Analysis of transportation needs to support major energy projects in North Carolina's coastal zone

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

Coastal, Energy Transportation Study:
An Analysis of
Transportation Needs to Support Major
Energy Projects in
North Carolina's Coastal Zone

E. W. Hauser
UNC Institute for Transportation
Research and Education

Paul D. Cribbins
North Carolina State University

Paul D. Tschetter
East Carolina University

R. Dan Latta
UNC Institute for Transportation
Research and Education

DECEMBER 1980

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

TJ
163.25
.N8 CEIP REPORT NO. 1
A49
1980

To order:

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

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

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

___S`e@L-s, E-dited by James F. Smith
Cover-D@@_sign by Jill Miller

>
73

COASTAL ENERGY TRANSPORTATION STUDY
PHASE 1: AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
TO SUPPORT MAJOR ENERGY PROJECTS IN NORTH CAROLINA'S
COASTAL ZONE

E. W. Hauser
UNC Institute for Transportition
Research and Education

Paul D. Cribbins
N.C. State University

Paul D. Tsche.tter
East Carolina University

R. Dan Latta
Institute for Transportation
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-79-AA-D-CZ097.

Project No. 79-06

Contract No. C-1175

December 1980

University of North Carolina
P.O. Box 12551
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

PREFACE

This report embraces the initial phase of a two-phase study funded
by the Coastal Energy Impact Program and conducted during the 1980
calendar year by The UNC Institute for Transportation Research and
Education. The output of this Phase I effort focuses on the
identification and documentation of transportation needs necessary
to support a group of energy projects proposed for the coastal area of
North Carolina.

Following a series of interviews with key officials in coastal
counties that Would be impacted by new energy-related projects,
major facilities were identified, energy use scenarios were developed,
and transportation needs were assessed. Concurrent with this Phase I
study, an impact assessment methodology was developed for Phase II.
The second phase will define and evaluate the various-social, economic,
fiscal, recreational, and environmental impacts that could result from
the transportation requirements of the proposed energy projects.

Although not included in this report, an understanding of the
objectives of Phase II and the linkages between the two phases is of
paramount importance. Phase II, which is being undertaken from
September 1980 until August 1982, is divided into two distinct parts:

Phase II-A is an assessment of:
(1) impacts of 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) impacts of coal exports from North Carolina with emphasis on
the transportation requirements of alternative locations and capacities
of coal terminals,
Phase II-B 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. Other energy-related projects
may be added at a later date.

Scheduling of tasks in Phase'II will-permit the study team to
complete'key activities in advance,of certain critical dates. For
example, many of the tasks related to OCS activity in Phase II-A will
be completed by May 1981 so that state, regional, and local decision-
makers involved in the OCS program will have output prior to August 1981,
the scheduled OCS Lease Sale #56 by the Bureau of Land Management.

It should also be noted that several energy-related projects
which were not publicly announced.before completion of this draft report
have subsequently been reported by the news media. Specifically, a
contract with Alla-Ohio Coal Company to ship three million tons of export
coal through the State Ports Authority.(SPA) facilities in Morehead City
was announced in October 1980, and a contract to construct a $10.million
phosphate storage and transshipment facility for North Carolina Phosphate
Company, also through the same SPA port facilitiesAn Morehead City, was
signed in November 1980.

Also announced in early December were plans by Western Fuels
Association of Washington, D.C. to study the use of peat as a boiler fuel
for a proposed N.C. Electrical Membership Corporation electric generating
station. If the studies indicate that a peat-fired generator is feasible,
Western Fuels reportedly will obtain options on.enough peat deposits to supply
a generating station up to 600 megawatts.

In addition, two other coal export terminal sites'a.re currently
being considered along the Cape Fear River--one near Town Creek (site 8) and
one at the north end of the SPA facilities in Wi.lmington. These alternate
sites are not included in the discussion in Section 2.6, but will be
considered durinq Phase I.I. Data on these and'qtker DroJects not general1v
available by October 1930 will be monitored and analyzed.for their
potential impacts during Phase II.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

SPONSOR
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM(CEIP)
North Carolina Department of Natural, Resources and Community
Development

James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management

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, Sociology.
East Carolina University

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

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

R. Daniel Latta, Project Associate
Graduate Student, Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University

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

Michael Stanley, Project Associate
Graduate Student, City and Regional Planning
University,of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steve Benton, Head, Technical Services
Office of Coastal Manaqement
NC Department of Natural Resources & Community Development

Grant Godwin, Deputy Executive Director, Plans
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

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

Angie Skelton, Coordinator
OCS Task.Force, Office of Marine Affairs
NC Department of Administration

James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management
NC Department of Natural Resources & Community Development
(Ex-offico member)

Yates Sorrell, Co-Chairman, Professor of Mechanical E.ngineering
North Carolina State University

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

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

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

William H. Weatherspoon, Executive Director
North Carolina Petroleum Council

CONTENTS

Preface ii

AcknowTedgments IV

Part A. Major Facilities Identification
1.0 Project Overview 1
1.1 introduction 1
1.2 Scope and Objectives 3
1.3 Definition of Study Area 4
1.4 Procedure of Identifying Energy Projects 5
1.5 Identification of Energy Projects 8

2.0 Description of Energy Projects
2.1 BECO Refinery--Brunswick County 12
2.2 CRDC Rdfinery--Morehead City 15
2* 3 LPG Terminal--Radio Island 1.7
2.4 Aluminum Smelter--Columbus County 18
2.5 Peat Project--First Colony Fa-m-s., Washington.County 20
.2.6 Coal Export Temi-nals .26
2..6.1 Demand for U.S. Coal 26
2.6.2 Impact *on South Atl'anti,c Ports 29
2.;6.3 Potential North Carol-ina Coal Terminals 29
2.7 OCS Support Bases 35
2.8 Virginia Superport and'Refinery Complex 40
2.9 Blomass Projects 41
2.10 Minor Projects 42

3.0 Transportation Facilities 44
3.1 Existing Transportation System 44
3.1.1 Hi�hways
3.1-2 Railroads 47
3.1.3 Water Transportation 47
3-' 1.4 Pipelines 52
3.1.5 Air Transportation 54
3.2 Transport Need Projections 54
3.2.1 Rail System 59
3 '.2.2 Highway System 61
3.2.3 Water Transportation System 61
3.2.4 Pipeline System . 64
3.2".5 Air Transportation System 65
31.2.6 Electrical Transmission System 65
3.3 Parametric Analysis, Coal Sites and Support
Base Sites 65
3,3.1 Export-Coal Terminal Sites 66
[email protected] OCS Support Base Sites 68
3.4 Preliminary Impact Summary@ 69
3.4J Key Facilities Identified for Further
Study 70
3.4.2 Transportation Impacts 70
3.4.2 Coal Terminal and OCS S:upport Base Sites 72

Part B. Study Design for'Phase II
4.0 Impact Assessment 73
4.1 Criteria--for Selecting Methodologies 73
4.1.1 General 73
4.1.2 Definition of Impacts 74
4.1.3 Limitations of Impact Assessment 75
4.1.4 Ultimate Users 76
4.1.5 Time Frame for Assessment 77
4.1.6 Generating Development Scenarios 78
4.1.7 Areal Units for Impact Analysis 79
4.2 Overview of Assessment Methodologies 79
4.2.1 The WESTON Methodology 80
4.2.2 The New England River Basin Commission
Methodology 80
4.2.3 The Conservation Foundation Methodology 81
4.2.4 The Maryland Methodology 81
4.3 Identification of Policy Framework 81
4.4 Impact Assessment in Phase 11 83

5.0 Economic Impacts
5.1 Definition 88
5.1.1. Primary Economic Impacts 88
5.1.2 Secondary Economic Impacts 89
5.2 Base line Economic Forecasts 90
5.3 Estimating Economic Impact Values 91
5.4 Data Sources and Analysis Procedures 92

6.0 Social-Demographic Impacts 95
6.1 Purpose and Theoretical Basis 95
6.2 Definition of Social-Demographic Impacts, 96
6.3 Categories of Analysis Variables 97
6.4 Data Sources and Methodologies 98

7.0 Environmental Impacts 101
7.1 Definitions of Environmental Impacts 101
7.2 Selection of Analysis Procedures 102
7.3 Data Sources and Methodologies 103

8.0 Recreational Impacts 107
8.1 Definition of Recreational Impacts 108
8.2 Selection of Analysis Procedures 108
8.3 Data Sources and Methodologies 108

9.0 Fiscal Impacts 113
9.1 Definition of Fiscal Impacts 113
9.1.1 Inputs for Fiscal Impact Assessment .113
9.1.2 Problems and Constraints 114
9.2 Selection of Analytical Procedures 114
9.2.1 General 114
9.2.2 Methodology Organization 115
9.2.3 Projection Methods 115
9.3 Data Sources and Procedures 115

10.0 Phase II Study Design Summary 118
10.1 Methodology Findings 118
10.2 Implications for Phase II Research Design 120
10.3 Recommendations 122
10.3.1 Time Frame for Monitoring and Evaluation 122
10.3.2 Expansion of Geographical Coverage 123
10.3.3 Modal Analysis of Coal Transportation 123
10.3.4 Application to Non-Energy Projects 124
10.3.5 Application to Other Regions 124
10.4 Summary 124

Appendices
Appendix.A.1 List of Contacts A-1
Appendix A.2 Study Advisory Committee A-12
Appendix B.1 Work Plan for Phase II B-l
Appendix B.2 Bibliography B-13

FIGURES

No. Page
1-1 The Coastal Study Area 6
1-2 Coastal Areas of North Carolina 7
1-3 Location Map of Major Energy Projects 11
2-1 Brunswick Energy Company Proposed Refinery
Proximity Map 14
2-2 CRDC Refinery and LPG Terminal 16
2-3 Aluminum Processing Plant 19
2-4 Pamlimarle Peat Deposits 24
2-5 Prospective Coal Terminal and OCS Support
Base Sites--Morehead City 30
2-6 Prospective Coal Terminal and Support Base
Sites--Cape Fear River 33
2-7 Proximity of Support Base Sites with Lease
Area No. 56 37
2-8 Prospective OCS Support Base Site--Wanchese 38
3-1 Highway System in the Coastal Study Area 44
3-2 New Corridor, 1-95 to Port of Wilmington 45
3@3 North Carolina-Arterial System 47
3-4 Railroad System and Traffic Densities 48
3-5 Existing Navigation Projects 50
3-6 North Carolina Pipeline System 52
3-7 Daily Intrastate Seat Capacity and Interstate
,Air Routes 54
3-8 Alternative Strategies for Transporti.ng Export
Coal Through Morehead City 57
4-1 General Flow Chart for Impact Analysis of
OCS Oil and Gas Activity 85
4-2 General Flow Chart for Impact Analysis of
Non-OCS Energy Projects 86
7-1 Analytical Flow Chart for Impact Analysis 104
7-2 Areas of Environmental Concern 105
8-1 Natural and Recreational Areas 109
8-2 Beachfront Recreational Faciliti es 110
B-1 Grant Milestone Plan B-9

TABLES

Energy Projects and Activities i'n the
Coastal Study Area 10
2-1 Prospective Coal Terminal and OCS Support
Base Sites 34
3-1 Transportation Infrastructure Requirements
in Coastal Study Area 56
3-2 Highway Impacts 61
3-3 Analysis of Coal Sites 65
3-4 Analysis of OCS Support Base Sites 66
5-1 Input Variables, etc.. for Economic Analysis 93
6-1 Input Variables, etc. for Soci-al-Demographic
Analysis 99
7-1 Input Variables, etc. for Environmental
Analysis 106
8-1 Input Variables, etc. for Recreational
Analysis 112
9-1 Input Variables, etc. for Fi-scal Analysis 117

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The Coastal Energy Transportation Study is focused on major "key
facilities" that are planned or currently under development in the coastal
area of North Carolina. Key facilities include (1) improvements or new
construction of all types of transportation facilities (including pipelines,
terminals and ports, highways, railroads, airports, and water transport)
and (2) improvements or new construction of major facilities for the de-
velopment, generation, use, and/or transmission of energy.

This project also focuses on an assessment of a full range of resources
in the coastal area of the State that may in the future be affected by the
development and operation of these key facilities. Resources that are
considered include human resources as well as economic, recreational and

environmental resources.

The results of the first phase of this study, which are presented in.
this report, show a complete inventory of major transportation and energy
projects that are currently envisioned for future development in the coastal
area (Part A). Depending on several factors, this listing may change at
any time.

A study design for the second phase of this project is also related
in this report (Part B). The study design for the impact assessment is
sufficiently flexible at this point that it can include an analysis of
a reasonable number of additional (or different) transportation and energy
projects. At this point in time, it is envisioned that the Phase II analysis
will initially emphasize two energy-related projects: (1) coal export
tenninals.and'(2) support bases and'other facilities related to OCS
exploration and development.

Projects that are major users of energy have been added for this
study. Other key facilities are synonymous with those identified in the
Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-103).

During the course of this Phase I effort, the "level of resource
recovery", development, or productiod was selected based on interviews
with industry re-presentatives and government officials. These estimates
have been used throughout this report as an "expected", level of
production, wh,ich may or may not.become anactual fact.

During Phase II, several "levels of.production" for these energy
projects will be analyzed separately for 'their impacts on the
transportation system and subsequent economic, environmental, and other
types of impacts. In most cases, this will result in high and low
estimates of production levels, with the expected level somewhere in
between.

For example, this report describes coal exports in the six to
ten-million-tons-per year range. The recently.announced contract between
the State Ports Authority and the Alla-Ohio-Coal Company wa-s for three
million tons per year. This would obvious'ly,be the "low level of
production" for this energy project. The "bigh level of production"
for coal would be derived from a complex set-of capacity computations
,involving possible coal terminal sites available, acreage, rail capac-Iy,
and collier (coal ship) accessability. This upper limit has recently been
estimated by the State Ports Authority ata-pproximately 80 million tons
annually.

Similarly, this Phase I report covers needs projected for the
transportation system that are based on the expected level of production
for the energy projects, and the most obvious or currently planned mode
of transport. A further discussion of how the Phase II study will deal
with alternate modes of transportation is inc'luded in Section 3.2 on
Transport Needs Projections.

lThe term "level of production" will be used in a generic sense to
:denote several different meanings.
Literature on OCS-rel-ated projects generally refers to the "recovery"
:of specified, estimated quantities of oil or gas. This concept of resource
recovery would also apply to wood and peat. In the case of other energy-
related projects, this quantity measurement will apply to the processing,
-production, storage, or transport of an energy feed stock or product.

1.2 Scope and Objectives

One of the most important questions regarding OCS development, as
well as with other energy-related projects in the coastal zone, is the
formulation of a transportation. development strategy by state and local
planners and policy-makers.I In order for planners in this state to have
available sufficient information on which to make rational decisions concerning
the role of transportation and other key facilities, and to have an under-
standing of their interaction with each other, this project was designed for
the overall purpose of assessing the potential impacts of future transportation
and terminal area infrastructure investments on the North Carolina coastal

zone.

As indicated in Section 1.1, this project is divided into two
distinct phases. The objectives of Phase I of the study are:
1) To identify and document key facilities, projects and activities
in the coastal zone (either planned or under development) that
are related to the generation, use, or transmission of any form
of energy;
2) To identify and document key facilities that are a part of the
transportation infrastructure and may be used for transporting
personnel or for the movement of energy feed stocks and products
to and from the energy facilities identified under Objective 1;
3) To identify and document a complete set of potential impacts
(economic, social, demographic, fiscal, recreational, and
environmental) resulting from the use of alternate transportation
modes for transporting OCS oil and gas;
4) To identify and document potential recreational and environmental
impacts resulting from the use of alternate transportation modes
for transporting all other energy commodities, including coal,
refinery products, peat, and other onshore energy feed stocks
and products.

These four objectives have been addressed in this Phase I effort and
are the subject of this report.

1"Onshore Impacts of Offshore Oil: A User'$ Guide to Assessment Methods",
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC, May 1979.

The work completed during Phase I to accomplish the third and fourth
,objectives outlined above has resulted in a study design for the Phase 11
:effort to.be,.undertaken during'1981 and 1982. The objectives of Phase II are:
1) To develop a complete data set of impact indi.cators identified
and-documented in Phase I, using 1.980 census data and other
secondary data sources;
2) To document for the state., coastal.region., localities and indus-
tries involved in OCS activities, the advantages and disadvantages
of locating an OCS support base at one or more sites in North
Carolina;
1
3) To monitor near-term changes observed in transportation in-
frastructure investments in thec.'Qastal zone for the purpose of
forestalling mitigation procedures;
4) To monitor near-term changes in social, economic, recreational
and environmental impacts of alternate transportation modes for
shipping energy feed stocks and@products;
5) To project long-term transportation -infrastructure investments
(ports, highways, rail, truck, pipeline, and waterborne commerce-)
needed to support energy-related projects and to analyze potenti6l
social, economic, recreational and -environmental impacts of these
transportation investments.
1.3 Definition of Study Area

The study area examined in.this project Includes the twenty counties
in the Coastal Zone Management Area, as defined by the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 197.2 (PL 92-583), and the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act of 1974 (CAMA). These 20 counties are: Beaufort, Bertie,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford,
Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell.,
and W ashington. These counties were-specified in Executive Order No. 5:,
issued April 29, 1974, in response to-the requirements of CAMA. Programs
and projects in these 20 counties come under the jurisdiction of the
Coastal Resources Commission and the Coastal Management Office of the
State Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD),
two entities set up by the CAMA legislation.

lNear-term changes are those observed from the time baseline data are
collected during Phase I until the end of Phase II, a period of almost three
years. Long-term changes would extend beyond the 3-year project period for
10-20 years.

In addition to the twenty counties in the Coastal Zone Management
Area, the study team chose to include an additional seven counties: Bladen,
Columbus, Duplin, Jones, Lenoir, Martin and Pitt. The reasons for inclusion
of these additional,contiguous counties are: (1) several energy-related
projects identified during the study are in these counties; (2) several
major rail and highway corridors which serve the coastal zone pass through
these counties; (3) several airports located in these counties serve the
coastal zone; and (4) the impacts in these seven counties may be as
important to the overall growth of Eastern North Carolina as the impacts of
projects in the Coastal Zone Management Area itself.

Figure 1-1 shows the twenty-county Coastal Zone Management Area and
the seven-county extension "second tier" that together make up the study area-
includedin this project. All 27 counties are part of the Coastal Plains Region
of North Carolina. The Coastal Plains Region is that area in Eastern North
Carolina that is eligible for projects and assistance from the Coastal Plains
Regional Commission. The counties included in the Coastal Plains region
which constitute the western boundary of the region are Halifax, Harnett,
Hoke, Johnson, Nash, Northampton, and Scotland (Figure 1-2).

In this project report, the 27 counties identified above and in
Figure 1-1 will be referred to as either the "study area", or the "coastal
study area". These terms will be used interchangeably. The term "coastal
plain", on the other hand, will refer to the entire 41-county area under
the auspices of the Coastal Plains Regional Commission.

1.4 Procedure for Identifying Energy Projects

A series of interviews w as held with local and state government
officials, and with representatives of industries associated with either
energy or transportation projects in the study area. These interviews
and meetings were the major sources of information regarding the projects
which are discussed in Chapter 2.

The majority of the interviews were held with only one or two persons
of the agency or firm. These were usually informal meetings in which members
of the study team described the study and the type,of information being

VA.

Gates

Hertford o
9e"..
C,
40
ffertie

V /Tyrrell Da e

**- Pitt ,Beaufort Hyde.

11-enoir
-<,Craven
Nparrklico

nes

Duplin
I L
V IOnslow, L-., Casteve

L
Piwnder

Columbus
New Hanover
@Biunswick ,
Ir

FIGURE 1-1

THE COASTAL STUDY AREA

ASHE BURRY sTox CASWELL VANCE WARREN
ES ROCKING PERSON

"It
WATAUGA . . ..
WILKES YADKIN FORSYTH GUILFORD
AVERY CALDW L JORANGE Durhe FRANKLIN
L
Ltuvir --0 Chitpol HP
DAVIE Hio f
YANCEY ir I EDELL Le h Point
I lie
MADISON IS T
mwga 4L Hick AVIDSo,j Ashboro -910-w,
fthevft McDOWELL CHA HAM h
ROW
BURKE
HAYWOO Ks ... potill RANDOLPH EE
SWAIN
BuNcomol
NLY AMC
GRAH ON THERFORD
Shelb, A,: XONTGOMEI
AZ
JACKSON ftn cABAFIRU6 XONTGOMEI
T G=I. .......... ... . ..
ON
.. .. ... . ......
ME LEI
MIK
ANSON jill",

UNION

HANOVER

FIGURE 1-2

COASTAL AREAS OF NORTH CAROLINA

Coastal Plains Region (remainder)

Coastal Zone Management Area

Additional Counties included in the Study Area

sought, then discussed any information that was offered by the agency or
Industry. These meetings were most helpful in determining levels of energy
prod,uction, transportation requirements and economic impacts expected for
the projects under investigation.

Two meetings were held in which a mor6formal presentation was made
before larger audiences, groups composed of individuals from many varied
organizations, The first of these meetings was held in Raleigh on May 22,
with,24 people in attendance. The second,m'eeting was on May 28 in Wilming-
ton, with five.local leaders and planners in, attendance. These meetings
proved very effective.in conveying the concerns of those present in the
areas of transportation, energy, envi.ronmental. protection, and growth
and development. The.Ral.eigh meeting was for'representatives of many
state agencies concerned with the topics of energy., transportation and
coastal management. The Wilmington meeting, [email protected] in allowing local
planners and decision-makers-to express@their,concerns., especially with
.regard to several projects with which they are currently concerned.

Appendix A..l is the listing of the peop.l,e who' were interviewed or
attended one of-the meetings discussed@above., Insubsequent meeti hgs w.th
state and loca,l government and industrial representatives, an Advisory
Committee was formed to review output of,the,,,Is,.t,.udy at. key project mil,eposts.
A list of the Advisory Committee members is shown in Appendix A-2. This
Committee reviewed.and provided comments to,the Study Team.during October 1980.

1.5 Identifi.cation of Energy_Projects

The overall purpose of this project is to analyze the various trans-
portation modes a-ssociated with energy development in the coastal zone of
North Carolina, and the impact of transportati-on development and operation
on the social, economic, recreational and environmental infrastructures of
the area. Therefore, energy projects or activities must first be identified
to'develop the scenarios necessary to examine levels of tranSDortation
activity.

Many energy projects are in various stages of development: applications
for necessary permits have already been submitted for some projects; feasi-
bility studies are still needed for others. Many of the projects have had
very little publicity, especially those which have sensitive and/or propri-
etary negotiations still in,progress. Private developers of projects have,
understandably, taken a position of releasing only limited information to
prevent any public opposition of the developments based on false. or prelim-
inary information which may be misinterpreted by groups not familiar with
the requirements of the activity. Other projects have been w idely publicized
and subjected to public attention through the news media. Because of the
difference,in levels.of development and the limited scope of this report,
it becomes necessary to limit the depth of investigation into these many
activities.

The classification of a project as ei-ther "major" or "minor" (Chapter
2), is based on several factors, with no specific levels set as limits on
these factors. Estimated levels of transportation impacts, energy production
(or consumption, as the case may be), employment levels, and even the avail-
ability of information concerning a project were the major criteria used for
the classification. While appearing somewhat arbitrary, it is believed
that the "major" projects identified in Table 1-1, as a group, will.have
significantly greater impacts on the study area than the "minor" projects.
However, it should not be inferred that these impacts are all adverse. Some
levels of development in certain areas within the study area may lead to in-
creased levels of services, such as natural gas pipelines and rail facilities,
severely lacking in parts of the study area, which could lead to the
controlled development required to improve the standard of living in the
region.

A brief description of each major project is presented in Chapter 2,
followed by a summary of all the minor projects which were encountered in a
review of available literature or in the local interview process. In Phase
II of this study, the impacts of transportation facilities that support the
major energy projects identified in Table 2-1 will be addressed. From
time to time, however, it is fully anticipated that the list of major projects
will change due to changing economic conditions or other factors.

TABLE

ENERGY PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES I-N THE COASTAL STUDY AREA

A. Major Projects (See Figure 1-3)
1. Coal Exportation through North Carolina Ports
2. BECO'Refinery - Brunswick County
3. CRDC Refinery - Morehead City
4. LPG Terminal - Radio Island at Morehead City
5. OCS Support Bases - 14 sites at four locations
6. Aluminum Processing Plant - Columbus County
7. Peat-Fired 'Electric Power Generation & Process Heat

8. *Wood-Fired Electric Power Generation & Process Heat
9. Virginia Supertanker Port Complex

B. Minor Projects (not located on Figure 1-3)
1. Municipal Wastes of Wilmington[New Hanover County to Horry 'County,
S.C. for Electric Power Generation
2. Municipal Solid Waste Gasification (various locations)
3. Low-Head Hydro, Power from Canal Locks on Upper Cape Fear near
Fayetteville
4. Wood Chip Exportation from N.C. Ports to Europe/Scandinav,ia
5. Plastics Plant in Grimesland/Pactolus Area, Pitt County
6. National Spinning Company Waste-Fired Steam Plant, Beaufort County
7. Gasohol Production Projects
8. Swine/Chicken Manure Methanization Projects
9. Wind, Solar and Geothermal Projects
10. Expansion of Existing Energy Production or Distribution Facilities

VA.
C,
Gates 0,
C,
4,0
'Hertford 0, 74
9,

C1. 0

B@rtie
0

I 4fe --N
rl Ty,,-ell Dare5
.0e
'A. 7
le

Pitt Beaufort Hyde
8

Lenoir
Craven

)Pamlico

< Jones
I
Duplin L
:,- -tek 3
Onslow Catte 4

1,5

Bladen Pender

Columbus
%PL-6 2 5,11 New Hanover
Brunswick

6* Numbers refer to major projects
listed in Table 1-1.

FIGURE 1-3

LOCATION MAP OF MAJOR ENERGY PROJECTS

2*.-0 DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY PROJECTS

In an-effort to estimate the future transportation impacts of the
proposed energy projects, each of the nine major projects-identified in
Chapter 1 was reviewed individually.. Based'upon the bestinformation avail-
able on 1 July 1980, energy use scenarios identified as the "most probable"'
operating conditions for each project are developed in the following@-
sections.

2.1 BECO Refinery - Brunswick County

The Brunswick Energy Company (BECO) i's a,joint-venture to build an
oil refinery on,a.1,900-acre site in Brunswi-c:k---County just west of the
confluence of the Brunswick-and Cape Fear Rivers.. High-sulp"hur, heavy
crude oil that cannot be processed by the maj.brity-of existing refineries
will-be imported. The utilization of new techniques such as hydrogen,
cracking, catalytic reforming and flexicoking:is anticipated at the si.te..

The refinery is projected to cost $750,,000,000; The peak construc-
tion work force is estimated to be around.1,000'w-ith permanent employees,
numbering 350. Construction is expected to:,start in 1981 or 1982 and take
three years to complete.

Backgrounds of the participants in the-Brunswick Energy Company
(Crown Central Petroleum - 5211 % ., Stewart'.Peitroleum - 3-2@,%, and.
Federal Paper Board - 15%) reflect the probable operating policies of the
proposed refinery. Crown Central Petroleum.Corporation, a Baltimore-based.
producer, marketer, and refiner of petroleum products, with annual sales of
more than $1 billion, imported 75% of its crude.oi.1 in,1979 mostly from
Nigeria.. 1

1Barrons, June 23, 1980; P. 32.

The heart of Crown's physical properties is its 100,000 barrel-
per-day (BPD) refinery in Houston. Approximately 40Z of its production
is sold through the firm's gas stations along the East Coast; the
remainder is wholesaled. Stewart Petroleum Company is an independent
terminal operator and fuel oil marketer in the Washington, D.C. area, with
a 250-million-gallon terminal located on the Potomac River at Piney Point,
Maryland. Federal Paper Board is a major paper producer and manufacturer
of cartons and other wood products with a plant at Riegelwood, North
Carolina.

Because no new refineries have been built on the East Coast in 25
years, the 150,000 BPD refinery in Brunswick County represents a unique
opportunity to implement new processing technology and more environmentally
acceptable procedures. As planned, crude oil will most likely be imported
from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico, with some transhipped from a Burmah
Oil Company terminal in the Bahamas. On the average, three 50,000 deadweight-
ton (DWT) tankers.per week will enter the Cape Fear River and dock on the
east side of the river at a T-head in the vicinity of the Exxon Terminal
(See Figure 2-1). Crude oil would then be transferred.to the storage area
,by means of a pipeline under the riverbed.

According to a recent interview, 2 the expected refinery output of
141,000 BPD will -include unleaded and leaded gasoline, diesel oil, kerosene,
home and industrial heating oil, propane, butane and jet fuel. This output
will be distributed by highway, water and rail to a market area as far as
500 miles away (Jacksonville, Florida to New York City). The most conser-
vative scenario envisions the following modal distribution of refinery
products:

130 ships or seagoing barges (avg. capacity 100,000bbl.
76% per year)
425 barges (avg. capacity = 40,000-60,000 bbl . Der yr.)on
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW)
18% 140 trucks per day (from Wilmington area)
6Z 20 railroad cars per day
10OZ

.21nterview on 19 June 1980, with Mr. Richard W. Ricks, BECO Manager
of Finance and Administration, Leland, N.C.

BECO

A T LA N T I

VICINITY MAP

E IN 7
0 0
A 00 00 000 00 0
MARKETING YAREA
0 00 000 00

0 00 00000 0 0
REFINERY
RE INERT PROCESS 0 00000
0f 0 0 0 0 0
FFICES 6 UNITS --T .........
ADMIN STRATIVE
AREAS
TANK FARM
0000001

0
ATER
STO AGE
TREATMENT
FACILITY

INCOMING ANO
. . .... ......... .......... ........ ............r--- ----------

FIGURE 2 -1

2.2 CRDC Refinery - Morehead City

As one of four South Atlantic refineries currently being planned by
the Carolina Refining and Distributing Company (CRDC), the proposed refinery
onthe Newport River near Morehead City requires special consideration.
CRDC has indicated that it also plans a 30,000 BPD refinery near the Sampit
River at Georgetown, S.C. and smaller facilities in Savannah, GA and Fort
Pierce, FL.

The relatively small capacity of the refinery reflects a decision
to produce commodities that will be locally consumed. The primary products
to be produced include: No. 2 fuel oil (15,600 bbl/day); 90 Octane unleaded
gasoline (11,250 bbl/day); and kerosene (1,600 bbl/day), with the balance
of production in propane and with petroleum coke and sulphur as marketable
by-products. High-sulphur crude oil will be the primary feedstock, thus
requiring a desulphurization process which will yield approximately 36 tons
of sulphur per day.

