

TOW'4
fif A RSN

A RRO
r
4Y.

41 0 0

Developed
Transition
Con servation

Figure 14. Land Use Classification, Beaufort City.

M M mom M M M M

C A L I C 0 a A y

21
FZT@ R1 @T Fl' F@ I
MEMEL

N Residential
0 Commercial

Figure 15. Land Use Classification, Morehead City.

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF
4.1 Introduction TEMPORARY OCS SUPPORT BASES
OCS oil and gas explorati'on and development activities have
the potential for creating various impacts on the surrounding
communities and counties. Economic, socio-demographic, environmental,
recreational, fiscal and land-use patterns, and processes may be
involved. Thfs section relates the above-mentioned concerns to
a discussion of the impacts of temporary OCS support bases, focusing
primarily on those sites recommended in the CEIP Report 2 -- sfte
17 in Wilmington and site 23 in Morehead City. (ITRE, 1981a)

4.2 Economic Assessment

Based on the Final Environment Impact Statement for Sale 56
(U.S. Department of Interior, 1981) between one and three temporary
services bases will be required for the northern tract group for the
1984 through 1988 period. The range in the number of support bases
is due to uncertainty about the amount and location of oil and gas
in the area, as well as uncertainty about the willingness of particular
companies to share a support base. While economies of scale do exist
in regard to the material and personnel requirements for a temporary
base, other factors are important. For example, it is generally the
case that major oil companies prefer to operate their own service
bases while smaller companies tend to operate out of service company
operated bases that pool resources (future discussion of land use
impacts appears in Section 4.7).
Direct, indirect and induced employment will be a consequence
of the exploration stage of development. Jobs directly connected
with the oil and gas activity as well as opportunities created due
to an increase in population (i.e., more retail jobs, a need for more
teachers, etc., will be created). The U.S. Department of Interior
(1981) reports that approximately 1100 jobs will be created between
1984 and 1988, 83 percent of which will be related directly or indirectly
to the oil and gas industry. Estimates of the proportion of these
positions that will be filled by the local population vary from 45
percent (U.S. Department of Interior,1981) to 75 percent (NERBC-RALI,1976)
with actual percentage dependent on the nature of the local employment
situation and applicable skills of the local populace. Four main job
categories exist at a service base: (1) wharf and warehouse crew
(si.x per rig); (2) helicopter crew (three per helicopter); (3) crew
boat crew (six per boat) and (4) supply boat crew (ten-twelve per
boat) along wfth auxi'liary and indirectly employed personnel. The
average salary per individual was $17,000 in 1976 amounting to
approximately $734,000 per rig year. Consequently, annual salaries for
a base supporting three rigs would be in excess of $1,900,000, much of
which would be paid to local inKabftants (See Section 4.3). In additi.on,

depending on the leasing arrangement (i.e., from a municipal port or private
owner) and the amount of construction necessary, the literature suggests
that capital investment for a temporary base can range from $150,000 to
$250,000 (NERBC-RALI, 1976). As the two recommended sites are on existing
N.C. State Ports Authority property, the necessary capital investment
would be towards the lower end of this scale.

4.3 Social Demographic Assessment

4.3.1 Populati n Growth

Changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of a population
or region (i.e., migration rates, population size, urbanization rates,
etc.) reflect changing needs in services (Section 4.6) as well as
changin aspects of social life. While too rapid rate of population
growth ?estimated to be 10 percent per year) can overburden service
delivery systems, cause a deterioration in the quality of community
life, a no growth situation may reflect stagnation, out-migration,
etc. (HUD, 1976). Since forces for population growth exist whether
or not the proposed development is approved, it is useful to determine
the extent to which the proposed activity will cnanqe the host communities
(See Section 4.7). Although the data presented in Table 31 are concerned
primarily with the OCS production development rather than the OCS
exploratory stage, they given an indication of the impact the OCS
exploratory stage will have on the demographic structure. Overlap
between exploration and development periods is minimal since development
is not slated to begin prior to 1989 (U.S. Department of Interior, 1981).

As shown in the Table 33, even the maximum case scenario under
the OCS generated growth does not result in a growth rate approaching
HUD's critical growth level. Using population figures from Section
3.3.2 for the Wilmington area the added growth accounts for a maximum
of 14 percent of the base case growth prediction. However, it should
be noted that while the combined OCS-generated plus base case maximum
scenario for the Morehead City and Brunswick areas indicates moderate
growth levels, in these areas OCS generated growth may account for a
greater proportion of the increase in population.

4.3.2 Urbanization

That the community could be radically transformed due to OCS
exploration activity has been a concern from Alaska to the Gulf of
Mexico. However, the moderate manpower needs for th-is stage of
activity (See Table 31) coupled with the already urban nature of the
Wilmington metropolitan area and increasingly urban nature of the
Morehead City area, indicate moderate impacts in this reqard.
4.3.3 Migration

Migration can be expected to affect the host areas by drawing

TABLE 31. EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES (NONCONSTRUCTION)
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN TRACT GROUP
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

Direct Northern Tract Group
Year & Indirect Induced Total
LRE - HRE LRE HRE LRE - HRE
1984 159 - 159 32 32 192 - 192
1986 464 - 464 96 96 560 - 560
1988 348 - 348 71 71 419 - 419

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
FEIS Lease Sale No. 56., 1980.

into the area new populations (See Table 32) that will ge-nerate
increased demand for services, and by changing coTrmuting/employment
patterns of local residents who take OCS related positions.

As shown in Table 32, both adult and school-age populations
can be expected to rise. It should be noted that the ratio of
school-age children to adults is generally lower for migrant oil
and gas workers due to their usual work pattern which involves
several weeks at the job site followed by a return to their
families in the Southwest.

The counties in which the two potential sites are located have
different geographical employment patterns. New Hanover County
is a net importer of labor from Brunswick and Pender Counties.
Carteret County is a net exporter of labor to Craven County. Locating
jobs in New Hanover County (site 17) would further accelerate this
process,adding population and revenues. Locating positions in Carteret
County (site 23) would tend to reduce the outmigration of labor and
revenues.

4.4 Environmental Assessment

CEIP Report No. 2 (ITRE, 1981a) describes the requirements
for a support base, and describes 16 prospective sites for the
location of a base in North Carolina. As explained in that report,
several of the sites are all but eliminated from consideration by
the lack of sufficient transportation infrastructure: rail service,
roads, air facilities, or channel depth are inadequate without major
capital expenditures or large-scale development which would have
adverse environmental impacts. A brief description of each of the
16 sites, with potential environment effects associated with each,
follows.

4.4.1 Morehead City

The four prospective sites in the Morehead City area are located
in an industrial area surrounding the existing State Ports Authority
terminal. Site C-13 (Marsh Island) and Site 22, the northwest corner
of the existing SPA Terminal, have limited water depths and would
require extensive dredging to meet the needs of the work support boats;
the boats would also have bridge clearance problems with the highway
and railway bridges connecting Morehead City with Beaufort. Site C-13
has no rail or highway access. The expenditures required to develop
these two sites are most likely greater than the oil exploration
companies would like to spend, especially for a temporary base. Site
C-13 is currently used as a dredge spoil dumping ground. The use of
this site for a base would reduce the land available for spoil disposal
which is already quite limited in the Morehead City area.

TABLE 32. POPULATION IMPACT--ESTIMATED NEW RESIDENT
POPULATION AND SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

Northern Tract Group Development Scenario

New Resident School
Population Enrollment
Year LRE - HRE LRE HRE

1982 0 - 0 0 0

1983 0 - 0 0 0

1984 51 - 51 18 0

1986 146 - 146 52 52

1988 197 - 107 38 38

Sources: BLM, 1980.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
FEIS Lease Sale No. 56, 1980.

Site 21 (Radio Island) h,as, good rail and highway access, and
is adjacent to the 40-foot channel. However, the site contains only
ten acres which may prove too small for expanded use in the future.
Also, rail traffic may become congested if a proposed coal terminal
(Site C-12) is built on Radio Island. A dock, pier, or bulkhead
structure must be built to accommodate the service boats at this
site. The environmental impacts of such a structure were discussed
in Section 3.4.3, Land Resources Usage.
Site 23 (west side of the existing SPA terminal) is the best of
the four Morehead City sites with respect to minimizing environmental
impacts. No additional dredging or wharf/dock construction would
be required. There would be little or no erosion or sedimentation
during the construction of any facilities required. The terminal
provides the necessary rail, highway, and utility and communication
facilitfes. Reducing the amount of additional construction required,
thus minimizing any adverse environmental impact, is another reason
for Site 23 being the recommended alternatives for the Morehead City
area (Section 2.6, Volume 1).

