79-19 Scoping Meeting 2016/2017

',r
x 4`i�ii'
.tee.....✓'
MAR
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of CO&NW Management
P.O. Box 2*7697 • kalc'gh, North Carolina 2761 1-7697
l.icies B. Hlul , Jr, Governor
i,3nwban ti. i3nwry. Secretary
t'Ek IT LED tilAiL
Return Recei I Rcouested
l'own of SusSct Beach
A- = N: Ms. Linda Fluegel
270 Shoreiuje Drive F/est
Sunset Roach. `1C 2846E
Dear As. Flucgcl:
Roger N Scbc;ter
DRLcu it
Nlatcht 11, 1996 r !�
ff I
�y7
MAR 18 1996 ' J;
DIVISION OF
COASTAL- MANAGEMENT
r
This letter is in response to your app$catton request tinder the Coastal Area Management
Act (CrLablL and the state dredge and t311 law to excavate approxi rtately 2,9 acres of .shallow
bntt.out habitat of Iink's Creek, in Sunset Beach, Processin of
accepted on November 29, 1995. and for which notice of extended review w
8 the application, which was
!2, i996, is'now complete, as given on February
Based on tho joint state and Federal agency review, the Division of Coastal Management
has ,uadc the following findings;
1) The project has been de termhto be new development and does not constitutemaintenance of an existing channel:
ti The proposed proicct will alter a, , r __.. ,_.
water nsttrries habitat of link's Cree-rek; i2?,i2j square feet of shallow
-') The project alignment is located within a Primary Nursery Area, so designated by
the Ivfarine Fisheries Commission to afford such areas special protection;
?"='-W,��+l Bnnlevara. Pute:•Linnub BuilWn9- Seaton F. Rdeiy6. 4.C. "76117. TeIeph,ne 9!9-773-M3 •pax 9ta.'1ya-149.
An 6to.; 07Porotm,v ;Iffirnncve ..Zyw !•inp4ryer

LciOO —�Jh (616)
Vr-
� n�Opc�7G )�� � ✓
(,bjb) � 'i'/ig- b,LS �O)b)
�ZZ)l-Ol Q��)
fi 5, Y*M
Y

a) Dredging of the project alignnv nt will reduce the. important nursery function of
the area for fish and shrimp, which in ern supports commercial and recreational
fishing, and will lead to a significant adverse impact on fisheries resources in the
area.
5) During the course of the permit application review, four State and ubree Federal
agencies mcc:ommended that authorization for the proposed development not be
granted;
6) The proposed project is determined to be inconsistent with T1SA:07110209(b)(t),
which states that "Navigation channels; canals, and boat basins mast be aligned
or located so as to avoid primary nursery areas, highly productive shellfish beds,
beds of ' submerged aquatic vegetation, or significant areas of regularly or
irregularly flooded coastal wetlands."
7) Th, e proposed project is determined to be inconsistent with. T15A.07H.0206(c),
which states that the management objectives for estuarine waters arc "To conserve
and manage the important features of estuarine waters so as to safeguard and
perpetuate their biological, social, aesthetic and economic values; to coordinate
and establish a management system capable of conserving and utilizing estuarine
waters so as to maximize their benefits to man and the estuarine system."
8) Inasmuch as the proposal is inconsistent with a- state standard or standarcLs, the
proposal has been detemtincd to be inconsistent with the Town of Sunset Beach
Land Use Plan.
Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for a permit under the stare
dredge and fill law be denied. This denial is made pursuant -to N.C.G:S. U3-229, which
requires that a permit be denied for cases where a,proposed development will lead to a significant.
adverse impact to ffJsheries resources, it is furthcr required that your request for a permit ender
the Coastal' Area Management Act be denied. This denial is made pursuant to (1) 113A-
120(a)i2), which requires that'a CA1vlA permit be denied 'if the state dredge and fill permit is
dcrued under N.C.G.S. 113-229, and (2) N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8), which requires permit denial.
for projects inconsisrent with the state guidelines for Areas of Envuonmcntal Concern or the local
farad -use plan.
if you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a hearing. The hearing will. involve
appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of both
parties and then makes a recor„mendation to the Coastal Resources Commission. Your request
ivr a iicanrrg iiiii32uc u+ ulc foaiii bf a `wTiucfi peiiutlry ci7mpiyittg wits+ the +rey+Lu ci7iEr:ij Gt
§ 150B of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and . must be filed with . the office of
Aciminisuative Hearings; P.O. Drawer 27417, Raleigh, NC 27611 74 ;7, [phone], within
twenty (20) days of this, decision on your permit application. A copy of this petition should be
filed with this office_

't ,Also, you should be advised that as long as this state permit denial stands, your proiec:
trust bt deemed inconsistent with the N.C. Coastal Management Act Program, therebyprccluding
Ole issuance of Federal permits for this project the Federal Coastal' Zone Management Act
i
(C/Ih4A) gives tho righc'to appeal this finding to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce within [him
�Q) days of receipt of this letter. Your appeal must be based on the grounds that the propose-i
activity is 0) consistent with the objectives or purposes of the C:Z�IA, or (2) is necessary in the
interest of national security, and thus, may be federaly. approved.
L you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. John Parker at (9l9)
Box 27697, Raleigh, NC 27611.
Sincerely,
117'
Rogcr�.�! Schccter -
Director
cc: :vi,. )cffcry henoit, t?hector
U(' u;'vl"NOAA
Slivnr Spring, ?va)
Colonel Robert J. SperLcrg
U.S.' a ,rny Corps of Engineers o'..
Wilmington, NC '

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT rta�t�c��aI aitd v�� I'�
�r, ,q ( lcfkr c%Trd 3�r�M9i,
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Town of Sunset Beach/Jink's Creek Dredging Project
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: AIWW adjacent to Shoreline Dr. East, between Mary's
Creek and Turtle Creek, in Sunset Beach. <4&,OAo
Photo Index - 1989: 192-18, N-O, 3-10 1984: 8-68, O-Q, 7-14
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2176600 Y: 55400
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA & D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 11-27-95
Was Applicant Present - YES
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 11-29-95
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Sunset Beach
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PT, EW, CW, ES
(C) Water Dependent: YES
(D) Intended Use: Private and commercial
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - Residences and businesses have individual septic tank
systems
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Private piers and docks
Planned - None
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
2.9 acres
Shallow bottom
(C) Other
15.6 acres
Spoil Area
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 18.5 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: YES
(F) Water Classification: SA Open: Closed
8. PROJECT SUNEWARY: The riparian property owners adjacent to the AIWW, in the area
known as Jink's Creek, have petitioned the Town of Sunset Beach, to apply for the necessary
permits to dredge a channel, parallel to the waterway, between Mary's Creek and Turtle Creek,
to provide boating access to their property.

Town of Sunset Beacb/Jink'; eek Dredging Project
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is on the north side of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, adjacent to one existing
business and 24 private residences or residential lots, on Shoreline Drive East and Hickory and Stokes
Streets, in Sunset Beach, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The property owners have petitioned
the Town of Sunset Beach, to apply for the necessary permits to dredge a channel, parallel to the
waterway, between Mary's Creek and Turtle Creek, to provide boating access to their property. The
project area consists of approximately a 30 acre area of coastal marsh and shallow bottom, with three
creeks along the shoreline. The creeks were originally natural drainage features from the adjacent
upland area, but none of them are now more than several hundred yards long and all of them dead end
at elevated culverts on either NC Hwy 179 or Shoreline Drive East. Mary's Creek, to the west, has
previously been dredged (State Permit #241-87) to access Bill's Seafood Market and Restaurant located
at the corner of the above referenced streets. Turtle Creek, on the east side of the project, was
originally excavated to create a canal, from Shoreline Dr. E. to the AIWW. Maintenance dredging, on
the southern half of that channel, was completed in 1987 (State Permit #73-87). Jink's Creek, located
in the center of the project area is little more than a marsh cove, with a narrow channel, 3-6 feet wide,
running through the Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) marsh. There is a border of Smooth
Cordgrass along the entire length of the proposed project's shoreline, ranging in width from 20 to 70
feet. At it's transition to highground, this regularly flooded wetland border is fringed with high marsh
species, including; Saltwart Salicornia spp.), Sea Lavender im nium, spp.), Sea Oxeye rrichia
fmtescens , and Salt Meadow Grass ftadWa patens . Waterward of the shoreline's marsh fringe there
is an unvegetated shallow water flat that is basically dry at low water. The applicants report that a
channel was dredged through this area in 1972, however, no documentation was included in this
application. An island -like expanse of Smooth Cordgrass marsh, 50 to 280 feet wide, separates this area
from the open water of the AIWW.
The waters in the project area are classified SA, by the NC Division of Environmental Management,
and are CLOSED to the harvest of shellfish. The area is designated as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is approximately 500 feet
wide at this location.
The applicants propose to excavate a U-shaped channel from the AIWW at Marys Creek, then parallel
to the shoreline through the shallow water flat, and return to the waterway at Turtle Creek. The channel
would be 2875 feet long and 30 ft. wide, except it would expand to a 40 ft. width through the corners
where the channel turns parallel to the shoreline. The proposed depth is -8 feet at MLW. The applicants
predict that the side slope stabilization of the 30-40 feet box cut would produce a 55-65 feet top width
of the channel. The excavation would be done by hydraulic dredge, and the excavated material pumped
to an existing spoils disposal area located directly across the waterway. The diked disposal area is
approximately 1700 feet long and 400 feet wide.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The proposed project would disturb approximately 127,125 square feet (2.9 acres) of shallow water
bottom in Primary Nursery Area. There would be some short-term turbidity associated with the
dredging activity. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of spoil material would generated from the channel
excavation, and deposited over a 680,000 square feet (15.6 acres) highground disposal site. Although