The estimated cost of construction of the facilities is on the order
of $100 million, with the estimated market value of the refinery products
exceeding $220 million per year.

The refinery would utilize high sulphur crude oil imported from.Vene-
zuela or Mexico'by tanker. One 40,000 DWT vessel per week would discharge
at an existing T-.head pier located at the North Carolina State Ports Authority
Terminal. Refinery feedstock would then be transferred approximately four
miles by pipeline to the tank farm at the refinery site on the Newport River.
(See Figure 2-2.) Major products to be produced would be unleaded gasoline,-
kerosene, No. 2 fuel oil and propane. Refined products would most likely be
distributed by barge or truck.

While no market data were available, it appears reasonable to assume
that since the refinery,was sized to market refined products in the immediate
area, most of the output will move by truck. Furthermore, because of

orlowo

116.

1101

4 1160 101
, 1 1160 u
N
11.2

Y.I p 0 R

20
232

1222
I Ir7

0
MOREHE
CITY". 3.233
C-V
70

.i.3
w:
t@UFCR
T OP 3.368

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

ISL@o

rQ
POWT @c c@

AT TIC B C
For. 300
aLuoR

* Refinery site

* LPG Terminal site

FIGURE 2-2
CRDC REFINERY AND LPG TERMINAL

anticipated competition from larger refineries planned for Wilmington (BECO)
and Portsmouth, VA (a 175,000 BPD refinery on the Elizabeth River has been
proposed by the Hampton Roads Energy Company), significant outbound movements
by barge or ship are not antic-ipated. Project personnel estimate that 70%
of the refined products will move by truck (110 trucks per day) while the
remaining 30% will move by barge (60 barges per year) on the Intracoastal
Waterway.

2.3 LPG Terminal - Radio Island

One of the nation's most versatile sources of energy, liquified petro-
leum gas .(LPG), is stored and transported as a liquid under moderate pressure.
According to recent esti,mates reported in the "Carolina LPGas News", more
than 1.6 billion gallons of LPG are presently being consumed each year in the
U.S. North Carolina's consumption of 96.7 million gallons is almost entirely
for residential use.

A 21-million-gallon bulk storage terminal for LPG has been proposed
at a location on Radio Island. Gulf Interstate Company has owned the land
(See Figure 2-2 for site location), on a 77-atre tract of Radio Island, since
1973. While no precise estimates of throughput are yet available, it is
anticipated that approximately 30 tankers per year (average DWT = 40,000)
would deliver LPG to the terminal where it would be placed in storage tanks
for subsequent delivery north and west of Morehead City by truck or rail.
LPG must be handled and stored cryogenically at a temperature of approximately
-440F (-4Z-C). The construction cost of the facility has been estimated to
be approximately $25 million.

The State Energy Management Plan for North Carolina, prepared in 1974
by the Research Triangle Institute and the Office of State Planning, estimates
that LPG use in the state will double by 1990. No current estimates are

available.

Nevertheless,,the project has been delayed indefinitely because of the
world market conditions for LPG. In addition, some aspects of this facility
have met with local opposition, especially with regard to fire, explosion and
environmental degradation.

Competition for the LPG market in the Coastal Study Area currently
is provided by a marine terminal at Chesapeake, VA and a pipeline terminal
at Apex, N.C'. Distribution from these sites is primarily by truck and it is
expected that 85% (110 trucks per day) of the LPG distributed from Radio
Island will be by truck and.the remaining 15% (10 rail cars per day) by rail.

2.4 Aluminum Smelter - Columbus County

.Until December 1980, an aluminum smelting plant was planned for an
11,400-acre tract near Tabor City in Columb-us County. The $400 million
smelter was proposed by Coastal Aluminum Group.of North Carolina, Inc.,
Initially scheduled for-ground breaking early in 1981, permits have been held
up and the current status of the project is uncertain. Coastal Aluminum is also
planning a smelter in Marlboro County, South: Carolina.

Although-this project is not an energy producer or an energy feed-
stock operation, aluminum processing is very energy-intensive. For this.
reason, and because of its major impacts on the transportation. systems in
southeastern North Carolina's coastal zone, it 'is included in this report.

Figure 2-3 shows the proposed plant on-a 250-acre site surrounded
by a buffer zone and located between N.C. Highway 904.and Clarendon in the.
area between Tabor City, Chadbourn and Fair B*I'uff. Raw materials in@the
form of alumina and coke would be imported by ship at Wilmington and then
mov ed by rail to Columbus County. Shipments,of alumina would
originate in Austral'ia, Surinam, Jamaica, and possibly Ireland and would be
discharged at the State Ports, Authority facilit-ies i-n Wilmington, where
the alumina would be stored in a 120,000-ton sil'o to await,rail transshipment.

It is anticipated that 400,000 tons of alumina and 100,000 tons-of
petroleum coke would be imported in dry bulk ships averaging 40,000 DWT each
(one ship every four weeks). An average of 16 rail cars per day would.then
be needed to transfer alumina from the storage silos to the smelting plant.
Approximately 200,000 tons annually of finished aluminum products !.@would
returned to the port by rail'or truck for distribution by ship. An ave rage

c), i L:

FIS

1,3

SPUR LINE

PROJECT SITE-\
133-

C-1
ACCESS@-.
ROAD
C -d-

13-1
3PI

L3c

'311

sri iF YS
Po D--

N'. IABOR
CiTY

:10

FIGURE 2-3
ALUMINUM PRO.CESS'ING PLANT

of six rail cars or 16 trucks per day could handle this movement.

During the first phase of the construction period when employment
is expected to peak at 2,000 workers, 240 rail cars and 640 trucks will be
utilized in the construction area. About 18 months later, when construc-
tion of additional buildings begins, an additional 245 trucks and 60 rail
cars will be needed.

Energy requirements for the processing of alumina are substantial.
Discussions with officials of Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) and
Coastal Aluminum Group indicate that 325 megawatts (MW) of electricity per
day will be required and that CP&L has adequate generating capacity to
fulfill these requirements.

2.5 Peat Projects - First Colony Farms, Washi.ngton County

First Colony Farms, Inc. (FCF), a corporate farm development primarily
interested in agricultural activities, owns about 372,000 acres of land in
Washington, Tyrell, Dare and Hyde Counties. This land contains approx-
imately 146,000 acres of fuel grade peat which, when extracted to depths
of 4 to. 6 feet,.is estimated to contain 203 mill'ion moisture-free tons of'
peat. Plans for four 150-MW generation units to be constructed over a
six-to eight-year period have been discussed. In meetings with First
Colony Farm officials, it was determined that the first generating,unit
could be on line within two and one-half years from the start of construc-
tion. Each generation unit will have an average annual peat consumption
of 1.126 million short tons, with the peat at 50 percent moisture and having
a,heat value of 5,000 BTU per pound.

At this time, no date has been set for the beginning of construction
of the first unit. There must be a cooperative effort on the part of First
Colony Farms, as the fuel supplier, and a power company or an electric
membership cooperative (EMC) as the owner/operator of the facility, to ensure
the satisfactory operation of such a facility.

First Colony Farms management indicated that there will be little
impact on the public transportation systems of the area. In order to

minimize haul distance, peat would be moved on a privately-owned internal
network from the peat fields to the power plant, which would be located
..at the approximate centroid of the peat deposits. The plant location also
has severe requirements for adequate cooling water supplies, bearing
capacity of the soils and environmental considerations.

Other possible uses of peat as an energy source include the produc-
tion of methanol and/or synthetic natural gas, and the production of process
heat, either as dry heat, steam, or water heating. The use of peat for
producing methanol and synthetic natural gas is being investigated because
the chemical composition of peat is such that it may be better for this
purpose than coal.

As a fuel for process heating, peat could be supplied economically to
industries within a 75-mile radius of the peat deposits. First Colony Farms
is currently negotiating with several industries, including Weyerhauser at
Plymouth, Texasgulf at Aurora, CF Industries on the Chowan River and Union
Camp Paper Company in Franklin, Virginia. Gay and Paisley (1979) have
investigated the possible use'of peat for firing bricks.

These possible uses of peat as an energy source have been suggested:
1) Methanol Production
2) Process Heat Production
3) Peat-Fired Electricity Generation

Methanol production is the activity for which the most data relative
to production and peat consumption are available. Production of 500 tons per
day of methanol would require 4,300 to 5,700 tons per day of peat.. A plant
,of this size could be on-line within 3 years. The next level of production
would be 2,500 tons per day of methanol; a plant of this scale might be
feasible by the year 2000. A full-scale methanol plant would produce 5,000
tons per day. At.this production level, approximately 50,000 tons per day
of peat would be required.

22'

Natural gas is the currently-used feedstock for the production of
methanol. With the impending deregulation of natural gas pricing in 1985,
either coal or peat may become the predominant feedstock for methanol. The
recently passed federal synthetic fuels legislation could prove very
important in the development of peat resources in North Carolina.

.Using the same rationale for locating the methanol plant as the
electric generation plant, it is expected that a transportation network of
either conveyors or railroads will transport the peat to the plant site.,
this site being at the approximate centraid of the peat deposits. This
location also must be compatible for water.,qtuality and supply needs a-nd
must have suitable soil *characteristics to support the plant structure.
It is anticipated that the peat transport tystem will be completely separate
from any existing highway and/or rail system.

The Use of peat-to replace or to supplement currently-used fuels-for
process heat requirements of industries is the activity which most likely
would have the greatest impact on the transportation system. Peat could be
used to replace wood chips 'as a fuel, espet-ially as wood chips become more
valuable for other uses in the wood, pulp and paper industries. Peat can
@also be blended with coal to produce a fuel. This could be cost-effective
for large coal users, such as electric util'ities, especially where the
;difference in cost's of the fuels and transportatton makes it worthwhile to
install the necessary handling and blending equipment.

There has been some discussion of developing a peat-and-oil slurry
for use in oil-fired boilers and at power plants. Because of oil's highe'r
price, replacing oil with a peat/oil mixture would be more economically
attractive than replacing coal with-a peat/coal mixture. The possibility
of a peat and methanol slurry for use as a fuel is most promising in light
of the peat-to-methanol conversion potential.

Although peat-fired electric power generation appears to be eight-to
,ten years in the future, a recent announcement 3 indicated that the-U.S. Senate

3
Raleigh News and Observer August'l, 1980.

had approved $3.1 million for first-stage design and engineering of a solid
peat electric generating plant that may be located in Eastern North Carolina.
Preliminary reports concerning the feasibility of a peat-fired plant have been
prepared for First Colony Farms, Inc. by several consultants. A 600 MW
generating station could be built in four phases, adding one 150 MW unit in
each phase. Each of these units would use approximately 1.13 million tons
of peat/year. The plant would be located at the approximate centroid of the
First Colony Farms' peat deposits, with all the peat moving to the plant site
on a private rail or conveyor system.

Coal has a heat value of about 13,000 BTU/lb. With peat at a 50%
moisture content, heat values range from 5,000 BTU/lb. to as high as 9,000
BTU/lb. About two pounds.of peat are required to replace one pound of coal
for fuel purposes. The increased weight and bulk of the peat result in
higher transportation costs per unit of energy. T hus, 77 pounds of coal would
be required to produce 1 million BTU's, while it would take 154 pounds of peat
to produce an equal amount of energy. Therefore, to be competitive, peat
would have to be available at the site at a price, including transportation
costs, roughly half that of-coal delivered to the site.

Because of the proprietary nature of the negotiations between First
Colony Farms and several industries which may become buyers of peat as a fuel,
it is difficult to estimate the level of production and the market for peat
within the near future, but some FCF officials believe that peat can
compete with coal within a 60-mile radius of their operation in Washington
County.

There are presently no rail facilities in the peat areas which could
accommodate the transport of peat to inland markets. FCF anticipates that
barqe tows could serve asthe Primary tranSDOrt mode from their Pamlimarle
deposits (Figure 2-4). This is a result of the relatively low transportation
costs associated with barging,.the extensive navigable waters between the peat
deposits and the possible consumers, and FCF's land alonq the Alligator River
where the-Y Plan-to construct barqe terminals and loadinq facilities.

0 5 to 26 30

SCALE OF MIL(S - ONE INCH EQUALS AOPROX 0 MILES

Major recoverabi e peat deposits
A-lbe rnfie sound

Bertie

An'lorican
V/

Martin

i onyj

matt

Beaufort

Pa"'lico ver Hyde
CIO

FIGURE 2-4

PANILIMARLE PEAT DEPOSITS

Four scenarios relating to impacts on the transportation infrastruc-
ture need to be investigated. These are associated with low, medium and high
levels of peat output as well as the case where there is no development of
peat resources beyond current levels. The four scenarios are developed here
with associated transportation requirements following in Chapter 3.

Currently, First Colony Farms is producing approximately 2,000 tons
of peat per week, primarily during clearing operations where land is being
prepared for agricultural purposes. This level of production will remain
constant if none of the activities that might provide additional markets
for the peat are undertaken.

A low level of peat production would result from the first phase of
either a methanol production plant, one 150 MW electric generation unit, or
a large industrial client purchasing peat for process heat purposes. The
methanol plant and the electric generating station would not require trans-
portation of peat outside of First Colony's property. A small industrial
buyer could purchase as much as five barge loads per week, assuming 400 tons
of peat per barge.

For a medium level of peat output to be attained, a combination of
the various projects just mentioned could be developed. Some of the possi-
ble combinations would be: (1) two or three 150 MW electric generation
units; (2) a 2,500 -ton -per-day methanol plant; (3) several large industrial
customers purchasing peat for process heat fuel; or (4) one 150 MW electric
unit, a 500-ton-per@day methanol plant, and some industrial consumption.
As in the low-level-production scenario, all peat movement for electric
@generation and methanol production would be internal to First Colony's pro-
perty. Peat for industrial process heat would require between ten and
fifteen barges per week, originating at a barge terminal on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway or the Alligator River.

The high production scenario would depend upon either the full 600 MW
electric plant or the 5,000-ton -per-day methanol production being fully
developed and on-line. Also, there is a possibility that intermediate levels
of each of these two activities could occur simultaneously. Under this

2 6

.scenario, an estimated 20 to 25 barges per week of peat would be shipped to
industrial customers.

In all cases, the major impact of peat activities on the transportation
system of the Coastal Study Area would be increased barge traffic on the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Even in the high production scenario, an
estimated 25 barges per week would reduce to four per day, most likely,moved
in a single tow and causing no severe capacity problems on the-Waterway.
Thus, there should be little effect on the transportation system as a result
of the development of peat resources in Eastern North Carolina.

2.6 Coal Export Terminals.

2.6.1 Demand for U.S. Coal

Because coal is the most abundant energy resource in the United States,
many observers believe that we must utilize our coal reserves to sustain u's
in the period between oil dependence and the development of alternative energy
resources. U.S. mines produced 770 million tons of steam and metallurgical
coal in 1979, but their capacity is estimated to be 100 million tons higher
without further capital investment. 4 As adde-d incentive, the Department of'
Energy's goal is to double coal production between 1978 and 1985. Where the
added production will originate and be consumed is vitally important to the
nation's transportation system and could be of paramount importance to the
Coastal Study Area.

At the Venice Economic Summit in June, 1980, President Carter and the
leaders of seven major democratic industrial powers gave renewed emphasis to
the importance of coal in our energy future by agreeing to double coal pro-
duction and use by 1990. Similar pledges were recently made at the Tokyo
Economic Summit and by the 20 industrial nations in the International Energy
Agency, who agreed to increase their use of coal by converting oil-fired '
plants and constructing new coal-burning facilities. It has been estimated
that a commitment to double coal production could reduce world oil demand by
7.5 to 10 million barrels per day. 5

4Newsweek, June 30, 1980. "Can Coal Be King Again?"
5Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1980.

Coal's abundance an d particularly its concentration in the United
States where reserves are estimated at 397 billion tons, or 24% of world
6
supply, makes it especially attractive as a petroleum substitute. There
is growing evidence that the expanding coal needs of the free world's
industrialized and developing nations will create an unprecedented oppor-
tunity for American coal on the world market.

Statistics provided by the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Commerce,
indicate that the following nations currently lead the world in coal produc-
tion:

1979 Production
Country Millions Short Tons

U.S.S.R. 820

U.s.A. 740
West Germany 240
Poland 216
United Kingdom 135
Czechoslovakia 120

Australia 110

India 100

Free world coal reserves further emphasize the dominant position of
the United States in reducing future shortfalls. Not only does the U.S. have
the largest reserves of good quality coal, it also has a very efficient coal
mining industry and leads the world in coal export tonnage. American coal
exports amounted to 53.5 million tons in 1979 - about 27% of world seaborne
supp lies.7 Projections through the end of the century are for a three-to
five-fold gain in the world's coal trade from its 1977 level of 200 million
tons to between 560 and 980 million tons. 8 Most of that gain, as contrasted

6Business Week, June 30, 1980.
7Bulk Systems, May, 1980.
8
Journal of Commerce, July, 1980.

with past years, is expected to be in steam coal rather than metallurgical
coal. Until 1979, exports consisted almost entirely of metallurgical coal, with
primary destinations being Japan, the European Common Market, Spain and
Brazil. Exported steam coal went almost entirely to Canada.

Obviously, with the free world's largest reserves and production
capacity, the U.S. is in a position to take a leadership role in fulfilling
the agreement reached at the Venice summit. Because the demand for metallurgical
coal worldwide is leveling off and competing supplies from Australia, Canada
and South Africa are emerging, it is expected that most of the future demand
for U.S. exports will be for steam coal. In a recent Department of Energy study,
anticipated U.S. steam coal exports to Japan and Northwest Europe (in million
tons) were estimated as follows:l

Northwest
Year Japan Furope Total,

1977 0.91 1.81 2.72

1985 3.63 11.79 15.42
1990 9.07 18.14 27.21
1995 18.14 27.22 45.36
2000 27.22 45.36 72.58

Estimates of steam coal export and consumption prepared by other agenci'es
look even more optimistic.

Without doubt, the United States is in a very strong position to make
the most of this opportunity. However, many constraints to full-scale conver-
sion to coal, including environmental problems, economic feasibility difficulties
and transport capacity limitations, must be resolved. This last constraint,
particularly as it regards the port facilities for coal export, is extremely
critical. At present, U.S. ports equipped to serve the export coal trade
include in descending order of importance: Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Mobi.le,
New Orleans and Philadelphia. East Coast port facilities appear to be oper-
ating near capacity with dozens of ships anchored in Hampton Roads waiting
to@load at the coal piers in Newport News and Norfolk. Furthermore, the
Hampton Roads facilities are primarily designed for metallurgical coal and do not
operate efficiently for steam coal.

9U.S. Department of Energy, "Coal Exports Study," 1978.

2.6.2 Impact on South Atlantic Ports

Three major markets for exports of Eastern U.S. steam coal are emerging:
Western Europe
Japan and Korea
New England
Itappears that significant demand is developing in these areas, and since
existing East Coast ports are already operating at capacity, industry
and government officials concerned with transporting and exporting Appalachian
coal are turning their attention to ports in the South Atlantic range, e.g.
Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Brunswick and Jacksonville.

There are indications that Brunswick would have to be eliminated as
a viable coal port because of limited channel depth (27 feet MLW),and Charles-
ton because of lack of available land. Additional railhaul distance may
eliminate Jacksonville as an alternative. This study is concerned only
with the two North Carolina ports, although Savannah should be considered
as an alternative site.

The rail system serving the Coastal Study Area is discussed in
Chapter 3, but it is important here to emphasize the dominant position within
the Study Area of two major coal-hauling railroads: the Seaboard Coast Line
serving Wilmington,and the Southern, which provides service to Morehead City.
Both lines rank among the top five coal-hauling railroads in the U.S., with
annual tonnages of 61 million and 43 million tons respectively.10

2.6.3 Potential North Carolina Coal Terminals

Morehead City
Three potential sites for a coal export terminal in the Morehead
Cityarea are identifi-ed in Figure 2-5:
Site Location Acreage
C-12 Radio Island 40
C-13 Marsh Island 60
C-14 West of Morehead near
junction of US 70 & NC 24 150-300

10 1980 Keystone Coal Manual, pp. 251-255. SCL coalis actually hauled
by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad,.another member of the
"Family Lines System."

lis,
NFIO@PORT,, L--
POP 1 733 5,

104
12 1
el-
t7;
IILL P
W
!I, t

lift

Wildw@d 11711
1722 JU @7

MOREHE
CITY ror7sliif`@
70 GJ-

'TER WA Y .......... ili-6 E
N D 12
u

.J3 at "CON
K S
AYLANTIC BEACH SlAtf P
Fol. 306 CK L,

(Numbers refer to Site
Prospective coal export

Prospective Coal export
base site

FIGURE 2-5

ORT
PROSPECTIVE COAL TERMINAL ANIJ OCS SUPP BASE SITES- Morehea

A throughput of six to ten million tons of coal annually has been assumed
for the Morehead terminal utilizing unit trains averaging 100 cars per train.
,.Thus, 100 unit trains of 10,000 tons each would be required annually to move
each million tons. For a six-to-million-ton facility, this would neces-
sitate two or three unit trains per day.

Steam coal can be stockpiled in open storage requiring about 50 acres
per five million tons. The parcel of land required for a terminal would
therefore be at least 100 acres with 200 acres desirable. The existing
channel and turning basin depth of 40 feet MLW in the Morehead harbor could
accommodate vessels of 60,000 DWT or larger on high tide. The terminal
should be above to handle 100-170 bulk carriers (colliers) of this size each
year. Loading rates vary but the Curtis Bay (B&ORR) Coal Terminal in Balti-
morewith a loading capacity of'6,000 net tons per hourIO seems to represent
an average rate. If so, ten hours loading time per collier would be needed
at each berth. Theoretically, one berth'( 1,000 ft. in length) could handle
the vessel demand but because of peak loading requirements necessitated by
random ship arrivals and the possible need for future expansion, two berths
are recommended.

The Radio Island site (C-12) is the same location identified in Figure
2-2 as a potential LPG terminal site. It is owned by the SPA and.contains
only 40 acres but could be supplemented by 60 acres of land under option and
additional nearby storage acreage owned by SPA just north of US 70. Rail
shipments of coal would have to move through the center of Morehead City.
and be transferred into Radio Island over the privately-owned Beaufort and
Morehead (B&M) Railroad.

An aerial survey of the 60-acre Marsh Island site (C-13) just north of
the phosphate storage area at the SPA has revealed that, in addition to
limited size, this site is not on the 40-foot channel and would require
dredging and bridge modifications or the construction of a conveyor system
to existing deepwater loading facilities at SPA. The problem associated with

1OKeystone Coal Manual, 1979.

moving several unit trains through Morehead City daily would also have to be
faced at this site.

Site C-14 is a 200-acre parcel'of land just west of Morehead City and
adjacent to the A&ECRR (Southern) at the junction of US 70 and NC 24. This
site would eliminate the movement of coal trains through Morehead but would
require some form of conveyor belt, slurry pipeline or pneumatic pipeline to
transfer coal to the vessel. loading facility. This latter facility could be
located at the SPA terminal or other pier in the existing port, or it might
be developed as an offshore 1-oading facility (Figure 2-5) that could accom-
modate bulk carriers of 150,000 DWT and greater and be supplied by a submarine
slurry pipeline.

Another alternative would be to utili,ze either the Radio Island o.r
Marsh Island site as a coal terminal but move coal into Morehead City by
barge rather than rail. For example, coal might be transported via the
Southern Railway system from the Appalachian region to either New Bern or
Washington, NC, transferred to barges, then moved to the coal terminal in
Morehead City for export. Such a scenario woul-d alleviate the unit 'L.ain
problem in downtown Morehead City, but woul,d, of course, add to the cost of
transporting each ton of coal.

Wilmington

Potential sites for a coal export terminal along the Cape Fear River
between Wilmington and Southport were identified by project personnel during
an aerial and ground reconnaissance on 18 and 19 July 1980. Prospective
coal terminal sites (along with possible OCS oil-and gas support base sites
to be discussed in a subsequent section) are shown in Figure 2-6'and summa-
rized in Table 2-1 Two coal terminal sites were studied:
Site Location Acreage
C-5 West bank of Cape Fear River 100-200
north of Pfizer Chemical Co.

C-7 West bank of Cape Fear River 100-200
south of Sand Hill Creek

TABLE 2-1

PROSPECTIVE COAL TERMINAL AND
OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES

Site No.- Location (See Figure 2- 5 and 2-6) City

1 Eagle Island Wilmington
2 South of Barnard's Creek Wilmington
3 North of Snow's Cut Wilmington
4 North of Snow's Cut. Wilmington
C-5- North of Pfizer Chemical Company Southport
6 South of Pfizer Chemical Company Southport
C-7 South of Sand Hill Creek/Campbell Island Wilmington
8 North of Town Creek -Wilmington
9 South of NC 133 on Brunswick River Wilmington
10 North of W. R. Grace Co. on NE Cape Fear Wilmington
River
11 West of General Electric Co. on NE Cape Wilmington
Fear River
C-12 Radio Island Morehead City
C-13 Marsh Island Morehead City
C-14* Near junction of US 70 and NC 24 Morehead City
15 Adjacent to harbor Wanchese

*Not considered as a s upport base site.

Ems z

-0
.4d

lei.
LAX Xa4 c

FAS

x 7@,
s
IVA
CAPE

BREAKWArFR
41, 'led
lk, lp -0 1@

FIGURE 2-6
PROSPECTIVE COAL TERMINAL AND SUP

The small number of sites is a result of: (1) inadequate rail access;
(2) limited acreage of high gr ound suitable for industrial development; and/or
(3) excessive distance to deepwater channels.

As in Morehead City, a throughput of six to ten million tons.of
coal has been,assumed for either of the Cape Fear River sites. The
resulting two or three unit trains per day would create intolerable delays
at the existing railroad grade crossings in Wilmington and for this reason
possible coal terminal sites on the east side of the river are not recommended.
Rail access on the west side of the river is provided by the U.S. government-
owned railroad that connects the Seaboard Coast Line system.with the Sunny
Point Army Terminal. A spur line also serves the nearby Pfizer Chemical
Company.

Site C-5 is located north of Pfizer Chemical Company near
Snow Marsh Island. The site is on high ground, could easily bt-connected
to the existing rail line with a short spur line, and is reasonably close
to the existing 38-foot channel. Site C-7 is also located on high ground
on the west side of the Cape Fear River just south of Sand Hill Creek. A
spur line to the existing railroad would be needed, as would extensive
dredging to link the site with the ship channel.

For*either of these sites, vessel numbers and sizes, loading rates,
and berth capacities would be similar to those previously estimated forthe
Morehead City terminal.

2.7 OCS Support Bases

With the proposed sale of tracts for outer continental shelf oil
and gas exploration in August 1981, as part of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment's Lease Sale No. 56, it is anticipated that North Carolina could be the
location for an on-sho re support basd. Four sites are under consideration:
Wilmington, Morehead City, Southport and Wanchese.

The support base activities include receiving and temporary storage
of supplies and material for drilling ships and platforms, and shuttle
service for workers and supplies by boat and helicopter to the drilling operations.
There are no platform fabrication facilities planned for the South Atlantic

region at this time. Most of the major platform construction is expected
to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Louisiana and Texas.) or possibly a
facility in the Mid-Atlantic region, with the s`Lrki,I"t_W"eS DarQed to
desired locations.

The requirements for an OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) support 'U-ase
are a function of the number of drilling operations. A support base needs
to have access to navigable channels, ap proximately 15-20 feet deep, with
deeper waters to accomodate ocean freighters being preferred. Sufficient
rail and highway freight capacity must be a-vailable to handle all incoming
overland freight for the drilling activities. Commericial airline connections
appear to be very important to the support base activities, primarily due to
the nature of the platform work force. These workers do not normally .
become residents of the community near the support base. Rather, they travel
to their homes, often hundreds of miles away,-during their off-time. Work
schedules are typically two weeks on duty and two weeks off for production

workers.

Of the four sites, Wilmington and Morehead City appear to be the most
favorable with respect to the transportation system requirements. Hc',.@Iver,
land must be available, probably on the order of two hundred acres, and
this may not be available at all four sites mentioned previously.

The date of start-up of the support bas-e activities could be as
early as late 1981, following the lease sale in August of that year,
depending on the level of activity developed by the oil companies drilling

in the area.

The fourteen potential OCS support base sites which were identified
in Table 2-1 are illustrated in Figure 2-7 as they relate to the tracts
in lease area 56. Eleven of the sites are located along the Cape Fear River
in the Wilmington or Southport areas; two sites are in Morehead City (site
C-14 has not been considered as a support base site); and one site has been
identified in Wanchese (Figure 2-8).

Specific acreage requirements for a support base will be ascertained
in Phase 11 of this study, but for preliminary planning purposes a 75-1100
acre site has been estimated. Channel depths of 15 to 20 feet, which will

OREHEA
WILMINGTON 0

GEORGETOWN SOUTHPORT
rHARLESTON

SAVANNAH 0

BRUNSWICK 0

10
NORTHERN

IACKSO ILLE

40
4Z@

SOUTHERN RACT
GR P

LJNII'ED s,rATES DE
BURFAU OF I
NEW ORLEANS OtrrER

0 10 20 30 40 50

PROPOS-I'D TRACTS
STATUTE MILES

FIGURE 2-7

PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT BASE SITES TO LEASE AREA No. 56

12 16 18 12 14 19
8 10 CID
it n dunes at
Sand dunes TANK
SOun
Side

4 3 2
7., 6 3 d 'D
7 ak 6 Sand Fl.,, 0
_V@
, 6
7 3 2 Co.
g stk

5 2 2
14ft 5M 2 SondF/os R 0 A N 0 K E S 0 U N D
3 0 2
7, PA 3- zz S5 5 1 2
And G -3 =Z
8 PA
3 2
.-Cfee
8 2 pt
\\Shcl/O,6,g
\\\ say
4 2u
2
ROANOKE IS ND

%'j
Mont OrOWER VA 0 0
teo'
f 0 TANK
0 0
N
R 0 A

W
w
,

STATUTE MILES---- -------------
0 3
cll@

FIGURE 2-8
PROSPECTIVE OCS SUPPORT BASE SITE Wanchese

accomodate barges, crew boats, and supply vessels, will be required.
Whether helicopter facilities for personnel movement could best be located
at the support base or at an existing airport may change the land require-

ments.

Although test drilling for oil and natural gas approximately 100
miles off the North Carolina coast is'scheduled to begin in October 1980,
actual drilling probably will not commence before the Fall of-1981. A
parametric analysis of the 14 potential sites comparing their physical
and environmental characteristics is shown in Chapter 3.

2.8 Virginia Superport and Refinery Complex

If constructed, an offshore superport and refinery complex proposed
for the Norfolk, Virginia area could have major impacts on the transportation
system of southeastern Virginia as well as lesser impacts on the northeastern
counties of North Carolina. The Commonwealth of Virginia is currently
investigating the feasibility of such an energy complex in the Tidewater
area. This project would include a deepwater port consisting of single point
moorings used for offloading supertankers. Moorings would be located about
50 miles offshore from Virginia Beach in'approximately 70 meters of water.