4.4.2 Wanchese

The lack of rail and highway facilities and the large amount
of dredging that would be required to provide adequate depth
channels for service boats almost exclude Site 15 from further
consideration. The several miles of dredging required to deepen
the existing 8 112 foot deep channel to 20 feet would generate
enormous volumes of dredge spoil. The construction of a rail
spur could not be justified if it were used only to serve the
support base. Obtaining permits for construction of the magnitude
required for a base at this site would be a major undertaking in
itself. Site 15 is thus not recommended, primarily because of
adverse environmental impacts resulting from the required levels
of development.

4.4.3 Southport

Site C-6 has been determined to be unavailable for development,
either as a support base or as a coal terminal, and therefore
warrants no further discussion (Section 2.6.3 of CEIP Report 2). Site
C-5 (North of Pfizer Chemical Company) is a high ground site,
surrounded by tidal flats and marshland. The use of a T-Keaded
pier would minimize the effects associated with bulkheading and/or
dredging and filling associated with other types of wharf construction.
The five-mile long rail spur required to join the site with the existing
U.S. government-owned rail line would require careful planning and
construction, (possibly involving large amounts of trestle) to avoid
deterioration of the surrounding wetlands. Erosion and sedimentation
from the site during construction would require careful controlling to
prevent damage to fishing areas and the disruption of benthic activity.

A positive aspect of locating the support base at Site C-5 is the
minimization of ship traffic congestion on the Cape Fear River si.nce
Site C-5 is only five miles from the mouth of the river.

4.4.4 Wilmington
Site 1 (Eagle Island) is strategically one of the best locations
in the Wilmington area. Environmentally, however, the sfte has
several problems. Since the island is primarily built up from dredge
spoil, almost any heavy structural construction would require
substantial foundation work, possibly causing sedimentation or erosion
of the island into the river. Construction-of a pier or wharf would
be required, with the accompanying environmental impacts: disruption
of hydrodynamics, destruction of fish nursery areas, wildlife areas,
and others.
Site 2 (south of Barnard s Crdek) would require (extensive
dredging to connect a channel with the ship channel (approximately
3,000 feet). Since the site is surrounded by a farm and a country
club, there may be more noticeable noise and/or air quality impacts
at this site than one in an industrial land use classification. At
least one mile of rail spur would have to be constructed to serve
the site.
Sites 3 and 4 (north of Snow's Cut) would require seven miles of
railroad track, at least a mile of dredging an existiOg channel to
a sufficient depth, and construction of wharf facilities. The impacts
from such construction would be substantial.
Site C-8 (north of Town Creek) has no rail or highway access,
is 3,000 feet from the deepwater channel, and bordered on the north
and south by marsh and tidal flats. This site would require a
substantial amount of development, similar to Sites 3 and 4, with
the associated adverse impacts. Si'te 9 (south of NC 133 on Brunswick
River) would be similar in scope for rail and dredging requirements
and thus is not recommended.
Sites 10 and 11 (on the Northwest Cape Fear River) are above
Wilmington and would require substantial amounts of dredging to
serve the sites, along with wharf construction required at each site.
In addition, Site 11 would require two miles of road and three miles
of raid to adequately serve the site. Any such construction could
have signiftcant impacts on the wetlands and marshes that must be
crossed.
Site C-17 (north end of existing SPA terminal) is one location
currently under serious consideration as a coal terminal site.
Complete facilities -- rail, highway, and wharf space -- are currently
available. This site would have the least impact environmentally
of the nine sites in the Wilmington area.

'86,

4.4.5 Recomendations

The sites recommended in Section 2.7 of CEIP Report No. 2 (ITRE,
1981a),, Site 17 and 23, require the least development of all those
evaluated. Thus, these two locations would also have the least
environmental impacts from use as support bases. The envf ronmental
considerations were taken into account in the parametric analysis
(Table 7, CEIP Report No. 2), thus there should be little, if any,
conflitt surrounding the use of eftfter site as a support base.

4.5 Recreational 'Asse-ttM@nt

"The Atlantic Ocean, its beaches, associated historical features,
national seashores- and resorts are tourist destination areas
contributi'ng stgni'ficantly to the economy of the coastal region"
(U.S. Department of rnterior, 1981), as well as providing recreation
and supplementary income for local residents. Adverse i-mpacts on
these sectors- of the economy could lead to a severe damaging of the
economic variability of-many small coastal communitfes dependent on
tourist and recreational trade.

Since the two sites recommended for the location of the temporary
OCS supply base are situated on already existing State Ports Authority
industrial oriented installations, activity at the two sites is least
Mely-to create severe competitton or impacts on the recreational/tourist
industry. Such fmpacts as would exist would be the consequences of
increased boat and helicopter activity around the base and the possible
aesthetic deterioration of the nfght horizon due to lights on exploratory
rigs.

4.6 Fiscal Assessment

4.6.1 General

As st ated in Section 4.2 the areas chosen for a support base stands
to benefit from the construction and operation of the facility. Such
economic assistance would be welcome insofar as the Wilmington SMSA
was third from last with regard to per capita income of all North Carolina
SMSAs wfifle Brunswick and Carteret Counties totaled 76 and 87 percent
of the North Carolina average of $7,382 for 1979 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
1981).

However, as the HUD study (HUD, 1976) indicates, while revenues
from energy development are generally sufficient (in the long run
and at the regional level) to defray expenses, problems related to
ti'mfng and geographic distribution of revenues, exist for local
communities. Revenues may lag behind the costs of expanded government
servfces, as- taxes, leases, etc. imposed on the project usually come in
after the project is completed and complicate the issue of payment
for the ameli'orati'on of present problems. Revenues-may be distributed

inappropriately, revenues may be paid to state or county level
agencies while ". . impacts are absorbed by a city or community . . .
It should be recognized that while benefits are long-range and regional
the negative impacts are immediate and local" (HUD, 1976). The severity
of these impacts depend on a variety of social factors such as original
populatfon size and composition, size of project, composition of
facilities needed, and available facilities.

4.6.2 Housing

In many cases the first impact on a community is on housing.
Should a greater demand for housing appear than can be filled, workers
and their familfes turn to mobile homes, a prospect not generally
welcomed in planned growth counties. Given the size of the proposed
work force, attendant population increase, and nature of the proposed
site communities, Site 17 seems to be more able to accommodate the
housing increase with less adjustments being necessary than Site
23 and 24.

4.6.3 Service

As indicated by Table 33, additions to the schools' populations
are projected to be modest and possibly short-run. For most projects,
the growth of school age populations during the exploration phase can
be adequately serviced by existing community structures (i.e., sanitation,
polfce, fire, entertai'nment), with. Sfte 1 providing a larger, more
diversified population base and so fewer adjustments (See Table 33).
Requfrements for the installation itself appear in Section 2.4 and
indicate th-at the State Ports Authority facilities can provfde sufficient
resources for the temporary OCS service base.

4.7 Land Use Impact Assessment

The proposed exploration and develo ment of oil and gas resources
in or near the proposed sites (17 and 23@ must be considered in the
context of an ongoing development scenario. Regional planning councils
as well as ci'ty officials had predicted growth before the possibility
of oil and gas development arose. It is therefore important not only
to discuss the potential development as a growth stimulus, but also to
discuss fts relative impact wfth-in the broader context of regional growth.

Both areas proposed as sites for the temporary OCS supply base
are involved in seeking, as well as planning for, future population
and economic growth with their attendant changes in land use patterns
(Cape Fear Council of Governments, 1978; Carteret County Planning
Dept., 1978). Given this non-hostile stance plus the placement of
the sites on industrial rather than rural, residential, or conservation
areas, conflicts witFi such interests should be minimal. Conflicts
that do occur may arise from the competition among different industries
(i.e., coal vs. oil) for limited space.

MOM M M

TABLE 33. POTENTIAL ONSHORE DEVELOPMENT AREA IMPACT INDICATORS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES/FACILITIES

Projected Populationc OCS-Generated Population (Peak) Combined Average
Maximum % Average Proj. Pop. % Annual Inc.
Share of % Annual Total d Average (OCS generated +
Potential Onshore Onshore Increase (avg. Annual Inc.) % Annual Inc. % Annual Inc.e Base Case)
Development Area Impacts 1985 1990 1985-1990 LRE HRE LRE HRE (Base Case) LRE HRE

Morehead City Area 100a 44,000 48,600 2.1 925 3,083 0.6 2.2 '1.9 2.5 4.1
(308) (1,028)
Wilmington Area 75a 170,000 197,100 3.2 694 2,312 0.1 0.4 2.8 2.9 3.2
(231) (771)
Brunswick Area 75b 62,300b 68,100 1.9 875 2,761 0.5 2.1 1.8 2.3 3.9
00 (292) (1,381)

a. Percent of Northern Tract Group development scenario impacts.
b. Percent of Southern Tract Group development scenario impacts.
c. Considered as base case projections without OCS development.
d. Average annual increase to peak population as a percent of estimated development area population at beginning of increase.
e. Average annual increase of projected population (base case) during period of OCS-generated population growth.