Sunset Beach/Jink's Creek Dredging Project
the proposed channel has been aligned to avoid coastal marsh, if the projected top channel width has
been under estimated, several areas of the adjacent Smooth Cordgrass marsh may be impacted by
sloughing of the channel side slopes. The project would provide better boating access for 24 private
residences and 1 commercial business.
Submitted by: E.F. Brooks Date:12/13/95 Office: Wilmington

'1 195 8:10 HOUSTON AND ASSOCS. P.A. FAX [phone]
P. 2
�l
0
;IJ r 1 rr �y,„,„ r�an,c! �, F-._;. 1 u `-�., `: °. ..
A
M-0
I - IR �l
arl-Ro"NUM-5
ZZ7 �11JI
NOV 1995
DIVISION Ulz
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

r
Permit Class
NEW
....... ..._.............
Permit Number
22-02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
'Vertnt"t
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS I I3A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Town of Sunset Beach, 700 Sunset Blvd. North, Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Authorizing development in Brunswick
County at Turtle and Mary's Creeks, adj. AIWW
, as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/4/01, including attached
workplan drawings 2 dated 4/01, 2 dated revised 11/16/01, 3 dated 9/01, 2 dated rcd. 11/30/01 and 1 dated 3/O1
This permit, issued on February 26, 2002 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Excavation
1) In order to protect juvenile shrimp and finfish populations, no excavation or filling will be permitted
between April 1 and September 30 of any year without the prior approval of the Division of Coastal
Management, in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
2) Prior to the initiation of any dredging activities within Turtle Creek, the pennittee shall, in coordination
with the Division of Marine Fisheries, develop and implement a oyster relocation plan for the Turtle
Creek oyster population. Contact the Division of Marine Fisheries at [phone] to initiate the
required coordination. Notice of satisfactory completion of the relocation efforts must be provided to
the Division of Coastal Management prior to initiation of dredging in Turtle Creek.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2005
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Wbiiffa D. Moffitt, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

V.Yn'- Y�%/Ktiv4:4W.•:•.�aS:-%(##'A04%R 'Fopq#W�' lRN�"VOJPP[[:\'�-:+\Y'hMY x..# iFFPY)YA[4W/N.ti..}Y/.4IlvNW W'IX�'JM444�4Yni4�'
Sunset Beach, Town of Permit 422-02
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
3) Excavation shall not exceed -6 feet below the mean low water level near the mouth of the creeks, with
the depth of excavation gradually decreasing to —4 feet below mean low water at the heads of the two
creeks.
4) In no case shall the depth of excavation exceed that of the connecting waters.
5) No coastal wetlands will be excavated or filled.
6) No excavation may take place within 20 feet of the edge of any area of coastal wetlands.
7) The temporary placement or double handling of fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not
authorized.
8) No excavation will take place at any time outside of the alignment of the area indicated on the workplan
drawing(s).
Spoil Disposal
9) The authorized spoil disposal area must be inspected and approved on -site by a representative of the
Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any dredging activities.
10) All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water and landward of regularly or irregularly
flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids into any
marsh or surrounding waters.
11) The disposal area effluent will be contained by pipe, trough, or similar device to a point at or beyond the
mean low water level to prevent gully erosion and unnecessary siltation.
12) The terminal end of the pipeline will be positioned at or greater than 50 feet from any part of the dike
and a maximum distance from spillways to allow settlement of suspended sediments.
13) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent pipe to assure compliance
with water quality standards.
14) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from the mean high water level or any
marsh to eliminate the possibility of dike erosion into surrounding wetlands or waters.
15) The disposal area will be properly graded and provided a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion
within 30 working days of project completion.

'4(-vXC(KKN:4:KK->v[i<�HYYJJ%Y� JJ�'4(S<K+N(25.tit(-i:iti. n-WYYYn-Ytit�W.W:-'J':<-\\\u%JJJ-i:SKI\1ti-'n.:i+.[�\'-.�i:KY.K-:•..Jh:-'/Yh%-WJK-T�:Y:�-is<�-:«p. :-::-J-viivnH-aJy.
Sunset Beach, Town of Permit r22-02
Page 3 of') >:
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be required for this project. If such
authorization has not yet been obtained, this plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to
the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Land Quality Section, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,
Wilmington, NC 28405.
16) Te permitted activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity
outside of the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in
the waterbody is 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes are not considered significant.
17) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures must be implemented to
ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property (e.g. silt fence,
diversion swales or berms, sand fence, etc.).
General
18) The permittee shall comply with the attached list of U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
19) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States requires the
removal, relocation, or other alteration of the structure or work authorized by this permit, or if in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon
due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove relocate or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be
made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or
alteration.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required. -
NOTE: The permittee is encouraged to contact the Brunswick County mosquito control office at (910)
253-2515 to schedule a pre -construction conference to discuss mosquito control measures.
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Quality has authorized the proposed project under General Water
Quality Certification No. 3274 (DWQ Project No. 011868), which was issued on 1/11/02.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No.
200'N0247.

n
HN:�n � n -.. nnn .�nn�r-iJJJh'RY:K. r -. .... � e ..: J •v�:��. Jrvr+ .fn -.... � .�-. �....�. _...
COAST GUARD REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO DREDGE OPERATIONS
Below is a list of regulations which are applicable to dredge operations in the COTP Wilmington zone. This list
is not all inclusive. We encourage dredge companies to schedule a meeting with members of the USCG staff, in
order to be provided amplifying information or answers to any questions that may exist. We also strongly
encourage all Uninspected Towing Vessels (UTV) associated with each dredging operation to participate in the
USCG's Voluntary Commercial Dockside Examination program. Please contact LT Dave Brown of the USCG
staff at [phone], extension 108, to coordinate a meeting or dockside exam.
Lights on dredge pipelines (33 CFR 88.15)
2. Lights on barges at a bank or dock (33 CFR 88.13)
Lights and Shapes (33 CFR 84.11-13)
4. Mooring Buoys (33 CFR 62.35)
Special Marks (33 CFR 62.31)
Uninspected Towing Vessel's (UTV) Licensing Requirements (46 CFR 15.910 & 15.815)
UTV Drug Testing Requirements (33 CFR 4.06 & 4.03-2)
S. UTV Marine Radar Requirement (33 CFR 164.01(b) & 164.72)
9. UTV Certificate of Documentation (33 CFR 173.21)
10. UTV Marine Casualty Reporting Criteria (46 CFR 4.05-1)
11. Dredge or UTV Advance Notice of Transfers (33)