A submarine pipeline would connect the mooring area to the shore south
of Virginia Beach where pipelines would carry the crude oil to an industrial/
energy park in the less congested Piedmont region of Virginia. This park would
include one or more refineries with total capacity of up to one million barrels
per day, approximately one-half of the estimated daily throughput of two million
barrels per day for the port. The balance of the crude oil off-loaded at the
,port would be shipped via existing pipelines to the oil and petrochemical complex
in the New York - New Jersey area. In addition...plans for the industrial park
include an electric generation plant which could be fueled by either coal or
the residual fuel oil left from the refineries in the park.

A 1'new city" of approximately 30,000 acres is planned to house the
families of the employees of the refineries, power plant and associated activites
(estimated at 100,000 persons). The total cost of such a project is on the
order of $1 billion, with about one-half of the total coming from private investment.

The Commonwealth is investigating this project and is hoping to
secure the cooperation of neighboring southeastern states in support of
such an activity. Because of the uncertainty of the development, it is
difficult to estimate the potential effects of the port/refinery complex
on the North Carolina coastal zone. Since the project is still in a prelim-
inary proposal stage and since present plans envisage a pipeline system
only in Virginia, no energy scenario for the Coastal Study Area will be
included in this report.

2.9 Biomass Projects
The major interes@ in using wood as a source of fuel for electric
power generation results from a December, 1979 study conducted by the
Research Triangle Institute for the Division of Forest Resources, North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, entitled
"Impact and Feasibility of Wood or Peat-Fired Electric Generating Plants in
the Coastal Zone of North Carolina." The study selected three possible
sites and investigated the economic and environmental feasiblity of a 25-
megawatt (MW) electric generating plant at each site. The sites identified
are: Chowan County near Edenton; Beaufort County near Washington; -Ind Onslow
County near Verona. It should be noted that these are only hypothetical
sites at this time; specific locations, if developed, have not been identified.

The 25-MW size is fairly small and has a significant cost disadvantage
when compared with coal-fired or nuclear power plants. The main consideration
in the sizing of the power plants was the available fuel supply within a reasonable
haul distance to the plant site. It was estimated that a 25 MW plant would use
292,000 tons of wood chips per year, thus requiring an area of 2,920 acres
per year, assuming a wood chip yield of 100 tons per acre.

The primary transportation impact appears to be the movement of
wood chips to the site via public highways. The area within a 50-mile
radius of each plant would be used to supply wood chips, thus minimizing
haul distance. Approximately 65 truckloads of wood chips daily would be
added to the highway network within a 50-mile radius of any plant that is
constructed.

The findings of the RTI study indicated that a wood-fired 25 MW
electric generation power plant would not be economically feasible unless
a major change in the price of wood chips and/or high-sulphur coal occurs.

2.10 Minor Projects

Numerous energy projects were identified during meetings with
government officials, economic development councils, regional planners and
others (see Table 1.1). These projects were classified as "minor" by the
study team for one of four reasons: (1) the project is projected, at this
time, to require a relatively lower level of capital expenditure; (2) the
level of energy production or use is projected to be relatively low; (3)
the project is still in the preliminary stages of planning or is only a
hy .pothetical project at this time; or (4) the project is relatively minor
from the standpoint of its impacts on the transportation systems of the
study area. Obviously, circumstances could change over time that would
modify this preliminary assessment. Several of these projects are discussed
below.

A study is currently being conducted on the feasibility of
exporting municipal solid waste from the Wilmington/New Hanover County area
to Horry County, South Carolina, to be used as fuel in a waste-fired electric
generation plant. The costs of solid waste transportation and disposal,
and the increasing restrictions on sanitary landfills and waste disposal, may
make this project not only economically feasib-le, but also very desirable
from both governmental and environmental viewpoints.

Several other projects involving the use of solid waste were
mentioned. The possibility of municipal wastes as a feedstock for gasification
is.being considered. National Spinning Company in Beaufort County is
considering a waste-fired boiler for its plant. With increasing costs of
disposal of solid waste, and the increasing price and unstable availability
of energy sources such as oil, the use of solid waste as a fuel, along with
increased resource recovery efforts, will become a necessity. The City of
Roanoke Rapids (outside the study area) is also studying the feasibility
of using solid waste for steam generation.

The use of water movement through canal locks was mentioned as a
possible source of low-level hydro-power for electrical generation. However,
only three locks on the Cape Fear River in Bladen County have been identified
in the study area to date. These'locks, operated by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, have lifts of nine to eleven feet and thus have limited energy
production capacity, approximately 20-30 megawatts.

The State Ports Authority is exploring the possibilities of a wood
chip exportation activity at either Morehead City or Wilmington. This
activity could have significant transportation impacts, especially on the
rail system and on port traffic.

A proposed plastics manufacturing plant in the Grimesland/Pactolus
area of Pitt County could have an impact on barge traffic on the Pamlico
and Tar Rivers. This activity, although not an energy producer, could
consume a proportionately large share of the energy in the region. The
plant could also have major effects on land transportation systems, both
rail and highway. This project is still in a very preliminary stage at this
time.

Additional energy projects of which some mention has been made
include gasohol production; methane production using swine or chicken
manure as feedstock; wind, solar and geothermal energy utilization. At
this time, it appears that most of these projects, if being considered
as viable alternatives to more conventional energy sources, will be too
small to have appreciable transportation impacts. All "minor".projects
identified in this section will be closely monitored throughout Phase 11 of
this study in order to analyze a complete range of possible impacts on the
transportation system.

Obviously, at any time it is possible for additional energy projects
to be proposed in the Coastal Study Area. For example, the proposed new
synfuels industrial development anywhere.An. North Carolina could easily have
an impact on North Carolina's coastal area.. These and other;possible future
events will come under the purview of this project.

3.0 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

3.1 Existing Transportation System

Although the 27-county Coastal Study Area includes large expanses
of underdeveloped land, and some counties are underdeveloped in terms of
economic activity, its geographic location must be viewed as a major
resource in terms of preservation interest and in development potential.
As nearby urbanized regions expand, the demand for products (including
energy, agricultural commodities, and recreational opportunities) from the
Coastal Study Area will continue to grow.

Obviously, the nature and capacity of the transportation system.
that connects the area with the rest of the state and links activities
within the area will strongly influence the development potential of the
region. The major modes encompassed by this system are discussed in the
following subsections.

3.1.1 Highways

The highway system serving the Coastal Study Area is depicted in
Figure 3-1. The region currently has reasonably good east-west access to
the Piedmont area via US 158, 64, 264, 70, 421, and 74. Of these routes,.
US 70 is essentially a four-lane facility from Morehead City to Raleigh,
while US 64 is gradually being upgraded to four lanes from Plymouth to
Raleigh. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) engineers are
also developing plans for the ultimate extension of an interstate-type
facility from 1-95 to the port facilities at Wilmington (See Figure 3-2).
When completed, this facilit will provide access to an integrated network
Jy
of interstate highways serving the entire state.

Access in the north-south direction within the Coastal Study Area
is somewhat limited. US 17 accommodates substantial vehicular traffic and
is supplemented in varying degrees by US 13, 258, and 117. Parallel and just

G<@>V I R G IN I A

GAANV LLE

CAMELL

ME-'
X.

%:
mou'l
. . . . . . . . . . ..
4

Om"grl

TO
X.
X
C.ATNAV 117

LEE ......

. ...... .........
Lllllng

I SAMPSOM ..........

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

40 a

CUMBERLA.D
..........

ul.

4
ts

w
X.
-XX.

FIGURE 3-1
...........
It

411
X.
HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN THE COASTAL STUDY
X

Liz rd Lick 18
."Y
3
64e Ion A1, ptu 'Nona ks
Middl.s t ri p
cclesfield
+RncB 7 k
237a Fork 5Al21ilson
2
Raleigh 2 Ridge
Gamer Aich,-[ 572@; 4r3017 rr a,n
Aut)ufn %fi @1LN arato a' 121
.11Loop 3Luc ma<'-5-... toV4
10 ..Clayton9 117 13jaCk Creek 264 ar i I
jo 39 9Stantonsbur --Oaf LKr
13
BaRleys pill /c. 93264
WilIS11 Mict 13
70A 3 Fri 58 131Li 2-A Mauy Rowdy".
6+ ImIne, AA, ock lie
114 1(e 6"thpilce 32 10
Smithfie il 3Pine Level Pke",I G4 Eo'mo"
50 4Rrinceton Ietolivir .1 ,now Hill 23 dsvll,
L.. Sauls I+ookerlon
0H 32T0Z., I L16 kII
A@' 3
.@%: rold orc 258
10 four Oak%, 4,osewoo@d S
7 5
82301 1 ri@iitute
0 +I'@ I "'ic (6
Bens6n, 3SjYMO 70 i12 Daws taint
22
50 le &AS6 Grange
701 AWar null .-! 4instor z
48,) ,7 eek a -8 0
134Cr
425 12 Grantham D.dll@y 11 sevenl C.'..11T2
2 Clif f. N- '7
4 ewton rovf 117 41 ise z
7obbersvifle 13 55 Vork
A-115-
a.ui.9--d LENIR
Sp,ve, s Su 0 ve4 =@ r- 0
F alco" C'omll 50 1 __@iaep Run7
13 ly a I
3 .e, 259
403 Albertson LL E
Fwson 0
242 Kee3 4 Pink Hill I/Fiteasant Hill
13 p S0 Bo,,,dens CM
Kinegay CL
SAMI .15 '* >@
4 C; 0
L.-I L.k- 1 191a41
a I L k: arsa.
r@ d; +421
Salemburg 10
Clin on - I -
+ 41 10 Ui 0 M
A'Aryville412 tSCI, Turkey 50 enagswille Petersburg -(A =4D
12 lavilill 0)
124
loeboro UPL Neu Richila,
10 Magnolia 10 11
.01 701 50 r" Lyman Catheri 0
rN 6 41 untain I-ak
Fo
13 4 Hill 2Chinquapina 0
ICatherine L ke 0
7 Parkersburg' I ngol 5111 rreenpveiS Jack$ ch
42 D r- 3:
Del.3Y 1 0 4)
h- arland Cypre C
Ammon
leachey 0
31 141 14 Cree
BLADEN 41 Harr Its 41 - -,jUlla e0n -Haw
thite Oak, 12 7
LAKES Tomahawk Willa Uj
k. Ma le Hill
,L.k,. E
'A W!h; aPenderle z
STATE La Kerr 421 Waltha
4 a. Y Tle
41 1 i-k Lke It lvan<cre 50
'abeth 0- FO E W.,2--, -p, .- f-e .
7 +
I Atkinson S Bufga-
701 19 Wards Corner Holly Ridg
17 11 6 DER
Lisbon 53 53 CuiriePE
kto 211 Ketty4 2-1 Rocky Point vr- 21 2
$14 Carvers 3 11
148 4*D L-1,a Ia -4 21
12 C'. A?I 33 1pstes
Xpuncil 87 '6 NO. A401. Ph+ New Tc
.
St
-LL
Rjegejw0D0 C: old Topsail Intel
+ Scott
Whitevilie A Acme
4 18 Lake Waccamav, Bolton 7 30A 13 Rich Inlet
1749 Hallsboro13 Lk. COAST Freeman Delco/ hoenix A0R
I'll.BkWaccama Ma G749 ma". Inlet
runsmi: 87 76 eland 3
UM_ B S' -174 -As,hir Cki'd-
30 '.' W"".0w +Wilmin an 3
S;:;. P.4 U SN."h C -1- 1A76aWrightsville Beach
7 132
Bishop ._4i
Sch.1ke. Town Creek 4215M-w-b'-
Pond :r, sla
ow, C'. P.A
Winnabow

west of the Study Area, 1-95 is a major north-south corridor connecting the
heavily urbanized northeast US with Florida.

During the next decade, when most of the energy-related projects are
expected to come onstream, many segments of the existing highway network in
the Study Area will become physically or functionally obsolete. The NCDOT
has addressed this problem in their 1980-1986 TransportationImprovement
Program (TIP) by identifying specific routes that had capacity deficiencies
in 1979 or anticipated capacity deficiencies by 1999. Route deficiencies
are i 11 ustrated on the map in Fi gure 3-3 and wi 11 be discussed in greater
detail in subsequent sections of the report.

.3.1.2 Railroads

The railroad system serving the Coastal Study Area along with 1978
traffic densities is shown in Figure 3-4. Traffic density data (expressed
,in million gross ton- miles per mile of track per year) were originally
supplied by the individual railroads and were compiled in the NCDOT North
,Carolina Rail Plan, 1979.

In performing the function of providing.necessary transport services
for industry and commerce, there is little doubt that the railroad system is
an integral part of the Study Area's economy. Although the state possesses
over 4,000 miles of rail track operated by 23 different railroad companies,
the rail network in the Coastal Study Area is relatively sparse - indeed,
several counties (Tyrell, Dare, Hyde and Pamlico) are completely without
rail service. Figure 3-4 indicates that the region's system is dominated
by the Seaboard Coast Line (part of the Family Lines Systel and Southern
Railway companies. While the major rail lines in the state are oriented
in a north-south direction, east-west lines to serve the two deepwater ports
are also available. There is no rail passenger service within the Coastal
Study Area.

3.1.3 Water Transportation

The Study Area is richly endowed with a water transportation system
that includes two deepwater harbors and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

w;, I A G I N I

979 S@STEM STA:T:US] SOUT.
C R 0

':%TEt@S7.,TE SYSTEM- wm@m ... ....
ARTER!AL SYSTEM 0 LANES)-
ARTERIAL SYSTEM (WITH MAJOR
CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES)-
1999 ANITICIPATED CAPACITY
DEFICIENCIES

NORTH CAROLINA ARTERIAL SYSTEM

FIGURE 3-3

.7- I.=

,t A W
L
GR V1

0
7 QN

H L L*@' iV A
v7 -r:
L 11
L
sou

0 R A
E
. . . . . . V7-

F, ASHINGTON
ch
I R 11
1.7

u r
H
D/
'7'
C-A'0'
T -- ----

W
A
A R
3

v E N
.tj

0
(.1 (p 14';.
K E
P A' H L
@7-

r
L I
P\ .
DTI

T A;E

7;'

F D F

0 L\ U m
FIGURE
% RAILROAD SYSTEM AND I
R y". source: N.C. Rail Plan, NCDOT, 1979.

(AIWW) which extends along the entire coastline from Virginia to South Caro-
lina. Port facilities, navigable r ivers, sounds, the Intracoastal Waterway
and other navigation resources have played a dominant role in the Area's
development, and a brief review of the systems is in order.

Figure3-5 depicts the existing navigation projects within the Study
Area. The water transportation system can best be described by separating
it into the following categories:

1. Commercial shipping
a) Deepwater ports
.;.-'Wi 1 mi ngton
Morehead City
b) Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW)
c) Navigable rivers
2. Small navigation projects

The small navigation projects, which include commercial and sports
fishing as well as recreational boating, are beyond the scope of this project,
but the commercial shipping category deserves additional description.

Wilmington Port Facilities - The State Ports Authority Terminal in
Wilmington and the small-boat basin in Southport are administered by the
NC State Ports Authority (SPA).. In addition to the SPA Terminall
which is the port's only containerized and general cargo facility,
several oil terminals and bulk-handling facilities for asphalt, chemicals,
ores and other products are available. Railroad and highway facilities are
provided into the port area and a project depth of 38 feet in the Cape Fear
River allows vessels up to 70,000 deadweight tons (DWT) to enter the port.

Morehead City Port Facilities Facilities in Morehead City (40-feet
project depth in channel) include the SPA Terminal and its barge facility at
the northeast corner of the terminal and privately operated oil and sulphur
terminals on Radio Island. The port is served by US 70 and
State Route 24. The city is linked to the Southern Railway System through the
Atlantic and East Carolina Railway. Substantial rail movements from Radio

nd
und
Sound
((%aj\0 A

R..no@e
anchese
- Oregon inlet
41- Rodanthe

Avon Harbor

01
Hatteras Inlet

Ocracoke Inlet
14,

Drum Inlet
o a 6ad City

B4ue Inlet Barden Inlet

New River Inlet

Cape- J
ilmington ,e

uthport
Cape Fear

navigable rivers and channels (depths are generally between 6' and 12')
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (controlling depth is 12')

Estate ports - freight.

Southport Boat Harbor- recreation

Wanchese Harbor -recreation

FIGURE 3-5
EXISTING NAVIGATION PROJECTS
@source: N.C. Atlas, p. 232.

Island are accommodated by the three-mile Beaufort and Morehead Railroad
connecting the city with Beaufort.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway - When the AIWW is combined with the
Wilmington and Morehead City Harbors, the three account for approximately
85% of the state's waterborne tonnage. Traffic on the 12-foot deep AIWW is
composed primarily of barge tows and private boats.

Several rivers shown in Figure3-5 also accommodate barge traffic up
@to the head of navigation. The US Army Corps of Engineers' publication
"Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1977" reveals the following
freight traffic in the Coastal Study Area:
Thousand Short Tons

Wilmington 9,505
Morehead City 2,875
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 3,344
Navigable Rivers 3,002
Northeast (Cape Fear) 377
Chowan 258

Roanoke 551
Pamlico and Tar 1,173

Neuse 272
Cape Fear 371

3.1.4 Pipelines

The pipeline system serving the Coastal Study Area is dominated by
natural gas lines that branch off the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corpor-
ation's main line in the Piedmont. The state's pipeline system shown in
Figure 3-6. also reveals the presence of.three petroleum product pipelines
(Colonial, Plantation and Dixie) which traverse the Piedmont but.do not
serve the Study Area. Petroleum products are usually distributed in the Area
by truck, barge or rail after transfer from oceangoing tankers at Wilmington
or Morehead City.

q a

Petroleum Product Pipelines
Colonial Pipeline
Plantation Pipeline
Dixie Pipeline

Natural Gas Pipelines
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.
other gas lines

0 major terminal

areas without gas service

FIjURE 3-6

NORTH CAROLINA PIPELINE SYSTEM

source: N.C. Atlas, p.244.

Most cities in the Study Area have natural gas; however, four counties
Camden, Currituck, Tyrell and Dare - have no gas service. Natural gas lines
terminate at Washington, New Bern and Wilmington. The entire supply of natural
gas originates in Texas and Louisiana and is shipped to North Carolina via the
Transcontinental trunk line and then distributed to consumers in the Coastal
Study Area by several gas utility companies and municipal gas systems. All
gas pipelines in the Area are regulated by the North Carolina Utilities Commis-
sion.

3.1.5 Air Transportation

The Coastal Study Area's portion of the State Airport System is illus-
trated in Figure 3-7. Air carrier airports at Wilmington, Jacksonville,
Kinston and New Bern constitute the major hubs and generate most of the traffic
from the Area. Several other airports, which have commuter service, provide
vital connections between the air carrier airports and smaller cities.

In 1979, the North Carolina Airport System Plan evaluated the existing
public and significant privately-owned, public-use airport facilities in terms
of their ability to accommodate the aeronautical needs of each of the state's
17 multi-county planning regions. Primary deficiencies were identified in
terms of capacity and service,and alternatives for correcting these deficien-
cies were analyzed and recommended. More recently, the Fiscal Year 1980
Aviation Element of the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
prioritized airport needs and made funding determinations affecting 46 airports
statewide, including several in the Coastal Study Area.

3;2 Transport Need Projections
Because it is anticipated that a major portion of Phase II of this
study will be devoted to a detailed assessment of transportation impacts
created by the candidate energy projects, the needs projections.described in
subsequent sections do not include comparisons of alternative transport
strategies. These will be addressed in Phase II with a view towards the
possible identification of alternative r3utes, modes, or technologies that
might mitigate the impacts upon the existing transportation system.

Roanoke,Va. Lynchburg, Va. Rich

ve,
N 01 OP VS, '14
A"

0 Danville, Va.

Tri Cities
0

Knoxville, Tenn.
Mo.

Nashville, Tenn.

Memphis7-renn.

C
hattanooga, Ten

N\s
.0e,

'o
tp
0 -n C"
Florence, S:C.

Atlanta, Ga. Augusta, Ga.
Columbia, S.C.

Myrtle Beach, S.C.

PIGURE 3-7

DAILY INTRASTATE SEAT CAPACITY AND INTERSTATE AIR ROUTES

source: N. C. At I as, p. 2 27.

.55

The development of a coal export terminal in Morehead City provides
an excellent example of the need for an evaluation of alternative strategies.
A range of alternatives that were briefly mentioned in Section 2.6.3 is
depicted in Figure 3-8. Export coal is usually moved from the mine mouth
to a loading tipple by truck or rail and then proceeds to a port by rail,
barge, or truck depending on, length of haul, competitive rates, and
geographic limitations. Slurry pipelines are a possible future alternative
for this movement if problems related to,water rights and right-of-way
clearances can be resolved.

Shipping coal directly to the State Ports Authority facility
in Morehead City from Appalachia by Southern Railroad may create major
vehicular delays and other disruptions in downtown Morehead City and
perhaps other urban areas along the route. This problem coupled with
normal. environmental concerns, makes it imperative to seek alternative
means of moving the coal to vessels for export.

Among the alternatives to be investigated in Phase II (Figure 3-8)
are (1) possible barge movements from New Bern or Washington, (2) a new
railroad, conveyor system, or slurry pipeline from an open storage area
west of the city that would bypass the urban area, (3) another slurry
pipeline from this same storage area to an offshore deepwater loading
terminal, and (4) deepening the harbor and approach channel to
accommodate larger bulk vessels. These alternatives and others not yet
identified will be compared to determine which promises the greatest
economic benefits while minimizing negative impacts on the environment
and the economy of the affected areas.

The nine major energy projects identified in Chapter 2 will obviously
impact the transportation system in the Coastal Study Area in varying degrees.
Transportation infrastructure requirements for five subsystems - rail,
highway, water, pipeline, and air - are summarized in Table 3-1 and
individualmodal requirements are discussed in the following sections.

TABLE 3.1

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS IN COASTAL STUDY AREA

Project Rail System 111911way System Water Transp. S@stem Pipeline System Air Transp. System Marine Terminals

Outbound
Coal Export inhound=2-3 unit trains/ 100-170 60,000 DWT yes./ possible slurry pipeline
Terminal diy (Wilmington) yr. (Wilmington) from site C-14 to 1000' wharf/terminal
inboundz2-3 unit trains/ 100-170 60,000 DWT ves./ offshore loading
day (Morehead City) yr. (Morehead City) terminal.
Inbound
possible barge tows to
replace iinit trains
(Morehead City)

2. BECO Refinery outbound-20 rail cars/ outbound-140 trucks/day Inbound underwater pipeline from
day 3-50- 0 DWT tankers/wk, T-head pier on cast Air Carrier Service
6utbound side of Cape Fear River
130 -shTps or seagoing to refinery I "T" head pir!r
barges/yr.
425 barge/yr. on AIWW

3. CRDC Refinery outbound-110 trucks/day Inbound 4-mile pipeline from SPA
1-40 MYD-WT tankers/wk. tenninal to refinery Use existinq "T" head
6utbound on Newport River pier
60 hargFsTy-r. on AIWW
4. LPG Terminal outbound-10 rail cars/ outbound-110 trucks/day Inbound F rom te rmi na I to ra i I I I ne
day 30-46,000 DWT Tkrs./yr. west of Morehead I "T" head pier
5. OCS Support Base inbound-30 trucks/day 20,000 DWT shuttle tkrs. Underwater pipelines from Helicopter and Air
from central offshore driilinq sites'to Carrier Service 300' wharf/rig
(exploration)
storage to onshore marin? onshore'storage' 175' wharf/platform
(operations)

6. Aluminum Processing inbound-16 rail cars/day outbound-16 trucks/day 1!@njnd '-1-40,000 DWT ves.
Plant* outbound-6 rail cars/day every 4 wks. Use existing srA
Clutbound-1-20,000 DWT ves. every 4 wks. term 1 na I s

7. Peat Projects private rail/conveyor Outbound-(low)-5 barges/
system wk. (Med)-10-15/wk. Barge lo,,.dinq platfoiiir.1
-25/wk.

8. Biomass Proje t outbound-65 trucks/da
9. VA Supe@port Coiitple

*Transmission lines to sitpply electricity will be treatrd as a separate transportation system in Phase H.
"Unknown requirements at this time
***Also requires 200' wharf.

Appalachian
Coal Mine
New Bern or
Southern RR' Washington, NC Barge
Transshipment
Terminal

Truck

Southern RR
SPA Pier 60,000 DWT Collier

@ew RR Conmeyan-----. Morehead City
or pipeline
Truck or loal Southern RR
RR Tipple Storage
Terminal Dredge 150,000 DWT Collie!@._
West of Channel
Morehead City

Offshore
Slurry Pipeline Deepwater 150.0 0 DWT Collier
Slurry Pipeline Terminal
Sou tlern RR

or pi@
Southern rRR

FIGURE 3-8
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR TRANSPORTING EXPORT COAL THROUGH MOREHEAD CITY

3.'2. 1, Rail System

Because of their magnitudes, impacts on the rail system need to be
carefully evaluated. Table 3-1 indicates that these impacts will be most
severe on the Seaboard Coast Line system serving Wilmington from the west
and the Southern, system serving Morehead City from the west. Estimates of
new commodities are as follows:

New
Commodities
System Section (Annual Throughput)

Seaboard Coast Line Pembroke to Wilmington 6-10 million tons of coal
3 million barrels of petro-
leum products
400,000 tons of alumina
100,000 tons of petroleum coke
200,000 tons of aluminum
products

Southern Railway Kinston to Morehead City 6-10 million tons L.7 coal
3 mil'lion gallons of LPG

If each of these energy projects were constructed, substantial quantities of
coal, aluminum, coke, LPG, and petroleum products would utilize the two major
rail systems in order to enter or leave the port areas.

Existing (1978) rail traffic densities were depicted in Figure 3-4.
These densities reflect.millions of annual gross ton-miles per mile,of track.
Thus, 4.3 indicates 4,JUU,UUU gross ton-miles westbound between
Wilmington and Pembroke. Since gross ton-miles include not only the weight
of the freight hauled but also the weight of the locomotives and rolling
stock, projected tonnages generated by the new energy projects must.be
converted to the same base. In order to compensate for these weights, gross
ton-miles have been reduced by 30% before combining with the annual through-
puts shown above. The resulting net tonnages for each of the heavily impacted
rail systems are summarized below:

Seaboard Coast Line.(Pembroke to Wilmington) Annual Net Tonnage

a) Eastbound
- Existing 2,600,000
- Coal 6,000,000 - 10,000,000
- Aluminum products 200,000
Total Eastbound 85800,000 - 12,800,000,

b). Westbound
- Existing 3,010,000
- Aluminum 400,000
- Petroleum Coke 100,000
- Petroleum Products 10,000
Total Westbound 3,520,000

Southern Railroad (Kinston to Morehead City)

a) Eastbound
- Existing 430,000
- Coal 6,000,000 - -10,000,000
Total Eastbound 6,430,000 - 10,430,000

b) Westbound
- Existing 570,000
- LPG 10,000
Total Westbound 580,000

A review of the 1979 North Carolina Rail Plan reveals that a number of the
most heavily utilized sections of track in the state carry in excess of 20
million net tons per year. Since both of the impacted lines are classified
as A Mainline (with the exception of the New Bern to Morehead City.section
of the Southern System which is classified as A Branchline), it does not
appear that the net tonnages shown above will exceed capacities of the lines-
provided that the roadbeds are in satisfactory condition. Clearances to
use the US Government spur line from Wilmington to Sunny Point, and to extend
that line further south for coal move .m.ent,have not been explored. The condition
of the railway roadbed has likewise not been explored.

3.2.2 Highway System

Principal impacts on the existing highway system will result from the
movement of energy feedstocks and products by truck and the movement of
employees and construction workers to and from the project sites. The inven-
tory of major energy projects revealed that peak operating employment at each
of the sites would in no case exceed the peak constructi-on employment so
projected traffic volume increases will be based on construction periods w here
critical conditions exist.

Estimates of generated traffic in Table.3-2 assume a vehicle occupancy
ratio of 2.5 persons per vehicle. In every case except the biomass project,
,traffic during construction will be heavier than during operation. Projected
volumes of generated traffic have been added to existing traffic on the cri-
tical routes shown, then converted to hourly demand volumes for comparison
with capacity estimates. While minor capacity problems may exist on service
roads and entrances to the facilities under study, Table 3-2 reveals that
the only capacity problem on a majorroute will be on US 70 at the Morehead
City - Beaufort Bridge. Congestion problems at this location already exist
during peak periods and the proposed energy projects actually do not ak"d
significantly to existing volume.

3.2.3 Water Transportation System

Impacts on the Coastal Study Area's water transportation system will
,manifest themselves in the form of increased vessel and barge traffic in the
port areas and approach channels at Morehead City and Wilmington and increased
barge traffic along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Specific impacts for
each project are listed in Table 3-1 and summarized by facility below:

Morehead City

Number @Description Project
2-3 60,000 DWT colliers/week coal
1 40,000 DWT tanker/week CRDC
1 40,000 DWT tanker/2 week LPG
1 Barge/week CRDC
1 20,000 DWT tanker/week OCS

TABLE 3-2

HIGHWAY IMPACTS

Generated Traffic Total Projected Traffic
Estimated Vehicles Per Day
in Both Directions Critical Present Total
Construction OperTtion Generated ADT Demand Ca acity
Auto Trucks Auto Trucks Volume (vpd) (vpd) Volume (vph) @vph) Routes Impacted

1. Coal Terminal 800 @160 80 20 960 3,800 480 1.400 SouthpqrL-SR 133
19,100 2,010 5,000 Morehead-US 70
3,200 420 1,400 WilminiEon-SR 133

2. BECO Refinery 2,400 480 280 280 2,880 5,500 840 5,000 US 17

3. CROC Refinery 1,600 320 140 220 1,920 1,700 360 1,400 SR 101

4. LPG Terminal 160 30 10 220 190 13,520 1 370 1,400 US 70

5. OCS Support 160 30 120 60. 190 13,520 1,370 1,400 Morehead-US 70
Base 1,400 __Ij@ @rt-SR 133
3,800 400 SouLh
3,200 340 1,400 Wilivinqton-SR 133
400 1,400 Wanchese-SR 345

6. Alum. Smelter 1,600 320 800 32 1,920 340 230 1,400 SR 1314

7. Peat.Projects 1,600 320 400 20 1,920 5,380 730 1,400 US 64

B. Biomass ]Do 20 80 130 210 3,740 400 1,400 Edenton-US 17
Project 13,800 1 400 5,000 Vas in ton-US 17
__17
6,200 640 1,400 VVe ron a -

Wilmington

Rumbe r Description Project
2-3 60,000 DWT colliers/week coal
3 50,000 DWT tankers/week BECO
2-3 Tankers or seagoing barges/week BECO
8 Barges/week BECO
1 40,000 DWT vessel./4 weeks alum.
1 20,000 DWT vessel/4 weeks alum.
1 20,000 DWT tanker/week OCS

If all the projects proposed for the Morehead City area (coal terminal,
CRDC Refinery, and LPG Terminal) were constructed, an average of five and
one half additional ships per week could be expected in the port under a.
maximum production scenario. Also, one barge per week would be added to
existing AIWW traffic. The addition of an OCS support base at Radio Island
or Marsh Island could add a fair number of small supply boats and barges to
:this totali but it does not appear that port capacity or vessel safety would
'be endangered.