Source: North Carolina Division of State Budget and Management. Update; North Carolina population projections. Raleigh, N.C.

4.8 Summary

The two proposed sites strike a balance between regional, state,
and community goals while at the same time not contributi'ng to a boom-
town accelerated growth pattern wfth its concomitant social and
economic problems.
In conclusion it might be added that the planning process will
be useful whether or not the project is completed. If the project
is cancelled or transformed into something radically different, the
plans themselves may be useless; however, the identiffcation of goals,
means of attafning these goals, and various options will be of lasting
value. Sites suitable for one type of energy-development are usually
suitable for many other types of water-dependent energy or industrial
development. Part of this process involves a monitoring or survey
mechanism that will provide constant feedback from the host community
or region. Studies i'n the West (Gilmore, 1976; Kresge, 1977) have
shown that such mechanisms forestall future problems. At present such
a mechanfs-m is not in place, as evidenced by a lack of awareness in
coastal communi'ti-es of OCS activity.

90.

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF COAL EXPORTING FACILITIES

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 General

The development and operation of a system for transporting
to, and exporting coal from, sites in coastal North Carolina has
the potential for creating various'impacts on the counties and
communities that will form the transportation corridors. In this
section the possfble economic, social-demographic, environmental,
recreational, fiscal, and land-use impacts of the coal export
terminal sites identified in CEIP Report 2 (ITRE, 1981a) and the
railroad and s-hi'p transportation corridors (See Secti'on 2.0) which
would serve those sites will be discussed.
This analysis presents an initial assessment of potential
impacts in an ongoing monitoring process in the development of
coal exporting facilities in North Carolina. Several qualifications
related to the process of development and the relative lack of
recent hist6rical experience in coal exporting serve to limit the
data for speci'fic elements of the present analysis and the conclusions
of this study.
The proposals for the development of coal exporting facilities
Kave and are occuring rapidly CITRE, 1981a). Res,@onding to new
economi.'c-markets wit4 new facilities, investors have many technological
options to choose from, e.g., high capacity terminals, coal slurry
systems, midstream transfer, pneumatic pipelines, conveyor belts,
extra-wfde-beam ships, and barge carrying ships (Office of Tech-nology
@ssessment, 1981: 58-62). The significant fact for the present study
is there is little hfstorical data for judging the economic costs,
employment, or envi-ronmental consequences of the alternative technologies.
Additionally, since most of the facilities are still in the planning
stages, investors' figures on costs and employment are as yet unavailable,
or those ffgures- that are available are very tentative.
Given the number of coal exporting facilities that are being
proposed, one must remember that whether an individual project
becomes operational is not independent of the other proposals. Generally
each proposed coal export facilfty i's in competitfon with all other
United States' coal ports (Office of Technology Assessment, 1981), a
competition which will be decided by the markets for steam coal and the
economics of particular ports and technologies.
Additionally, each of the proposed coal facilities must compete
locally for scarce.resources such as rail, land, and water access.

9.1

For example, given the existing rail system serving Morehead City,
there will be competftion between the Alla-Ohio Valley Project and
the Gulf Interstate Project for access to the rail system.

While it is outside the purview of this study to determine
which projects will compete successfully in the steam coal export
market, this impact assessment will identify limitations respective
projects might face in this competition.

5.1.2 Assumptions for Impact Assessment

A series of assumptions that form the basis for this initial
assessment of the impacts of the coal export facflities and the
transportatfon systems to serve them can be i'dentified.

1. The proposed sites. for coal export facilities are those
identified in VoWme 1: C-12, C-16 (Carteret County);
C-7, C-17, C-20, C-21 (Brunswick-New Hanover County)
(ITRE, 1981a: 47).

2. The infrastructure.requirements for the coal exporting
facilities are those identified in Volume 1 (ITRE,
1981a: 46).

3. The transporting of coal feedstocks to the coal exporting
facilities will use existing rail services (See Section
2.0).
a. Sites C-12 and C-16 are served by the Southern Railroad
operating th-rough Carteret, Craven, Beaufort, Pitt, and
Lenoir Counties.
b. Sftes C-7, C-20, and C-21 are served by the Seaboard
Coast Line Raflroad operating throUqh Brunswick, New
Hanover, Pender, Duplin, Columbus, and Bladen Counties.

4. The transporting of coal from the ports wfll use 60,000 dwt
ships.

5.2 Economic Assessment

5.2.1 General

There are presently six companies which have identified sites
for coal exporting terminals and the available data for these
proposals are presented i'n Table 34. Given that most of the projects
are fn the fnitial planning stages, the data on the scope of the
respective operations are tentative and fncomplete. Whfle data on
the amount of coal to be exported and capital investment are the most
complete, estimates of new direct and indirect employment are essentially
non-existent. The only employment figures which exist are those for
the Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company operation which has already begun at

M mm = @ M mom M = = M M mom=

TABLE 34. PROPOSED COAL TERMINAL SITES, STARTUP DATES, CAPACITIES, CAPITAL
INVESTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, PAYROLL, AND RAIL AND SHIP TRAFFIC.

Estimated
Capital Estimated Estimated Number of
Startup Effective Investment New Payroll Units Trains/ Estimated Coal
Date Capacity ($ Millions) Employment ($ Millions) Dayb Ships/Yearc
Carteret County
1. State Ports Authority Terminal
(Alla Ohio Valley Coal Co.)
a. Existing SPA facilities (C-16) 1981 3 4.5 65 1.3 2 50
b. Radio Island N.A.a 10-15 N.A. N.A. N.A. 8-12 167-250

2. Radio Island (Gulf-Interstage
Engineering Co.) (C-12) 1984 15 60-70 85 3.0 12 250

Brunswick County
1. Northeast Cape Fear River
(American Coal Co.) (C-20) 1982 3-7 15 40 .75 2-5 50-117

2. Pleasant Oak PLantation
(Utah International Coal Co.)
(C-7) 1984 5-7 N.A. N.A. N.A. 4-6 83-117

New Hanover County
1. Northeast Cape Fear (Clean
Coal Terminals) (C-21) 1982 3 10 24 .5 2 50

2. Northeast Cape Fear (Williams
Termi nal s) 1984 10-20 70 60 N.A. 8-16 167-333

Pender County
1. Scotts-Hill (Wheelbrater-Frye)(C-18) 1985 12-14 150 100 N.A. 10-12 200-233

a. Not available.
b. Unit train are assumed to be 100 ton cars - 75 cars per train.
c. Ships are assumed to be 60,000 dwt.

Source: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Office of Regulatory Relations, "Coal Export in North Carolina:
A Review of the Issues" (October, 1981).

Morehead City. The reasons for the incompleteness of the employment
data were discussed in the previous section (5.1.1).

Estimates of the number of unit trains per day necessary to
move the coal to the respective ports shown in Table 33 are based
on the lowest and hi'ghest companies' forecasted annual coal tonnage.
An important consideration of these estimates is the potential total
number of trains moving in and out of each service area. For the
Carteret County rail system the minimum number of trains, if both
facilities were operational, would be 22 unit trains per day while
the maximum number would be 38 uni-t trains per day. Corresponding
figures for the Brunswick-New Hanover County rail system the minimum
number is 20 unit trains per day while the maximum number is 30
unit trains per day.

Estimates of the number of sh-1ps per year which. would be needed
to export the coal shown in Table 34 are also based on the companies'
forecasts of total annual tonnage. Considering the potential total
number of ships using the channels and port facilities of the two
service areas, the figures are dramatic. For Carteret County, the
minimum number is 310 shi*ps per year and the maximum number of
ships is 533 s-hips per year. For the Brunswick-New.Hanover County
the mini'mum figure is 265 ships per year and the maximum figure is
390 ships per year.

These estimates for unit trai.ns and ships for the respective
rail and port systems serving Carteret County and Brunswick-New Hanover
support the argument that the various coal port projects will be in
competiti-on locally for limited rail service and dockfng facilities
in additton to being in competition wfth all other coal export facilities
for existing steam coal markets (See Section 5.1.1). Although the
following discussi.on focuses on individual projects, the data in Tabl-e
34 can be viewed as a means of multiplyfng the magnitude of impacts if
all proposed facilities were to come on line.

5.2.2 Economic Benefits and Employment

The economic impacts of coal exporting include the primary and
secondary development tied to the operation of coal termi*nals. Impacts
from primary development include the employment and income generated by
the industrial projects that serve and support the coal exporting
facility. Examples of secondary indirect development projects include
rail services, shi'p repai'r, vessel supply, freight forwarders, shippfnq
agents, storage facili"ties, and repair operations. Secondary induced
development includes the employment and income created by the expansion
of community services and facilities to serve primary and indirect
secondary development, e.g., banks, restaurants, and schools.