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Agency Coordination Meeting Agenda
May 5, 2017
Items For Discussion:
1. Jinks Creek Modeling Analysis:
• Identification of any obviously incomplete or missing data sets necessary for moving
forward with permitting the Jinks Creek dredging.
• Identification of any suggested modifications to the preferred dredge alignment for Jinks
Creek to expedite the permitting process.
• Identification of any additional studies / analyses required to move forward with permitting
the Jinks Creek dredging.
2. Shellfish Survey Report for Turtle & Mary's Creek:
• Identification of any mitigation / relocation efforts required to dredge Turtle & Mary's
Creek in accordance with the proposed dredge alignments and consistent with previous
permits (CAMA permit 22-02).
• Identification of any outstanding or additional analyses required to move forward with
permitting the Turtle and Mary's Creek dredging.
3. Sediment Composition
• Discussion of the need to conduct a grain size analysis for the recipient beach if only the
Jinks Creek Sub -Areas 1-3 & 5, the Feeder Canal Sub -Area 4, and the Bay Area Sub -Area
2 are proposed for beach placement. The composite results of the proposed sub -areas fall
below the threshold criteria for fine, granular, and gravel material without testing the
recipient beach.
15A NCAC 07H.0312 allows beach placement of dredged materials if the following
conditions are met:
o The average percent by weight of fine grain material (< 0.0625 mm) is less than
the recipient beach plus 5%.
o The average percent by weight of granular material (2 mm <_ X 5 4.76 mm) is less
than the recipient beach plus 10%.
o The average percent by weight of gravel (4.76 < X < 76 mm) is less than the
recipient beach plus 15%.
Discuss the need to analyze the dredge material for calcium carbonate.
The dredge material was not tested for calcium carbonate. However, 15A NCAC 07H.0312
allows beach placement of dredged material if the average % by weight of the dredge
material does not exceed the recipient beach characterization plus 15%.
4. Discuss the permitting potential for placement of beach compatible material on the western end of
Ocean Isle Beach.
5. Discuss most probable path forward for permitting.
• CAMA Major & GP291 Verification with 408 coordination
• EFH & BA Requirements

ir
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
May 5, 2017 2"" Agency Coordination Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Susan Parker Town of Sunset Beach Heather Coats NCDEQ—DCM
Mark Benton Town of Sunset Beach Chad Coburn NCDEQ-DWR-401
Pete Larkin Town of Sunset Beach Maria Dunn NCDEQ-NCWRC
Cameron Weaver
NCDEQ-DEACS
Tyler Crumbley
USACE
Brennan Dooley
USACE
Gregg Bodnar
NCDEQ-DMF
Curt Weychert
NCDEQ-DMF
Kathy Matthews
USFWS
Shane Staples
NCDEQ-DNIF
Jerry McCrain
Moffatt & Nichol
Sean Farrell
NCDEQ-DCM
Robert Neal
Moffatt & Nichol
Acronyms:
AI W W —Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
CFS — Cubic Feet per Second
DCM — Division of Coastal Management
DMF — Division of Marine Fisheries
MLW — Mean Low Water
NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act
OIB — Ocean Isle Beach
PNA — Primary Nursery Area
USACE— U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS — U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The 2"' Agency Coordination Meeting was requested to discuss the items of concern the agencies
voiced from the initial meeting in March 2016 as listed below:
• Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Analysis requested by NCDEQ-Fisheries & USACE
addressing the projects potential scour and shoaling impacts in the following locations:
o Jinks Creek confluence with the AI W W.
o The 'S' curve alignment in Jinks Creek.
o Tubb's Inlet.
Shellfish Survey of Turtle & Mary's Creek
Additional Discussion points included the following:
Evaluation of sediment compatibility in Jinks Creek
Beneficial reuse material placement on the west end of Ocean Isle Beach.
! The'most probable path forward for permitting the project.
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Analysis
The analysis results demonstrated the dredging project -should not increase tidal flow rates or velocities
more than 5% throughout the project area. This largest increase in velocities could be expected in Jinks
Creel: at the confluence with the AIW W. The increase measured approximately 2.6% or .07 f /s along
Transect T3 nearthe AIW W confluence in Jinks Creek. The simulated velocities foithe'S' curve alignment
were also discussed where the model showed existing magnitudes greater than 3 ft/sec, which indicates the
velocities already reach scouring potential. This observation was confirmed through comparison of the
hydrographic survey data where depths reached approx. i15 MLW in the '$' cur4'e'alignment. The largest
increase for the flow rates occurred within the'S' curve alignment along Transect T4 whe-re;the modeling
indicated an approx. 3.2% increase (90 cfs) may occur.
The discussion also included the project performance during major storm event (Hurricane Hugo). The
modeling indicated the change in tidal conditions should be less during the major'stom tcompared to the
spring tide results referenced above. I '

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shorchne Manaeement & Pre -Dredge Analysis
May 5, 2017 2nd Agency Coordination Meeting Notes
Page 2 of 3
The comments received related to the Jinks Creek modeling analysis include the following:
The USACE indicated interest in the values (existing & with project) for the velocity changes
measured within the tributaries. adjoining Jinks Creek.
• . The USACE stated the modeling most likely would be reviewed by the USACE in greater detail,
if not duplicated, during the permitting stage as part of the 408 process. (Under Section 408
coordination, the USACE must review any project that may create a potential impact to an existing
federal project, or the AI W W for this project.
The comments below indicate general statements received during the discussion of Jinks Creek:
• A 40 ft channel throughout Jinks Channel was referenced as a potentially acceptable minimization
effort.
• Historic surveys showing depths similar to the preferred alignment would help demonstrate the
project would not create new depths but would restore navigation depths.
• A purpose and need statement will most likely be required during the permit process to help satisfy
NEPA requirements and may include an estimate of the current and expected Jinks Creek usage
density.
• An alternative analysis based on the purpose and need statement will also most likely be required
(NEPA) based on the public interest already demonstrated for the dredging of Jinks Creek.
• A shellfish survey for Anks Creek was requested from DMF and DCM. DMF requested a bank to
bank survey the full length of Jinks Creek; however, DMF agreed to visit the site to further evaluate
the need and extents for any required oyster survey of Jinks Creek.
Mary's & Turtle Creel( Shellfish Survey:
The results of the shellfish survey were discussed including that only 5 clams were located in.the Marys
Creek dredge footprint and none were located in the Turtle Creek footprint. Overall', approximately 17%'of
Mary's Creek contained shellfish (oysters and clams). However, the large majority of the shellfish were
located above MLW within the intertidal zone. When oysters were present, the density was approximately
21 oysters/m'.
The discussion focused on how the DCM or USACE would determine if the project required mitigation
and how to evaluate the `sloughing ofr area adjacent to the box -cut channel. [A box cut channel has vertical
sides and additional material could be expected to fall intodhe dredged channel immediately'aftar the dredge
event. Based on design documentation from the 2002 project, the side slopes could be expected to adjust at
a 3H:1 V slope.] The agencies generally agreed the Town would be responsible for any impacts identified
within the sloughing off or side slope area, even if the area was not directly, dredged. However; ifthe,Town
proposed to include the side slope area in the project it would be considered new dredging in a PNA and be
subject to additional review by the agencies. (The shellfish survey indicated the oysters/clams exist at a
density of 3.1 /m'- in the side slope area for Mary's Creek.)
The comments, received related to the shellfish survey of Mary's & Turtle Creek include the following
• Impacts would be evaluated based if the Town attempted_to avoid any existing shellfish and if the
channel followed the existing template authorized in the 2002 and previous permits.
Sediment Composition:
The sediment analysis results for Jinks Creek were discussed with the intent of verifying if analysis of the
recipient beach would be necessary. 15A NCAC 07H.0312 allows beach placement of dredged materials if
the following conditions are met: •
o The average percent by weight of fine grain material (< 0.0625 mm) is less than
the recipient beach plus 5%.
o The average percent by weight of granular material (2 mm < X < 4.76 min) is less
than the recipient beach plus 10%.
1 -'

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Mav 5, 2017 2nd Agency Coordination Meeting Notes
Page 3 of 3
o The average percent by weight of gravel (4.76 5 X S 76 mm) is less than the
recipient beach plus 5%.
o The average percent by weight of calcium carbonate is less than the recipient beach
plus15%.
The following measurement were identified as a potential concern for evaluating individual sub -areas.
o Sub -Area 1: Gravel Content = 16.76%
o Sub -Area 2: Fine Content = 12.80%
DCM stated during the review process the analysis results for each individual sediment sample as well as
the overall sub -area composites would be evaluated to determine beach compatibility.
The comments received from the agencies included the following:
• The recipient beach would need to be tested to determine beach compatibility.
• The material placement template would need to be defined along with a purpose & need for
beneficial reuse placement on the beach.
• Gravel content was referenced as a concern for turtle nesting potential.
• Beach compatible material may be able to be stockpiled within an USACE material placement
island for future use.
The Permitting Potential for Beneficial Reuse Material Placement
Comments received confirmed beneficial reuse material placement on OIB,would endure the same agency
review as placement on Sunset Beach. A purpose and need would need to be defined for placement on
either beach.
Path Forward for Permitting the Overall Project
Suggestions were provided to split the project into two(2) separate permits to simplify the process for the
`maintenance' areas. Turtle & Maly ,s Creek as well as the Feeder Canal have existing permits and'would
not require the same review as Jinks Creek -Separating these pieces may allow the Town to move forward
with segments of the project and catch up later with Jinks Creek.
Additional discussion suggested for links Creek an Individual Permit (IP) may be necessary tinder the
federal process due to public interest already expressed. The IP prdcess would require the project to meet
NEPA requirements including additional public interest criteria above the GP291 process. The
following environmental documentation would also be required:
• Archeological Survey Essential Fish Habitat Assessment(EFH)
• Biological Assessment (BA) Shellfish Survey of Jinks-Creek ,
Based on the results of the Jinks Creek Shellfish survey the following additional documentation may be
requested:
• Environmental Assessment (EA)
• SAV survey