Vessel traffic in the port of Wilmington under a full production
scenario would be somewhat heavier with eight to twelve ships per week added
to existing arrivals and departures and eight barges per week added to AIWW
traffic. Again, these totals, two additional ships and one barge per day,
do not appear to present substantial capacity problems for t'he port of Wil-
mington. A few supply boats and barges for an OCS support base might also
be added to traffic on the Cape Fear River. Since vessel arrivals at a
port can be expected to be somewhat random, some peaking should be antic-
ipated, but pilot and tugboat requirements will usually result in adequate
ship headways.

If peat is moved by barge from Washington County deposits, as many as
four barges per day would be added to AIWW traffic between Albemarle and
Pamlico Sounds.

63_

3.2.4 Pipeline System

Two relatively short pipelines connecting the proposed BECO and CRDC
refineries with their respective tanker unloading terminals will be buried
beneath the water and have little impact on other existing transport systems.

If constructed, a possible coal slurry pipeline from a coal storage
area (site C-14) in Morehead City to an offshore loading terminal would have
to cross several rail and highway rights-of-way as well as environmentally
sensitive areas in Bogue Sound and Atlantic Beach. Because no specific plans
are known to be underway for this project, no assessment of its impacts will
be undertaken in this phase of the study.

Undoubtedly, the most significant impacts from a pipeline system will
be created by large diameter (61-91 cm.) marine pipelines proposed for OCS
oil and gas lease areas off the North Carolina coasts. According to the
U.S. Department of Interior's Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed.1981 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas lease sale No. 56, one
oil and one gas marine pipeline would be required to serve the Northern Tract
Groups under a High Recovery Estimate Scenario. The Statement also suggests
that between 140 and 600 miles of pipelines might be required to serve the
lease area, and that a maximum of two onshore terminals could be constructed.
The most likely landfalls for these pipelines would be near the probable
onshore facility locations.

While it is difficult to establish precise pipeline corridors prior
to the discovery of hydrocarbon resources, another CEIP project 1 is currently
underway with a view towards determining several pipeline corridor locations
within the Coastal Study Area. Results are not anticipated during Phase I
of this study, but project personnel will coordinate the findings of the
pipeline study with OCS impact assessments during Phase II.

1. CEIP Project 80-B-19, "Impact of Offshore Pipeline Corridors and
Landfalls in Coastal North Carolina," conducted by the Department of
Marine Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University.

3.2.5 Air Transportation System

At thi.s early stage in the planning process, impacts on the air trans-
portation system are virtually impossible to predict. However, substantial
increases in passenger -movements at both'Wilmington and Morehead City
could be anticipated during the construction periods for any one of the major
energy projects. The airlines.serving these two airports have the capability
to increase the frequency and capacity of their flights as the demand
increases.

Perhaps of greater significance to the air transportation system are
the long-range impacts that could be expected from OCS oil and gas leases
and their onshore support bases. If located in the Coastal Study Area, an
onshore support base most certainly would include a helicopter base. Whether
such a base should be located with other support facilities or at an
existing airport where navigation aids and*other facilities are already
provided will be determined in Phase II of this study.

3.2.6 Electrical Transmission System

As indicated in Table 3-1, tra-,nsmissi-on lines that supply elec'--icity
to the proposed aluminum processing plant in Columbus County will serve
as a transportation system in that they replace the need for a highway,
railroad, or pipeline to supply the energy required in the smelting
process. The immediate concern in Phase I of the study was an assessment
of the impacts on the transportation system created by the movement of
personnel, raw material-s, and finished products during either the
constructton or operation stages of the smelter. However, the various
impacts occasioned by the transmission of 325 megawatts-of electricity
from Carolina Power and Light Company generating stations to-the-smelter
,also need to be addressed. Generating plant locations, transmission
line routes and impacts, as well as the possibility of utilizing alternative
strategies,will be explored in Phase Ii.

3.3 Parametric Analysis, Coal Sites and Support Base Sites

Fourteen alternative sites for a potential OCS support base and five
coal terminal sites were identified in Chapter 4. Four of the sites (C-6,

C-7, C-12, and C-13) were earmarked as possible coal terminals and as
support bases, while one location, Radio Island (site C-12) was identified
as a prospective location for three of the energy projects - OCS support
base,'coal export terminal, and LPG terminal. Thus, some analys is of the
sites with respect to competing land uses is in order.

.3.3.1 Export Coal Terminal Sites

Table 3-3 presents an analysis of each of the potential coal sites
in Morehead City and Wilmington with regard to the ten parameters considered
to be most significant in a location decision. Table 3-4 embraces a
similar parametric analysis of the 14 support base sites utilizing 13
measures of merit.

TABLE 3-3

ANALYSIS OF COAL SITES

C-5 C-7 C-12 C-13 C-14
Sand Hill Radio Marsh West of
Southport Creek Island Island Morehead

Acreage 3 2

Land Use 2 1 1 1

Rail Access 2 2 1 3

Access to Open Water 1 2 1 2 3

Proximity to Channel 3 3 1 3 3

Channe 1 Depth 1 3 1 .3 3

Highway Access 2 2 2 3 1

Environmental Sensitivity 2 2 1 3 1
Archeological or 1 3 1 1 1
Historical Site

Competing Energy Use 2 2 3 2 1

Legend: I-Good; 2-Fair; 3-Poor

TABLE 3-4

ANALYSIS OF OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES

WILMINGTON SOUTHPORT MOREHEAD WANCHESE]
1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 5 67 12 13 15

Acreage 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3

Land Use 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

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

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

Proximity to 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
Channel

Channel Depth 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2
38' 3' 12' 12' 1' l' 10' 5' 5' 38' 38' 40' 12' 8Y

Highway Access 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2

Environmental 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3
Sensitivity
Archeo I o4i c a l or 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 3
Historical Site

Competing 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 1
I Energy Use . 120 miles - 126 mi. 58 mi. 113 mi.
Distance to AIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
Lease WATER 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2
Area (miles)155 150 144 144 146 150 155 160 163 136 136 62 62 131

Proximity to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3
Airport
Proximity to 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Amenities

Legend:

I - Good

2 - Fair

3 - Poor

67
Of the two coal sites on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, the
Southport site (C-5) appears to be the more attractive because of its
proximity to the shipping channel. It satisfies the need for sizeable acreage
on high land, reasonable highway and rail access, and easy access to the open
ocean. Conversely, the Sand Hill Creek site (C-7) is located a substantial
distance from the shipping channel and would require extensive dredging. The.
site is more than adequate in size and would not encroach on any existing
development; but would require lengthy highway and rail connections. For
these reasons, the C-5 site at Southport is clearly superior.

Among the three alternative coal sites in Morehead City, the Marsh
Island Site (C-13) looks lea'st attractive for several reasons. It presently
has no highway or rail access and is located on the Intracoastal Waterway
with only 12 feet of channel depth. Coal would have to be transferred by.
conveyor or slurry pipeline to a deepwater terminal or major changes in the
.existing bridge and AIWW channel would be required. Of the t wo remaining
sites, Site C-14 west of Morehead is attractive in all but one respect - it
is-not located on the water and would require construction of a slurry pipe-
line and an offshore loading terminal. Site C-12 on Radio Island, despite
its limited acreage and rail access problems, probably represents the best
short-term resolution to the need for a coal export terminal in Morehead
City. The development of a future open storage area west of Morehead at
Site C-14, with an offshore loading terminal, should not be overlooked as
a future solution. It is particularly attractive from the standpoint of
eliminating rail traffic through the center of the city while reducing
pollution and congestion in the present portarea.

3.3.2 OCS Support Base Sites

A review of the alternative OCS oil and gas onshore support base sites
that are-analyzed in Table 3-4 indicates that several sites satisfy the merit
measures reasonably well. Initially, Sitel5 in Wanchese was eliminated
becauseits connecting channel to the open ocean is only 81@ feet deep, it
has no rail and somewhat limited highway and air access, and acreage for
development in the harbor.area is not readily available. Project personnel
then identified the following sites as worthy of more detailed investigation:

- Site.s 5 and 6 in Southport
- Sites 9 and 10 in Wilmington
- Sites 12 and 13 in Morehead City

With some modifications, each of these sites could serve adequately
as a support base location and each appears to have unique qualifications.
The two sites in Morehead City, for example, are nearest the estimated
centroid. of the Northern Tract Group in lease Area 56 .(Figure 2-7) and
consequently have the shortest sea and air supply distances to potential
OCS drilling areas. The two sites in Southport are extremely attractive
because of their location immediately adjacent to the 38-foot ship channel
and their proximity to the open ocean. And finally, the two sites in Wil-
mington have access to the best developed land and air transportation
facilities and are located. in a mature industrial area. Final selection
will depend upon cost and availability of land, along with satisfying
environmental and construction permit requirements.

3.4 Preliminary Impact Summary

After an extensive series of interviews and discussions with
industry representatives and government officialls, nine major energy-
related projects in the Coastal Study Area (20 counties in the Coastal Zone
Management Area plus seven contiguous counties) were identifed. These projects,
all of which are in the proposal-or planning stages, were selected-for further
study if they were expected to produce, utilize or transfer large quantities
of energy feedstocks or products. Once the energy projects were identified
and screened, energy use scenarios were developed to help determine impacts
on the transportation infrastructure of the Coastal Study Area. Methodologies
to be used in assessing the economic, social, environmental, recreational,
and fiscal impacts of the coastal energy projects (Phase II of this study)
will be identified in Part B.

3.4.1 Key Facilities Identified for Further Study

The nine major energy projects which promise, if constructed, to
have the greatest impact on the Coastal Study Area and its transportation
system are listed below:

Project Location

1. Coal export terminals Morehead City and along
Cape Fear River
2. BECO Refinery Brunswick County
3. CRDC Refinery Morehead City
4. LPG Terminal Radio Island
5. OCS Onshore Support Bases Two sites each in Wilmington,
Southport and Morehead
City
6. Aluminum Smel ter Columbus County
7. Peat Projects Pamlimarle Peninsula
8. Virginia Superport Complex South of Norfolk, VA
9. Biomass Projects Verona, Washington & Edenton

It should be emphasized again that this list of "major" key facilities
may change as Phase II of this study is conducted.

3.'4.2 Transportation Impacts

Energy use scenarios encompassing the most likely spectrum of operating
conditions at each site were developed in Chapter 2. Estimates of trans-
portation infrastructure requirements for the five subsystems - rail, highway,
water, pipeline and air - were assembled in Chapter 3. An analysis of
specific impacts in each of the major modes led to the following findings:

Railroads: The most heavily impacted section of the rail system
in the Study Area would be Seaboard Coast Line route between Wilmington and
Pembroke. In a scenario in which a coal terminal, oil refinery, and OCS
support base would be constructed in the Wilmington-Southport area and an
aluminum smelter in Columbus County, up to.16 million net tons of commod-
ities could move each year on a rail line presently carrying about 6 million

tons.

7 G

Under a full-development scenario for the Morehead City region in
which a coal terminal, OCS support base, oil refinery, and LPG terminal,
would be brought onstream, up to 11 million net tons annually could be
transported on Southern Railway's tracks between Morehead City and Kinston.

Highways: Principal highway impact s,,in terms of number of vehicles
will oqwr during periods of construction, although in a few cases truck
deliveries of energy products may create some congestion during operation
of the facilities.

Minor capacity problems may occur on service roads and entrances
to the facilities under study, but the only significant capacity problem
on a major route will be on US 70 at the two-lane high-level bridge
joining Morehead City with Radio Island and Beaufort, where capacity
problems already exist during peak traffic periods.

Water Transportation: Under the full production scenarios, an
average of 511 additional ships per week could be expected to use the port
facilities in Morehead Harbor, while 8 to 1.2 -vessels per week would b-
added to existing arrivals and departures in the Cape Fear River channel.

Additional barge traffic utilizing the Atlantic Intracoastal Water-
way could include 8 barges in the Wilmington area, 25 in the Pamlimarle
Peninsula area, and one in the Morehead area.

A small number of service and supply boats would be present in each
of the major ports if an onshore supply base for OCS oil and gas were
constructed.

Pipelines: Major impacts on the pipeline system would be caused
by the construction of 140 to 600 miles of submarine oil and gas pipelines
to serve the Northern Tract Groups of lease area 56 under a High Recovery
Estimate Scenario.

Relatively short lengths of pipeline to connect the BECO and CRDC
refineries with their deepwater discharging berths could impact the marine
environment.

.A possible coal slurry pipeline from a storage terminal west of
Morehead to an offshore loading terminal would have to cross several rail
and highway rights-of-way as well as environmentally sensitive areas in
Bogue Sound and Atlantic Beach.

Air Transportation: Although rising passenger emplanements in
Morehead City and Wilmington can be anticipated, the airlines serving
these areas appear to have the capability to increase the frequency and
capacity of their flights as demand increases.

An onshore support base for OCS oil and gas will undoubtedly require
a helicopter base either at the support base or at an existing airport
where navigation aids already exist.

3.4,3 Coal Terminal and OCS Support Base Sites

A parametric analysis of five potential sites for a coal export
terminal revealed that Site C-5 in Southport and Sites C-12 (short-terin)
and C-14 (future) in Morehead City were the most feasible locations for a
6-to-10 million ton coal storage and export facility.

A review of 14 alternative locations for an OCS oil and gas onshore
support base identified the following six'sites as.worthy of more
detailed investigation:

Location Site No.
Southport 5 & 6
Wilmington 9 & 10
Morehead City 12 & 13

These sites have been included in a more detai'led, parallel
investigation by the State Ports Authority.4 A 3-million-ton-per-year
coal facility on the existing port at Morehead City is being planned for
the short run.. Other sites are likely to be announced in the next few
months, and current indications are that the sites listed above (C-5, C-12,
and C-14) are among those being considered by the coal companies.

4
North Carolina State Ports Authority, "Coal Export Potential and North
Carolina Ports." In-House Workinq PaDer. Sei)tember 1980.

4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The second.major task during this first phase of the project is
to identify the impacts and discuss the associated methodologies which
will be used in Phase II to assess the impacts from the development of
the major facilities previously identified. In this chapter the
parameters for selecting methodologies for the assessment processes
are discussed, a brief overview of existing methodologi.es is presented,
the framework for the policy analysis of the coastal study is discussed,
and the outline of the Phase II methodology is given.

4.1 Criteria for Selecting Me thodologies

4.1.1 General

A methodology is defined as a sequence of steps for estimating what
might happen because of the development of an energy project in the Coastal
Study Area. Within the framework of this study, a methodology is viewed
as a management tool, i..e,., a series of procedures for estimating ahead of
time what might happen and arriving at means of monitoring and developing
strategies for making the development process more manageable. Several
.conditions must be considered in selecting the assessment process.

First, the methodology must be flexible. The variation in the
scale and pace.of development of the energy projects in the Coastal Study
Area identified during Phase I presents several methodological problems.
The Phase II research protocols must be suitable for the spectrum of
identified energy projects, yet allow comparability of impact assessments
between projects and a synthesis of the results across energy projects for
the entire Coastal Study Area.

To expand this principle of flexibility further, impacts must be
analytically separated so that impact relevant to specific energy projects
can be identified and analyzed. Addi,tionally, the unit of analysis must
be geographically flexible in that the impacts of some energy projects will
be limited to specific counties while other energy projects may affect

the entire Coastal Study Area. Finally, the Phase II methodology must
allow for both new information as it becomes available, and for variations in
policy objectives. Given all this planning process should support policy
decisions without committing policymakers to a course of action which will
foreclose some desirable activities later on.

Second, private industry is a prime mover in the. development
process and any planning process must recognize industry's needs and
preferences. Indeed, any development of the energy projects in the
Coastal Zone depends on industrial/economic.conditions at the inter-
nati onal, national, and regional levels, as-:well as the state and local
level.

Third, there may be no ideal location matching the energy projects
and national, state, and local policy objectives due to conflict. This
condition again emphasizes the need for flexibility in:the planning
process to allow policy makers to arrive at optimal locational choices.

'In addition to the previous considerations, a series of specific
criteria for the assessment process and selection of a methodology are
discussed in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.7.

4.1.2 Definition of Impacts

Impacts are defined as.consequences of the development of trans portation
facilities required for the proposed energy projects. A distinction must be
made between primary and secondary development.

Primary (or direct) development refers to activity specific to the
construction and operation of the energy project. For OCS oil and gas,
this activity would include the development and operation of OCS support
bases in North Carolina, plus the transportation of feedstocks and/or product.
Primary development was discussed in Chapter-2 on development scenarios.

Secondary development refers to demands created by the primary
activity and include two elements: indirect development and induced
development. Indirect development includes industrial projects that serve
and support the primary activity. Examples would be transportation

improvements needed for the movement of coal or site preparation for
support bases. Induced development refers to the expansion of community
services and facilities to serve the population attracted through
direct and indirect development. This type of development will
be examined in Phase II.

The assessment process will look at the primary and secondary
development related to the respective energy projects for its impact on
the transportation, economic, social-demographic, environmental,
recreation,and fiscal structures of affected geographical areas. The
specific methods and data needed to assess the impacts of the energy
projects will be discussed in chapters 5 through 9 of this report.

It should be noted that for each of the identified areas, the
assessment of impacts in Phase II involves two distinct operations.
First, current conditions will be described and baseline projections
(assuming no energy project is developed) will be completed. Second,
impact forecasts estimating the effect of the development of the energy
projects will be completed. The problems associated with each project
will be detailed for each type of impact.

4.1.3 Limitations of Impact Assessment

In the assessment of impacts the focus is on identifying and fore-
,casting changes that might occur as the result of the development of the
energy projects in the Coastal Study Area. The general assessment for
all energy projects will focus on the impacts of alternative modes of
transportation for energy feed stocks on coastal environmental and recre-
ation.al resources. The impact assessment for OCS oil and gas activity
will go further including all elements of the development process.

For the potential on-shore impacts of OCS activity, the relevant
timeframe includes the initial test drilling, the lease sale, and
exploratory drilling through actual' production and -closing down
the operation. In addition to the inclusiveness of the activities considered
in the impact assessment of OCS activity, such assessment must include a

time frame of approximately 25 years which is the expected lifetime of a
commercially productive OCS oil and gas field.

For the remainder of the identified energy projects, the impact
assessment will focus only on one element of the development process, i.e.,
the consequences of the development and operation of the transpo rtation
systems related to the energy project. For example, in.the development of
a coal export terminal at the Wilmington or Morehead City Ports, the
assessment will focus on the consequences of using alternative transportation
modes for moving the coal into and out of the respective port facilities.
Additionally, the time frame for the analysis of non-OCS energy projects
will be considerably shorter. With respect to OCS support bases, they are
considered as a transportation faci-lity (i.e., a terminal) for purposes. of
this study.

4.1.4 Ultimate Users

A central issue in the assessment process is who will use the results.
The following is a list of ultimate users who have been identified:
1. North Carolina Department of Administration
a. Division of Policy Developme-nt
b. Office of Marine Affairs--OCS Task Force
2. North Carolina Department of Agriculture
3. North Carolina Department of Commerce
a. State Ports Authori ty
b. Utilities Commission
c. Energy Policy Council
d. Energy Division
e. Energy Institute
f. Industrial Development Division
4. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
a. Office of Coastal Management
b. Office of Regulatory Affairs
c. Division of Environmental Management
d. Division of Land Resources .
e. Division of Community Assistance
f. Division of Marine Fisheries
g. Division of Wildlife Resources
h. Division of Forest Resources
5. North Carolina Departm ent of Transportation
a. Board of Transportation
b. Systems Planning Division

c. Division of Aeronautics
d. Division of Highways
6. North Carolina State Budget Office
7. North Carolina Alternate Energy Corporation
8. North Carolina Balanced Growth Policy Commission
9. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
10. North Carolina Legislative Study Commission
11. North Carolina Marine Science Council
12. North Carolina Special Task Force on Hazardous Waste
13. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
14. U. S. Coast Guard
15. U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management
'16. Bureau of Land Management
17. North Carolina County Governments in the Coastal Study Area
18.@ North Carolina Municipal Governments in the Coastal Study Area
19. Citizen groups involved in energy, transportation, and
development-related issues in the Coastal Study Area

The impacts of interest in the assessment process will vary with
the specific user. Generally the results from Phase II will aid federal,
state, and local officials in planning for development and in identifying
potential developments which fall under their respective jurisdictions.
Specific examples of uses of the results are discussed in Section 4.4.

4.1.5 Time Frame for Assessment

Temporal considerations affect two.elements of the assessment process.
First, the pace of development of the specific energy projects affects the
type and scope of the assessment process. The respective energy projects
vary in their stage in the development process, and the length of time it
will take to reach the operational stage. Additionally, our study to date
has shown that various projects exhibit a great deal of flexibility in
moving towards execution, a fact related to the economic climate at the
time and to the review process required by national and state reg ulations.
The BECO refinery, the aluminum plant, and the coal terminal have
already been sited so that the analysis will focus on their impacts on
the environmental, recreational and transportation infrastructure for
the counties and municipalities involved. The OCS project

is at a stage in the development process where both siting analysis and
forecasting general and specific impacts will be undertaken. It would
also be noted that for all energy projects the availabi'lity of data
relevant to impact assessment will increase as they move toward
execution and completion.

Second, the time frame of the respective projects will affect the
length of time for which impacts will be forecast. OCS oil and gas
activity have a potential lifetime of approximately 25 years so that
estimates will be made over the entire life of the project. For the
remaining projects the relevant time period for impact assessment may
be shorter.

4.1.6 Generating Development Scenarios

An initial step in the assessment process-is the generation of
development scenarios. Scenarios represent estimates of the primary
development related to.a specific energy project, i.e., what might happen
based on a series of assumptions concerning the energy project. The
development scenario is a representation of the industry requirements in
bringing a project to successful completion and as such represents the
driving force for any impact assessment method. As indicated in Chapter 1,
the development scenario identified to date is the "most likely" level
of development as identified by industry representatives and government
officials. Lower and higher ranges of development levels will be identified
in Phase II.

The intitial scenarios developed for the energy projects also
indicated the existence of a range in the quality of information used to
develop the scenarios. The assumptions concerning the coal terminal
scenario are based on a knowledge of the availability of steam coal, the
existence of,a transportation system, the demands on the transportation
system, and the markets the coal terminal will serve. In contrast, the
assumptions for the OCS scenario are based on estimates of the total
recoverable reserves of oil and gas, estimates which are tentative at this
point. Therefore, as part of the flexibility of the methodology, the
development scenarios will be periodically updated based on new data which

become available as the stijdy pronresses. Relevant environmental impact
statements will be one source of such data on the scope of the energy
projects.

The generation of the scenario for OCS activity is at once the
most difficult due to the uncertainty concerning the resources actually
present, and the most important due to its potential impact in a frontier
area for oil and gas activity. An indicator of potential recoverable
reserves will be used to estimate the industry activities and facilities
likely to take place and which form the basis for siting analysis and
forecasting general and specific impacts. The methodology used for
assessing OCS activity will be iterative to al,low periodic updates of the
industry activities and facility needs.

Areal Units for Impact Analysis

The geographical unit for the impact analyses varies according to
the perspective of the ultimate user. Possible units of analysis include
the South Atlantic region, the state, the Coastal Study Area, the regional
councils of governments (multi-county planning regions), and counties
and municipalities in which the specific energy projects are located.
In choosing the unit of analysis it must be noted that specific projects
may have littleimpact on the region or state, yet have considerable
impact on the multi-county planning region, county or municipality in
which it is actually located. The latter is particularly true in non-
metropolitan areas. It is proposed that the impact assessment focus on
both general impacts for the state and Coastal Zone Study Area, and the
specific impacts for the counties and municipalities in which the
respective projects are located.

4.2 Overview of Assessment Methodologies

The criteria discussed in the preceding section will guide the
selection of elements used in assessing the impacts of energy project
development in the Coastal Study Area. A review of the existing method-
ologies indicates that a complete package - including generating
development scenarios, siting analysis, and forecasting general and

80
specific impacts - can only be developed by combining elements from two
or more methods. Methods which have been identified are those developed
by New England River Basin Commission (NERBC), Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON),
the Conservation Foundation (CF), and Maryland's Major Facility Study
(MARYLAND). Although the WESTON methodology will be relied on most heavily
in this study, a brief overview of each-method foll-ows.1

4.2.1 The WESTON Methodology

TheWESTON Methodology offers a comprehensive approach to estimating
offshore and onshore OCS activity, and a general assessment of the full
range of impacts related to energy project development. It provides
alternate methods of assessing environmental, economic, social-demographic,
and fiscal impacts ranging from relatively simple to detailed analysis.
The strength of the WESTON methodology is that it integrates the imputs
and outputs from separate impact assessment methods. The'.weakness of
the WESTON approach is that it does not pro vide a method of assessing
specific impacts. However, its strength is that the impact assessment
methods can be applied to energy projects other than OCS development.
Elements of the WESTON approach can be.combined with other methodologies
to provide a stronger overall methodology.

4.2.2 The New England River Basin Commission Methodology

The New England River Basin Commission (NERBC) research project is
,specifically related to OCS activity. The project includes methodologies
1) to estimate offshore activities associated with OCS oil and gas
development, 2) to estimate onshore facilities associated with OCS oil
and gas development, and 3) to identify the site, and then conduct impact
analysis. The research and planning activities in the NERBC methodologies
are intended to be used in anticipation of actual development. The
methodologies represent separate components that can be used in
conjunction with other methods. The NERBC approach provides a strong
approach to general siting analysis but it is weak in providing specific
siting analysis and specific impact analysis. For present purposes the

lSee a more detailed discussion in several selected references listed
in Appen.dix B-2.8, particularly Bish, NERBC, and Weston.
This study only deals with onshore impacts of OCS activity and other
energy development activity.

NERBC approach would have applicability for the OCS portion of the research
,in combination with other methodologies.

4.2.3 The Conservation Foundation Methodology

The*Conservation Foundation (CF) methodology was developed to help
Fish and Wildlife Service field biologists in commenting on the OCS leasing
process and reviewing specific proposals for onshore facillties and
activities. The CF approach provides the strongest method for assessing
the environmental impacts of primary and secondary development. Its
weakness is in the generation of development scenarios, siting analysis,
and specific socio-economic impact assessment.

4.2.4 The Ma land Methodology

The Maryland-Major Facility Study examines the interface between the
needs of OCS and non-OCS facilities and the. suitability of specific geo-
graphical areas. The MARYLAND approach offers a "conflict resolution"
.methodology for competing facilities and as such will be used to look at
the existing and proposed energy projects in the Coastal Zone Area. The
strength of the MARYLAND approach lies in its detailed siting analysis and
the completeness of its.assessment of specific socio-economic impacts. The
weakness of the MARYLAND approach is in the generation of development
scenarios and the assessment of general impacts.

4.3 Identification of Policy Framework

An integral part of the Phase II research effort will be the
identification of the policy framework affecting energy project develop-
ment in.the Coastal Study Area. Two reasons for the policy framework
review are suggested in the NERBC Methodology.(1978b). First, such a
review is necessary to identify the extent to which development in
certain areas is prohibited by law. Second, the examination can form
the basis for a review and revision of existing institutional mechanisms
necessary for managing energy project development. The intent of the
analysis is to identify the laws, regulations, policies, and plans which
may affect the development process, not to examine how effectively they
are administered or how successful they are in guiding development.

The specific purposes of the policy analysis in the Phase II
research effort are for the siting analysis of OCS support bases, and
the identification of mitigation procedures that may become necessary
due to unavoidable losses resulting from'@the'lmpatts4f'the energy prdJects'
development. Impacts of interest include economic, social-demographic,
fiscal, environmental, and recreational impacts, with particular emphasis
on the last two. Such losses will be identified in the impact forecasts
and the ongoing monitoring during the duration of the Phase II research
effort.

Federal, state and local policies, regulations, and plans will be
examined to determine what, if any, effect they may have on the siting and
development of the energy projects and the mitigation of losses in the Coastal
Study Area. An.overview of the federal regulatory framework as applicable
to OCS oil and gas activity has been done by the Conservation Foundation
(1978, Vol. IV). This is the only energy-related program area for which
such a plethora of literature on the subject exists.

An inventory of federal agencies whose responsibilities, policies,
regulations, and plans will be examined in the policy analysis are lisced
below:
1. Department of Energy
2. Department of the'Interior
a. Bureau of Land Management
b. U.S. Geological Survey
c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
d. National Park Service
3. Department of Commerce
a. Office of Coastal Zone Management
b. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
c. National Marine Fisheries Service
4. Department of Defense-Army Corps of Engineers
5. Department of Transportation
a. U.S. Coast Guard
b. Federal Highway Administration
c. Federal Railroad Administration
d. Federal Aviation Administration
6. Council on Environmental Quality
7. Environmental Protection Agency
8. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

9. Synthetic Fuels Corporation
10. Coastal Plains Regional Commission (Federal-State partnership)

A list of state agencies with responsibilities applicable to develop-
ment of the energy projects in the Coastal Study Area, whose policies,
regulations, and plans will be examined, was provided in the discussion of
ultimate users of this research (see Section 4.1.4). The major statement
of the state regulatory framework, applicable to this research is the North
Carolina Coastal Management Plan, Amended (1978).

Additionally, local policies, regulations, and plans of the counties
and municipalities in the coastal study area will be examined for their
applicability to the development of the energy projects and possible
mitigation procedures.

The initial analysis of the federal, state9 and'local policy frame-
work affecting development will be completed in Phase IIA and will focus on
the siting analysis for OCS support bases. Monitoring of the policy framework
for the Coastal Study Area will continue throughout the project.

4.4 Impact Assessment in Phase II

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 briefly described the issues and limitations of
impact assessment and reviewed the methodologies available. The present
discussion will focus on the interrelationships between the analytical
elements of the impact assessment process that will be detailed in
subsequent chapters. The execution of these several units is the main
focus of Phase II.

The total impact of the relevant energy projects on the coastal
study area is the sum of the economic, social-demographic, recreational,
environmental and fiscal impacts of transportation services for the
respective enerqy projects. The analyses of impacts are separated to better
state the relevant variables, the interrelationshiDs between variables. and
the data needed for the analysis. While the obJectives. methods, and data for
each impact analysis unit are detailed in subsequent chapters.. the Purpose

here is to provide a broad overview of the way the Phase II research will
progress an.d the interrelationships between the analytical units.