Given the paucity of data for existing coal port proposals,
the best approach for estimating the economic benefits of coal

b
exporting is to start with a case study of the Alla-Ohlo Valley
project at the State Ports Authority Terminal in Morehead Ci.ty.
A North Carolina Department of Transportation (1981) study provides
estimates of the economic benefi't stream resulting from the Alla-Ohio
Valley project. The focus is only on those benefits occuring solely
to North Carolina.

An analysis of the economic benefits is shown in Table 35. An
initial fifty new jobs at the terminal site have.been estimated as
a result of the Alla-Ohio Valley project. These jobs- provide a
$1 mi'llion payroll increase for the Morehead City-Carteret County
area. This payroll is circulated through the local economy several
times providing a "multiplier effect." The multiplier effect
developed by the State Ports Authority is 1.9 (N.C. Department of
Transportation, 1981), thus the associated income is $1.9 million.
The total income figure for Morehead City is $2.9 million per
year or $8.7 million over the three year period.

The Alla-Ohio Valley project will generate additional railroad
employment and State Ports Authority revenue. The estimate of-income
produced over the three year period by the additional railroad
employment is $1.02 million. Net revenues generated for the State
Ports Authority are $4.9 milli*on.

Given the fact that the Alla-Ohio Valley project does not
IP necessarily end after the three year contract, but actually may
expand from 3 mta to 10-12 mta there are longer range economic
and financial benefits. The North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(-19.81) analysi's of the economic and financial benefits is shown in
Table 36. Alla-Ohio Valley"s estimates indicate that an additional
50 new jobs would be created by 1986. Projected over a 20 year period,
payroll benefits are estimated to be over $87 million, while net
revenues for the State Ports Authority are forecast to be approximately
$50 millfon.

The forecasts of economic benefits have focused on one project,
and forecasts for other projects would be parallel with a few notable
exceptions. There is no basis to argue that there is a one to one
increase between tonnage exported and the number of new jobs. For
example, Alla-Ohlo Valley-has hired 50 workers to move 3 mta but expects
to add only 50 more workers to move an additional 7-9 mta by 1986.
It will be important to monitor the job opportunities realized by the
actual development of coal export facilities.
An important consideration in assessing the new employment is Who
will fill those jobs (See Section 3.2). An important question, suggested
by the OCS experience, is what proportion of the new jobs are filled by
local residents as opposed to new residents. The best current evidence
is that 40 jobs will be filled by local residents (Carteret County News-

TABLE 35. PAYROLL AND PORTS AUTHORITY
BENEFIT STREAM RESULTING
FROM PORTS AUTHORITY (MOREHEAD CITY)
THREE-YEAR COAL CONTRACT*

Payroll Benefits Financial Benefits

2
Tons Year Morehead City3 R.R. Employment (N.C._)4 Total (N.CJ Ports Authgrity
Net Rev.5
1.75 Million 1981 $ 2.9 M $ .18 M $3.08 M T1.375 M
3 1982 2.9 .42 3.31 1.75
3 1983 2.9 .42 3.31 1.75
$8.7 M $1.02 M $9.73 M $4.875 M

*Only benefits accuring solely to North Carolina are included. Railroad and coal company financial returns have
thus been excluded from analysis. All values are in constant 1981 dollars and no discounting of 1982 and 1983
values to reflect present (1981) values has been done.
ko
lTonnaqe projections from State Ports Authority.
2Reflects three-year coal contract.
3Components of this benefit stream include direct and indirect employment gains at Morehead City, as well as a
"multiplier" of 1.9 times the employment (payroll) increase.
41"his benefit stream results from simplified calculations of crew-time required for the North Carolina portion
of the coal-haul. Train crew-consists were assumed to be four employees and N.C. coal-haul travel time (most
probable route) was roughly calculated at a current 8 hours. Train trir)s varied with coal volume (assuming
unit trains of 70 tons, 75 cars) from about 1.75 to 3 per day (one round-triD equalling two trips). Payroll
increases were based on Southern Railwky's N.C. average employee wage in 1979, factored up 10% per year to
1981 and then held constant.
5Net revenue projections from State Ports Authority.

Source: N.C. Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, "Coal Train Movements Through
the City of New Bern."

MOM M M M M

TABLE 36. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL BENEFIT
STREAM FROM UNIT-TRAIN COAL
MOVEMENT THROUGH N.C. TO
MOREHEAD CITY*
Te rTn: 20 yearsl
Discount Rate: 5% Pay oll Benefits4 Financial Benefits4
Tons2 Year3 Morehead city5 R.R. Employment C.)6 Total (N.C.) Ports Authority Net Rev.7
Villions 1983 $ 2.75 M $ .40 M $ 3.16 M $ 1.67 M
3 1984 2.63 .38 3.01 1.59
8 1985 4.29 .97 5.26 2.59
10 1986 4.77 1.38 6.15 2.88
12 1987 4.55 1.43 5.98 3.13
13 1988 4.34 1.46 5.80 3.17
14 1989 4.12 1.49 5.61 3.20
15 1990 3.92 1.42 5.34 3.21
15 1991 3.74 1.35 5.09 3.06
15 1992 3.56 1.29 4.85 2.92
15 1993 3.39 1.23 4.62 2.78
15 1994 3.23 1.17 4.40 2.64
15 1995 3.07 1.11 4.18 2.52
15 1996 2.93 1.06 3.99 2.40
15 1997 2.79 1.01 3.80 2.23
15 1998 2.66 .96 3.62 2.18
15 1999 2.53 .92 3.45 2.07
15 2000 2.41 .87 3.28 1.97
15 2001 2.29 .83 3.12 1.88
15 2002 2.18 .79 2.97 1.79
$66.1 M $21.5 M $87.6 M $49.9 M

*Only benefits solely accruing to North Carolina included. Railroad and coal company financial returns have thus been excluded from analysis.
1This period was selected to correspond to the reasonable project life of any major investment (e.g., rail by-pass which might be required as
a result of the coal movement.)
2Tonnage projections from State Ports Authority. SPA projection of 15 million tons for 1990 has been extended to 2002 unchanged.

31983 was selected as the initial year for calculation of the benefit streams in order to allow for comparisons with the cost of major
investments which might be required as a result of the coal movement. It has been assumed that such investments would not be completed
until the beginning of 1983.
4The benefit streams have been discounted back to 1982 present-value to allow comparisons to any major project investments required by
the coal movement. These investments, it has been assumed, could be completed no earlier than 1983.
5Components of this benefit stream include direct and indirect employment gains at Morehead City, as well as a "multiplier" of 1.9 times
the employment (payroll) increase.
6This benefi.t stream results from simplified calculations of crew-time required for the North Carolina portion of the coal-haul. Train
crew-consists were assumed to be four employees and N.C. coal-haul travel time (most probable route) was roughly calculated at a current
8 hours. Train trips varied with coal volume (assuming unit-trains of 70 tons, 75 cars) from 3 to 15 per day (one round-trip equalling two
trips). Payroll increases were based on Southern RAilway's N.C. average employee wage in 1979, factored up 10% per year to i983 and then
held constant.
tD 7Data from Ports Authority. Contract renumeration per ton was held constant at the 1981-84 rates.
00
Source: N.C. Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, "Coal Train Movements Through the City of New Bern."

I
b Times, 1981a). Given the high Proportion of Carteret County workers who
are employed outside the county ( *See Section 3.2.3), it is questionable
whether the new jobs will reduce unemployment in the county. A similar
pattern can be expected for Brunswick County which is also a net exporter
of workers (See Section 3.2.2).

5.2.3 Commercial Fishing

As established in Section 3.2.6, commercial fisheries is an
important element of the respective counties' economies, and the
development of coal export facilities may impact this lfvelihood.
While it is documented that development, in general, particularly
affects the estuarine shellfish- fndustry (Mafolo and Tschetter, 1981),
nothing is known about the effects of increased ship traffic on the
ecology of the estuarine system. As previously mentioned (See Section
5.2.1) the increased volume of ship traffic will be dramatic. Additionally,
the impact of dredging the channels to accommodate larger ships, an
alternative for decreasing the absolute number of shi s to move the
forecasted tonnage (Carteret County News-Times, 1981b@, must be studied for
its impact on commercial fishing.

5.3 Social-Demographic Assessment

5.3.1 General

Relevant social demographic changes due to the development of coal
IP exporting facilities includes changes in population growth and changes in
the social structure of the local-cornmunities. Potential changes in
?opulation growth patterns due to development are likely to concentrate
in the communities/counties in whfch the terminal facilities are located
because this is where the new jobs associated with coal exporting are
located. Changes in populatfon size and compositfon will affect the
demand for community services.

Potential changes in the social structure will be located in both
the community which is the site of the terminal facilities and in
communities which are part of the transportation corridors serving the
ports. Of particular i'nterest are the social impacts of the increased
volume of rail traffic moving the coal to the terminal facilities.