t A
�/-•1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDENR SCOPING MEETING REQUEST
Please complete all the information below. Call and Email the appropriate coordinator with the completed form.
• Asheville Region- Alison Davidson828-196-4698; alison.davidsonancdenr.eov
• Mooresville or Winston-Salem Regions — Marcia Allocco 704-235-2107, marcia.allocco(iincdenr.rov
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Regions - David Lee 919-791-4203, davidlee(a')ncdenr.rov
• Washington Region - Lyn Hardison 252-948-3842; lvn.hardison(a)ncdenneov
• Wilmington Region - Cameron Weaver 910-796-7303; cameron.weaver(&,ncdenr.rov
Project Name: Town of Sunset Beach 2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis County: Brunswick
Applicant: Susan Parker Company: Town of Sunset Beach
Address: 700 Sunset Blvd. N. City: Sunset Beach State: NC Zip: 28468
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: siparker a, atmc.net
Physical Location of Project: Town of Sunset Beach
Engineer/Consultant: Robert NealP.E. Company: Moffatt Nichol
Address: 272 N. Front Street; Ste 204 City: Wilmington State: NC Zip: 28401
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: mealamoffattnichol.com
Please provide a DETAILED project narrative, pdf site plan and a vicinity map with road names along with this Request form.
The project narrative should include the following when available:
Existing Conditions- List of existing permits, previous project name(s) or owner name(s), existing compliance or pollution
incidents, current conditions or development on site, size of tract, streams or wetlands on site*, stream name and classification,
historical significance of property, seasonal high water table elevation, riparian buffers, areas of environmental concern,
setbacks
Proposed- Full scope of project with development phase plan, acreage to be disturbed, wetlands to be disturbed, waste
treatment & water supply proposed, soils report availability, % impervious surface, stormwater treatment and number of limps,
public or private funding.
*Relative To Wetlands — Federal and coastal wetlands must be delineated by a US Army Corps Regulatory Official, Coastal
Management Field Rep or a qualified environmental consultant prior to undertaking work such as filling, excavating or land
clearing. The delineations must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or the Division of Coastal
Management. Wetland delineations are valid for a period not to exceed five years from date of USACE approval.
Please provide estimated investment & expected employment numbers: $ ,
Jobs
For the scoping meeting, it is best to provide a list of questions and topics of concern. It is helpful to know what you
hope to gain from the meeting. Please have thoughts and presentations organized as much as possible to make the best
use of time.
Agencies Involved: Check all agencies that may be involved with project:
N Marine Fisheries N National Marine Fisheries N U.S. Fish & Wildlife N NC Wildlife Resources
N Coastal Management ❑ Land Resources (❑ Stornwater [-]Erosion Control) N U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
❑ Shellfish Sanitation ❑Water Resources: (❑ 401/buffer ❑ NPDES ❑ Non -discharge) ❑ Public Water Supply
❑ Air Quality ❑ Solid Waste ❑ UST ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Other
NCDENR Scoping Meeting
February 2015

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Project Description
This request is a follow up to a March 2016 agency coordination meeting to discuss the path
forward for navigation dredging project for the Town of Sunset Beach (Town). The project
consists of dredging approximately 3.5 miles along the eastern side of Sunset Beach in the
following waterways: (Figure I shows the proposed dredge areas in planview.)
■ Mary's Creek (-1,100 ft)
■ Turtle Creek (—],100 ft)
■ Jinks Creek (--6,800 ft)
■ North Shore Drive Feeder Canal & Finger Canals (-9,100 ft)
■ Canal Drive Bay Area (-2,100 ft)
Finger Canals A. B. C, & D
(t 900 ft ea_ - 3,600 ft total)
0 500 1,0001,5002.000
m Feel
Figure 1. Sunset Beach Proposed Work Areas

k 4
NOi ALLOW
bW QUA
The initial agency coordination meeting (March 2016) identified several issues as outlined below
requiring additional information prior to establishing a path forward for the project:
1. Will the dredging of Jinks Creek cause the following adverse impacts:
a. Additional shoaling in Jinks Creek confluence with the AI W W.
b. Increased scour or erosion along the `S' curve alignment in Jinks Creek.
c. Increased shoaling or migration patterns for Tubbs Inlet.
2. How will the dredging of Mary's & Turtle Creek impact shellfish resources?
3. What is the sediment composition of the proposed dredge material and where will the
excavated material be placed?
The Town has conducted the following studies to help address the concerns referenced above
and would like to discuss the results with the regulatory agencies.
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Analysis: A preferred alignment has been identified for
dredging Jinks Creek through a hydrodynamic modeling analysis. The alignment considers
resident and agency concerns regarding any new dredging in northern Jinks Creek. The
alignment maintains a 40 ft — 50 ft width at a depth of -5 MLW in northern Jinks Creek and
expands to an 80 ft — 100 ft width in southern Jinks Creek. For construction purposes, the
alignment includes a 1 ft overdredge allowance for northern Jinks Creek and a 2 ft allowance for
southern Anks Creek. Attachment A shows the preferred alignment for Jinks Creek in planview.
The modeling analysis estimated the maximum velocities and average flow rates traversing Jinks
Creek should experience less than a 3% change in spring tide conditions. The analysis compared
flow rates and velocities along multiple transects within Jinks Creek to provide this estimate. The
analysis also estimated changes expected during extreme storm conditions including average
flow rates, maximum velocities, and maximum water surface elevations. Based on the modeling
results, significant impacts are not expected with the construction of the preferred alignment.
Attachment B provides the executive summary of the modeling report; however, the full report is
available upon request.
Shellfish Survey in Turtle & Mary's Creek: A shellfish survey conducted in Turtle & Mary's
Creek identified minimal impacts would occur as a result of the dredging project. The survey
located approximately 5 clams within the proposed dredge footprint of Mary's Creek and no
shellfish within the footprint for Turtle Creek. The survey found shellfish existing at a density of
approximately 18.5 to 21 oysters per square meter. However, the species were generally located
in the intertidal zone and outside of the proposed work area. Attachment C provides the results of
the shellfish survey.
Both Turtle Creek and Mary's Creek lie within a designated Primary Nursery Area (PNA) where
new dredging is strongly discouraged by the resource agencies. The proposed dredge alignment
follows the previously authorized footprint from CAMA permit 22-02. For reference,
Attachment D shows the respective dredge alignments in planview.
Sediment Composition: Attachment E provides a summary of the sediment analysis showing
the beach compatible and non -compatible material for the dredge areas. (Additional composite
information is available upon request.) After agency review the Town will discuss options with
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Ocean Isle) for placement on the west end of the Ocean Isle. The
Town may also elect to place the compatible material along Sunset Beach.
As shown in the sediment analysis, Sub -Area 2 of Jinks Creek contains marginally high silt or
fine contents (-13%) in regards to the standards identified by 15a NCAC 07h. 0312 for beach
compatibility (<10°/u). The Town has not analyzed the sediment characteristics of the recipient
beach; however, based on previous studies the silt content of the recipient beach is expected to

►. !
remain below 5%. The Town would like to discuss options for placement if the standards of 15a
NCAC cannot be met in addition to the overall need to analyze the recipient beach, considering
the characteristics of the dredge material.
All non -compatible material will most likely be placed in USACE disposal islands 308 through
311, shown below in Figure 2. The Town is working with the USACE land use office to obtain
authorization. All potential islands are available for use; however, each would require USACE
approval.
The Town is requesting an agency coordination meeting to discuss the studies referenced above w
as well as any additional agency concerns. Construction of the project may begin as ear_y-as--
November 2017 and extend over 2 dredge seasons (November 16' through March 31 ). The MA'tD A4
Town hopes to work with the agencies in order to identify any outstanding concerns and draft a
path forward for the project. Although due to file size only partial results of the studies are
provided herein, the full reports will be provided upon request. Please contact Robert Neal
(meal(a,moffattnichol.com; 910.218.7100) for complete copies of the referenced reports.