Consistent with the intent of the impact analysis discussed in
Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, two flow charts are provided to illustrate
the research process in Phase II. Figure 4.1 describes the impact
analysis for OCS oil and gas activity (Phase II-A). Industry needs,
predicated on alternative @stimates of recoverable oil and natural
gas off the North Carolina coast are used to forecast the probable
economi c, soci al -demographi c, recreati onal , envi ronmental, and fiscal
impacts of the development process,-with specific emphasis on industry
needs for on-shore support base sites. This: study wil-I deal only with this
subset of industry needs, not all OCS impacts.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the impact analysis for non-OCS energy
projects (Phase II-B). Although the framework for OCS and non"OCS projects
is similar, the particular emphasis in the no,n-OCS energy projects will
be on the industry's transportation and storage requirements and the impact
of those needs on the environment and on the recreational activity. For
the non-OCS energy projects the other impacts (economy, social-demogr aphic,
fiscal) wi-ll be reviewed for their relationship to the environmental and
recreational impacts. Transport requirements are derived from industry
requirements.

The logic of the impact analysis in Phase II is essentially the same
for both categories of energy projects, because the analyses are dependent
on industry requirements and the locations of the projects. Figures 4.1
and 4.2 indicate that the output from one impact analysis unit serves as
input for other analysis units. Additionally there are feedbacks within
the analysis.

The impact analyses in Phase II involve several goals. The first
task will concern base line data forecasts that will describe present
conditions, identify existing data gaps, and forecast future conditions
without the energy projects (see Work Plan in Appendix B.I. Second,
the Phase II research will' forecast what development might occur in
alternate transport modes as the result of the energy projects. The

Figure 4.1. General Flow Chart for Impact Analysis of OCS Oil and Gas Activity

Industry.

Transportation
Requirements

Requirements

Location onomic Socio- Recreational 0- Environmental
Analysis alysis Demographic Impact Impact
Impact

Fiscal
Impact
r
0 cation
lysis
na I
4H c a
s
Impa c

Figure 4.2 General Flow Chart for Impact Analysis of Non-OCS Energy Projects

Industry
Requirements

transport tion
Require nts

Socio-
r
Locat on Economic Demographic Recreational Environmental
Anal sis Analysis Impact Impact Impact

r Fiscal
Impact

*Dashed-line boxes represent tasks that will only indirectly be considered in the impact assessment.

estimation of energy proj ect development impacts will come from comparison
of the base line forecasts and the energy projects development forecasts.

Third, the Phase II research will allow us to identify the relative
importance of the potential impacts and suggest mitigating actions which
may be necessary. Finally, the specification of impacts and the necessity
for mitigating action will be placed in the context of the policy framework
for the Coastal Study Area.

In the following chapters the specific objectives of each impact
analysis unit will.be discussed. The relevant variableand data sources
will be described, the specific methodologies to be used for the base line
and impact forecasts will be identified, and the output of the analyses
will be discussed. The WESTON methodology will form the basis for most
of Phase II work.

008

5.0. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

5.1 Definition

The assessment of the economic consequences of development involves
two operations. The first step involves the description of present
economic cond.itions and the development of forecasts of future economic
conditions without the effects of the energy projects. The second oper-
ation involves the impact forecasts describing future economic cond'itions
with the development of the energy projects. 'The impact forecasts must
deal with economic effects corresponding to both primary and secondary
development.

5.1.1 Primary Economic Impacts

Economic impacts resulting from primary development are the changes
in employment and income due to the construction and operation of the
energy projects (Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976). The basic input for
forecasting primary economic impacts comes from the industry requirements
which must be quantified from the development scenarios for the respective
energy projects.

For OCS oil and gas activity the initial industry requirements will
be constructed from alternative estimates of recoverable oil and gas
resources from Lease Sale 56, i.e., the low, medium, and high resource
recovery scenarios. Primary employment and economic effects related to
the OCS development scenarios will cover the construction and operation
of - a@number of onshore facilities during the life of project (NERBC,
1977). Due to the tentative nature of the estimates of recoverable oil
and gas resources at the present stage of OCS activity, the development
scenarios and the estimates of subsequent primary economic effects will
be periodically updated to reflect new information on the recoverable

resources.

For the non-OCS energy projects, the pertinent initial industry
requirements for estimating primary economic impacts are the employment
and income changes that will be generated by the construction and operation
of transportation systems for the respective projects. For the coal export
terminals, primary development will include increased rail traffic to move
coal to the port facilities and increased ship traffic to move the coal from
the port facilities. Development of the non-OCS energy projects will be
monitored to periodically update the development scenarios and changes in
the relevant transportation needs.

5.1.2 Secondary Economic Impacts

Economic impacts resulting from secondary'development are the changes
in employment and income due to indirect and induced development in response
to the primary activity. Indirect development includes employment resulting
from necessary support services which are not directly hired jobs by the
primary development, which may be contracted directly and are often sub-w
contracted. Indirect employment would also include major suppliers to
primary field operations (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1976). Indirect
employment is usually derived from estimates of primary or direct employment
by applying a ratio based on other experience in the same industry or
experience in the same region. Specific factors which may influence the
level of indirect employment include the scale of development indicated by
the development scenarios, the presence of established support services in
the study region, and the availability of such services in other areas near-
by (Conservation Foundation, Vol. 11, 1978).

Induced employment is generated by the initial and subsequent rounds
of spending and wages earned by direct and indirect employees who reside
within the regional economy of the study area (Coastal Environments, Inc.,
1976). Induced employment is the most diverse of the three employment
concepts and will include doctors, school teachers, -policemen, and store
clerks. Typically, induced.employment is estimated by applying a multiplier
to the total for direct and indirect employment. Choice of the multiplier
is based on the size of the region, the presence or absence of needed facil-
ities and services in the region, and the availability of needed facilities
and services in adjacent regions (Conservation Foundation, Vol. 11, 1.978).

Two additional considerations that form the context for the economic
impact analysis are the determination of the region of impact and the time
frame for the impact analysis.

The areal unit used for the economic impact analysis depends in part
on the level of detail desired and the extent to which the respective
energy projects can be accurately located. For the non-OCS energy projects,
the-sites for development have been largely determined so that the analysis
will look at the specific counties in which the activity is located.

For the OCS oil and gas activity, the location of onshore facilities
is itself a matter of study, and the siting analysis will serve as an input
to define the area for economic impact analysis. Using the location
analysis general economic impacts will be forecast. Specific economic
impacts of OCS development are not practical in terms of time and effort
until specific proposals for development exist- An important research
note is that the region of impact is related to the economic perspective
of the methodology, a point which will be elaborated in subsequent sections.

The time period for the analysis consists of the period from the
most recently available data to the most distant data desired. The latter
can be determined by the policy planning horizon of the ultimate users.
The time period for forecasts of economic impacts will vary according to
the specific energy project being considered.

5.2 Baseline Economic Forecasts

In order to have a basis for comparisons of development after the
energy projects are developed, it is necessary to establish a baseline
forecast representing existing estimates of economic growth for a region
without the development of the specific energy projects being studied.
One set of baseline economic projections will be used for estimating im-
pacts for each of the proposed energy projects.

The WESTON approach (Weston, Vol. 11, 1978) uses a methodology based
on the OBERS Projections, Bureau of Economics Analysis5 US Department of
Commerce. The OBERS projection'procedure-produces@a set of national projections
first, then distributes these projections regionally based on previous regional
contributions to the national total. The WESTON methodology calls for updating the

estimates by comparing the values for employment and income projected by
the OBERS projections with those.which would have been forecast with the
OBERS methodology"and more recent data. OBERS geographical units include
states, Bureau of Economic Analysis regions, water resource regions and
standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA).

With the exception of the Wilmington SMSA, the geographical area of
interest in the Coastal Zone Area of North Carolina does not correspond to
the OBERS units of analysis. To modify the OBERS forecasts to the counties
of Coastal Zone Area, available data for the counties will be used to con-
struct ratios for allocating the OBERS projections to the relevant counties.

The OBERS projections provided estimates of population, employment,
personal income, and earnings by industry, both historical and projected
(1950-2020), for the geographical areas identified above. Additionally, these
projected data are used to estimate baseline values on occupational dis-
tributions and resource use -- energy and water use, sewers, land use, use
of extractive minerals, financial capital markets, and physical infra-

structure.

An important qualification should be made in relation to the baseline
forecasts. In general, the larger the area for which the projections are
made, the more accurate will be the projection. This variation in accuracy
is related to the inability to deal with random economic fluctuations for
small areas which tend to have cancelling effects for larger regions. Given
this fact the baseline projections will be done for the C:)astal Zone Study

Area.

5.3 Estimating Economic Impact Values

As mentioned previously, the estimates of economic impacts are
developed from the values generated in the development scenarios. Specifically,
the industry requirements identified in the development scenarios will be
used as the input for estimating impact values. As discussed in Chapter 4
several methodologies exist for estimating economic impacts. The most
applicable to the present research effort are the WESTON (Weston, Vol. 11, 1978)

and MARYLAND (Rogers and Golden, Inc., 1977) approaches. The major
difference between the two approaches is their respective level of
specificity. The WESTON approach is directed toward measuring general
impacts while the MARYLAND approach'is directed toward measuring specific
proposals for siting facilities exist. For the present study, particularly
for OCS oil and gas activityj the economic impact analysis will focus
on general impacts.

A first step in the estimation of economic impacts is the conversion
of the physical requirements into economic terms. The WESTON approach
(Roy F. Weston, Inc., Vol. 11, 1978), provides a methodology for
converting the physical requirements of OCS activity into economic output
price units. This output is then used to generate the primary, indirect,
and induced employment related to development.

The WESTON approach s,uggests three models which can be used to
generate the estimated impacts: the Curtis Harris model, the RIMS model
(Regional Industrial Multiplier System), and an alternative WESTON
methodology. The methods differ in their levels of complexity, required
inputs, and costs (Roy F. Weston, Inc., Vol. 11, 1978). The present
study will use the WESTON methodology for the forecast of general impacts
for development.

5.4 Data Sources and Analysis Procedures

In Phase II, the data that serve as inputs in the forecasting of
economic impacts will come from two sources@. First, the base line economic
data for establishing present conditions and forecasting future conditions
without energy project development will come from secondary sources. Second,
the data for the initial estimation of primary development will be derived
from the authors' estimates in the development scenarios (See Chapter 3).

Table 5.1 identifies the data needs, data sources, methodologies to
be applied and outputs for the Phase II economic base line and impact forecasts.
Throughout the Phase II research, data sources will be monitored to make
use of the most recently available data. This includes updating the
development scenarios as applicable and using new economic and population
data as they become available.

TABLE 5.1
INPUT VARIABLES, DATA SOURCES, PROCEDURES/METHODOLOGIES, OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Procedures/
Input Variables Data Sources Methodologies Output Variables

Total population U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
OBERS Projections & Chapter 3, Sections of population
Statistical Abstract 3 & 4; WESTON:
of-United States Chapter 4
2. Total personal U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Metho-lology: Baseline and impact fc-recasts
income OBERS Projections & Chapter 3, Sections 3 & 4 of personal income
Survey of Current
Business
3. Total employment U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
OBERS Projections & Chapter 3, Sections 3 & 4 of total employment
County Business
Patterns
4. Earnings by U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: 'Baseline and impact forecasts
industry OBERS Projections & Chapter 3, Sections 3 & 4 of earnings by industry
County Business
Patterns
5. Earnings per employee U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
ratios Survey of Current Chapter 3, Sections 3 & 4; of employment by industry
Business used to calculate employees
by industry
6. Family income National Planning Associa- WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
distribution tion, "Regional Chapter 3, Section 3 & 4; of family income distributions,
projections Projections" used to attribute income
to population groups

TABLE 5.1 (cont'd)

Procedures/
Data Sources Methodologies J.
Input Variables Output Variables

7. Resource use ratios WESTON, Chapter 3, Section 3; WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
Council on Environ- Chapter 3, Sections 3 & 4 of demand for sewer, water,
mental Quality, MERES: public services, etc.
Matrix of Environmental
U-sidua-1-s for Energy
Systems
8. Industry requirements OCS development scenarios WESTON Methodology: N.A.
of OCS oil and gas (see Chapter 3); U.S. Chapter 3, Section 4;
Dept. of Interior, DEIS used for impact fore-
Lease Sale No. 56 casts
9. Transportation require- Non-OCS transportation WESTON Methodology: N.A.
ments for non-OCS scenarios (see Chapter 3) Chapter 3, Section 4;
energy projects used for impact fore@
casts
10. Input-output multipl Iier WESTON, Chapter 3, WESTON Methodology: N.A.
model Appendix A & Appendix B Chapter 3, Section 4
Used to estimate impact
secondary employment

6.0 SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS

6.1. Purpose and Theoretical Basis

The purpose of the socio-demographic impact assessment is to measure
changes in the size and composition of the population. Two forecasts will
be made, i.e., a baseline forecast assuming no energy project development,
and an impact forecast which includes the effects of development

Changes in the demographic make-up of a population are prime indi-
.cators of social-structural, social-environmental (as opposed to physical-
environmental) and technological change in a society (Kasarda 1977, Hawley
1971). When macro-level data, (data gathered on a level other than that
of an individual - county or state rates for example) are entered into
the decision making process along with micro-level or attitudinal data a
successful methodology forassessing impacts will result.

In analyzing change and stability in social systems it is useful
to rely on Duncan'sl four reference variables: (1) population,
(2) organization, (3) environment (social and physical and (4) technology.
As Kasarda stated, the definitions for these terms are broad but useful,
if for no other use than a heuristic one. Population, then, refers to a
collectivity of people that act in a structured, repetitive manner.

Organization refers to social structure. It is an intrinsic attribute
of a collectivity, only analytically distinguishable from populatioN and
primarily refers to the network of relationships that arise due to
(1 structural differentiation and integration of functions (as in a cor-
porat ion), and (2) supplementary similarities (as in a labor union).

Environment is the least conceptualized variable in the set and is
simply considered to be anything external to the population under study.

lDuncan, 0. D., "Human Ecology and Population Studies". The Study
of Population. Editors: Phillip Hauser and 0. D. Duncan, Chicago. Chicago
Press, 1959. pages 678-716.t

Technology refers to the set of artifacts, tools and techniques
employed by a population to obtain sustenance from its environment and to
facilitate the organization of sustenance-producing activities (Duncan 1989:
682). Because population, organization, environment and technology are I
interdependent, a permanent and/or massive change.in one, as in OCS develop-
ment, will result in alterations and equilibrations in the other three.

As change has been accumulating over time,the demographic/sociological
perspective as espoused by Kasarda, Duncan, Sly, Lenski and others is
especially applicable for an understanding of the. process of chanqe and
Particularly expansion. Briefly stated
...expansion is a process of cumulative change whereby growth
of a social system is matched by a development of organizational
functions to insure integration and coordination of activities
and relationships throughout the expanded system (Kasarda 1977:15).

6.2 Definition of Social-Demographic Impacts

Investigations of baseline demographic and attitudinal data and
extrapolations garnered from such an enterprise,when linked to an appropriate
theoretical frameworkprovide a valuable input for policy makers! decisions
on potential impacts. How many new schools will be needed? How will public
services such as police, fire, and health care be affected? How will
available land be used? Will the population welcome or discourage development?

The population variables to be examined include age, sex, and racial-
ethnic composition, educational attainment, household characteristics,
population density, population distribution, and migration patterns. Baseline
projections will descri'be the present demographic situation in terms of the
preceding_ variables and forecast what might happen in the future without
the development of the respective energy projects.

Forecasts of impacts will estimate what might happen with the develop-
ment of the energy projects. The inputs for the social-demographic impact
,assessment include the primary employment generated by the energy project and
the secondary employment (indirect and induced employment) that results from
the energy projects. Total new employment related directly or indirectly to
the energy projects must be adjusted to measure the total new population
(Conservation Foundation, 1978, Vol. II).

Some new employment will absorb the existing-labor force, e.g.,
the previously unemployed or workers switching jobs. Additional workers
will enter the population on a temporary basis,.e.g.,, construction workers.
Finally, some new workers will enter the local labor force on a perrianeht
basis, becoming new resident employees. New resident employees will be
further categorized into those wi th and without families. The number of new

resident employees with families will be adjusted to take into account averaue
family size.

The development-related employment will be translated into housing
.demand and associated services, school enrollment, infrastructure require-
ments and community services such as recreation.

6.3 Categories of Analysis Variables

The specific methodology.for the baseline and impact social-
demographic forecasts depends on the specific energy project as well as
its scale, scope, and timing. A socio-economic impact assessment of any
project would include:

(1) Inventory of current conditions/infrastructure.

(2) Projections of employment (see Chapter 5).

(3) Specific impacts of the construction phase.

(4) Housing impacts and needs.

(5) Impacts on public services, private businesses, land use
and quality of life.

(6) Evaluation of planning and management systems.

(7) Recommendations for planning, organizing and controlling I and
use and financing.

(8) Description of'the population - migration rates- 9 population
estimates, economic indicators of individuals as well as
prospective community impacts such as crime rates, alcoholism
rates, etc.

(9) Community attitudes.

Data would be gathered from a variety of sources: (1) census publi-
cations, (2) projections based on industry estimates of the proposed level
of activity (see Chapter 2), (3) the use of Delphi tec hniques utilizing key

98
i.nformants so as to cull. well informed, impressionistic views of the
effects of the projects, and (4) the use of mini-surveys.- As Finsterbusch
(1976) stated,
mini surveys (sample sizes from 20 to 80) are ideally suited to
the needs of social impact assessment (SIA). They are inexpensive,
quick, easy to conduct and often enormously informative. They
cannot produce a high degree of certainty, however SIAs have
different data requirements than research articles for the social
science community..4.they seek to provide @information for choosing
among policy alternatives .... minisurveys may be sufficient for
deciding between policy alternatives even though high levels of
certainty are.not obtained.
Creation of scenarios based on the above techniques will provide the initial
step in a comprehensive methodoloqy and assessment. By using historical
trends and present assumptions, calculations provide estimates of the
scale and timing of activities, facilities and impacts - positive
as well as negat ive.

6.4 Data Sources and Methodologies

The WESTON methodology (1978) provides the best-organized approach
to the baseline and impact social-demographic forecasts. Alternative
projection methodologies include: (1) the OBERS projections for states,
SMSA's and non-SMSA counties, (2) the EMPIRIC Activity Allocation Model,
and (3) The PLUM Incremental Projective Land Use Model. County pro-
jections done by the North Carolina Division of State Budget and Management
(1978) will be used as a check on the baseline and impact projections.

In Phase II the data that serve as inputs in the forecasting of socio-
demographic impacts will come from two sources. First, the baseline
socio-demographic data for establishing present conditions and forecasting
future conditions will come from secondary sources. Second, the data-for
estimating socio-demographic impact conditions will come from the economic
analysis section.

Table 6.1 identifies the data needs, data sources, the methodologies
to be applied and data outputs for the Phase II socio-demographic baseline
and impact forecasts. Throughout Phase II research, data sources will be
monitored to periodically update the relevant data base.

TABLE 6.1
INPUT VARIABLES, DATA SOURCES, PROCEDUREWMETHODOLOGIES, AMD OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Procedures/
Input Variables Data SIources Methodologies Output Variables

1. Age distribution U.S. Census Bureau, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
Projections of the Chapter 4, Section 1; of age structure
U.S. a County and Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
Age & Statistical pp. 214-215, 234-236
Abstract of the U.S.

2. Sex composition U.S. Census Bureau, WESTON MethodologyL Baseline and impact forecasts
Census of Population Chapter 4, Section 1; amd sex composition
& County and City Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
Data Eook pp. 191-199, 236-243

3. Racial and ethnic U.S. Census Bureau, Shyrock & Siegel (1973): Baseline and impact forecasts
composition Census of Population, pp. 191-199, 236-243 of racial composition
General Population
Characteristics

4. Educational U S.-Census Bureau, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
attainment Census of Population, Chapter 4, Section 1, of educational composition
,Genera17�'@cial and Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
Economic Character- pp. 313-336
istics

5. Household U.S. Census Bureau, WESTON Methodology: N.A.
,Characteristics Census of Population, Chapter 4, Section 1,
General Population Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
Characteristics & pp. 100, 307-310
City and County Data*
Book

TABLE 6.1 (cont'd)

Input Variables Data Sources Procedures? Output Variables
Methodologies

Population density U.S. Bureau of Census, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
Statistical Abstract Chapter 4, Section 1, of population density
of the U.S. & County Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
and City Data Book pp. 133-135, 156-i59
7. Population change U.S. Bureau of Census, WESTON Methodology: N.A.
Statistical Abstract Chapter 4, Section 1, 2, 3;
of the U.S. & County Shyrock & Siegel (1973):
and City Data.Book pp. 373-388; used to make
baseline and impact fore-
casts
8. @igtatlon patterns U.S. Census Bureau, WESTON Methodology: N.A.
County and City Data Chapter 4, Section 1;
Book & Current Popula- Shyrock & Siegel (1973);
tion Reports pp. 605-645, 791-793;
used to estimate new
residents

9. Population location U.S. Census Bureau, WESTON Methodology: Forecast geographical distri-
and distribution County and City Data Chapter 4, Section 1; bution of population, maps
Book, Statistical Shyrock & Siegel (1973); of population distribution
Abstract of U.S. pp. 45-47, 59-61, 392-393,
119, 123
lo. Urbanization rates U.S. Census Bureau,. WESTON Methodology: N.A,
Count and City Book Chapter 4, Sections
&.Curr@n_t@opulation 1, 2, 3; used to esti-
Reports mate changes in residence
patterns for forecasts

11. Total employment Baseline and impact Used to drive the social- N.A,
economic forecasts demographic forecasts
(see Chapter 6)

101

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1 Definitions of Environmental Impacts

The objective of the environmental impact assessment is to identify
and describe the changes in the environmental systems of the Coastal Study
Area resulting from changes in the transportation infrastructure required
to support the proposed energy projects. The analysis proceeds by producing
baseline forecasts of future environmental conditions without the energy
projects development. The second step is to develop impact forecasts which
include estimates of the environmental effects of the transportation require-
ments for project developments. Finally, mitigating actions are analyzed.

Special problems exist in-analyzing environmental impacts. As stated
in A User's Guide to Assessment Methods (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1978);

Forecasting environmental impacts is difficult prior to specific
facility proposals, for the character and.condition of the size
of facilities is an important in determining impact as the effects
of the facility itself. These forecasts are more general than
those for socio-economic impacts, where employment and income, for
example, are projected regionally (Dept. of Interior, 1979:19).

The focus in the'environmental analysis is on changes in the physical
environment and/or changes which result from man's use of that environment.
If either of these conditions is met, then the result can be termed an impact.
The analysis focuses on projects, the activities associated with that project,
the disturbances or alterations to the physical environment, and the effects
or impacts that these alterations have (Conservation Foundations, 1978:Vol. II).
For example , the construction of a marine terminal for OCS activity involves
dredging, bulkheading, land clearing, and general construction. These activities
lead to disturbances such as discharge of spoil, which in turn produces
disturbances such as turbidity and sedimentation (Conservation Foundation,
1978:Vol. II). The preceding analysis indicates how environmental analysis
is tied to specific locations since the analysis of disturbances depends on
specific physical conditions.

The environmental systems considered include geology, biology, land
use, aesthetics, recreation, and air and water quality (Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
1978:Vol. II). A limitation in the environmental analysis is the difficulty

102

in quantifying the above mentioned systems; quantification is necessary
for measuring changes. This condition will make environmental analysis more
qualitative-than the analyses for other types of impacts.

7.2 Selection of Analysis Procedures

The purpose of the WESTON methodology is to understand the types
and extent of OCS activities and choose among sizes. The methodology is
linked to location analysis as well as demographic and economic analysis
and focuses on the short-term, direct impacts of the proposed facility on
the area immediately surrounding it. The WESTON framework for an OCS-
related environmental impact assessment report contains three steps (Roy
F. Weston, Inc., 1978:Vol. II):
Step 1: Establish the Baseline condition of the study area..
0 Define the study area (utilizing location analysis procedures).
0 Detail the environmental systems of study area: Geology,
Biology, Land use, Aesthetics, Recreation, Air and Water
Quality, etc.
Step 2: Describe expected future conditions without the proposed
development.
0 Estimate rate of population growth, and expected industrial
or commercial development (in part from economic analysis
inputs).
0 Create and use suitable map overlays, with possible
changes.
.Step 3: Develop environmental impacts with.development on the
major steps.
� Establish the projects to be located in the study area
(in part from location analysis inputs).
� Define the project activities. Affix them to a stage in
the entire development scenario.
� Develop environmental impacts by one of three WESTON
analytical techniques:ia) question analysis (generally
for smaller projects With moderate impacts) (b) matrix
analysis (for medium-sized projects with a high probability
location) and (c) optimum pathway matrix analysis (for the
comprehensive computer based treatment of large-scale
projects with significant environmental impacts). Information
on the impacts of site alteration and the discharge of
residuals is incorporated in the NERBC's factbook.

103

The WESTON approach provides an analytical flow chart as part of
its environmental impact analysis. Figure 7.1 is presented as a device
for organizing the described steps. The WESTON "question analysis approach"
to environmental analysis will be used in Phase II (Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
1978:Vol . II).

7.3 Data Sources-and Methodologies

The data needs for the environmental analysis include an inventory
of baseline conditions; projected growth without the development of energy
projects built on the baseline economic and demographic analysis to be done
in Phase II (See Chapters 5 and 6), and the activities and growth tied to
the development of the energy projects built on the industry requirements,
analysis (see Chapters 3, 5, and 6). Secondary sources of data will be
used for information specific to the environmental analysis in addition to
the output from other sections of the Phase II research,

Table 7.1 describes the input variabl.es, data sources, methodologies
to be applied, and the output information for the environmental analysis.
Information so urces will be monitored to periodically update.environmental
estimates. An initial inventory of environmental concern is shown in
'Fig ure 7-2.

Informational Steps Analytical Methodologies

Steps

I. Establish the Baseline Condition of the Study Area
industry Requirements
Define Extent of OCS Activity Near Study Area -- - - - - - - - -
Analysis

Commercial Define
Ouantilies ? NO impacts From
of Oil and Gas Exploratory
Found7 Yes Actnrifies

Define OCS Facilities Which will be
Located in Study Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Location Analysis stop

Define Existing Environmental Baseline - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environmental
Analysis Feed-back
Loop

2. Describe Expected Future Conditions without
OiCS-related Developments. Environmental
Analysis

3 Deveiop Environmental impacts
Define Expected Residuals Discharges Ind. Requiremenis =y 171 -
from Proposed Facilities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Feed-back
Location Analy@is L&p

Establish Net Environmental Impacts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environmental See Figure 2-3
Analysis Decision Diagram

4 Analyze Ameliorative Actions
Suotract Natural Process Changes in the Baseline Condition - - - - - - - Environmental
Analys-s

Are Impacts on Coastal Zone Modify
Acceptable - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - ? No ResOual or
Locaironal
Yes Functions

Stop

FIGURE 7-1 ANALYTICAL FLOW CHART FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
e at
No
Comm 'c T__<a]j
O-ain"'..
of Or' and Ga.
0. Yes
tFnd

- - 1-Yes

VA.

Gates

'Hertford

Bertie

I 4fa `4 0 1Tyrrel Dare

Pitt Beaufort
H

J-41 /%j li

lLenoir
C
@r a y& n
Paq1ic
(<
Y-

I
Duplin I
N I Ons

Bladen Pender

rj
Columbus New Hanover
41c,
Brunswick

National area of environmental concern

State area of environmental concern

FIGURE 7-2

AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

TABLE 7.1
INPUT VARIABLES, DATA SOURCES, PROCEDURES/METHODOLOGIES, AND OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

f
Procedures/
Output Variables
Input Variables Data Sources Methodologies

1. Baseline inventory of U.S. Dept. of Interior, DEIS WESTON Methodology: Tables and maps outlining
environmental system For Lease Sale No. 56; Chapter 5, Section 2 environmental systems
Center for Natx@r-al Areas,
A Summary and Analysis
of Environmental Informs-
tion on the Continental
Shelf and Blake Plateau
m Cape Hatteras to Cape
Zana@eral; Planners Inc.,
A Socio Economic Environ-
mental Baseline Summary
for the South Atlantic
Region Between Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina and Cape
Canaveral, Florida

2. Disturbances related to NERBC, Factbook; WESTON, Used to translate industry N@A.
industrial activity Chapter 5, Appendices requirements into environ-
A, B, C, D mental impacts
@3. Industry requirements Development scenarios-(see WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact estimates
for OCS oil and gas Chapter 3; U.S. Dept. of Chapter 5, Section 2; of environmental impacts
activity Interior, DEIS For Lease CF, Vol. 3
Sale No. 56

4. Transportation require- Development scenarios (see WESTON'Methodology: Baseline and impact estimates
ments for non-OCS Chapter 3) Chapter 5, Section 2 of environmental impacts
energy projects CF, Vol. 3

107

8.0 RECREATIONAL IMPACTS

The purpose of the recreational impact assessment is to forecast
the pressures exerted on coastal recreational resources.by the energy
projects' development. To estimate the recreational impacts, two forecasts
will be produced, i.e., the baseline forecast without development, and an
impact forecast given the development scenarios.

In this chapter, a series.of steps for developing the baseline and
impact-forecasts are described. A review of the assessment methodologies
does no t identify a specific approach to examine the recreational impacts
of development. The approach discussed is consistent with the approaches
used for the other elements of the impact assessment process.

8.1 Definition of Recreational Impacts

The identification and assessment of recreational impacts must begin
with definitional problems which may be unique to the coastal study area.
Specifically, recreational sites in the coastal study area serve not only
the permanent, local population, but they also serve large temporary, non-
local populations from other areas of North Carolina and other states. In
fact in many coastal counties, the demand for recreational sites is greater
from the non-local population than the local population (Maiolo and
Tschetter, 1979).

The assessment of recreational impacts relates recreational resources
to total population. Recreational resources are stated in terms of the
.number and acres of parks, beaches, marinas, piers, and launching sites. For
the purposes of assessing recreational impacts, total population includes
two sub-populations, i.e., the permanent, resident population and the
temporary, recreational population. Unlike the other baseline forecasts,
the estimates for future recreationa.1 needs must take into account this
temporary, recreational population.

1U8

8.2 Selection of Analysis Procedures

Recreational analysis involves the development of an inventory of
present and planned recreational facilities by type and a comparison of
these facilities with baseline and impact demand forecasts. An initial
visual inventory of recreational sites is shown in Figures 8.1. and 8.2.
Examination of the figures shows an extensive system of federal and state parks-,
wildlife areas, lakes, public and private marinas, and fishing piers. These
physical sites together with miles of private beaches represent the
recreational environment for the impact analysis.