5.3.2 Population Growth
As mentioned in Section 4.3.1, a too rapid rate of population growth
can overburden community service systems and cause a deterioration in the
quality of community life. The HUD i *ndicator for too rapid growth is a
population growth rate in excess of 10 percent per year (HUD, 1976). As
noted in Section 3.3-2, preliminary 1980 census data indicate that while
the three primary impact counties grew significantly duri'ng the 1970's,
the growth. figures dfd not approach the HUD estimate of too fast a growth
rate.

A question remains if the coal export facilities will significantly
increase the population growth. rate. Since coal export facilities tend
to be capital intensive rather than labor i'ntensive, the relatively
low gains in new direct and i'ndirect employment would not effectively
spur population growth. Additionally, since most new jobs will be
filled by local residents there should be little, if any, increased
new migration due to coal export.

In fact there is the possibility that the development of the coal
export terminals using existing transportation facilities may detract
from the positive in-migration the counti*es have recently experienced.
Thi's argument focuses on the aesthetics of local communities as a factor
in attracting new residents and tourists. Specifically, assuming the
continuance of the existing transportation infrastructure, the large
increases in rail and ship traffic estimated from the forecasted tonnages
of coal (See Section 5.2.1) may negatively alter potential residents
and touris-ts perceptions of the coastline in the primary impact counties.
Empirical s-upport for this argument will be made in subsequent sections.

5.3.3 Social Impacts of Railroad Traffic

The most significant impacts of the development of the coal export
terminals result from the traffic necessary to move the coal on the
existing transportation systems. Although there are potential impacts
all along the rail systems, the potential effects are most significant
in urban areas. Three cities can be singled out for consideration, i.e.,
New Bern, Morehead City, and Wilmington. In New Bern the railroad tracks 41
pass through the central busi.ness and historic districts using the center
of Hancock Street. In Morehead Cfty the railroad tracks pass through the
central business district using the center of Arendell Street. Although
the railroad tracks i*n Wilmington are not in the middle of a street,
they do pass through important busfness areas. In all three ci,ties all
the rai-lroad tracks have grade'crossings that intersect traffic.

To gauge the impact of the traffic delays due to unit coal trains,
estimates of railroad crossing delays per intersection are shown in Table
37. The number of train movements per day are related to the number of
tons of coal to be shipped. The two estimates of delay times are based
on the usual train speed for New Bern (5 mph) (N.C. Department of
Transportation, 1981) and Morehead City (10 mph) (Carteret County News-
Times, 1981a). Although the delay time for moving low volumes of coal
are initially minimal, the Limes become dramatic when the volume of
coal increases. For example, the minimum number of trains for the Alla-
Ohio Valley and Gulf Interstate projects i*s 22 trains (-See Section 5.2.1),
a figure which would cause a total delay per day of 2.5 hours for New Bern
and over 1 hour for Morehead City. For the maximum number of 37 trains,
the total delay time would be over 3 hours for New'Bern and almost 3 hours
for Morehead City. Delay times for Wflmington would not be as significant
because with the locations of the projects, most of the trains would not
have to pass through the city.

1 CTO

MOM = = m = m Sam = m = = =

TABLE 37. ESTIMATED RAILROAD CROSSING DELAYS BE SPEED OF TRAINS

Estimated
Tons Train Movements Total Crossing Delay/Intersection/Day
(Millions) Per Dayl 5 MPH2 10 MPH3

1.75 2 15.4 min. 7.7 min.
5 6 46.2 23.1
10 12 92.4 46.2
15 18 138.6 69.3
20 24 184.8 92.4
25 30 231.0 115.5
30 36 277.2 138.6
35 42 323.4 161.7
40 48 369.6 184.8

1. Unit trains are assumed to be 70 ton-cars-75 cars/per train.

2. Crossing delay based on 7.7 minutes crossing blockage resulting from one train movement/day.

3. Crossing delay based on 3.85 minutes crossing blockage resulting from one train movement!day.
Source: Adapted from Table 3, @'.C-Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division,
"Coal Trafn Movements Through the City of New Bern," 1981.

TABLE 38. ESTIMATED POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND HISTORIC DISTRICT

Approximate Number of
Number of Trains in Shopper-Tourist Trips
Either Direction Not Made During Train Potential Annual
During Time Period Time Period Movements Revenue Losses

I 10:00am-12:00noon 115 325,100

1 12:00noon-02:00pm 139 394,600

1 02:00pm-04:00pm 49 139,400
1 04:00pm-06:00pm 106 301,800

2 10:00am-12:00noon 230 650,200

2 12:00noon-02:00pm 278 789,300
2 01:00pm-04:00pm 98 278,800
2 04:00pm-06:00pm 213 603,600

3 10:00am-12:00noon 344 975,300

3 12:00noon-02:00pm 417 1,183,900
3 01:00pm-04:00pm 147 418,200
3 04:00pm-06:00pm 319 905,400

4 10:00am-12:00noon 458 1,300,400

4 12:00noon-02:00pm 556 1,578,600
4 01:00pm-04:00pm 196 557,600
4 04:OOpm-O6:OQpm 425 1,207,200

Source: N.C. Department of Transportation, Travel Planning Division,
"Coal Train Movements Through the City of New Bern," 1981.

_1 W

Important impacts of this rail traffic are its effects on retail sales,
emergency vehicle operation, recreation, noise, dust and vfbration levels.
While recreational impacts will be discussed in the Section 5.5 and noise,
dust, and vibration levels will be dfscussed in Section 5.4, the present
discussion will focus on retail sales and emergency vehicle operation.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (1981) has made
estimates of the number of shopper-tourist trips not made during train
movements which are shown in Table 37. Although the estimates are
judgemental, the data show there is a strong positive relationship between
the number of trains and the total dollars lost to the central business
@istrict. Although similar figures do not exist for Morehead City, it
is safe to assume that the increises in train traffic would have
significant impacts on the Morehead City central business district and less
so on the Wilmington Central business district.
Another important element of community service is the provision of
emergency vehicle service. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
study (1981) of New Bern indicates that available alternative emergency
routes exist that would not significantly alter emergency response times
due to traffic blockage. A similar situation also exists for the Wilmington
area. However, the emergency vehicle situation in Morehead City will have
significant problems as rail traffic increases.
The Carteret County Hospital is north of the railroad tracks and
when trat'ns are using the Arendell Street tracks all populations south
of the tracks may be prevented from access to the west bound lanes of
Arendell Street. This population includes the south side of Morehead
City-and the Bogue Banks area. This latter problem will not be solved
with the proposed new bridge from the mainland to Atlantic Beach (See
Section 5.5), since even with the new bridge the emergency vehicles
would 4ave to cross the railroad tracks going east to the hospital.
5.3.4 S-ocial Impacts of Ship Traffic
As discussed in Section 5.1.1, there will be a significant increase
in ship traffic. Apart from the demands on port infrastructures, there is
a potential social impact from the ships which should be investigated.
The number and charactertstic's of crews working the ships may be important
given the minimum number of ships estimated for Morehead City at over 300
ships and the maximum at over 500 ships, and corresponding figures of over
a 250 ship minimum and over a 350 ship maximum for the Brunswick-New Hanover
area. Since ship crews tend to be younger, single males, there is a
potential for new establishments to serve such a population. Additional
impacts of shipping will be discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5
5.4 Environmental Assessment of Coal Terminal Operation

5.4.1 General

1 C13

The major environmental proUlems associated with the transportation
and terminal operations of coal for export include dust, water quality,
traffic congestion from -unTt trains, and noise from both trains and
loading/unloading operations. These impact& can be effectively controlled
or minimized using currently available technology.
Th-ree-adverse itpacts of coal train-movement are increased noise
levels, vibrational damage to structure and traffic disruption and delays.
Noise depends- upon train volume, type of train, train speed, and conditi,on
of the roadbed. Trains can cause increases in noise levels to 200 times
that of a quiet -urban day CStone,* 1981: 71, Regulations governing locomotive
and train operation notse were discussed in Secifon 3.4.5. At the 3-5 miles
per hour speeds requVred for tffe, trains-moving through the New Bern and
Morehead Ctty, city, limits, the prfmary-source of noise will be from the
engfnes.
Vilirations- from the increased occurrence of train movements may
cause damage to existing structures, es-pecially older buildings located
in the kistorical distrVct along H-Anc'ocV Street fn New Bern. Factors to
be evaluated in an assessment of the impacts of rail vibrations include:
distance to structure, condttTon of structure, frequency of induced
vibrations:, soil types and rail and bed conditions (N.C. Department of
Transportation, 1981). Geological and engineering analyses, including
seismic recording& of tratn-tnduced vibrations, are required before a
more definite statement can Uemade regarding the effects of such vibrations.