Attachment A
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Preferred Alignment

10
-20
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
10
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
STATION 4+00
-1+00 0+00 1+00
RANGE (FT)
STATION 6+00
SUNSET BEACH
RANGE (FT) SUNSET BEACH
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
---- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
PRE -DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
JINKS CREEK PROFILES
PG. 05 OF 21 STA 4+00 & 6+00
o' S'
10'
VERTICAL SCALE:
1"=10'
o' s0
106
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1"-100'
,,,'moffatt
& nlchoi

� 11
..„„■■■■■N■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■rrr■
■■■N
■■■■■N■■
N
�N.■ER■N■■■■■■■■�■■■■
■■■■■S■■N■
iMORMESIbuylu
ENSURE
EN■■
�E
/N■■MEMrrr■\■■
Aij
H■E■E■E■N
ENS■E■MEMO
o
■/E/■■■
rrr■
ME ME
■■■N
EE■EU■
ER,E
C71
MIMMEMEMMEM
UU■■U■ERNS
RNMEMEMEMS
■EE■REED■■■■■■■■■■EREEERR
■RR■/■■■■■■■■■E■�E.E.■■■
■■■N■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■r/rrrr■r■■■■r■■■■■■■■■r■rr■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■EERE■E/■■■■■■■■E■REF■ERER■/■■■E■E■FEE■EEEERER■■■■■■■■■■EE■
r■EERE■RE■R■■■■■■■■■■■■ER■REN■NE■■■FEE■ERERREEE■RE■E■■rEn
ERN■ERRRE■U■/■■■■■■■■■■■■R■NEE■/■■■■■■■■■■■ER■■EER■EE
■rrrrrrrr■■■■■■■■■■■rrr/r■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■rr/rrrrrrrlrrr■■
rN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■R■//■■■E■E■■■■IPI�■■■E■E■■E■■E■E■E■
■■■■E■E■■N
MRSOMMEME
MEMMEMEME
IMEMEMEMEMEME
MEN
��iiiiiiiiii■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirii0
ENE
i
•
■■■■ONE■Err■■■■■SEENN■N■■■■■■/■
MEMS■_■■Nr■■MOMMOREN/■N■■■■N■
MMMM■■■■Now
■m�
V�����8
NEMMEMM�
MIMMM11
MM��SEEN
NE��E
_
arGMEMNON ME
iiGii
rElrrr
RR
rr■r�r■lrrrrrr11r1rrrWrr■■rrr
,fir■ii������ii����ELr�N\r1Eii
•
■■EE■NEE■RR■■■■■■■■■EEEO■■Err■lrlirl■■■■E■EEEE■R■EN//■■ER
■■■■rrrr■■■■■■■■■■■■■r/■■■■Iss■■■■r■■■■■■■■■rrrr■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■EER■R■/■■■■■■■FEE■REF■■■EE■■■■■■■■■SERER■RUDE/■■■■■SURER■E
■■■EE■■R■U■/■■■■■■■■■FEE■FEE■■R■■■■■■■■■■EEREEE■R■■■■■■■■■■E
■E■■■■URERR■RERREEE/■E■REEF■■■R■E■■■RE■U/■■E■EERRR■■EERERRER
rEE■■■■■■■■R■E■REEF/■/■■■■■■■■EEEEEE■■ER■■■■■■■■■R■EEEREEEEE
EEEERRR■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EER■FEE■■RE■■■■■■■■■EEEUREE■RRRE■■■■■■■
of I If fit
.•. .. r
...•• 1 • •.• .
•
II 11

10
-20
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
10
-20
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
STATION 36+00
-1+00 0+00 1+00
RANGE (FT)
STATION 38+00
SUNSET BEACH
RANGE (FT) SUNSET BEACH
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
--------- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
- - - - - PROPOSED OVERDREDGETEMPLATE
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
PRE -DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
JINKS CREEK PROFILES
PG. 13 OF 21 STA 36+00 & 38+00
a S'
1v
VERTICAL SCALE:
1--10'
a' so'
aminsionnnn
tar
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
V-100'
,,,,moffatt
& nlchol

10
-20 1
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
10
E A
-20
-3+00 -2+00 -1+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH RANGE (FT) SUNSET BEACH
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
--------- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
- — — — - PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE °®°
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"-10'
u' 5d too'
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
PRE -DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=100'
JINKS CREEK PROFILES ,",mOffatt & nlchot
PG. 17 OF 21 STA 52+00 & 54+00
STATION 52+00
rrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rr■■■r■■i
■M�Do��r�rM■
MI
irR■RRRMO►vM
al
m■MMR■■m►�
■■■■■■*�
�Iwr�
M■MI
MME
RR
ME
so
ME
ONESOMMONOWEREHM
so
an
■SEE
MEMMEMMMMOMMiME
-1+00 0+00
RANGE (FT)
STATION 54+00
oumou
IIMESE■N■m
ME■MMO■■
IMMMMv %
Lu p
I■■■R4L►'IJ
1+00 2+00 3+00
SUNSET BEACH

10
-3+00 -2+00
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
STATION 68+00
-1+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00
RANGE (FT) SUNSET BEACH
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
-------- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
- - PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
PRE -DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
JINKS CREEK PROFILES
I OF 21 STA 68+00
0' 5'
1w
VERTICAL SCALE:
1"-10'
7 5w
Iw
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1"-100`
,",moffatt & nlchol

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The finks Creek numerical modeling analysis evaluates the anticipated changes in tidal velocities and
flow rates expected from dredging the respective waterway. The North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requested the modeling analysis to
evaluate three (3) potential concerns as follows:
1. Increased shoaling in the AIWW confluence with Jinks Creek;
2. Increased scour or shoreline erosion within the `S' curve alignment of Jinks Creek; and,
Increased shoaling or migration patterns for Tubbs Inlet.
The modeling analysis evaluates the potential change in tidal velocities and flow rates created by multiple
design alignments. The alignments include a conceptual, maximum, and preferred dredge alternative as
described below. Appendix D contains the discussion regarding the conceptual and maximum design
alignments, while the main report concentrates on the preferred alignment evaluation.
• Conceptual - 100' Wide @ -7 MLW (entire channel)
• Maximum - 100' Wide @ -7 MLW (entire channel & Tubbs Inlet)
• Preferred - 40' — 50' Wide @ -5 MLW (northern Jinks Creek)
80'-100' Wide @ -7 MLW (southern Jinks Creek).
The current analysis builds upon a 2005 study and utilizes the same boundary conditions and field data
collected for that analysis. This includes flow rate and velocity measurements collected within the interior
waterways of Jinks Creek, the AIWW, and surrounding systems. The field data collection occurred in
November 2004 during a spring tide event. Water level elevations collected from the Sunset Beach Pier
(NOAA Tide Station #8659897) serve as the open boundary conditions used to drive the modeling
scenarios. The tidal elevations, or boundary conditions, include an applicable lag time consideration for
Tubbs Inlet, Shallotte Inlet, and Little River Inlet.
The finks Creek analysis also simulates extreme storm conditions and compares the performance of the
preferred alignment with 2016 existing conditions. Storm surge data representing Hurricane Hugo
(September 1989) provide the catalyst for the extreme storm conditions. The USACE developed the storm
surge data through an ADCIRC-2DDI (Advanced CIRCulation 2-Dimensional, Depth -Integrated) model
analysis.
Calculations conducted along 10 fixed transects afford the data used to compare the potential changes in
tidal velocities and flow rates. The analysis evaluates the measured changes to determine how they may
impact the existing shoaling or scour potential referenced by DCM and the USACE. The analysis calculates
depth averaged velocities and average flow rates based on the bathymetry and tidal input representing each
design scenario. The results are interpreted as a guide to assist the project stakeholders in making informed
decisions regarding the project's path forward. Figure 1 shows the transect locations and study areas based
on the concerns expressed by DCM and the USACE.
The results indicate the preferred alignment should not create a significant change in the tidal patterns for
Jinks Creek and the surrounding waters. The change in tidal velocities should range below three (3%)
percent for normal or spring tide conditions and extreme storm scenarios. Based on the data transects
sampled, the modeling indicates the largest increase in maximum velocities would equal approximately
2.6% (0.07 ft/sec) and would occur approximate to the AIWW confluence with Jinks Creek. The modeling
suggested the maximum velocity change would occur during normal or spring tide conditions as opposed

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Report
to extreme storm conditions. The spring tide modeling also suggested the maximum velocities traveling
towards Ocean Isle Beach from Tubbs Inlet would experience a slight decrease in magnitude.
Figure 1. Data Collection Transect Locations
The largest increase in the maximum velocities estimated under the extreme storm conditions also occurs
at the Anks Creek and AIWW confluence. The modeling estimated the increase to reach approximately
0.05 ft/sec at Transect T3 for the extreme storm condition scenario. Although the greatest increase in
velocity occurs during the spring tide conditions, the storm condition velocities reach higher magnitudes
due to the abrupt tidal forcing. Storm surge created from a major hurricane will encapsulate interior coastal
waterways considerably quicker than a normal astronomical tide. This creates a steeper velocity gradient
and overall greater velocity magnitude compared to a normal astronomical tide. However, the analysis
estimates the greatest change or increase in maximum velocities generated through the preferred alignment
would occur during spring tide conditions. Table 1 shows the estimated changes in the maximum velocities
for both the spring tide and extreme storm conditions. Figures 2 and 3 show the percent change in maximum
velocities in planview for the preferred alignment under the modeled spring tide and extreme storm
conditions, respectively.