The forecast of recreational impacts from the development of the
energy projects will use the output from the other elements of the assess-
ment process as inputs. Relevant units include industry requirements,
social-demographic impacts, and environmental impacts.

The industry requirements will provide estimates of the location and
land needed., and the transportation needs and corridors for the respective
energy projects. The industry data will allow analysis of potential
competi.tion and/or conflicts with recreational activities. For example,
increased barge traffic or oil and gas platforms may compete with recreational
fishing by restricting or precluding certain types of fishing gear.

The output from the environmental assessment will be used to identify
recreational sites and activities which may be impacted by development. For
example, disruption of marine environments caused by increased ship traffic
may affect the "desirability" of sites for swimming or fishing.

The output from the demographic projections combined with projections
of growth in the temporary, recreational population will be added to permanent,
resident population to estimate the total demand for recreational facilitiesi
The:projections for the temporary, recreational population will be used by
the approach developed by Maiolo and Tschetter (1979).

8.3 'Data Sources and Methodologies

In Phase II, the data that serve as inputs for the estimation of
recreational impacts will come from two sources. First, the data on the

VA.

ates
% Vd. N
L

0
'Hertfor

10,
'30
Bertie

/Tyrrell Dare

Pitt k Bea6fort
Hyde Q

JLenoir
-<,Craven
VarTilico
(< -- Jono
Y

Duplin
10 n s, 44" rallet

Bladen PXder

Columbus
ew Hanover

Brunswick

National designation

State designation

Private holdings

FIGURE 8-1

NATURAL AND RECREATIONAL AREAS

VA.

ates Va N Q,
L

'Hertfor

C',
30
Bertie

1 10
q 0 Tyrrell ID re
TP

\. Pitt Beaufort Hyde
%\

lLenoir
t Craven
N " -_ 1, 3J
anlico
Jones

Duplin L
e
N Onslow CaTle
N

L B
Bladen Pender B

Columbus B
New Hanover

Brunswick

Fishing pier
Major port
B Major recreational beach

FIGURE 8-2

BEACHFRONT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

permanent, resident population, and industry requirements will come from
the output of other sections of the impact analysis units. Second, data
on recreational sites and activities and the temporary, recreational pop-
ulation will come from secondary sources.

Table 8.1 identifies the specific data needs, data sources, method-
ologies to be applied, and data outputs for the Phase H recreational
baseline and impact forecasts. Throughout Phase II, data sources will be
monitored to re vise and update the forecasts.

TABLE 8.1
INPUT, VARIABLES, DATA SOURCES, PROCEDURES/METHODOLOGIES, AND OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS

Input Variables Data Sources Procedures/ 0utput Variables
Methodologies

1. Inventory of recrea- N.C. Dept. of Natural and Description andmapping of Maps providing locations of
tional sites Economic Resources recreational sites recreational activities
in North Carolina

2. Permanent, resident Baseline and impact demo- Used to estimate demand for Combined with temporary, recrea-
population graphic forecasts (see recreational sites tional population will provide
Chapter 7) baseline and impact total
recreational demand

3. Temporary, recreational Maiolo and Tschetter (1979); Projection from historical Combined with permanent, resi-
population U.S. Dept. of Interior, growth trends (see Shy- dent population will provide
DEIS For Lease Sale No. 56; rock and Siegel (1973); baseline and impact total
selected recreational Used to estimate total recreational demand
studies demand for recreational
sites

4. Industry requirements Development scenarios (see Used in determining land use N.A.
Chapter 3); U.S. Dept. for project development;
of Interior, DEIS Lease mapping will identify
Sale No. 56. conflict with recreational
sites

5. Population-recreational Conservation Foundation, Used to calculate demand for N.A.
ra.tios 1978, Vol. II recreational site based on
total recreational popula-
tiou

113

9.0 FISCAL IMPACTS

9.1 Definition of Fiscal Impacts

The purpose of the fiscal impact assessment is to forecast the
magnitude and direction of the pressure exerted on state and local govern-
mental budgets by the development of transportation facilities in support of
the respective energy projects, particularly from OCS oil and gas activity.
Fiscal impact assessment will examine both sides of state and local governments--
revenues and expenditures. In order to estimate the impact of the energy projects'
development, two revenue-expenditure forecasts will be produced.

One forecast is the baseline fiscal projections, i.e., estimates of
growth in revenues and expenditures without the energy projects' development.
A second forecast is the impact-forecast given the development scenarios.
Comparisons of the baseline' and impact forecasts will provide estimates of
the magniture, direction, and time frame for the fiscal pressures on state
and local government caused by the projected developments.

9.1.1, Inputs for Fiscal Impact Assessments

The outputs from the other elements of the assessment process are
used as the inputs-for estimating fiscal impacts. Real personal income is
the primary variable for estimating future fiscal conditions given the
relationship between personal income and most tax'base s and the demand for
governmental services. Projections of the distribution of income and
population also serve as inputs for the fiscal estimates.

In addition, the fiscal impact assessment requires an 'Identification
of relevant public services and'an estimate of real changes in per-capita
expenditures of governments for these services. Relevant services
include public utilities, public safety, education facilities, welfare
services, and recreational facilities. The Conservation Foundation (Vol. II,
.1978) provides a review of the factors used in previous research to identify
the level of public services required.

114

9.1.2 Problems and Constraints

One issue in the fiscal impact assessment is that with potentially
large developments, especially OCS oil and gas activity, it has been
recognized that it is possible for one governmental unit to receive the
development-derived revenues while another unit becomes a residential
community and must provide governmental services without the added revenue
base. To deal with this problem, the fiscal analysis will deal with the
impacts on both the state and county levels.

Another issue is that the estimates of fiscal impacts cannot be
accurate estimates of state and local expenditures and revenues since it
is impossible to forecast discretionary fiscal responses to changes in
fiscal conditions. Approximately one-half of the increase in state and
local revenues between 1962 and 1972 were due to discretionary increases
in effective tax rates (Roy F. Weston, Inc., Vol. 11, 1978). The comparisons
of the baseline and impact forecasts only indicate the nature and timing of
the new pressures.which tend to unbalance budgets.

9.2 Selection of Analytical Procedures

9.2.1 General

The most comprehensive view of the methodologies for estimating the
fiscal impacts of development is provided by WESTON.(Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
Vol. 11, 1978). The three methodologies reviewed are the public sector
component of the Curtis Harris Model, the WESTON programmed methodology, and a
combination of state and local forecasts and the WESTON.methodology. All
three methodologies project general fiscal impacts for the state and local
levels. The MARYLAND methodology (Rogers & Golden, Inc., Vol. 111, 1977)
provides an approach for assessing specific fiscal impacts once specific site
proposals are made.

For this research, the initial assessment of fiscal impacts will
look at general impacts. Given the extended time frame for OCS development,
the WESTON programmed methodology provides the best alternative for the
long range impact analysis desired. A single baseline fiscal projection will
be used for all energy projects.

115

9.2.2 Methodology Organization

In the WESTON approach (Roy F. Weston, Inc., Vol. 11, 1978), total
revenue and expenditure data are disaggregated and each type of revenue and
expenditure is projected separately. When the projections are completed, the
results are aggregated to arrive at total revenues and expenditures. The
totals reflect projected surpluses and deficits. The disaggregations involve
four categories: state revenues, state expenditures, county revenues and
county expenditures.

In general, the forecasts are based on historical trends between
various economic or demographic variables, e.g., personal income or population,
and a given revenue or expenditure category, e.g., income tax revenues or
education expenditures. This procedure does not assume a fixed tax structure
since the ratios constructed will reflect changing tax structures. Depending
on the,category of revenue a nd expenditure, the trends are constructed from
either national or county specific data. The projections are in constant
dollars, and an inflation multiplier will be used to adjust for the effects of
inflation.

9.2.3 Projection Methods
Three approaches will be used for the fiscal projections: the modified-
trend, the expenditure-related, and the population-load (Roy F..Weston, Vol. II,
1978). The modified-trend methodology is used to project ratios of revenues
Ao personal income. The expenditure-related methodology is used to project
ratios of revenues to expenditures. These two methods are used for the four
categories of-revenues and expenditures. The population-load methodology is
used to project population-related expenditures. The population-load
methodology is used for state and county expenditures.

9.3 Data Sources and Procedures

In Phase II, the data that serve as inputs for the estimation of fiscal
impacts will come from two sources. First, data on personal income, income
distribution and population for forecasting baseline and impact revenues and
expenditures will come from the economic, socio-demographic, and recreational
analysis units. Second, data used to establish historical and current trends

116

in fiscal revenues and expenditures will come from secondary sources.

Table 9.1 identifies the specific data needs, datasources, method-
ologies to be applied, and data outputs for the Phase II fiscal baseline and
I
impact forecasts. Throughout Phase II, data sources will be monitored to
revise and update the forecasts.

TABLE 9.1
INPUT VARIABLES, DATA SOURCES, METHODOLOGIES/ PROCEDURES, AND OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR FISCAL ANALYSIS

Input Variables Data Sources Procedures/ Output Variables
Methodologies

State revenues U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
State Government Chapter 6, Section 1 of state revenues
Finances

2. State expenditures U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
State Government Chapter 6, Section 2 of state expenditures
Finances

3. County revenues U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology: Baseline and impact forecasts
Census of Government; Chapter 6, Section 3 of county revenues
County records

4. County expenditures U.S. Dept. of Commerce, WESTON Methodology; Baseline and impact forecasts
Census of Government; Chapter 6, Section 4 of county expenditures
County records

5. Population size Baseline and impact demo- Used in WESTON population- N.A.
graphic forecasts (see load methodology for
Chapter 7) fiscal forecasts

6. Personal income Baseline and impact eco- Used in WESTON methodologies N.A.
nomic forecasts (see for fiscal analysis
Chapter 6)

7. School enrollments National Center for Educa- Used in WESTON population- N,A.
tion Statistics, load methodology for
Statistics for Public state and county expendi-
ElemenL@!a and Second- tures on education (WESTON,
ary Da Schools, U.S. Chapter 6, Appendix B)
Dept. of Interior, DEIS.
Lease Sale No. 56.

8. Population below Baseline and impact demo- Used in WESTON populition- N.A.
poverty line graphic forecasts (see load methodology for
Chapter 7) state and county welfare
expenditures (WESTON,
Chapter 6, Appendix C)

118

10.0 PHASE II STUDY DESIGN SUMMARY

10.1 Methodological Findings

In Phase I we have reviewed and attempted to select appropriate
methodologies for the impact assessment to be completed in Phase II.
Additionally, the methodologies developed will allow policy-
makers to monitor development beyond the life of Phase II. The review
of methodologies indicates that existing approaches allow considerable
discretion in the level of extensiveness and complexity of impact assess-
ment desired, yet the methodologies are similar enough to allow for
various combinations of work elements to meet the unique goals'. and
problems of the specific research effort.

The Phase I effort has identified the energy projects presently
proposed for the Coastal Study Area and developed preliminary estimates of
transportation needs for the respective projects. Additionally, the
transportation infrastructure for the Coastal Study Area has been inven-
toried. Possible changes in the transportation systems due to development
have been identified. The preceding five chapters have described the
substantive context in which the impact assessment will take place in
Phase II.

Additionally, the findings indicate that the parameters for selecting
a methodology are the needs of the ultimate users of the research, the
specific types of impacts to be assessed, the time frame for the assessment,
the areal units for the impact analysis, and the limitation on the impact
analysis.

State and local governmental units which will be the ultimate users
of the research have been identified and will be useful for two purposes in
Phase II. First, the analysis of the policy framework for development will
examine the policies and regulations of relevant agencies. Second, an
advisory committee representing a cross-section of identified ultimate users
ha's been formed.

119

Impacts to be examined include economic, social, recreational, environ-
mental, and fiscal. The analysis will focus on general and specific impacts
from the respective projects. General impacts measure effects on the
Coastal Study Area, and the unit of analysis for the impact assessment is
the entire twenty-seven county area. Specific impacts measure effects which
are energy project site specific, and the unit of analysis is the county or
,counties in which the energy project is located.

Although the impact analysis is presented as a series of discrete
analytical units, the theoretical and empirical interrelationships between
the units indicate that a methodology which integrates the assessment units
is desirable 'The WESTON methodology (Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1978) provides
a methodological framework that: (1) provides alternative methodologies for
each impact assessment unit, (2) provides methodologies for both general
and specific impact analyses, (3) integrates the input and output from
respective assessment units, (4) allows substitution from other methodologies
for specific impact analysis units, and (5) allows periodic updates of the
development scenarios for the impact analyses.

Data requirements for the impact assessment include historical and
present conditions for each of the five analytical units and development
scenarios for the respective energy projects. Data describing economic,
social-demographic, environmental, recreational, and fiscal trends and con-
ditions will be derived from secondary sources. Initial data.for the
generation of development scenarios will be derived from secondary sources,
e.g., environmental impact statements, county land use plans, and from contacts
with the project developers. Preliminary development scenarios have been
included in this report, and these scenarios will be updated as more specific.
energy project proposals become available during Phase II.

The actual impact assessment will involve two steps. First, a series
of baseline forecasts of future conditions without the effects of the proposed
energy projects are necessary. Baseline forecasts will be done for the
entire twenty-seven county study area and for the respective counties in
which projects are proposed. Second, a series of impact forecasts with the
effects of primary and secondary development will be developed for each of the
energy projects. Impact forecasts will be carried out for the entire twenty-
seven county study area as well as specific forecasts for the respective

120

counties in which the projects are located. Impact forecasts will be
periodically updated as new development data becomes available. This will
be the function of the "project monitoring" task in Phase II.

Finally, our review of methodologies indicates that, to be useful
to policy makers, the impact assessment must take into account the policy
framework in which development will occur. The siting of particular
projects, e.g., OCS support bases, coal terminals, etc., and the ability
to manage the primary and secondary development resulting from these projects
are dependent on federal, state and local policies, regulations, and plans.

10.2 Implications for Phase II Research Design

The findings summarized in the preceding section and
detailed in the body of the report have implications for the research
design of Phase II. The design for Phase II falls generally into eight
steps:
(1) The compilation of the data base describing historical and
current conditions for the economic, social-demographic,
environmental, recreational, and fiscal analytical units;
(2) The identification and analysis of federal, state, and local
policies, regulations and plans affecting management of the
development of the energy projects and transportation systems
in the coastal study area;
(3) The generation and monitoring of development scenarios identi-
fying industry requirements and transportation needs for each
of the proposed energy projects;
(4) The examination of general location alternatives where site-
specific plans have not been developed by private industry;
(5) The generation of base line forecasts of development in each
of the impact areas based on historical trends and without
the proposed energy projects;
(6) The generation of impact forecasts of transportation develop-
ment in each of the impact areas based on energy project
development scenarios;
(7) The analysis of alternative modes of transportation and
development strategies; and

121

(8) The monitoring of energy projects and transportation develop-
ment throughout Phase II to periodically update the assessment

process.

The various stages can be chronologically ordered and expressed
a.s.milestones during Phase II. A detailed research design is provided in
Appendix B.1 outlining tasks and subtasks. As a two-year project Phase
II will focus on the impacts of transportation requirements for the
potential OCS support bases and the potential coal export terminals in
the.first year (Phase IIA) and the remaining energy projects during the
second year (Phase IIB). Procedures similar to the above eight steps will
apply@ to both OCS and coal (Phase IIA) and the other energy projects.

Although OCS oil and gas exploration as well as coal export
activity will be monitored during the second year of the project, the
focus in Phase IIB will shift to the remaining energy projects. The
development scenarios and transportation needs for the refineries,
peat projects, the aluminum smelter, the peat mining projects
wood energy projects will be identified. Additionally, any new
proposed energy projects in the coastal study area will be identified
and development scenarios generated. Preliminary forecasts of the
impacts of the transportation requirement of these projects on
environmental and recreational resources will be produced.

Throughout Phase II the impact assessment process will use the
research design from the WESTON methodology (Roy F. Weston, Inc, 1978).
The results of the analysis will be presented with reference to the
policy framework for coastal development to provide policy makers a
perspective for interpreting the results of the research.

Outputs of the Phase II research project will benefit State and
local planners and decision-makers responsible for all modes of trans-
portation, as well as various industries investing in coastal area and OCS
energy projects, by identifying and analyzing benefits and costs of the
various transportation investments. It will also provide a "fact book"
on observed impacts as well as future potential impacts of alternate

122

transportation facilities needed to support energy-related projects.
This fact book will provide essential information to policy planners,
particularly with respect to port and highway facilities. It will
also lay the groundwork for a multi-modal analysis of future transport-
ation investments east of Interstate 95 in North Carolina. Local and
county land use planning groups and economic development interests in
the State and Coastal Plains Region will also find information in this
fact book a useful aide in analyzing site requirements for energy
activity development.

10.3 Recommendations

In the course of developing the research methodology for the Phase
II impact assessment, several research problems have been identified for
further study. While these research problems are outside the scope of
the research envisioned for Phase II, they do merit further consideration
and are briefly presented in this section.

10.3.1 Time Frame for Monitoring and Evaluation

As seen in Chapter 4, the time frame for development of the
respective energy projects varies considerably due to the time required
for plan development, the permitting process, and the construction
process. Realistically, several of the projects may not reach the
construction phase, let alone operational status during the life of Phase
II. Since the details of the structure of the actual energy projects
can change during the stages of development, accurate impact assessment
forecasts, let alone the dimensioning of actual impacts, require that
policy makers employ the methodologies chosen for Phase II on an ongoing
basis. The time during which Phase II will be carried out limits the
ability to monitor and assess the impacts of the energy projects to two
years, a problem which will be addressed by submitting to the Coastal
Energy Impact Program a proposal for funding for an additional year
beyond Phase 11.

123

10.3.2 Expansion of Geographical Coverage

A second research topic identified during Phase I is the
definition of the coastal zone. While the Coastal Zone Area and the
coastal study area are defined by federal and state statutes, reasons
based on practical arguments exist for treating the forty-one counties
in North Carolina that are a part of the Coastal Plains Region as a unit
for the same type of analysis. Theoretical reasons for extending the
study area include the economic, social-demographic, and geographical
integration of these coastal plain counties, which serve to define
the hinterlands for the proposed energy projects. Additional energy-
related projects, and their impacts on the transportation system,
also need to be defined for this entire region. The extension of the
Coastal Study Area to reflect the extensiveness of the Coastal Plains
Region,would provide a better base for theimpact assessment, but will
require funding from sources other than the Coastal Energy Impact
Program.

10.3.3 Modal Analysis of Coal Transportation

Third, the preliminary analysis of transportation requirements
for the respective energy feedstocks and products suggests that a detailed
modal analysis, which includes an analysis of alternative transportation
modes would be desirable. For example,.the proposed development of the
coal export terminals involves a transportation network to move the feed-
stock from Appalachian mines to the ports and onto ships. Alternatives
such as a slurry pipeline or a rail-barge combination should be explored-.
Impacts are likely throughout the transportation system as the coal is
moved through North Carolina and other states from its origins to
its destinations. Additionally, it is likely that the magnitude of the
impacts will be directly related to the level of export. Our
recommendation is that the impacts of energy feedstock transportation,
particularly coal, should be investigated throughout the state of
North Carolina.

124

10.3.4 Application to Non-Energy Projects

A fourth research topic concerns the application of the Phase II
methodology to transportation problems associated with the development
of non-energy projects in the coastal area. Projects would include both
industrial and non-industrial development such as agricultural commodities.
Reasons for such a recommendation are the inherent interaction effects
between the development of energy and non-energy projects and the competition
for resources.between energy and non-energy projects. AdditionaTly,
demonstrating the efficacy of the Phase II methodology for non-energy
projects would demonstrate the methodology's usefulness for policy
makers.

10.3.5 Application to Other Regions

Additionally, in a matter entirely,outside the geographical
scope of the Coastal Plains Region of the state, an analysis similar
to the one being conducted in this study needs to be applied to
other regions in North Carolina, particularly the mountain area. With
the exploration for oil and other energy resources within this area
projected to increase in the next several years, possibly leading to
Production, federal, state and local policy makers may find it
expedient now to explore possible development impacts on the transportation
system in Appalachia, both for North Carolina and as a whole. The
methodology could also be expanded to all st ates in the Coastal Plains
Region. Methodologies utilized in this study could be adjusted for use
in'such an analysis.

1024 Summary

In conclusion, this section has recommended ways in which the
insights gained in Phase I can be extended and the usefulness of the
research protocols can be broadened for policy makers. These recommend-
ations, together with the Phase II research, provide a research agenda
for monitoring and managing future development in the coastal area and
in"other areas of North Carolina, particularly those related to the
major key facilities of energy and transportation facilities.

APPENDIX A.1

LISTS OF CONTACTS

APPENDIX A.1,.,l. LIST OF PERSONAL CONTACTS., CEIP TRANSPORTATION STUDY

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Mark.Ahrendsen Tra'nsportation Planner 19 N. 5th St.
Wilmington /New Hanover P. 0. Drawer 1810
Plannin Ig Department Wilmington, NC 28402
#919/762-8734*

Dr. David Ball Associate Professor 18-D Patterson Hall
Economics & B.usi.;ness NCSU
NC State University Raleigh, NC 27650
#737-2258

Mark Boggs Railroad Planner P. 0. Box 25201
Systems Planning:D-ivision Highway Bldg.
N.C. Department of Raleigh, NC 27611
Transportation #733-2804

Dr. James C. Bresee Director P. 0. 3ox 12235
NC Energy Institute Research Triangle Pk-,NC
#549-0671
Ext. 270/271

Albert H. C'alloway. Administrative'M&nager Dobbs Bldg.
Business Assistance 430 N. Salisbu,@y St.
Dept. of Commerce, Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-4371

M. C. Campbell Consultant, Route 1
First Colony Farms, Inc. Creswell, NC '27928
#797-4371

Maurice F. Canady, Jr. Director P. 0. Box 3248
Engineering & Development Wilmington, NC 28406
NC State Ports Authority #763-1621

John Costlow Director, Duke University Beaufort, NC 28516
Marine Laboratory #728-2111

Doug, Culbreth Acting Director Dept. of Commerce
NC Energy Division Dobbs Bldg.
430 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-2230

*All Area Codes are 919 unless otherwise noted..

A@l

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Tom Dixon Chief, Pipeline Safety Section Dobbs Bldg.
Transportation Division 430 N. Salsibury St.
NC Utilities Commission Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-6000

W. W. Edwards Port Manager, P. 0. Box 3248
Wilmington Terminal Wilmington, NC 28406
N.C. State Ports Authority #763-1621

Bill Farris Planning Director 19 N. 5th St.
Wilmington/New Hanover Wilmington, Nt 28402
Planning Department #763-0174

Ben Farthing Planner II P. 0. Box 157 -
Brunswick County Planning Bolivia, NC 28422
Department

Fred Fontana Transportation Planner P. 0. Box 25201
N.C. Department of Raleigh, NC 27611
Transporta'tion #733-2804

Grant Godwin Deputy Executive Director 41-21 Dobbs Bldg.
State Ports Authority 430 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-6955

Ralph Godwin Executive Director P. 0. Box 1698
Wilmington Industrial Wilmington, NC 28402
Development, Iric. #763-8414

Robert Goins Port Manager P. 0. Drawer 829
Morehead City Terminal Morehead City, NC
N.C. State Ports Authority 28557
#726-3158

Warren C. Graham, Jr. Project Coordinator 330 Shipyard Blvd.
Coastal Aluminum Wilmington, NC 28403
Group of*N.C., Inc. #392-2660

Gary K. Greene Assistant Engineer P. 0. Box 3248
N.C. State Ports Authori,ty Wilmington, NC 28406
#763-1621

Glenn Harbeck Senior Planner 19 N. 5th St.
Wilmington/New Hanover Planning Wilmington, NC 28402
Department #763-0174

Dexter Hayes Planner County Administrative Blc
Wilmington/New Hanover Planning 320 Chestnut St.
Commission Wilmington, NC 28401

ADDRESS"
NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION --

W. S. Head Senior Fuel Analyst, P. 0. Box 1551
Transportation Raleigh, NC 27602
Carolina Power & Light #836-7155

Phillip Hill Coastal Plains Center 1581 Harbor Dr.
Marine Development Services Wilmington, NC 28401
#791-6432

Anne Hitchcock Chief, Allocations Section N.C. Dept. of Co mmerce
NC Energy Division 430 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-2230

Sam Holcomb Transportation Planner P. 0. Box 25201
Systems Planning Division Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Department of #733-2804
Transportation

Mike Ihrie Soil & Water Conservation P. 0. Box 1129
Specialist Washington@ NC 27889
Washington Regional Office #946-6481
NC Department of Natural
Resources & community
Development

Dr. Marc Johnson Associate Professor 215 A Patterson
Economics & Busi'ness NCSU I
NC State Univers-ity Raleigh, NC 27650
#737-2256 -

Joe Kott Planner P. 0. Box 25201
Systems Planning. D;i-vision Raleigh, NC 27611
N. C. Dept. of Transportation #733-2804

Glenn Lampley Senior Industrial Services P. 0. Box 1551
Engineer Raleigh, NC 27602
Carolina Power & Light #836-6318

Eddie Leggett Transportation Planner P. 0. Box 25201,
Systems Planning Division Raleigh, NC 27611
NC Department of Transportation #733-2804

Jacob Lehman New Orleans OCS Office Hale Boggs Fe 'deral
Bureau of Land Management Bldg. Suite 841
Department of Interior New Orleans, LA 70130
#504/837-4720

Daniel leRoux Executive Director 310 W. Main St.
Mideast Commission P. 0. Drawer 1218
Washington, NC 27889
#946-8043

A-3

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Harold Love Industrial Development Dobbs Bldg.
Division 430 N. Salisbury St.
NC Department of Commerce Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-4151

Phillip McMullen Senior Analyst P. 0. Box 12194
.Research..Triangle Institute RTP/NC 27709
#541-6000

John Manuel Conservation Section Dobbs Bldg.
N.C. Energy Division 430 N. Salisbury St.
N.C. Dept. of Commerce Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-4492

Bruce Matthews Division of Aeronautics P. 0. Box 25201
N.C. Dept. of Transportation Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-2491

Larry McGee Wood Energy Coordinator, 512 N. Salisbury St.
Forest. Resources Division Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Natural #733-2162
Resources & Community
Development

Charles McNeill Curator 120 Turner St.
Hampton Marine Museum Beaufort, NC 28516
#728-7317

Chris Mogensen Chief, Services Section 430 N. Salisbury St.
N.C. Energy Division Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Commerce #733-4490

,Steve Molar Recreation Specialist P. 0. Box 1129
Washington Regional Office Washington, NC 27889
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #946-6481
&.Community Development

Bobby Montague Vice-President P. 0. Box 1551
Systems Planning Raleigh, NC 27602
Carolina Power & Light #836-7155

Milan Mu zi ni ch Regional Manager P. 0. Box 1129
Washington Regional Office Washington, NC 27889
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #946-6481
& Community Development

Raymond J. Nery Director, Natural Gas Division 430 N. Salisbury St.
North Carolina Utilities Comm. Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Commerce #733-4326

Barney J. O'Quinn Environmental Planner P. 0. Box 25251
Division of Highways Raleigh., NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Transportation #733-7842

A-4

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Will Plentl Director P. 0. Box 25201
Aeronautics Division Raleigh, NC '27611
N.C. Dept. of Transportation #733-2491

Tom Richter Local Government Specialist P. 0.. Box 1129
Washington Regional Office Washington, NC 27889
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #946-6481
& Community DevelopmeInt

Richard W. Ricks Manager, Finance & P. 0. Box 297
Administration Leland, NC 28451
Brunswick Energy Company #371-6000

Larry Sams Director P. 0. Box 25201
Systems Planning Division Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Transportation #733-2804

Roger Schecter Section Chief 512 N. Salisbury St.
Permit Information Raleigh, NC 27611
Office of Regulatory Relations #733-6376
N.C. Dept. of Natural Res'ources &
Community Development

Jane Sharp Division of Policy Development Administration Bldg.
N.C. Dept. of Administration 116 W. Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
#733-4131

Terry Sholar Fisheries Management Specialist P. 0. Box 1129
Washington Regional Office Washington, NC 27889
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #946-6481
& Community Development

Melissa Sigman Regional Planner 313 N. Front St.
Cape Fear Council of Governments Suite 210
P. 0. Box 1491
Wilmington, NC 28402
#763-0191

Angela Skelton Legal Consultant Coble-Helms House
Office of Marine Affairs 417 N. Blount.St.
N.C. Dept. of Administration Raleigh, NC 27603
#733-2290

James F. Smith Coordinator, CEIP Program P. 0. Box 27687
Office of Coastal Management Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #733-2293
& Community Development

Roy A. Stevens Executive Director, 913 Shepherd St.
Carteret County Economic P. 0. Box 825
Development Council Morehead City, NC 28557
#726-7822

A-5

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Tom Swain Chief Navigation Planner P. 0. Box 1890
Plans and Reports Branch Wilmington, NC 28402
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers #343-4783

David Thomas Director P. 0. Box 5546
International:-TradeCenter Raleigh, NC 27650
NC State University #737-2853

Hobart Trusdale President Route 1
First Colony Farms, Inc. Creswell, NC 27928
#733-4131

Paul Wilms Head, Division of Planning P. 0. Box 27687
& Environmental Studies Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #733-5473
& Community Development

Larry Yarger Manager P.O. Box 1551
Fossil Fuels Raleigh, NC 27602
Carolina'Power & Light #836-7155

Frank Yelverton Special Projects Manager P. 0. Box 1890
Regulatory Functions Branch Wilmington, NC 28402
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers #343-4640

Bruce Muga Professor of Civil Engineering 123 Engineering Bldg.
Duke University Durham, NC 27706
#684-2434

Bob Wasson Policy.Advisor on Transportation 116 W. Jones St.
Division of Policy Development Raleigh, NC 27603
N.C. Dept. of Administration #733-4131

APPENDIX A.1.2. LIST OF CONTACTS BY MAIL, CEIP. TRANSPORTATION STUDY

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Ormond Barbee Chairman 107 New Bridge St.
Board of Commissioners Jacksonville, NC 28540
Onslow County #347-4717

John H. Bell, Jr. Mayor of Elizabeth City P. 0. Box 347
300 E. Colonial Ave.
.Elizabeth City, NC 27909
#338-3981

Lamar A. Benton Chairman P. 0. Box 414
Board of Commissioners Gatesville, NC 27938
Gates County

J. B. Berry Chairman P. 0. Box 253
Board of Commissioners Swan Quarter, NC 27885
Hyde County #926-5711

Ledrue Buck Chairman W. Second St.
Board of Commissioners Washington, NC 27889
Beaufort County #946-0070