Coal dust will result from the unloading of trains, stock-piling,
loading of s-hips, and the fugitive dust originating from the coal cars in
transit. Most -unloading operations for the sites proposed for North
Carolina will be bottom dump unloading rather than rotating car dumpers.
Any-coal unloading operation w-Ull result In the release of coal dust and
particulates. The quantity of dust emissions ts dependent upon coal size,
-moisture content, type of installation, and rate of throughput (operating
capacity). Estibates of dust emissions during unloading operations are
on the order of 0.4 pounds per ton unloaded for uncontrolled unloading
(Szabo, 19,78: 76).
Coal storage is divided into two types: storage and stock-piling.
Storage refers to quantities of coal field in reserve for times when the
quantity-of coal available in stockpiles is unable to meet demand.
Electric utilities and industrial operations will often have storage piles
of 30 to 12G times the daily operatinq demand. Stockpiles are often
referred to as- 'tactive' storage or "'short-term" storage. Closed storage,
in silos or other enclosed structures, is considered to be the best
availab-le control technology in-many parts of the county, and may be
required in the future at all locations. Since all coal terminals involve
short-term storage,-methods sometimes used to prevent windborne particulate
emissions from storage pi'les, such as the use of asphaltic sealants, is
infeasible for these applications CPelham, 1980: 16-17). The level of

104

particulate emissions from open coal storage piles is dependent upon:

Pile geometry
Surface area of the pile
Moisture content and bulk density of the coal
Coal size and erodibility
Local lopographical conditions
Local meterological conditions
Regional precipitation
Length of storage and condition of crust formation
Mitigation measured employed
The particulate emission factor for a coal storage pile has been estimated
at 12.5 pounds of particulates per ton-year of storage (Pelham, 1980: 27).

Due to the high humidity and wind conditions in the coastal areas
where the coal terminals are. proposed, it is recommended that enclosed
storage (silos, bins, etc.) be required at any terminal site.

Loading the coal from stockpiles to the colliers will most likely
be by means of enclosed conveyors and loadout chutes to reduce the particulate
loss. The use of water sprays on chemi*cal sprays at transfer points will
also help reduce the particulate emission load. The permitting process,
described in Section 2.3.4 of Volume 3, will require the use of control
technology to prevent any significant deterioration of the surrou "din,
air qual i*ty.

Fugitive dust, escaping from coal cars in transit, can be controlled
by use of wind screens or tarpaulins on the cars, or the use of water, oil,
or chemical sprays on the exposed coal surface in the cars. Estimates of
the fugitive emission factor for coal in transit vary from 0.05 percent to
10 percent by weight (Szabo, 1978: 77).

Water quality surrounding a coal terminal may be adversely affected
by several means: runoff of storm water from the site itself, precipitation
which contacts airborne coal dust, and coal spills into waters from accidents
or careless handling practices. Water contacting the dust, spilled coal or
open storage piles may be degraded by taking on dissolved or suspended
solids and fines, including sediment, solid mineral debris, colloidal and
dissolved materials.

All coal terminal sites will probably be required to treat all surface
runoff and waste streams (such as those from dust suppression spraying
operations) before discharge into either a publicly owned waste treatment
system or a receivfng body of water. The discharge of untreated runoff
may result in the following potential adverse environmental impacts (Pelham,
1980: 22):

1. The alteration of the pH of receiving waters.

2. The precipitation of-metallic hydroxides in larger or higher
buffered receiving streams, resulting i*n flocculent coatings
that cover stream bottoms and destroy benthic organisms.

3. Significantly increase Vie concentration of trace metals
i.'n recei-ving waters. 'Metals can be biomaciniffed in the
food chain and-may, affect humans as well as animals.

4. Increased turbidity of receiving waters.
5. Reduce o-xygen concentrat-rons in receiving waters through
chemical oxygen demand.

6. Percolation th.rough soi'ls and contaTni'nation of groundwater
with-he&vy--metals, organics and groundwater with heavy
metals-, organi"cs and depressed pH.
In ge-ne-,ral, control tech-nology-available for reducing the impacts
of wastewater can Ue classified as follows: CI) techniques that reduce
runoff/leachate flow- and cKaracteristi'cs Csource control); and (2)
techniques that remove poll.utants from the runoff/leachate wastes
Ccollection and treatment). Various source control techniques have been
developed to reduce coalwater interaction. Table 39 provides a summary
of s-me. source control teckniques and their advantages and disadvantages.

The collection and treatment of wastewater is currently practiced
at-many-terminal operations. Treatment usually includes removal of
suspended solids and pFT control. The use of storage ponds or detention
basins- exclusively is only effective fn the removal of suspended solids.
These basi-ns-, if carefully designed and constructed, are effective in
meeting suspended solids effluent libtts. Runoff from some coal, especially
the higher sulfur eastern coals-may require neutralization prior to
discharge. The basic-methodology for treatment of runoff would consist of:

1. Collection of runoff from the entire site.

2. Providing sufficient capacity for storage prior to treatment.
3. Removal of suspended solids and heavy metals.
4. Sufficient storage capacity to provide for polishing of the
effluent.

5. Utilization of treated wastewater for dust suppression sprays
and other non-potafile uses, i'f possible.
6. Recovery of coal fines from settlfng and precipitation facilities.
Table 40 summarizes typical treatment systems currently in use for runoff/
leachate pollution control.

106

TABLE 39. SUMMARY OF SOURCE WATER CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Control Technology Advantages/Disadvantages
Open-sided shed storage with Low capital cost
perimeter containment

Tarpaulin Can promote spontaneous combustion

Suitable only for small storaqe piles
Sealing coal pile wfth Provides control against water contact
asphaltic spray* as well as- dust emissfon

Can promote localized combustion
unless sealant cover ts applied on
top as well as on side slopes to
prevent "chf-mney" effect
Sealing coal pile side slopes Effective in reducing water-coal
wi'th- earth contact as well as wind erosion
Application of chemical binders Effective in controlling wind
runback and polymers Ce.g., acrylics)- erosion

Coal-water contact is only minimized
by formation of a crust on coal
particles

Less expensive than asphalt spray

Easy to handle and spray

2 to 3 applfcatfons over the area
where effective in preventing contact
with- coal (9_0%) of rainfall
Prevent oxidation of pyritic Will reduce leaching of sulfur and
and marcasi'te coal by preventing iron compounds
air circulation through the coal
pfle Will reduce acidity in leachate/runoff
-Increase coal size or reduce Will reduce treatment requirements
surface area for leachate/runoff

-Coating coal with. oil

-Store aged or weathered coal
*Sealant requirements depends upon coal pile permeability, coal size; may be
mfnimized by coverfng the pi'le with fines up to 0.3 (ft) deep.
Source: Pelham, p. 37.

'l (17

TABLE 40, TYPICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Collection and Treatment Advantages/Disadvantages
Catch basin with provisions to monitor Effective only i'n reducing suspended
overflow impuri'ties

Not suitable for reducing acidity
and 'yellow boy' problems or for
heavy metals

Collection and reuse of runoff/ Treatment required only for reducing
leachate for spray systems suspended particles to protect
against nozzle clogging
Pit and berm storage of coal Provides positive containment of
runoff/leachate

Improves aesthetic appearance;
visi-ble hefght of coal pile is
reduced

Source: Pelham, p. 39,

108

I
lb
Chapter 3 of Volume I of this report describes the requirements for
a coal terminal (Table 12, Volume 1), and describes the 11 prospective
sites for the location of a termfnal in North Carolina. Four of the
sites (C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-171, which. were identified both 'as potential
support base and coal terminal sites, have already been described in Chapter
4. The remaining seven coal terminal sites will be described i'n the following
section.

5.4.2 Morehead City

Site C-12: Gulf Interstate Engineering Company Site on Radio Island:
As discussed in Section 3.4.1 of Volume I'the development of.this site
would require the construction of a T-head pier; the impacts of marine
construction were discussed in Section 3.4.3 of this volume. The site is
smaller than the recommended acreage for a terminal (Table 12, Volume 1).
but should be sufficient for the volume of coal exports predicted. The
use of this site will involve t4e movement of unit trains through Morehead
City and across the low level bridge across the Newport River.

Site C-16: Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company Site in Existing SPA
Terminal: There have been no serious complaints of environm@_ntal
degradation at this site since it began operation in April 1981. Since
the site is using the existing terminal facilities, the impacts should
be minimal. (An actual on-site investigation of the envi'ronmental controls
has not been performed at t4i-*s time. Thfs is expected to be done within
the next several weeks).

Site C-19: Brant Island: As stated in Volume 1, this site would
have severe environmental problems if a coal site were to be developed
there, due to the amount of constructfon required for providing rai'l and/
or hi'ghway access. No further consideration of this site will be given
at this time.

Site C-14: Near Junction of US 70 and NC 24: The development of
this site would eliminate the movement of unit trains through downtown
Morehead City. The available land would allow for sufficient buffer
areas and space for runoff treatment facilities. Also, since this site
is more inland than others, it would minimize the effects on the wetlands
from coal dust or spillage. In addition to an offshore loadi'ng facility,
consideration should be given to the feasiWity of an overhead enclosed
conveyor system to the existing port, thus eliminating the need for the
coal trains in the city. This should relieve the primary complaint
against such a facility in the Morehead City area.