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Pre -Dredge Analysis
links Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Report
Table 1. Maximum Velocities for the Preferred Alignment
S rin9 Tide Conditions
Extreme Storm Conditions
2016
Preferred
Percent
2016
Preferrea
Transect
Existing
Alignment
Change
Existing
Alignme
Conditions
%
Conditions
Tl
1.53 ft/sec
1.56 ft/sec
1.6%
AIWW
T2
1.05 ft/sec
1.06 ft/sec
0.8 %
-
-
Confluence
T3
2.75 ft/sec
2.82 ft/sec
2.6%
2.02
2.07
`S'
T4
3.45 ft/sec
3.46 ft/sec
0.3%
-
-Alignment
Curve
T5
2.86 ft/sec
2.88 ft/sec
0.7°%
3.07
3.11
1.3%
T6
3.01 ft/sec
3.02 f llsec
0.3%
-
T7
2.28 flsec
2.30 ft/sec
0.9%
3.41
3.45
1.2%
Tubbs
T8
4.72 ft/sec
4.74 ft/sec
0.4%
-
-
-
Inlet
T9
3.69 ft/sec
3.68 ft/sec
-0.3%
T10
2.45 ft/sec
2.44 ft/sec
-0.4%
1. Spring tide conditions simulated from Nov. 13, 2004 (13:15) to Nov. 20, 2004 (13:15).
2. Extreme storm conditions simulated from Sept 20, 1989 (10:30) to Sept. 22, 1989 (18:29).
3. (-) indicates tmnsect was not included in the analysis.
4. Values are depth averaged.
Figure 2. Preferred Alignment % Change in Maximum Velocities (Spring Tide Condition)

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Report
Figure 3. Preferred Alignment % Change in Maximum Velocities (Extreme Storm Condition)
The flow rate measurements determined from the modeling also suggest the preferred alignment will not
significantly change the shoaling or scouring patterns within the study area. Table 2 provides the percent
increase in flow rate measured at each transect in the modeling analysis. The largest increase in the flow
rate occurs during the spring tide analysis adjacent to the Jinks Creek `S' curve alignment (T4) and equals
approximately 3.2% for the flood tide cycle. Although generally the ebb tide flow rates experience a higher
percent change at all transects, the flood tide flow rates remain significantly higher in magnitude.
Therefore, the analysis considers the changes experienced during the flood tide cycle as the controlling
values. The calculations for the extreme storm conditions provide similar results compared to the spring
tide analysis. The largest percent increase for the flood tide cycle occurs adjacent to the AI W W confluence
(T3) and equals approximately 1.9%.
Results shown in Appendix D for the conceptual and maximum design analyses also support the preferred
alignment. The results indicate an approximate 20% to 40% increase in flow rates could be expected in the
AIWW confluence with the conceptual or maximum design alternatives, respectively. The estimated
change in flow rates increase traveling through Jinks Creek from Tubbs Inlet. Within southern Jinks Creek
the flow rates show less than a 10% increase for both alternatives. However, in northern Jinks Creek the
estimated changes grow substantially to the referenced 20% to 40%. These results suggest the material
shoaling in northern Jinks Creek obstructs the channel flow way and helps control the governing flow rate.
Therefore, increasing the proposed channel dimensions substantially beyond the preferred alignment may
create significant changes to the average flow rates and velocities in northern Jinks Creek.
iv

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Hydrodynamic Modeling Report
Table 2. Average Flow Rates for the Preferred Alignment (Flood Tide Cycle)
S rin Tide Conditions
Extreme Storm Conditions
2016
Preferred
Percent
2016
rcent
Transect
Existing
Alignment
Change
Existing
ange
Conditions
%
Conditions
TI
3,140cfs
3190cfs
1.6%
AIWW
T2
1,450 cfs
1,440 cfs
-0.7%
Confluence
T3
2 450 cfs
2 520 cfs
2.9%
3 720 cfs9%S'
2,790 cfs
2 880 cfs
3.2%
-
-
Ine
CurveT4
T5
3,230 cfs
3300 cfs
2.2%
5 680 cfs
5%T6
Alignment
4220 cfs
4290 cfs
1.7 /o
-
-
T7'
S740 cfs
5 840 cfs
1.7%
13 090 cfs
4%Tubbs
T8
12 110 cfs
12 200 cfs
1.0%
-
-
Inlet
T9
1,230 cfs
1,230 cfs
0.0%
T10
2,180 cfs
2,170 cfs
-0.5%
1. Flood tide flow rates are considered the governing values and therefore, the ebb flow values have been removed for clarity, except for
Transect T7. Along this transect the ebb tide flow noes provide the governing conditions.
2. Spring tide conditions simulated from Nov. 13, 2004 (13:15) to Nov. 20, 2004 (13:15).
3. Extreme storm conditions simulated from Sept 20, 1989 (10:30) to Sept. 22, 1989 (18:29).
4. (-) indicates transect was not included in the analysis.
The analysis also reviewed the anticipated change in the maximum water surface elevations expected under
extreme storm condition between the 2016 existing conditions and the preferred alignment. The modeling
showed a negligible increase in water surface elevations could be expected as a result of constructing the
preferred alternative. The modeling estimated the maximum increase to occur in southern Jinks Creek and
may equal on the order of 1/60 of an inch. The increase estimated for the remaining project area ranged
between 0 and 1/100d of an inch. Figure 4 shows the estimated change in maximum water surface elevations
for the extreme storm condition.
Figure 4. Preferred Alignment - Maximum Water Surface Elevation Change (Extreme Storm
Condition)

Attachment C
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Shellfish Survey Report

Shellfish Survey Report
Mary's and Turtle Creek -
Sunset Beach, NC
Presented to:
Town of Sunset Beach
January 5, 2017
Prepared by:
1",
moffott & nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................
Methodology ..................
Results and Discussion ...
Summary ........................
References................................................................................................
Appendix A— Survey Protocol Provided by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
Appendix B — Survey Maps
Appendix C — Photographs
Appendix D—Sampling Results Raw Data
...... 3
........ 3
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 2

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Introduction
Moffatt & Nichol conducted a shellfish survey of Mary's and Turtle Creeks in support of a pre -dredge analysis
sponsored by the Town of Sunset Beach. The project area is located east of the Sunset Beach Bridge, south of
Shoreline Drive East (Figure 1) and is part of a series of tributaries that are potential locations for dredge
activities to improve navigation access to residents and guests of the area.
Figure l: Mary's & Turtle Creek Site Plan
Mary's and Turtle Creeks were initially chosen for survey at the request of state and federal agencies as a
measure to help assess potential impacts the overall project may create for any existing shellfish populations.
Upon review of survey results, the resource agencies may require additional effort or to enter into discussions
to find alternatives for reducing impacts to affected marine resources. The sampling protocols utilized for this
survey were provided by The NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) provided the sampling protocol utilized for
the survey. Appendix A shows the survey requirments as provided by DMF.
Methodology
The shellfish sampling occurred over approximately 2 hectares (five acres) of benthic habitat (1.4 hectares [3.4
acres] in Marys Creek and 0.65 hectares [1.6 acres] in Turtle Creek). Protocols recommend a sampling rate of
at least 25 one -meter square samples per 0.4 hectare (1 acre) with no less than 10 samples per project site.
Based on this, 125 sampling locations were originally established in a desktop Geographic Information System
(GI5) mapping exercise and loaded onto a Trimble mapping -grade Global Positioning System (GPS) unit.
However, due to beneficial field conditions during the survey time period, 136 combined locations were
Moffatt & Nichol Page 3