W. Raleigh Carver Chairman P. 0. Box 272
Board of Commissioners Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Pasquotank County #335-0865

William J. Costin Chairman P. 0. Box 158
Board of Commissioners Kenansville, NC 28349
Dublin County #296-1591

Edward S. Dixon Mayor of Morehead City P. 0. Drawer M
706 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
#726-6848

Charles H. Edwards Chairman P. 0. Box 530
Board of Commissioners Windsor, NC 27983
Bertie County #726-6848

J. D. Flowers Chairman P. 0. Box 116
Board of Commissioners King St.
Hertfort County Winton, NC 27983
#358-3551

A-7

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

J. Roy Fogle E,@ecutiye Director 502 Pollock St.
Neuse River Council of P. 0. Box 1717
Governments New Bern, NC 28560
#638-3185

Nathan Garner, Sr. Chairman P. 0. Drawer 630
Board of Commissioners County Courthouse
Carteret County Beaufort, NC .28516
#728-3644

Thomas B. Gray Chairman P. 0. Drawer 1000
Board of Commissioners Manteo, NC 27954
Dare County #473-2143

Benjamin B. Halterman Mayor of Wilmington P. 0. Box 1810
102 North Third St.
Wilmington, NC 28401
#762-4323

Roy L. Harrell Mayor of Edenton P. 0. Box 300
South Broad St.
Edenton, NC 27932
#482-2155

John W. James, Jr. Chaiftan P. 0. Box 4
Board of Commissioners Burgaw, NC 28425
Pender County #259-2636

T. F. "Buck" Leary Chairman P. 0. Box 176
Board of Commissioners Camden, NC 27921
Camden County #335-4077

C. Waldo Marlowe Chairman 111 Washington St.
Board of Commissioners Whiteville, NC 28472
Columbus County #64,2-7655

R. L. Martin Chairman P. 0. Box A
Board of Commissioners Greenville, NC 27834
Pitt County #752-2934

Donald C. McGlohon Mayor of Greenville P. 0. Box 1905
201 W. Fifth St.
Greenville,, NC 27834
#752-4137

Leander R. Morgan Mayor of New Bern P. 0. Box 1129
300 Pollock St.
New Bern, NC 28560
#633-5161

A-8

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Delmar C. Ownes Chairman P. 0. Box 426
Board of Commissioners Columbia, NC 27925
Tyrrell County #796-5611

Robert A. Paul Chairman P. 0. Box 186
Board of Commissi-oners Bayboro, NC 28515
Pamlico County #745-5195

C. A. Phillips Chairman P. 0. Box 583
Board of Commissioners E. King St.
Chowan County Edenton, NC 27932
#482-8431

Horace Phillips Chairman P. 0. Box 266
Board of Commissioners Trenton, NC 28585
Jones County #448-5111

Jerry Ramsey Executive Director P. 0. Box 1491
Cape Fear Coun.ci*l of Governments 1 IN. Third St.
Wilmington,. NC 28401
#763-0191

Daniel leRoux Executive Director P. 0. Box 1218
Mid-East Commission Washington, NC 27889
#426-5726

Lester H. Sfinps.on. Chairman P. 0. Box 196
Board of Commissioners Hertford, NC 27986
Perquimans County@ #426-5458

Simon C. Sitterson Mayor of Kinston, P. 0. Box 3 39
207 East King St.
Kinston, NC 28501
#527-2111

Robert D. Swain Chairman P. 0. Box 207
Board of Commissioners Plymouth, NC 27962
Washington County #793-3523

W. B. Teachey, Jr. Mayor of Jacksonville P. 0. Box 128
206 Marine Blvd.
Jacksonville, NC 28540
#347-5153

Franky Thomas Chairman P. 0. Box 249
Board of Commissioners Bolivia, NC 28422
Brunswick County #253-4331

Richard W. Tripp Mayor of Washington P. 0. Box 850
124 N. Market St.
Washington, NC 27889
#946-1033

A-9

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Richard S. Whaley Chairman P. 0. Box 3289
Board of Commissioners Kinston, NC 28501
Lenoir County #523-2417

Robert C. Whitley Executive Director P. 0. Box 646
Albemarle Regional Planning & Hertfort, NC 27944
Development Commission #946-8043

Baxter Williams Chairman P. 0. Box 39
Board of Commissioners Currituck, NC 27929
Currituck County #232-2075

Ellen C. Williams Chairman New Hanover County Bldg.
Board of Commissioners 320 Chestnut St.
New Hanover County Wilmington, NC 28401
#763-3688

John B. Willis Chairman P. 0. Box 1425
Board of Commissioners New Bern, NC 28560
Craven County #638-1424

John F. Wilson, IV Mayor of Manteo P. 0. Box 246
Queen Elizabeth Ave.
Manteo, NC 27954
#473-2133

A-10

APPENDIX A..2

STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

APPENDIX A.2. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM

NAME- TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Steve Benton Head, Technical Services P. 0. Box 27687
Office of Coastal Management Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources #733-2293
& Community Development

Jerry qaney Administrative Assistant to P. 0. Box 3248
Executive Director of Ports Wilmington, NC 28402

Ralph L. Godwin Executive Director P. 0. Box 1698
Wilmington Industrial Wilmington, NC 28402
Development, Inc. #763-8414

Billy Ray Hall Assistant Director 116 W. Jones St.
Division of Policy Development Raleigh, NC 27603 -
N.C. Dept. of Administration #733-4131

Edd Hauser Deputy Director P.O. Box 12551
(Chairman) UNC Institute for Transportation RTP, NC 27709
Research and Education #549-0541

Sam Holcomb Transportation Planner P. 0. Box 25201
Systems Planning Division Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Transportation #733-2804

Mary Ellen Marsden Research Associate Manning Hall 026A
Social Science Research UNC-Chapel Hill
Institute Chapel Hill, NC 27514
.#966-2350

Bruce Muga Professor 123 Engineering Bldg.
Dept. of Civil Engineering Durham, NC 27706
Duke University #689-2434

Eric Vernon Coordinator, OCS Task Force 116 W. Jones St.
Office of Marine Affairs Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Administration #733-2290

James F. Smith CEIP Coordinator P. 0. Box 27687
(Ex-offico member) Office of Coastal Manaaement Raleigh, NC 27611
N.C. Dept. of Natural Kesources #733-2293
& Community Development

Yates Sorrell Professor Broughton Hall
(Co-Chairman) Dept. of Mechanical Aerospace Raleigh, NC 27607
Engineering #737-2684
N.C. State University

A-12

NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Roy Stevens Executive Director P. 0. Box 825
Carteret County Economic Morehead City, NC 28557
Development Council, Inc. #7@6-7822

John Warren Senior Environmental P. 0, Box 12194
Planner RTP, NC 27709
Operations Analysis Division #541-6000
Research Triangle Institute

Paul Wilms Head P. 0. Box 27687
Planning and Environmental Raleigh, NC 27611
Studies #733-5473
Environmental. Management
Division
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources
& Community Devel:opment

William H. Weatherspoon Executive Director P. 0. Box 167
North Carolina Petroleum Raleigh,NC 27602
Council #828-5438

AFTENDIX B.1
WORK PLAN' FOR PHASE II

Phase II-A. Assessment of Impacts of OCS-Support Base and.Coal Export Activity

Task 2.1. Determine Industry Requirements
2.2.1 Base Line Data
Collect base line data on population and demographic indicators,
economic indicators, community and county characteristics, trans-
portation facilities, and energy resources, and energy-related
activities for those counties impacted by OCS and by coal
projects.

2.1.2 Industry Needs-OCS
Develop complete compilatibn of industry needs under alternative
scenarios involving various- OCS levels of development
(i.e., low, medium, and high resource recovery scenarios).

2.1.3 Industry Needs-Coal
Develop complete compilation@ofindustry needs under alternative
scenarios involving various levels of coal export (i.e., low,
medium, and high export volume. scenarios).

Task 2.2. Analyze Policies Affecting Development
2.2.1 Energy-Related Policies
Identify, analyze, and describe.,in a condensed fashion for\
policy-makers., the federal, state, and local policies,
regulations and plans affecting-management of energy project
development in the coastal study., area.

2.2.2 Transportation-Related Policies,
Identify, analyze, and describe,:!in like manner the federal,
state, and local policies, regul'ations and plans affecting
management of transportation sys@tem development in the
coastal study area.

2.2.3 Monitoring-
Monitor energy projects and geneml development trends in
the coastal study area to periodically update the assessment

process.

B-1

Task 2.3. Examine Location Alternatives for OCS Support Bases
2.3.1 Shore Support Requirements
Determine requirements for shore support facilities for OCS
activity off the South Atlantic coast, concentrating on Cape
Henry to Jacksonville, under three separate scenarios.

2.3.2 Site Specific Needs
Delineate needs in terms of land, port facilities, channel
depths, utilities, transportation links, easements, and other
peripheral facilities.

2.3.3 Optimal Number of'Sites
Determine the optimal number of shore support sites for OCS
exploration and development along the North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia coast.

2.3.4 North Carolina Site(s)
Using those sites identified in Phase I as a start, identify
and analyze all possible sites in North Carolina including,
but not limited to Wilmington, Morehead City, Southport, and
Wanchese.

2.3.5 Recommendations
Recommend optimal site(s) in North Carolina for the location
of OCS on-shore support bases.

2.3.6 Advantages of N.C. Site(s)
Describe special factors that offer an advantageous location of
shore support facilities in North Carolina.

2.3.7 Improvements Needed
Identify transportation and other improvements needed (and
attenuating costs) to make alternate location sites viable
support bases, and analyze the relationship of OCS support
base(s) to other on-shore facilities.

B-2

Task 2.4. Examine Location Alternatives for Coal Export TOrmihals
2.4.1 Export Demand
Review projections of world coal demand and'export potential
for the South Atl&ntic range of ports (i.e., Norfolk/Chesapeake,
Morehead City, Wilmington area, Charleston, and Savannah).

2.4.2 Alternatives
Assume alternate development scenarios for the level of
potential coal export volume from North Carolina ports.

2.4.3 Long-Range Needs
Delineate long-range needs i-n terms of land, port facilities,
channel depths, utilities, transportation links, easements,
and other peripheral facilities. (Short-range needs have
already been identified by the State Ports Authority).

2.4.4 North Carolina Sites
Using those sites identified in Phase I as a start, identify
all possible coal export terminal sites tn North CaroTina.

2.4.5 Advantages of N.C. Sites
Describe special factors that offer an advantageous location
for these sites, where applicable.

2.4.6 Improvements Needed
Identify transportation and other improvements needed, along
with costs to utilize those sites.

Task 2.5. Forecast Impacts of OCS and Coal Activity Based on Indust
Requirements
2.5.1 Analyze BaseLine Data
Analyze base line data for alternative locations of support
base facilities in order to assess economic impacts, social
and demographic impacts, recreational impacts, fiscal impacts-,
and environmental impacts.

B-3

2.5.2 Impacts-Exploration Stage-OCS
Estimate potential impacts during the OCS exploration stage
given alternative industry requirements scenarios identified
in subtask 2.1.2.

2.5.3 Impacts-Operation StaS2-OCS
Es.timate potential impacts during OCS continuing operations
.Stage, given alternative industry, requirement scenarios.

2.5.4 Analyze Base Line Data
Analyze base lin&data for alternative locations of coal
export terminals.in order to assess economic, social-
demographic, recreational, environment.al,,and fiscal
impacts..

2.5.5 'Impacts-Coal
Estimate potentfal impacts of coal.export activity under
alternative industry requirement.scenarios.

Task 2.6. Analyze Transportation Alternatives
2.6.1 Identify Target Projects
Identify those coal export sites and OCS support base sites
where alternative transportation modes or systems should be
considered.

2.6.2 Alternate Transportation Systems
Analyze advantages and disadvantages including costs of using
feasible alternate modes or systems.

2.6.3 -Policy Conflicts
Examine policies affecting development of alternate modes for
possible conflicts with overall coastal management plans and
policies.

B-4

Phase II-B. Assessment of Impacts of Transport and StorageRelated-to
Other Energy Projects

Task 2.7. Validate Phase I Data.and Other Information
2.7.1 Review Energy_Projects
Review energy projects identified in Task 1.1 to determine if
any new projects are planned:or anticipated concerning peat,
refinery products, LPG, wood,.etc.

2.7.2 Review Transportation Project-s
Review transportation infrastructure investments identifie-d in
Task 1.2 to determine if modific-ations need to be made as a
result of recent energy-related,developments.

2.7.3 Update Interview Information
.Update current situtation, if-nee-ded., through interviews with
State, regional, and local.dec-isi.onmakers.

Task 2.8. Determine Industry Requirements
2.8.1 Base Line Data
In subtask 2.1.1, base.li.ne data,were collected for'thos.e
counties in the coastal zone tKat would be impacted by OCS
development. In this task, th-i-s data base will be extended
to all additional counties (th&t were not included in subtask
2.1.1) where peat, wood, and other energy resources are,or may
in the future be exploited and harvested as an energy source.

2.8.2 Industry Needs
Develop a complete compilation of industry needs under alternative
scenarios involving energy development (i.e., low, medium, and
h-igh resource recovery scenarios).

2.8.3 Compile Data Base
Compile all base line data from tasks 2.1 and 2.5 into a uniform
data base for all coastal counties included in the study.

B-5

Task 2.9. Monitor Near-Term Impacts in Order to Forestall Mitigation
2.9.1. Monitor Impacts of Shipments
Assess impacts of energy feedstock and product shipments that
may have occurred since-the project began.

2.9.2 Monitor Impacts of Projects
Assess transportation projects that have been undertaken in
support of energy activity to identify recreational and
environmental impacts-that may have occurred.

Task 2.10. Forecast Long-Term Impact of Transportation Investments
Based on Industry Requirements

2.10.1 Analyze Base Line Data
Analyze base line data for those counties potentially impacted
by wood, peat, LPG, refineries, etc. in order to assess fiscal,
recreational and environmental impacts.

2.10.2 Impacts-Construction Stage
Estimate potential impacts given alternative industry require-
ment scenarios identified in subtask 2.8.2 that may occur
during the construction and development stage.

2.10.3 Impacts-Operation Stage
Estimate potential impacts given alternative industry require-
ments during,the continuing operations stage.

Task 2.11. Analyze.Transportation Alternatives
2.11.1 Identify Target Projects
Identify those energy projects where alternative transportation
modes or systems should be considered.

2.11.2 Alternate Transportation Systems
Analyze advantages and disadvantages including costs'of using
feasible alternate modes or systems.

B-6

Task 2.12. Compile and Complete Final Report
Major interim reports will be prepared on this project according
to the following schedule:
August 1980: Preliminary Draft, Phase I Report (current grant)
December 1980: Final DraftPhase I Report (current grant)
May 1981: Preliminary Draft 'Phase II Report on OCS Support
Base Study and Coal Export Terminal Study.
August 1981: Final Draft, Phase II Report on OCS Study and
Coal Study
May 1982: Preliminary Draft, Phase II Report on Other Coastal
Study Area Energy Projects.
August 1982: Final Draft, Plha.se II Report on Other Coastal
Energy Projects

This task will compile these separate reports into a final technical
report and will prepare an executive summary report for the overall
project effort.

SCHEDULE

The overall project schedule for each major subtask of this Phase II effort
is shown in the following "Grant Milestone Plan." Mi-lestones in the project are
identified by target dates for completion of tasks and subtasks and for
completion of major project reports.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Project organization and management will continue exactly as it is in the
current Phase I effort, with Dr. Edd Hauser,. Deputy Director of ITREserving
as overall Project Director and Dr. Paul Cribbins of N.C. State University and
Dr. Paul Tschetter of East Carolina University serving as Co-Principal
Investigators. The project team will-be enhanced also by the continued
involvement of Dr. John Maiolo and Dr. Rooney Malcom as Advisory Consultants.
Phase II Project Associates will be Dr. Mark Fisch and Mr. Dan Latta. Other
professional and graduate student personnel will be utilized on specific

subtasks as needed.

B-7

An additional feature of Phase II of the Coastal Energy Transportation
Study project will be the close collaboration between the ITRE project team
and North Carolina State Ports Authority. Mr. Grant Godwin, Deputy Director
for Plans, will serve as the SPA Project Director and will be heavily involved
in Phase II-A, the analysis of OCS support base and coal export terminal
requirements.

B-8

GRANT MILESTONE PLAN Page I of@ 4
1. G-t Writill-Oixi N. 2. T.1 N-, fl. T-1 Id-fill-li- Phase II-A: CEIP Transportation Study Ptii-i-g F.Id ""_0
S, ft,l.- IN-. Add-1 6. T.k Sten Os"
UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education ,_Sept. 15, 1980
7. T.k C-W. or.
August 31, 1981
& Idwili.11- 9. Fil-M.9 C.Movy (W@11. 10. Budpt Period In Morift
No.t- I.Adoiiiri 3trixt.. el@d 1980 1981 1 1. C_tneftw/
Tasks 2.1- OCS Support Base and Coal h- W
2.3 Export Study Sept. Pct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. -Mar. Apr. May Jun Aug. Responsible

2.1.1 Base line Data Tschetter

2.1.2 Industry Needs - OCS Cribbins
2.1.3 Industry Needs - Coal Cribbins

2.2.1 Energy-Related Policies Hauser
2.2.2 Transp_.-Related Policies Hauser
2.2.3 Monitoring Hauser
2.3.1 Shore Support Requirements --A Cribbins
2.3.2 Site Specific Needs Z\ Cribbins
2.3.3 Optima I Number of Sites Cribbins
2.3.4 North Carolina Site(s) Godwin

2.3.5 Recommendations Godwin
2.3.6 Advantages of N.C. Site(s) Godwin

2.3.7 Improvements Needed Cr bbins
7-kl A-Subtask Completion Target Date: '7-Interim Report Target Date
14. Si, ...... .f ............ ...

GRANT MILESTONE PLAN Page 2 f -4
1. G-t Id.101.01M No. Tak 1d-t1f1cW1W Phase 11-A (Continued) th-,o
23254 S. To% 9@ Dow
5. ftdw@ (Ne-, Add-1

1. Tab C.,%"ti@ 0.1.

9. R--l-9 W-D" 'WWk to. Bucipt Period In Abnft AW-
N..tw Onekd@ St@Wft EW@d '1981 f
Tasks 2.4 OCS Support Base and Coal
-2.6 Export Study Jan. Feb. IMar. Apr. May June July Au
2.4.1 Export Demand.. Godwin
2.4.2 Alternatives Godwin
2.4.3 Long-Range Needs Godwin
2.4.4 North Carolina Sites Godwin

Godwin
2.4.5 Advantages of N.C. Sites

Godwin
2.4.6 Improvements Needed
2.5.1 Analyze Base line Data-0CS Tschetter

Tschetter
2.5.2 Impacts-Exploration Stage-OCS
2.5.3 Impacts-Operation Stage-OCS Tschetter
2.5.4 Analyze Base line DatamCoal Tschetter
2.5.5 Impacts-Coal A Tschetter
identify Target Projects Cribbins

Cribbins
Alternate Transp. Systems
Policy Conflicts Cribbins
n

tter

t er
,je
t

e tter

,etter

GRANT MILESTONE PLAN Page 3 of 4
C-' W-on.11. 23254 fte, too, Phase 11-8: CEIP Transportation Study 4, P1&-1nq PwW
F%,1- (Ne-, Add-) S. Tesk 5@ Dine May 1, 1981
UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education 7. Task 0-p4"_ ow.
Auous 31, 1982
a w..tJJiu0on 9. R-i,4 C. 10. Sudpt Period In Mondis j981
Nuadw ="Eak 1982
IN-
Tasks 2.7 pvrf@l
-2.12 Other Energy Projects Study July Aug. Sept. Oct. Dec. Jan. t IeT Mar. Apr.
2.7.1 Review Enerqy Proiects Cribbins
2.7.2 Review Transportation Projeci A Cribbins
2.7.3 Update Interview Information Cribbins
2.8.1 Base line Data -A Tschetter
2.8.2_ Industry Needs Cribbins
2.8.3 Compile Data Base schetter
Monitor Impacts of Shipments continue Cribbins
2.9.1
2.9.2 Monitor Impacts of Projects continue Cribbins
2.10.1 Analyze Base Line Data Tschetter
2.10.2 Impacts Construction Stage Fisch
2.10.3 Impacts Operation Stage Fisch
2.11.1 Identify Target Projects Hauser
2.11.2 Alternate Transp. Systems Cribbins
2.12 Final Report Cribbins

A-Subtask Completion Target Date

-7.-W LU

GRANT MILESTONE PLAN Page__I__,f 4
23254 2. T.k N-bw Tok Id-tiftmio- Phase 11-B (Continued) 4. PR*mlrkg P*Ied
S. T.k S@ Do"
S. PW@@ (N.M. Ad&M)
Tak C-.0.6- D..

& ki-fl"..11" 0 _F11MI, C.1-9-1 4W-1h 10. BUdgmt Nriod in MonIft
N.@6. emkd@ Sx@tum El-ml) 1982

Other Fneray Proiprts Study
T
2.12 Tul, Aug, I
asks 2.9-

2.9.1 Monitor Impacts of Shipment Cribbins
2.9.2 Monitor Impacts of Projects Cribbins
2.10.1 Analyze Base Line data Tschetter
2.10.2. Impacts-Construction Stage Fisch
2.10.3 Impacts- Operations Stage Fisch
2.11.1 Identify Target Projects Hauser

2.11.2 Alternate Transp. Systems

2.12 iFinalReport

A-Subtask Completion Target Date V-Interim Report Target Date VFFinal Report Target Date
P-w- W...W -d 0.1.

APPENDIX B.2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The references cited in this bibliography are classified under

the following topics:

B.2.1 North Carolina Energy Statistics

B.2.2 North Carolina Transportation

B.2.3 Ports

B.2.4 North Carolina State Ports

B.2.5 Coal

B.2.6 Wood/Peat

B.2.7 Oil and Gas

B.2.8 OCS Impacts

B.2.9 Water Resources

B.2.10 Land Use Plans

B.2.11 Environmental Impact Statements

B.2.12 Environmental Assessments

B.2.13 Community Development and Recreation

B.2.14 Bibliographies and Data Sources

B-13

NORTH CAROLINA ENERGY STATISTICS (B.2.1)

Emmett, Robert C. The Transportation of Energy Materials in the United
States: A Bibliography. Prepared for Argonne Laboratory, Energy and
Environmental Systems Division Transportation Energy Systems Section.
Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Transportation Library,
July 1978.

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

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

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

North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State. Edited by
James W. Clay, Douglas M. Orr, Jr., and Alfred W. Stuart. Chapel
Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Policy Development.'
Miscellaneous information on North Carolina's balanced Growth Policy.
Includes North Carolina Tomorrow; North Carolina Tomorrow-The Next
Step; Balanced Growth Policy Act, criteria for designating growth
centers; "Balanced Growth Policy--A Status Report." and "What is
Balanced Growth." May 28, 1980.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of State Budget and
Management, Research Planning Services. Profile: North Carolina
Counties; Fifth Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina; ' @

North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of State Budget and
Planning, Research and Planning Services. North Carolina State
Government Statistical Abstract; Fourth Edition. RalJ`g, N@�rth
Carolina.

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

North Carolina State Goals and Policy Board. A Balanced Growth Policy for
North Carolina: A Proposal for Public Discussion. June 1978.

North Carolina Utilities Commission. 1978 Report-Vol. XII. Statistical
and Analytical Data Through 1976. Raleigh, North Carolina: January
31, 1979.

B-14

Research Tri,angle Institute, The Center for Development and Resource Pl.anning,
and North Carolina Department of Administration. The Office of State
Planning. Final Report. A State Energy Management Plan for North
Carolina. Phase I: A Quantitative Description of the Current Situation
and Analysis of the Determinants and Consequences of Future Energy Use.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: June 1974.

B-15

NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION (GENERAL) (B.2.2)

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

East Carolina University, Regional Development Institute. Overland
Freight Transportation: Eastern North Carolina. Greenville, North
Carolina. August 5, 1969.

North Carolin& Department of Transporation, Office of the Ass't. Secretary
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute.
North Carolina Airport System Plan: Executive Summary. Raleigh.
June 1979.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Ass't. Secretary
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute.
North Carolina Airport System Plan: Technical Report, Book 1. Raleigh.
September 1979.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the-Ass't. Secretary
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Trtangle Institute.
North Carolina Airport System Plan: Technical Report, Book 2. Raleigh.
September 1979.

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

Smith, Wilbur,& Associates. North Carolina Rail Plan: 1979. Prepared for
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of Ass't.
Secretary for Planning. Raleigh. June 1979.

Smith, Wilbur,& Associates. North Carolina Rail Plan: 1979, S ummary
Report. Prepared for NCDOT, Office of the Ass't. Secretary for
Planning. Raleigh. August 1979.

B-16

PORTS (B.2.3)

Bonasia, Joseph. "Artificial Islands for Industrial Ports. Water
Spectrum, Fall, 1975.

Bragg, Dan M. and Bradley, James R. Work Plan for a Study of the
Feasibility of an Offshore Terminal in the Texas Gulf Coast Region.
Texas A & M University, Sea Grant Program. J-une 197Y.

Bragg, Daniel M. and BradleyJames R. The Economic Impact of a Deep-
water Terminal in Texas. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M
University, Research Division, Texas Engineering Experiment
Station. November 1972.

Brandsteller, Albin. Environmental Assessment: West Coast Deepwater
Port Study. Submitted to United States Army Engineer District,
San Francisco, California. Richland, Wash'ington' Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. June 1973.

Cauley, Robert F.;,Davis, Barry J.; McNeil, Michael D.; and Wehman,
Victor W. Jr. (report coordinator). Cons.iderations and
Recommendations for a Texas Supertanker Part. Aus,tin, Texas.,
The University of Texas at Austin. Aug.ust 25, 1972.

Harlow, E. H. Artificial Offshore Islands. Lecture at North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. September 2, 1975.

Harris, Frederic R., Inc. An Evaluation, Kulti-Purpose Offshore Industrial-
Port Islands: Civil Engineering Considerations. Prepared for NSF/RANN.
Great Neck, New York: Frederic R. Harris, Inc. January 1975.

Johnson, G. F. and deWit, L. A. Ecological Effects of an Artificial
Island, Rericon Island, Punta Gorda, California: Miscellaneous
Re-port No. 78-3. Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center. Springfield, Virginia* National
.Technical Information Service. September 1978.

Lesnik, John R. An Annotated Bibliography on Detached Breakwaters and
Artificial Headlands: Miscellaneous Report No. 79-1. Fort Belvoir,
Virginia: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineeri-ng
Research Center. February 1979.

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

Ports '80, Sponsored by the Committee on Ports and Harbors of the Water-
way, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division of ASCE. Conference held at
Norfold, Virginia, May 19-21, 1980. New York: ASCE, 1980.

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

B-17

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

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

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division.
Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabmama, and Florida. Appendix F: Environmental
Assessment; Environmental Impact. Vicksburg, Mississippi: The
Corps. June 1973.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific
Division. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Appendix E:
Environmenfa-l Assessment. June 1973.

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

United States Department of Transportation, Office of University Research.
Federal Port Policy in the United States. Final Report. Springfield,
Virginia*, National Technical Information Service. June 1977.
Unite d States Department of the Interior. Final Environme@tal Impact
Statement-Deepwater Ports. April 1974. 2 volumes.

United States General Accounting Office, Comptroller General. Report
to the Congress of the United States: American Seaports--Change
Affecting Operations and Development. November 16, 1979.

B-18

NORTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS (B.2.4)

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

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

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

CPRC Deepwater Terminal Study, The. A Preliminary Analysis of Economic and
Environmental Factors related to the introduction of Petroleum Refining,
Petrochemical Processing and Deepwater Terminal Activities in
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. January 1975. (2 copies).

Horna, Dane; Wiggins, John; Bodvaroson, George; Symmes, Art; Norwood,
Blake; Freeman, Mike; Mohns, Larry; Atwater, Kathleen; and McKinney,
Brent. Conceptual Design of an Offshore Artificial Island-Off the
Coast of North Carolina. Engineer-In-Residence Program, E. H. Harlow,
Instructor. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University-,
Civil Engineering Department, Fall Semester, 1975.

Lockwood-Greene Architects and Engineers. North Carolina State Ports
Authority, Port of Wilmington: Expansion Development Study.
Prepared for North Carolina,State Ports Authority. Spartanburg,
South Carolina. September 20, 1979.

Marine Newsletter, The, Vol. II, No. 2. Wilmington, North Carolina: Coastal
Plains Center For Marine Development Services, March-April 1980.

Marine Newsletter, The, Vol. II, No. 3. Wilmington, North Carolina: Coastal
Plains Center For Marine Development Services, May-June 1980.

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

Mulligan, Paul F. and Collins, Raymond L. Final Report: Impact of North
Carolina Ports on the North Carolina Economy. Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety, 1975.

Nathan, Robert T. Associates, Inc. Budget: Coastal Plains Deepwater
Terminal Study. Submitted to Coastal Plains Regional Commission.
Washington, D.C., March 7, 1974.

Nathan, Robert R. Associates, Inc. (Washington, D.C.) and Coastal Zone
Resources Corporation (Wilmington, NC). The Coastal Plains Deep-
water Terminal Study: Volume I, Study Report. Prepared for Coastal
Plains Regional Commission. January 1975.

B-19

Nathan, Robert T. Associates, Inc. (Washington, D.C.) and Coastal Zone
Research Corporation (Wilmington, NC). The Coastal Plains Deep-
water Terminal Study: Volume II, Technical Appendixes. Prepared
for Coastal Plains Regional Commission. January 1975,

Nathan, Robert R. Associates, Inc. Proposal For Coastal Plains Deep-
water Terminal Study. Submitted to C6astal Plains Regional
Committee. Washington, D.C. March 7, 1974.

North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Marine
Science Council. North Carolina's Coastal Resources: A Preliminary
Planning Report for Marine and Coastal Resource Development in
North Carolina. Raleigh. December 15, 1972.

North Carolina State Department of Transportation. Report: Study of Plans
For Development of North Carolina State Ports Authority. Raleigh.
October 23, 1973.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. Interim
Report: Atlantic Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. 'Eastport,
Maine to Hampton Roads, Virginia. June 1973.

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

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. Atlantic
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton
Roads, Virginia: Economics of Tanker Size Selection. June 1973.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. Atlantic
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to HaTpton
Roads, Virginia: Socio-Economic Considerations. Philadelphia, PA.
June 1973.

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

B-20

COAL (B.2.5.)

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

Bpoz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. n.d. A Procedures Manual for Assessing
the Socioeconomic I-mpact of the Constructi,on and Operation of Coal
Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region. Prepared for the
Old West Regional Commission, Washington, D.C. July 1976.

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

Coal Haul Road Patterns in the Appalachian Region. Research Triangle
Institute, North Carolina State University, and the Appalachian
Regional Commission, June 1977.