5.4.3 Wilmington

Site C-7: Utah International Site South of Sand Hill Creek: This
site, on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, will eliminate the necessity
for coal trains to enter Wilmington, which has major grade crossing conflicts.

109

Either extensive dredging or a T-head pier must be constructed for access to
the shipping channel from this site. The site development would also have
to minimize the impacts on surroundi*ng wetlands.

Site C-20: American Coal Export Company Site on Northeast Cape Fear
River: This site, on the west si'de of the Northeast Cape Fear River, would
allow for operations without movement of trains through Wilmington. However,
the channel and upper turning basin must be dredged significantly deeper than
its present 22 feet. Bridge clearances, and a narrow channel and the addttional
distance to be traveled could add to congestion and potential conflicts in
river traffic. Dredging and dock/wharf construction will have the major
adverse effects in the development of the site.
Site C-18: Hampstead/Scotts Hill: This particular site is
selected for use as a terminal for an offshore loading point using
a slurry pipeline as the transfer mechanism. While much research has been
and is being conducted on slurry technology, its use in the coastal zone
may present additional problems not previously considered. A pipeline
must be laid across the Intracoastal Waterway, wetlands, and at least
six miles out into the ocean. A water return pipeline will probably be
required, to bring the slurry water back to the site for treatment prior
to discharge or reuse in the system. A slurry pipeline system requires
large quantities of water, even with reuse and recycling techniques.
The slurry water will carry dissolved organics and other pollutants
after contact with the coal. In addition, the preparatfon of the coal into
a suitable size and condition will require crushers or grinders/pulverizers
possibly causing an increase in the amount of coal dust released from the
onshore operations. Excellent discussions of the environmental impacts
and the technologies required for coal slurry operation are found in
Pelham (1980) and Szabo (1978). Any slurry development in the coastal
area will require a more complete environmental assessment than the time
frame of this study allows.
Site C-17: North End of Existing SPA Terminal: As discussed in
Section 3.4 of Volume 1, this site would cause the fewest adverse
environmental impacts from dredging, construction or land use. The
impacts from the movement of unit coal trains through Wilmington to
the port facilities include noise, traffic disruption, and potential
emergency service interruption, as discussed in Section 5.1. These
impacts must be given serious consideration in relation to the advantages
offered by the use of the existing facilities at the SPA Terminal.

5.5 Recreational Assessment

5.5.1 General
Given the import of recreational activity to the local economies
of the primary counties (See Section 3.5), it is important to assess
the impacts from the development of coal exporting facilities. Although

the specific sites proposed for the terminal facilities do not specifically
affect recreatfonal areas or activi-ty, the transportation infrastructure
necessary to serve the temfnals may in fact affect recreation activity
and the revenues generated.

5.5.2 Recreational Impacts of Rail Traffic

The increase in rail traffic will most directly affect recreational
activity in Carteret County because of the locations of the automobile
traffic patterns in the Morehead City - Bogue Banks area and the location
of the primary recreational intrastructure in the Bogue Banks area. Evidence
that the current relationship between recreation, auto traffic, and the Bogue
Banks area is unsatisfactory comes from the current proposal to build a
third bridge between Morehead City and Atlantic Beach (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1981). The average daily traffic count for the year 2000
are shown in Figure 16. The important point is that all trafffc crossing
the existing Morehead City - Atlantic Beach bridge must cross the railroad
tracks to go west from Morehead City on U.S. 70. With drawbridge openings
and the signalized intersection at U.S. 70, the typical backup in the
peak summer traffic is often one mile.

The addition of railroad caused delays due to increased coal related
rai.Iroad activity will only increase the time needed to exit from the Bogue
Banks area. Thus, the potential fmpact of coal train movement by increasing
congestion is objectively negative. This objective congestion is easily
translatable into negative perceptions of tourists who will have another
reason to avoid the Morehead City - Atlantic Beach area. Although the
proposed third bridge will generally alleviate the congestion related to
recreational activity on Bogue Banks, the negatfve impacts on tourist
related sales in Morehead City caus,,ed by coal train movements will remain
(See Section 5.2.3).

5.5.3 Recreational Impacts of Ship Traffic
The potential recreational impacts from the increased ship traffic
projected from the coal terminal proposals are related to increased
harbor and channel congestion. The increased congestion would directly
affect recreational boating and fishing. Apart from the possible
environmental consequences of increased harbor congestion (See Section
5-4), there is the possibflity of negative perceptions of the area
among recreational boaters. However, the recreational boating sites
most directly affected are those marinas and launching areas closest to
the terminal sites. Addftional monttoring of the impact of development
on marinas will be important.

5.6 Fiscal Assessment

The areas chosen for a coal exporting terminal stand to benefit from
the construction and operation of the facility. The property tax base

ill

47@C44,7@c
C4 04'4 LEGEND
27,000
15, 100 46,440 TRAFFIC (ADT)
22' 650 1 -.-. =@(
38,950 2000 SLIMMER AorrETNATED)

5,500 To
2 8,2'0 19,000 t; I;
14". 2%500
49P20
CAMP
MOREHEAD
pftErlv? BRIDGES ST MOREHEAD
CREEK ARENDELL S, CITY
INTRACOASrAL WArERWAY

EXISTING
18,000 i
27,000 51,600 LON LEVEL
46,440 'CABLE BRIDGE
AREA
&OGUE SOUND 01,200
0, 20,200
-34.TOO
'lop

0q
@p
9500
@4',
7 %131, ,.,W
PINE KNOLL I d@5 OWO ATLANTIC N
SHORES lepw BEACH
SALTER PAT" ROA
t
,@.250
GOGUE BANKS 550 0 2500 5000
825
11 19 SCALE IN FEET
ArLANrIC OCEAN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
jigjFC7,y DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH

BOGUE BANKS BRIDGE
PROJ. 6.1610 02, (X - 5)

TRAFFIC FLOW VOLUMES

JAN. 1981 PLATE 2

Figure 16. Traffic Patterns for Morehead City (Figure courtesy of NCDOT).
m m so m m m . m m m % m

will increase dramatically with.construction. For example, the Morehead
City government has already collected a $7,000 inspection fee from the
Alla-Ohio Valley project (Carteret County News-Tfmes, 1981c). Due to the
relatively low population growth rate expected to be induced by the
respective projects, there will not be a significant demand for increases
in community services.

Although there will be little direct impact on demand for services
at the local level, the development of the coal exporting facflities will
provide an impetus for significant demands on state expenditures for
infrastructure improvements. Needed infrastructure improvements identified
for the study area include a rail bypasses for New Bern and Morehead City
and grade improvements for Wilmington, and dredging of the channel and
harbor for Carteret County. The cost of the New Bern railroad bypass has
been estimated at $15.2 millions (N.C. Department of Transportation, 1981).
Since feasibility studies have not been done, there are no corresponding
cost figures for the other infrastructure improvements.
Another infrastructure improvement that will receive impetus
from the coal trains through Morehead City is the construction of
a third bridge to Bogue Banks. The costs of that project is estimated
at between $24.9 and 34.9 million.

The impacts of all the above infrastructure investment will extend
beyond the coal exporting activity. The improvement in rail service and
harbor facili'ties will provide a magnet for attracting other industries
to the respective counties.

5.7 Land Use Assessment

The development of the coal exporting facilities and the transportation
systems to serve theTn will take place within the policy context of local
zoni'ng ordfnances and the CAMA Plans that presently exist. With one
exceptfon, all the proposed land si'tes are acceptable in terms of both
applicable zoning ordinances and CAMA Plans. The one exception is the
Gulf Interstate facility on Radio Island (C-21).
The Radio Island site is classified as port-industrial in the
Carteret County zoning ordinance but is classified as rural in the
Carteret County CAMA Plan (Carteret County News-Times, 1981d). As the
result of action taken by the Coastal Resources Commission, a CAMA
reclassification of Radio Island from rural to rural-port will take
place in July, 1982, provided problems with railroad traffic in New Bern
and Morehead City are alleviated and a comprehensive port development
plan is developed for the Morehead City - Beaufort area.

5.8 SuMmary
In the process of making this initial assessment of the possible
impacts from the proposed development of coal exporting facilities in

113

Brunswick, Carteret, and New Hanover Counties several issues have been 4P
identified which constitute a research agenda for future monitoring.
Although possible impacts will be related to the pace of development,
the major point is the potential magnitude of development if all proposed
facilities become operational. Given the fact that coal export facilities
tend to be capital intensive rather than labor intensive, the major
impacts on the host communities will be in terms of the railroad activity
to the port and ship traffic from the port.
These impacts on the transportation infrastructures of the respective
communities are dfrectly related to the historical development of those
transportation systems. Ironically, the existing rail systems are a major
source of contention in groups questioning the development of coal exporting,
i.e., Craven County Crossroads and Carteret County Crossroads (Raleigh News
and Observer, 1981a&b). The pace of development and community reaction to
that development will be directly related to attempts to deal with the
transportation problems of coal exporting. The solution of these transportation
problems will have important implications for the future growth of the
communities' employment sectors.