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
sampled within Marys and Turtle Creek. The sampling locations were randomly selected along transects across
the creeks, allowing for sampling along depth -stratifications as suggested by protocol (Map 1, Appendix B).
The sampling included 75 stations along ten transects in Mary's Creek and 61 stations along nine transects in
Turtle Creek. The spacing between each transect equaled approximately 61 meters (200 feet) in Marys Creek
and approximately 23 meters (75 feet) in Turtle Creek. The transects in Turtle Creek included seven transects
identified as part of the desktop GIS exercise referenced above, and two additional transects identified in the
field. The additional sampling stations along the two field -created transects were added in Turtle Creek during
low tide on October 19th, near the confluence with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. An additional ten
sampling sites were added along each of the field -created transects (see Map 1, Appendix B).
In subtidal sampling locations, a clam rake was used to rake a one square meter area. In low tide scenarios
where oysters were exposed, visual counts of live oysters were conducted within a square meter area in place
of a rake sampling. Live shellfish found within the square meter area were counted and a sub -sample of
shellfish were measured for shell length (mm from umbo to lip). The depth and general bottom type (e.g. mud,
sandy mud, muddy sand, sand, shell hash) were noted at each sampling site along with other pertinent
observations, such as shoreline conditions, seawalls, and other flora and fauna. Overall site conditions such as
turbidity, wind speed/direction, and tidal stage were qualitatively recorded at the beginning of the sampling
event. A water quality sampling device (YSI Model 556) was used to sample water quality parameters (e.g.
dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, and temperature) at the beginning and/or end of the sampling effort for each
day to establish if any anomalies existed that could affect shellfish presence or absence. Pictures were taken
to characterize the site and provide photographic evidence of oyster presence (Appendix C).
Data collected in the field included:
• Survey date and time
• Surveyor's names
• Wind speed/direction
• Turbidity
• Water quality (DO, pH, salinity, and
temperature)
• Tidal stage
Results and Discussion
• Sediment type
• Depth
• Presence/absence of shellfish
• Number of shellfish
• Sub -sample of the shell length
• Other prominent features (e.g. emergent
marsh, sea walls)
The shellfish survey was conducted on October 18th and 19th, 2016 by Moffatt & Nichol. The weather
conditions were favorable throughout the whole sampling period. Wind speeds were negligible in Marys Creek
and Turtle Creek. The sampling within Marys Creek occurred at low tide on the 18th of October around 5:00
pm to 6:30 pm. The sampling within Turtle Creek occurred about 2 hours after low tide at 7:00 am to 8:00 am
on the 19th of October. Based on visual assessments, there was high turbidity in the creeks with little visibility.
Moffatt & Nichol Page 4

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Neither creek is listed in the Division of Water
Resources' Stream Classification Schedule, but since
both creeks are tributaries to the Intracoastal
Waterway in the Lumber River Basin, they would carry
the classification of that waterbody — namely SA, H WQ
(commercial shellfishing, High Quality Waters)
(NCDWRa, 2016). Results of the water quality
collected during the sampling events met all
applicable state water quality standards for SA waters
(Table 1). In addition, all data were within
environmental tolerance levels for shellfish (Bahr et at
1981; NOAA 2016; Wilson et al 2005). There were no
anomalous results in this snapshot of water quality
data that would indicate any reason for shellfish
absence. The pH levels were a little low compared to
NC water quality standards and although oysters can
survive under a range of salinity conditions, the
optimum range is 14 to 28 (Shumway 1996) which is
somewhat higher than reported conditions (11+ ppt).
Overall, there was little variability between the two
sites. Table 1 provides summary data for water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity.
Figure 2: Intertidal area found at Mary's Creek near the
Creek mouth Patchy intertidal oysters in clumps were
commonly found in all intertidal areas along the Creek
Table 1: Water quality data collected at each site after sampling events
Mary's Creek
Turtle Creek
NC Water Quality
Standard (NCDWR
2016"
Date/Time
10/18/16 16:12
10/19/2016 19:56
Water temperature (°C)
24.63
22.54
No more than 32°C
Dissolved oxygen (%)
53.4
43.3
n/a
PH
6.5
6.4
6.8 to 8.5
Salinity (ppt)
11.68
11.19
Normal conditions for
the area
At each sampling location, one person measured depth and, if shell was present, the area was raked four times
with a clam rake. Approximately 17% of the sampling locations at Mary's Creek contained shellfish (13 of 75
locations) (oyster and/or clams). In Turtle Creek approximately 10% of the sampling locations (6 of 61 locations)
contained shellfish (only oysters). The shellfish populations were generally located outside of the proposed
dredge limits. The survey only identified the presence of 5 clams within the Marys Creek dredge footprint at
the mouth of the creek near the confluence with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), but failed to
identify the presence of any shellfish within the Turtle Creek dredge footprint. Map 2A and 2B (Appendix B)
show the sampling locations and identifies where shellfish presence was noted. Appendix B also shows the
presence of shellfish adjacent to the work area in both Mary's and Turtle Creek.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 5

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek I Town of Sunset Beach
The survey results indicate oysters (Crassostrea virginica) maintain a dominant presence among the shellfish
species, with very few clams and mussels identified. On average, when live oysters were present, there were
21 oysters/m2 (t22SD) in Marys Creek and 18.5 oysters/m2 (t14SD) in Turtle Creek. Of the shell heights
subsampled, the average height was 39.Smm (t18SD) in Marys Creekand 40mm (t32SD) in Turtle Creek (Table
2). All size classes were present in both creeks including spat and large adults.
Table 2: Average number of oysters per meter square when present at a transect point (t standard
deviation) and average shell height (min t standard deviation) of sub -sampled oysters. N is the
sample size.
Marys Creek Turtle Creek
Mean t SD N Meant SD N
Oysters / mz (when present) 21 t 22 13 18.5 t 14 6
Shell height 39.5 t 18 48 40 t 32 20
Since sampling occurred closeto low tide, depths were relatively shallow. Within Mary's Creek many sites were
in the intertidal zone and completely emergent for sampling. The subtidal areas averaged about 0.4m in depth
with mostly mucky sediments. In Turtle Creek, the sampling depths averaged 0.75m (two hours after low tide)
with mostly mucky sediments except on edge habitats where shellfish were found and harder sand/mud
sediments were prominent.
Overall, the intertidal areas consisted of mainly sand (hard bottom) with shell hash transitioning to muddy -
sand as the shoreline progressed towards the low tide line. In many rakes and visible observations, shell hash
was present that would be conducive for oyster settlement but live oysters were not observed. Overall, oysters
were mostly present in the intertidal area where there was sandy/harder sediments with shell hash and marsh
present (see Appendix Q. Oysters were in patchy clumps growing vertically upon each other. They were not
found in any instance in the subtidal areas that had muck -dominated sediments. In these areas, a PVC pole
could be pushed down more than a meter and would have been unconducive for oyster settlement.
Summary
In summary, there are viable populations of shellfish, including oyster (Crassostrea virginica ) in both Mary's
and Turtle Creeks mostly along the edges of the creeks. However, the proposed work area remained
predominately clear of shellfish species with 5 clams identified within the dredge footprint for Mary's Creek
and no shellfish identified within the Turtle Creek work area. All size classes were present in both creeks
including spat and large adults. This would suggest suitable habitat conducive for oyster settlement and growth
and that conditions have been favorable over the last several years.
On average, oyster numbers ranged from 18.5 to 21 per square meter in the two systems, generally growing
in patchy clumps. These numbers compare with what was considered threshold success criterion in sanctuary
creeks in the Chesapeake Bay system (15 oysters per square meter), but significantly less that higher target
criterion (50 oysters per square meter) established for highly managed Chesapeake Bay creeks (NOAA et al
2016). As expected, oysters were concentrated within the intertidal zone on hard (sandy) bottom and generally
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 6

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek I Town of Sunset Beach
lacking in deeper water where shifting sand and soft mud may be prevalent and unsuitable for supporting
oyster communities. Therefore, it appears the proposed dredging will have little effect on shellfish in these
creeks.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 7