Coal: 1985 and Beyond. Published by Pergamon Press for the United Nations,
1978.

Coa,l Resources, Characteristics and Ownership fn the U.S.A. Edited by
Robert Noyes. Park Ridge, New Jersey! Noyes Data Corporation, 1978.

Ebling, K., Multi-Modal Analysis of the National Coal Transportation
Syste , Paper prepared for the Conference on Coal Transportation,
Arlington, Virginia. October 15, 1979.

Fettweis, Gunter B. World Coal Resources Methods of Assessment and
Results. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York': El'sevier Scientific Publishing
Company, 1979.

Godwin, G. -Coal Export Potential' and North Ca-rolina Ports, In-House
Work Paper, North Caroina Ports Authority.. August 1980.

Goodman, A. C. and Hess, A. L., -Middle Atlantic Region Port Handbook:
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Hampton Roads. Paper prepared for the
Transportation Freight Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. October 15,
1980.

Harvey, C. E. Revitalization of Port Capacity. and the Foreign.Demand
for United States Coal. Paper prepared for the Transportation
Freight Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. October 15, 1980.

Landside Transportation at Ports: A Preliminary Assessment of Transpor-
tation Connectivity Problems at United States Ports. Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Policy and International,
Affairs. July 1980.

Lin, King. Coal Traffic Annual, 1979. Washington, D. C: National Coal
Association. 1980.

Maritime Transportation Research Board, Commission on Sociotechnical
Systems, National Research Council. Criti'cal Issues in Coal
Transportation Systems: Proceedings of Symposium. Washington,
D.C: National Academy of Sciences, 1979.

B-21

Moving Coal to United States Export Markets: An Assessment of the
Transportation System's Capability to Handle Future Coal.Traffic.
Prepared by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers;
the Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration; the
Department of Energy; and the Department of Transportation. June 10,
1980 (Draft Report).

National Coal Association. Coal Facts 1974-1975. Washington, [email protected].

National Energy Transportation Study. A Preliminary Report to the.
President by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
Energy. July 1980.

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

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

The United States in the World Co6l Market.* Distributed by Coal
Exporters Association. June 1980.
.Report on 6oal Export Port Capacity and Port Congestio Prepared
by Coal Exporters Association. June 1980.

Research Triangle Institute. An Assessment of the Effects of Coal
Movement on the Highway System of Appalachia: Executive Summary.

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

Transportation Freight Service Conference, World Trade Center, Baltimore
Marylan . October 15, 1980.

Wilson, C. L., Coal-Bridge to the Future: Report of the Work Coal
Study. Cambrige, Mass:, Ballinger Publishing Co. 1980.

B-22

(RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE)

B-23

WOOD/PEAT STUDIES (B.2.6)

Bechtel, Gaithersburg Power Division. Peat Harvesting Study:
Preliminary Report. Prepared for First Colony Farms, Inc. of
Creswell, North Carolina. Gaithersburg, Maryland. May 1978.

Gay, B. M. and Paisley, M. J. Feasibility of Using North Carolina Peat
for Firing Brick. Prepared for North Carolina Energy Institute,
North Carolina Department of Commerce. Raleigh, North Carolina:
North Carolina State University Engineering Research, Services
Division. November 1979.

.Impact and Feasibility of Wood or Peat-Fired Electric Generating Plants
in the Coastal Zone of North Carolina: Draft Copy. Prepared for
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development Division of Forestry Resources. RTP NC. December 1979.

Ingram, Roy L. and Otte, Lee J. Peat Resources of North Carolina: A
Progress Repor Chapel Hill, North Carolina. March 1980.

Levi, ,Mike. Suggestions and Structure and Policy of Wood Energy
Coordinating Group. Raleigh, North Carolina. February 5, 1980.

McGhee,,Larry. Annual Report Draft for the North Carolina Wood Energy
Coordinating Grou . Raleigh, North Carolina. January 1980.

.McMillan, Philip S., Jr. and Harwood, Henrick J. Impact and Feasibility
of Wood or Peat-Fired Electric Generating Plants in the Coastal
Zone of North Carolina: A Summary Report. Prepared for.North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Forest Resources. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina: Research Triangle Institute. April 1980.

Parsons, Ralph M. Company. Preliminary Analysis@of the Reductagas Coal
Gasification Process: Final Report., Prepared for Technology
Application Services Corporation and North Carolina Energy Institute.
Pasadena, California. January 1979.

Research Triangle Institute, Center for Development and Resource Planning.
First Colony Farms Land Development Plan. Prepared for First
.Colony Farms of Creswell, North Carolina. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. November 1976.

"RTI Study of Peat and Wood for DNRCD."

Stewart, Kenneth D. 'Comments on the 308 (c) Planning Inventory of
August 23, 1979.' North Carolina Department of Natural Resou ces
and Community Development, Office of Coastal Management. October
19, 1979.

B-24

Ultrasystems, Inc., Washington Operations. Wood Energy for Small Scale
Power Production in North Carolina. March 1978.

United States Department of Energy, Division of Tossil Fuel Processing..
Peat Prospectus. Washington, D. C. July 1979.

Wood Energy Coordinating Group. A Plan to Promote the Use of Wood for
Energy in North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina. December 14, 1978.

Wood Energy Coordinating Group. Minutes from meeting on February 5, 1980.

B-25

OIL AND GAS STUDIES (B.

Amendment to Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. Public Law 96-129.
November 30, 1979. 93 Stat. 989.

Energy Divison, North Carolina Department of Commerce. Preliminary Report on
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Safety. Raleigh. October, 1978.

Impact of Making the Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing System More Competitive.
Report by the Comptroller General of the United States, to the
Honorable Richard B. Cheney, House of Representatives of the United.
States, Washington, D.C. March 14, 1980.

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

North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Energy
Division, Allocations Section. North Carolina Petroleum
Distribution. Raleigh. 'March 075.

Pipeline Planning Committee, ASCE Pipeline-Division. Final Report of
the Task Committee on Pipeline in the Ocean. New Yorkt
'American Society of Civil Engineers.

Source Book on Environmental and Safety Considerations for Planning and
.Design of LNG Marine Terminals. Compiled by the Task Committee on
Safety and Environmental Guidelines for Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals
Committee on Ports and Harbors, ASCE Waterways, Harbors and Coastal
Engineering Division. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Tricke, Peter H. and Maiolo, John R. A Study of Public Knowledge and
Perception of the Effects of the "Argo Merchant" Oil Spill: A
Technical Report. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.. February 1978.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District * Scoping eport:
Brunswick Energy Company, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Wilmington,
September 1979.

United States Department of Energy. Research and Analysis,of Oil and Gas
Transportation and Distribution Policy Issues: Request for Proposal.
Issued February 7, 1979: Closing date: February 28, 1979.

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

B-26

OCS IMPACTS (B.2.8)

Alaska Sea Grant Program. Study Plan: Social and Economic Impact
Assessment of Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum 'Development.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf Office. Sea Grant Report 75-15. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of
Alaska. December 1975.

Allen, David W,., et al., Effects on Commercial Fishing of Petroleum
Development Off the Northeastern United States. Woods-Hole, Massachusetts:
Wa-rine Policy and Ocean Management Programs of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. April 1976.

Baldwin, Pamela L. and Baldwin, Malcolm F. for the Conservation Foundation,
Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil: Lesson from Scotland. Washington, D.C.:
The Conservation Foundation. February 1975.

Bish, Robert L. Fiscal Effects on State and Local Government from Off@
shore Oil/Gas and Port Development. Review Draft. College Park, Maryland:.
University of Maryland. March 1976.

Bureau of Land Management. Technical Paper Number 2: Economic Study of
the Possible Impacts of a Georges Bank Sa:le,. New. York: Outer
Continental Shelf Office. November 1976..

Centaur Associates. Managing the Social & Economic Impacts of Energy
Developments. Prepared for the United State,s Energy Research and
Development Administration, Washington, D.C. July 1976.

Center for Natural Areas. A Summary and Analysis of Environmental
Information on the Continental Shelf and'Blake Plateau from Cape
Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. United States Department of Commerce.
August 1979.

Clark, J. Fish & Man: Conflict in the Atlantic,Estuaries. American
Lettorial Society, spec. publ. no. 5. 1967.

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

Coastal Environments, Inc. A Process for Coastal Re-source Management
and Impact Assessment. Prepared for the.Louisiana State Planning
Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. August 1'976-.
1
Coastal Resources Corporation. Suitability of Twelve Refinery and Associated
Tank Farm Sites in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
October 1975.

B-27

Coastal Resources Commission. Rep ort on Land and Water Resource Use
Problems Related to the "Carrying Capacity" of the Coastal Area of
North Carolina. Part I. CRC-12. March 9, 1976.

Coastal Zone Management Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Coastal Management Aspects of OCS Oil and Gas
Development. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce. 0
1975.

Coastal Zone Management Office, OCIM, and Bureau of Land Management, BLM,
State Information Needs Related.to Onshore and Nearshore Effects of
b-CS Petroleum Development. January 1977.

College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. A Study of the
Socloeconomics Relating to.the-Outer Continental Shelf of the.-
Mid-Atlantic Coast. 9 volumes, 3 books. 1975..

Council on Environmental Quality. OCS Oil and Gas--An Environmental
Assessment. A report to the President. 5 volumes. April 1974.

Council on Environmental Quality. OCS Oil and Gas--An Environmental
Assessment--A Report to the President. Vol - 1. Washington, D.C'.:
Council on Environmental Quality. April 1974.

Cribbins, Paul D. The Utilization of Staggered Scheduling to Optimize
Transportation Costs for Potential Offshore Industrial Islands. For
P-resentation at the 1976 Intersociety Conference on Transportation,
Los Angeles, CA. July 19-23, 1976.

Devanney, J. W., III, et al. Parable Beach: A Primal in Coastal
Zone Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. 1976.

Dolan, R.,, Godfrey, P. J.; and Od.um, W. E. Man's Impact on the Barrier
Islands of North Carolina. American Scientist. 61 (1973), pp.- 151-162.

Dorhbusch, David M. and Co., Inc. Management of OCS-Related Industrial
Development: A Guide for Alaska Coastal Communities.. Prepared for.
the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division,
Of Community Planning.Juneau, Alaska. n.d.

Drobe, Ronald and Younger, James. Economic Impact of Oil Resource
Development on the Alaskan Economy 1975-1985. Prepared for t e
Federal Energy Administration. Washington, D.C. 1976.

Gasham, Douglas R. A Review of Oil-Related Development in the UK-
Following the North Sea Discoveries with Particular Reference to the
Scottish Highlands and Islands. Aberdeen,' Scotland: Highlands and
Islands Development Board. January 1974.

B-28

Fields, Barry C. Secondary Economic Impacts of Coastal Facilities.
In Tech. Update No. 10- 3oston, Massachusetts: New Enqland River Basins
Commission. 1976.

Florida Energy Office and State University System of Florida- Florida
Coastal Policy_Study: The Impact of Offshore Oil DeveI22T@ent
December 1975.

Georgia Conservancy Inc. and Georgia Coastal Zone Management Program.
Onshore Impacts Conference: Executive Summary. Savannah,
Georgia. 1976.

Gilman, George and Allen, Charles. The Impact of Offshore Oil: New
HaTpshire and the North Sea Experience. New Hampshire Department
of Resources and Economic Development. 1975.

Grabb, Herbert W. & McCray, William C. 1974. Benefits and Costs to
State and Local Governments in Texas ResulTing from Offshore
Petroleum Leases on Federal Lands. Austin, Texas: Office of the
Governor. 1974.

Hillman, Daryl and Marcus, Matityaku. A Criti"cal Analys'is of Employment
Projection Methods: A Test Case of New.Jersey. New Brunswick, New
-Jersey: New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers-The
State University. 1970.

Hutton, John. Impacts of Offshore Oil on Northeast Scotland. Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute-of Technology. 1975.

Isard, Walter, et al. Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Planning.
New York: The Free Press. 1972.

Jenny, M. & Goodman, J. (eds.) A study of the.Socioeconomic Factors
Rel.ating to the Outer Continental Shelf of the Mid-Atlantic
Coast. 9 volumes. Washington, D.C. : College of Marine Studies,
University of Delaware for the Bureau of Land Management.

Kalter, Robert J.; Stevens, Thomas; and Bloom, Oren. The Economics of
Accelerated Outer Continental Shelf Leasing. Cornell Agricultural
.Economic Staff Paper No. 74-18. Ithaca, New York. August 1974.

Kilpatrick, Joseph E. The Role of North Carolina in Regulating Offshore
Petroleum Development. Raleigh, North Carolina: NCSU, Sea Grant
Program. April 1975.

Lassiter, J. B., III, and Devanney, J. W., III. The Economics of
Arctic Oil Transportation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. November
1970.

League of Women Voters. The Onshore Impact of Offshore Oil-Current Focus.
Washi.ngton, D.C.: Leaque of Women Voters. 1976.

B-29

'Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Effects of Off-
shore Oil and Natural Gas Development in the Coastal Zone. PreDared
Tor the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Outer Continental __@_helf. Washinqton, D.C.:
House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session. 1976.

Lyddon, W. D. C. Planning Aspects of Oil Related Development. Boston, Massachusetts:
New @ngla_nd R@ive'r Bas-ins Commission-. 1976.

MacKay, D. I. and MacKay,- G. A. The.Political Economy of North Sea Oil.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 1975.

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

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

Marine Affairs Office, North Carolina Deportment of Administration. The
North Carolina Petrocomplex Study. For the North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources. October 1976.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Primary, Physical Impacts of
Offshore Petroleum Developments. Prepared for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. April 19.74.

Mathematical Sciences Northwest and Human Resources Planning Institute,
Inc. A Social and Economic Impact Study of Offshore Petroleum and
Natural Gas Development in Alaska, Phase I. Prepared for the Bureau
of Land Management, Belleview, Washington.

Mitchell, James K. "Onshore Impacts of Scottish Offshore Oil: Planning.
Implications for the Middle Atlantic States. " Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, October 1976.

Moore, David W. Public Attitudes and Coastal Resources in New Hampshire.
Concord,.New Hampshire. n.d.

Mumphrey, Anthony, et al. The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Develop-
ment on La Fourche Parish. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana State
Planning Office, University of New Orleans Urban Studies Institute. 1976.

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Integration of Regional Land Use
Planning and Coastal Zones Science: A Guidebook for Planners.
For the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development. June 1976.

National Association of Counties. Serving the Offshore Oil Industry:
Planning for Onshore Growth, North Hampton County, Virginia.
shington, D.C. 1976.

B-30

Nathan, Robert R. Associates and Coastal Zone-Resources Commission. The
Coastal Plains-Deepwater Terminal Study. (2 volumes). Wilmington,
North Carolina. January 1975.

New England River Basins Commission. A Methodology for the Siting of
Onshore Facilities Associated with OCS Development. Draft interim
Report #1. Bo , Massachusetts. January 1976.
New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development. The Impact
of Offshore Oil--New Hampshire and the North Sea Experience. cord,
New Hampshire. 1975.
North Carolina ' D-epartment of Natural Resources and Community Development-
Coastal Management. Subchapter 7J--Proce,dures for Handling Major
Development Permits, Variance Requests, and Appeals from Minor
Development Permit Decisions. Raleigh: The Department. n.d.

OCS Environmental Studies Advisory Committee. Gui'de'lines for the Design
and Conduct of OCS Oil and Gas Development Environmental Baseline
Studies. February 1976.

Ortoby-Smith, Inc. How Influential Citizens i'n East and Gulf Coast Cities
View Offshore Drilling: Trends in Sentiment Since 1972. Prepared
for the American Petroleum Institute, New York. October 1974.

Planners, Inc. A Socioeconomic Environmental'-Baseline Summary for the South
'Atlantic Region Between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Vol. 5. Socioeconomic Inventory, prepared
by Planners, Inc. for the Bureau of Land Management, United States
Department of Interiors, Washington, D.C. September 1974.

Planning and Evaluation Parameters for Offshore Complexes. Michael Z.
Sincoff and Jarir S. Dajani, Editors. Hampton, Virginia:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research
Center. August 1976.

Planning and Research, Office of. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Activities in Georgia's Coastal Waters: Past Trends and Future Pros-
pects. May 1975.

Proceedings of Seminar on Planning and Engineering in the Coastal,Zone.
June 8-9, 1972, Charleston, South Carolina. Sponsored by Coastal
Plains Center for Marine Development Services.

Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. Growth Impact Issues. Prepared
for the Coastal Zone Management Program..Austin, Texas: General Land
Office of Texas. n.d.

Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. for the Coastal Management Program.
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development: A Survey of
Selected Modeling Techniques. Austin, Texas: General Land Office of Tpyas.
May 1976.

B-31

Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company. The
North Carolina Coastal Zone and Its Environment: A Compilation of
Resource Materials Covering the Coastal Plain, Estuaries, and
Offshore Waters. Vol. I and Vol. II. Prepared for the United
States Department of Energy. November 1977.

Scottish Development Department. North Sea Oil and Gas Development in
Scotland: A Physical Planning Resume. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish
Economic Pla@-ningDepartment. 1973.

Slack, James R. and Smith, Richard A. An Oil Spill Risk Analysis for the
South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area. United States
Geological Survey. Juge,1976.

South Atlanti-c Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration, Develop-
ment, and Production. Prepared for the Task Force on Offshore
Drilling of the Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce by the Citadel,
Charleston, South Carolina. June 1976.

Stallings, E. F. Outer Continental Shelf Impacts, Morgan City, Louisiana:
Phase I Report. Lafayette, Louisiana: University of Southeastern Louisiana.
1976.

Szuwalski, Andre and Clark, Linda. Bibliography of Publications of the
Coastal Engineering Research Center and the Beach Erosin Board. Fort
Belvoir, Virginia: United States Army Corps of Engineers,.Coastal
Engineering Research Center. June 1979.

Tippie, Virginia and Grissom Clement,(Eds.) Rhode Island and Offshore
Oil: Digest of a Workshop. Kingston, Rhode Island: Coastal Resources
Center, University of Rhode Island. 1976.

United States Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce. 93rd Congress,
2nd Session. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing off
Southern California: Analysis of Issue. Washington, D. C. 1974.

United States, Senate Committee on Commerce, 93rd Congress, 2nd session.
National Ocean Policy Subcommittee Hearings. The State Role in
Outer Continental Shelf Development: The,California Experience.
Washington, D.C. September 1974.

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

United States Department of the Interior. Study Design for Resource
Management Decisions. OCS Oil and Gas Development and the
Environment. 1978.

United States Department of the Interior. Final Environmental Impact
Statement on Proposed Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale Schedule:
March 1980--February 1985. Bureau of Land Management.

B-32

United States Geological Survey. Final Environmental Impact Statement
Regulations Pursuant to Geological and GeophysicalExplorations of
the Outer Continental Shelf. RES 76-23. April 30, 1976.

Urban Pathfinders, Inc. Brown and Root Impact Study. Prepared by Urban
Pathfinders, Inc. for the North Hampton County Planning Commission,
Eastville, Virginia. February 1975.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science.' An'-A��essment of Estuarine and
Rearshore Marine Environments. Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. July 1975.

Weston, Roy F., Inc. Methodology for Asses&ing Onshore Impacts for
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Developments: Volume II,
Methodology. Prepared with support of the National Science
Foundation, United States Department of the Interior, and United
States Department of the Commerce. July 1978.

Weston, Roy F, Inc. Methodology for Assessinq,Onshore Impact for Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Developments: Volume III, Baltimore
Canyon Test Case. Prepared with support of the National Science
Foundation, United States Department of the Interi,or, and United
States Department of Commerce. July 1978-.

White, Irvin L. North Sea Oil and Gas: Implication for Future United
States Development. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
1973.

Wilcox, Susan M. and Mead, Walter J. The Impact of Offshore Oil
Production on Santa Barbara County, California. Washington, D.C.:
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Sea Grant Office. Februa-ry 1973.

Williams, David C. For the Office of Community,Planning and Development,
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rapid Growth from Energy
Projects: Ideas for State and Local Acti-on. Washington: United States
Government Printing Office, March 1976.

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

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Effects on Commercial Fishing of
Petroleum Development Off the Northeastern United States. Prepared
for the American Petroleum Institute. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
April 1976:.

Wurfel, Seymour W., Principal Investigator. Emerging Ocean Oil
and Mining Law. Raleigh, North Carolina., NCSU*. Sea Grant Program.
March 1974.

B-33

WATER RESOURCES (B.2.9)

Bond, Sharon; Cook, Grover; and Howells, David H. The Chowan River
Project: Summary Report. Raleigh, North Carolina: Water
Resources Research Institute of the Univeristy 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-, Bruco Allen.
Water Resources of North Carolina: An Inventory of information
and Date. 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 contract 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 Su2plies 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 Carolina. April 1975.

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

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

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States.
December 8-19, 1977 at Williamsburg, Virginia. Sponsored by the
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services.

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

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

B-34

Summary of Conceptual Studies and Research Needs: Multi-Purpose Off
shore Industrial/Port Islands. Newark, Delaware: College of Marine
Studies, University of Delaware. January 1976.

Warren, John L. Support Services for Commercialization of Small
Hydroel-ectric Facilities in North Carolina. Prepared for North
Carolina Energy Institute.. Research Tria-ngle Park, North Carolina:
Research Triangle Institute, Operations Analysis Division, Applied
Ecology Department. June 1980.

Workshop on Stream Channelization and Wetland'Drainage: Proceedings.
Sponsored by N6rth -Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources,
and Water Resources Research Institute. Held at Quail Roost
Conference Center, Rougemont, North Carolina, November 18, 1970.
Raleigh, North Carolina. Report #45.

B-35

LAND USE PLANS (B.2.10)
Camden County Land Use Plan. 1975-1985. Camden County, North Carolina.
Board of Commissioners. May 1976.

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

Cape Fear Council of Government. Region "0" Comprehen sion Development
Plan: Future Land Use. June 1978.

Coastal Area Management Act: Land Use Plan, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.
February 1978.

Coastal Area Management Act: Land Use Plan, Onslow County, North Carolina.
Jacksonville, North Carolinat Board of Commissioners. November 1976.

Coastal Area Management Act: Land Use Plan V. Wilmington, North
Carolina. City of Wilmington--New Hanover County. Wilmington--New
Hanover Planning Commission. May 1976.

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

Dare County Land Development Plan. Undertaken in conformance with the
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act of 1974. Manteo, North
Carolina'; Board of Commissioners. May 1976.

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

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

Land Development Plan for Hyde County, A. In accordance with the 1974
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. Swan Quarter, North
Carolinat Board of Commissioners. 1976.

Mid-East Commission, Annual Report, 1978-1979, The. Edited by Lenora
Reeves. April 1979.

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

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

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

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

B-36

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

Tyrrell- County Land Development Plan. Coastal Area Management Act.
Columbia, North Carolinat Board of Commissioners. May 1976.

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

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

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

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

B.-37

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (B.2.11)

"Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties, Final Amendments." Federal Register, Part IV,
Tuesday, January 30, 1979.

1-40 from Raleigh Beltline to 1-95 near Benson, Wake, and Johnston
Counties. Project #8.1475201. Admin. Action, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, USDOT, FHWA, and NCDOT. December 4, 1979.

Improvements to US 264 from Wilson to Greenville: Wilson, Greene, and
Pitt Counties. Project #6.341001, 6.181001, and 6.22-1003. Admin.
Action, Final Environmental Impact State, USDOT, FHWA, and NCDOT.
July 2, 1979.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission. Rules and Regulations for Erosion 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, Environmental 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 Species Act-1978 Amendments." February 18, 1980.

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

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

Proposed Primary Highway Extension from 1-40 Terminus (at 1-95) near Benson
to Wilmington, Johnston, Sampson, Duplin, Pender, and New Hanover
Counties. Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
and North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 12., 1979.

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive
Office of the President. Novemeber 29, 1978.

Replacement Bridge and Approach Roadways, NC 32 over Albemarle Sound,
Washington and Chowan Counties. Administrative Action, Draft, Negative
Declaration. USDOT, FHWA, and NCDOT. February 4, 1980.

B-38

US 13-NC 11 between SR 1415 North of Greenville to US 64 at Bethel, and NC"
11 from US 64 at Bethel to SR 1501 North of Bethel. Project #6M-TO-O.I..
Administrative Action, Draft. Negative Delcaration, USDOT, FHWA
NCDOT. October 18, 1979.

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

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

B-39

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (B.2.12)

Lane, J. S.; Grenzeback, L. R.; Martin, T. J.; and Lockwood, S. C.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 216: The
No-Action Alternative Research Report. Washington, D.C: Transportation
Research Board. December 1979.

Lane, J. S.; Grenzeback, L. R.; Martin, T. J.; and Lockwood, S. C.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 217: The
No-Action Alternative, Impact Assessment Guidelines. Washington,
D.C: 'Transportation Research Board. December 1979.

Litt1e., Arthur D. and Co. Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Ports.
For Council on Environmental Quality. Springfield, Va.: NTIS
(PB 224 018). September 1973.

Lund, Stephen C. An Air Quality Dispersion Analysis of a_Hypothetical
200,000 BBL/day Petroleum Refinery Located in the Coastal Plain
Region of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management. Air Quality Section. August 1976.

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

Research Triangle Institute. Preliminary Proposal: Environmental and
Economic Analysis and Evaluation of Artificial Islands and Onshore
Complexes. Submitted to Dr. Ralph Perhac, Program Mgr., Division
of Advanced Environmental Research and Technology, RANN, National
Science Foundation. April 13, 19.76.

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.
Novemeber 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 Wetlands, User's Manual. Washington, D. C.:
Transportation Research Board. December.1979.

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

Study of the Effect of Oil Storage and Movement in the Cape Fear River on
Major Conflicts of Use, Including Commercial Fishing, Charter Boats,
and Port Development.

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

P-an

United-States. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Scoping
Report: Brunswick Ene rgy Company, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Wilmington. September 1979.

8-41

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION (B.2.13)

Alderdice, Robert, Deputy Director of Flower Gardens Ocean Research
Center. The Marine Biomedical Institute. New Elbowroom for the
Coastal Multitudes of 1995.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States. What New Jobs Mean to a-rnmmiinity.
Economic Analysis Study. Washington, D.C. 1973.

Exxon Company, USA. Eugene Island 295. Houston. Texas

Federal Energy Administration, NACo Case Studies on Energy Impacts:
No. 1 Karparowits New Town Project, Kane County, Utah. June 1975
No. 2 Controlling Boomtown Development, Sweetwater and Uinta Counties
Wyoming. January 1976.
No. 3 Preparing for Anticipated Growth, Green County, Pennsylvania.
May 1976.
No. 4 Nuclear Rower Plant Development: _Boom or
County Experiences. July 1976.
No. 5 Serving the Offshore Oil Industry: Planning for Onshore Growth.
North Hampton County, Virginia. December 1976.

General Airation and Community Development. Edited by Michael F. Sincoff
and Jarir S. Dajani- 1975 Summer Faculty FellowshiD Proaram in
Engineering Systems Design. Norfolk, Virginia: NASA-Langley
Research Center, American Society for Engineering Education, Old
Dominion University Research Foundation. August 1975.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of
Commerce and Industry. North Carolina Leisure Industries Manual.
Raleigh, North Carolina: The Department. January 1972.

Overall Economic Development Program of the Neuse River Council of
Governments. Updated August 1976. Revised August 1977.

Roberts & Eichler Associates, Inc. A Fiscal Impact Assessment of Development
On the Currituck Outer Banks. Prepared for the Currituck County
North Carolina Board of Commissioners. Decatur, GA: Roberts &
Eichler Associates, Inc. September 20, 197�.

Schaenman, Phillip and Muller, Thomas. Measuring Impacts of Land
Development: An Initial Approach. The Urban Institute,for
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. November 1974.

United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. An
Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development. Bruns-
wick County, North Carolina: Brunswick Soil and Water Conservation
District. January 1974.

United States Department of Agriculture,.'Soil Conservation Service.
Outdoor Recreational Development: An Appraisal of Potentials.
Beaufort County, North Carolina- Beaufort Soil and Water
Conservation District. April 1972.

B-42

Washington County Community Development and Planning Office. Document:
Washington County Recreation Plan. Prepared for the Washington County
Board of Commissioners. Plymouth, North Carolina. June 1977.

Duncan, 0. D., "Human Ecology and Population Studies." The Study of Population.
Editors: Phillip Hauser and 0.D. Duncan,Chicago. Chicago Press, 1959.
pp.678-716.

B-43

BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND DATA SOURCES (B.2.14)

Barge & Touring Industry Catalog of Publicationsl Films, and Information
Resources, The. Washington, D.C: The American Waterways
Operators, Inc. November 1970.

CP&L. System Map Showing Substations; List of Tentative Transmission
Additions. June 1, 1980.

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs.
Planning for North Carolina's OCS: Bibliographies with Abstracts.
December 1976.

North Carolina Department of Commerce, North Carolina Energy Institute.
Annual Report-1979. Raleigh, NC: The Department. September 4, 1979.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways.
Highway and Road Mileage. Raleigh, NC: The Department.
January 1980.

North Carolina's Ports & Waterways. North Carolina State Port s
Authority. April 21, 1980.

North Carolina State Data Center. 'Newsletter, Vol. I, No. 1., Raleigh,
NC:. State Data Center, Division of State Budget, June 1979.

Research and Planning Services Division of State Budget and Management.
North Carolina State Govenment Statistical Abstract.' Fourth
Edition. 1979.

Research and Planning Services Office of State Budget and Management.
1980 North Carolina Statistical Guide. Raleigh, NC. August 22,
1980.

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

United States Coast Pilot--Atlantic Coast: Cape Henry to Key West.
l7th Edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commercp,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Natinnal
Ocean Survey. July 1979.

UNC Sea Grant College Program. Publications List. Raleigh-5-, NC:
NCSU, March 1980.

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

B-44

CEIP Publications

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

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

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

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. Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and
the Environment, Inc. The Design for Local Air Quality Program
in the Wilmington, N.C. Area. CEIP Report #5. September 1981.
$10.

6. Smith, J.F. (editor) N.C. Peat Sourcebook: Proceedings of Peat
Mining and Use Workshop and DNRCD Peat Mining Task Force. CEIP
Report #6. October 1981. $10.

7. McDonald, C.B. , and A.M. Ash. Natural Areas Inventory of
Tyrrell County, N.C. CEIP Report #7. October 1981. $10.

8. Fussell, J., and E.J. Wilson. Natural Areas Inventory of
Carteret County, N.C. CEIP Report #8. October 1981. $10.

9. Nyfong, T.D. Natural Areas Inventory of Brunswick County, N.C.
CEIP Report #9. October 1981. $10.

US Department of commerce
XOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

CEIP Report No. 1
Price $10.00
kA

3 6668 141ol 5943
r@i@ @1@ -@Ii i :@i i :@ I