114

REFERENCES

Camougis, George, 1981. Environmental Biology for Engineers:
A Guide to Environmental Assessment. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York.

Cape Fear Council of Governments, 1978. Region '0' Comprehensive
Development Plan.

Carteret County News-Times, January 12, 1981. Officials Review
Coal Plans for State Port.

Carteret County News-Times, February 16, 1981. Coal Facility
Word Continues.

Carteret County News-Times, February 19, 1981. Gulf Interstate
to Build Coal Exporting Facility.

Carteret County News-Times, June 4, 1981. What to do with Radio
Island.

Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1977. Economic Activity
Associated With Marine Recreational Fishing, Washington, D.C.

Chanlett, Emil T. Environmental Protection. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1979.

Cribbins, P.D., 1981. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: An
Analysis of Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone (Phase II). Coastal Energy
Impact Program Report No. 2 and Institute for Transportation
Research and Education Report No. 23254-3. Raleigh: Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, pp.

Cribbins, P.S., 1981. Coastal Energy ransportation Study: An
Analysis of State and @ederal Policies Affecting Major Energy
Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. Coastal Energy
Impact Program Report No. 4 and Institute for Transportation
Research and Education Report No. 23254-5. Raleigh: Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, pp.

Gilmore, John S. Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development
Science. Vol. 191, February 13, 1@_76.

Hauser, E.W., Cribbins, P.D., Tschetter, P.D. and Latta, R.D.,
1980. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: An Analysis of
Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects in North
Carolina's Coastal Zone. [Phase I). Coastal Energy Impact
Program Report No. 1 and Institute for Transportatfon Research
and Education No. 23254-1. Raleigh: Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, 180+ pp.

ITRE, 1980. See Hauser, E.W. et. al., 1980. (Phase I Report).

115

ITRE, 1981a. See Cribbins, P.D., 1981. (Phase II Vol. 1 Report). 4p
ITRE, 1981c. See Cribbins, P.S., 1981. (Phase II Vol. 3 Report).

Kresge, David T., Thomas A. Morehouse, and George W. Rogers. Issues In
Alaska Development. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977.

Maiolo, John R. and P.D.Tschetter, 1981. Relating Population Growth
to Shellfish Bed Closures: A Cast@. Study from North Carolina.
Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1., pp. 1-18.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1980. Coastal Effects of
Coal Transhipments in Michigan: An Evaluation StrateqV. Great
Lakes Basin Commission for the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.

New England River Basin Commission, Volume:l, 'Department of the Interior,
Onsh.ore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development, 1976.

N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North
Carolina Recreational Areas Inventory, Raleigh, 1976.

N.C. Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division,
Coal Train Movements Through the City of New Bern, 1981.

North Carolina Marine Science Council. North Carolina and the Sea.
Office of Marine Affairs, N.C. Dept. of Ad inistration, June 1980.

Office of Technology Assessment. Coal Exports and Port Development.,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1981.

Pelham, L. The Environmental Impact of Coal Transfer and Terminal
Operations, (EPA 600/7-80-169), October 1980.

Roy F. Weston, Inc., for National Science Foundation, Bureau of
Land Management,Methodology for Assessing Onshore Impacts of
Offshore. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development, 1978.

Scott, John T. and Gene F. Summers, "Problems in Rural America
after Industry Arrives," in Rural Industrialization: Problems and
Potentials. Larry Whiting, Editor, Ames Iowa, Iowa State University
Press, 1974.

Stone, John P. The Impacts of Coal Movements Through North Carolina.
Paper presented at N.C. Urban Affairs Conference, April 2, 1981',
Charlotte, N.C.

Szabo, M.F. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation. (EPA
-600/7-78-081), May 1978.

The Conservation Foundation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil,
1978.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 43, U.S..
Department of Interior, 1977.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 56, U.S.
Department of Interior, 1981.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local
Area Personal Ihco-me, South EaSt Region. Washington, D.C., 1978.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local
Area Personal Income, South East Region, Washington, D.C., 1981.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population,
Washington, D.C., 1970.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rapid Growth From
Energy Projects, Ideas for State and Local Action, 1976.
Wilmington - New Hanover County Planning Commission, 1976.
Summayy of th.e Wilmington - New Hanover Countyy Land
Use Plan.
IP

117

APPENDIX A 4p
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

North Carolfna Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission. Rules and Regulatfons for Erosfon and Sediment
Control. Promulgated Pursuant to Provisions contained in Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973. (GS Chapter 113A, Article 4).

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

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

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

North Carolfna Department of Transportation, Envfronmental Unit, Final
EnvfrohmentAl Statement: Marine Maintenance Facility, Manns Harbor,
Daft 'Cduhty. July, -1978.

"Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures."
Federal Regfster. Vol. 44, No. 191. Monday, October 1, 1979.
Proposed Pritnary Hlqftway Extensfon from r-40 Termfnus (at r-95) near Benson
to Wilmington, Joh-nston, Sampson, Duplfn, Pender, and New Hanover Counties.
'Administrative Actfon Ffnal Environmental Impact Statement. United States
Department of Transportatton, Federal ffigFiway Administration and North
Caroli'na Department of Transportation. July 12, 1979.

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Envtr6nment6l P61fty-Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive
Nfice of the President. November 29, 1978.

Replacement Bridge and Approach Roadways, NC 32 over Albemarle Sound,
Washi'ngton and Chowan Counties. Administrati've Actfon, Draft, Negative
Declaratfon. USDOT, FIHWA, NCDOT. February 4, 1980.

Unfted States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administratfon, Offfce 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 @-roqram for the State of North Carolina.

118

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. Appendices.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Camougis, George. Environmental Biology for Engineers: A Guide to
Environmental Assessment. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1981.

Chanlett, Emil T. Environmental Protection. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1979.

Conservation Foundation. Coastal Ecosystem Management. John R. Clark,
Ed. John Wiley & Sons ,Inc. New York. 1977.

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

Neal, Leon. Impact of Continental Shelf Development. North Carolina
Science and Technology Research. March 18, 1976.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs,
North Carolina and the Sea. 1980.

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

Robert R. Nathan Associates. The Coastal Plains Deepwater Terminal Study.
Prepared for the Coastal Plains Regional Commission. 1975.

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

Shuldiner, P.W.; Cope, D.F.; and Newton, R.B. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 218 B: Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on
WetianTs-,User's Manual. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
December, 1979.

Stone, John R. "The Impacts of Coal Movements Through North Carolina." Paper
presented at NC Urban Affairs Conference, Charlotte, NC. April 2, 1981.

United States Arrv Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Scoping
Report: Brunswick Energy Company, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Wilmington. September, 1979.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory. 1980.

United States Arny Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Scoping Report:
Carolina Refining and Distributinq Company, Carteret County, North
Carolina. Wilmington. September, 1979.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Assessment
of Coal Transportation. 1978.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact of Coal
Transfer and Terminal Operations. 1980.

WATER RESOURCES

Bond, Sharon; Grover; and Howells, David H. The Chowan River Project: Summary
Report. Raleigh, North Carolina: Water Resources Research Institute
of the University of North Carolina.

Howells, David H. Water Resource Problems and Research Needs of North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina: Water Resources Research Institute of the
University of North Carolina. July 1, 1976.

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

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

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

Pardue, Garland B.; Huish, Melvin T.; and Perry, H. Randolph, Jr.
Ecological Studies of Two Swamp Watersheds in Northeastern North
Carolina: A Prechannelization Study. Report #105. Raleigh, North
Carolina: Water Resources Research Institute of the University
of North Ca-rolina. April, 1975.

Workshop on Stream Channelization and Wetland Drainage: Proceedings.
Sponsored by North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resourcest
and Water Resources Research Institute. Held at Quail Roost Conference
Center, Rougemont, North Carolina, November 18, 1970. Raleigh, North
Carolina. Report #45.

1'2.Cl

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. July 1931.
$10.

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 Gpide 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
41. 1' ,
for the Wilmington, NI.C. Area. CEIP Report #6. September 1981. $10.

7. Richardson, C. J. (editor). Pocosin Wetlands: ail-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.

12. Cribbins, Paul D., and Latta, R. Daniel. Coastal Energy Transportation
Study: Alternative Technologies for Transporting and Handling Export
Coal. CEIP Report #12. January 1982. $10 for all requests.

19. Pate, Preston P., and Jones, Robert. Effects of Upland Drainage on
Estuarine Nursery Areas of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, N. C.
CEIP Report #19. December, 1981. $1.00.

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U S A

F-Ifil 19 '1
3 6668 141013 1 1