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
References
Bahr, Leonard M., and William P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic
coast: a community profile. No. 81/15. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Oyster Recovery Partnership. 2016. 2015 Oyster Restoration
Implementation Update. Progress in the Choptank Complex (Harris Creek, Little Choptank River, and Tred
Avon River Oyster Sanctuaries).
htti)://dnr maryland goy/fisheries/Documents/2015 Choptank Oyster Implementation Update FINAL pdf
http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/classics/Raltsoff1964/chao18.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2016).
NOAA. 2016. Status Review of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea Virginia), Report to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, February 16, 2007. NOAA Fisheries, Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/t)r/species/Status%20Reviews/eastern oyster sr 2007.pdf. Accessed November
22, 2016
Wilson, et al. 2005. Survey of water quality, oyster reproduction and oyster health status In the St. Lucie
Estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 24:157-165.
NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)a. 2016. Stream Classifications Listing for the Lumber River basin,
https://ncdenr.s3.a mazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/W ater%20Qua lity/PlanninpJCSU/Su rface%20Water/River%20Basi n%20W ater%20Qua litv%20CIassifica
tions%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/Lumber Alpha order.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2016
NC Division of Water Resources". 2016. Water Quality Standards. https://deg.nc.gov/document/nc-stdstable-
11082016. Accessed November 22, 2016
Shumway, S.E. 1996. Natural environmental factors. In: V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell and A.F. Eble, editors. The
Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland. pp.467-513.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 8

Shellfish Survey Report— Mary's and Turtle Creek
Appendix A - Survey Protocol Provided by DMF
Recommended Sampling Protocols for Shellfish application review purposes
Methods - Sample at the rate of at least 2S one -meter square samples per acre with no less than 10 samples
per project site. Samples should be taken on a depth -stratified basis, either randomly or along transects.
Sampling gear should be a standard clam rake or a steel tine garden rake. Rake the entire meter square unless
there are large numbers of live oysters visible atthe specific sample site, in which case countthe visible oysters
within the specific sample site. Treat intertidal and subtidal areas the same within the overall sampling area.
Data Collection- Samples should include at least the following data
• Location for every sample on a map of the site
• Date and approximate local time of sampling work
• Depth (and lunar tide stage where applicable)
• Bottom salinity and water temperature
For each sample:
• General bottom type (estimate: mud, sandy mud, muddy sand, sand, shell, SAV, macroalgae)
• Numbers of oysters and/or hard clams for each sample
• Optional data:
• Shell length (umbo to lip) in mm for each oyster and clam collected
• Other pertinent observations (such as SAV presence)
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 9

Shellfish Survey Report — Marys and Turtle Creek
Appendix B - Survey Maps
t y �s-
;Y u
Vill
- i
D �
asp 95
Map l: Transects and Sampling Points
Map 2a: Shel f sh Location Results at Mary's Creek
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 10

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek I Town of Sunset Beach
Map 2b: Shellfrsh Location Results at Turtle Creek
Moffatt & Nichol Page 11

Town of Sunset Beach
4' ;mj�

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Photos 3 and 4. Typical sand -mud intertidal areas with oyster patches.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 13

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Photo 5. East bank of Mary's Creek showing intertidal habitat with oysters and snails.
Photo 6. Marsh / oyster complex found in Mary's Creek against residential sea wall areas.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 14

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek Town of Sunset Beach
Photo 7: Northernmost portion of Turtle Creek.
Photo 8: Oysters found along seawalls and pilings of Turtle Creek.
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 15

Shellfish Survey Report - Mary's and Turtle Creek
Appendix D - Sampling Results Raw Data
Note: An asterisk indicates an approximate time. The letter 'E' indicates that the sampling location was
emergent or fully exposed due to low tide.
Mary's Creek
Crew: Adam Efird and Meg Goecker
Date:
10/19/2016
Adjacent shoreline: marsh, seawalls
Turbidity: High; No wind.
At 8:00 Start of DAY
Temp Inc): 25.06
DO & pH:
58%; 6.3
At 18:12
Temp (oC): 24.63
DO & pH: 53.4%; 6.5
Salinity(ppt): 11.52
Tide level:
low tH 5pm
Salinity(ppt):
11.69
Tide level: low @ Spm
Transact
8,pt
Time
picture
8
depth
(m)
Number of
oysters/m2
Oyster length
(mm)
sediments
Notes
1.1
17:00-
E
5
38,51,45,32,45
next to rocks, silty sand
1.2
17:00-
E
2
50,50
hard bottom- oyster shell hash
1.3
17:00•
0.1
1
muck, some shell, silty
1.4
17:00•
0.3
muck, some shell, silty
1.5
17:00•
0.3
muck, some shell, silty
1.6
17:00-
0.25
5 clams
muck, some shell, silty
1.7
17:00•
0.25
muck, some shell, silty
1.8
17:00'
0.2
muck, some shell, silty
1.9
171x)•
0.2
muck
1:10
17:00•
E
hard bottom
1:11
17:04
E
silt, hard bottom
1:12
17:05
E
silt, hard bottom
1.13
17:05
E
silt, hard bottom
1.14
17:06
E
silt, hard bottom
2.1
16:13
E
sand, shell hash
next to marsh
2.2
16:14
E
sand, shell hash
next to marsh
2.3
26:14
E
62
50, 20, 6, 50,12,
38, 50, 25, 25,30
Includes spat - more than
we can count
2.4
16:17
0.1
2
30,30
slit, shell hash
anoxic
2.5
17:10
0.2
muck, hard bottom
2.6
17:10
0.2
muck hard bottom
2.7
17:11
0.2
muck hard bottom
2.8
17:11
0.2
muck, hard bottom
2.9
17:12
0.2
muck, hard bottom
2:10
17:12
0.2
1 clam
muck, hard bottom
2.11
17:13
E
45
muck hard bottom
2.12
17:14
E
muck hard bottom
2.13
17:14
E
muck hard bottom
3.1
16:23
E
shell hash, sand
near marsh
3.2
16:24
E
25
38, 20, 31,63,
38,32, 38, 31, 63,50
silt, muck
anoxic
17:17
0.5
muck hard bottom
13.5
17:18
0.6
muck, hard bottom
anoxic
17:19
0.5
muck
anoxic
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 16

Shellfish Survey Report - Mary's and Turtle Creek I Town of Sunset Beach
Transact
N,pt
Time
Picture
4
depth
(m)
Number of
oysters/m1
Oyster length
(mm)
sediments
Notes
3.6
17:19
11
0.6
muck
anoxic
3.7
17:20
12
0.4
muck
snails, anoxic
3.8
17:21
0.3
muck
snails, anoxic
3.9
17:23
muck, hard bottom
anoxic
4.1
16:32
E
56
12, 38, 50, 31, 25,
50, 31, 38, 20, 25
silt, muck
anoxic
4.2
17:26
0.2
muck
anoxic
4.3
17:26
0.2
muck
anoxic
4.4
17:27
0.4
muck
anoxic
4.5
17:28
0.4
muck
anoxic
4.6
17:29
0.6
muck
anoxic
4.7
17:29
0.5
muck
snails, anoxic
4.8
17:37
0.3
muck
snails, anoxic
5.1
17:38
no oysters
5.2
17:38
no oysters
5.3
17:38
no oysters
5.4
17:38
no oysters
5.5
17:38
no oysters
6.1
17:33
0.15
15
sand/mud (hard packed)
6.2
17:33
0.2
muck
anoxic
6.3
17:33
0.2
muck
anoxic
6.4
17:33
0.5
muck
anoxic
6.5
17:35
1
sand/ hard bottom
6.6
17:37
0.3
sandy / hard bottom
7.1
•17:48
E
sand/mud (hard packed)
marsh
7.2
•17:48
0.5
1
sand/mud (hard packed)
marsh
7.3
17:39
1
0.6
sand/mud (hard packed)
7.4
27:39
0.6
muck
anoxic
7.5
17:40
0.3
low tide line
7.6
17:41
13
E
8
75
sand/ hard bottom
8.1
17:45•
0.2
sand/mud, low tide line hard
bottom
marsh
8.2
17:45•
0.6
sand/mud
marsh
8.3
17:45-
0.7
muck
marsh
8.4
17:47
0.6
muck
anoxic
8.5
17:47
0.5
muck
anoxic
8.6
17:48
E
10 oysters;
1 mussel
40-75 inch range
sand/ hard bottom
oysters growing on roots
of oak tree and dock
9.1
17:48
E
5
100
mud (hard packed)
smell of raw sewage
9.2
17:48
E
mud (hard packed)
9.3
17:49
0.3
sand, muck, somewhat hard
9.4
17:50
0.4
mud, sand, hard bottom
9.5
17:50
0.5
sand, hard bottom
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 17

Shellfish Survey Report — Mary's and Turtle Creek
Transect
Picture
depth
Number of
Oyster length
#,pt
Time
#
(m)
oysters/m2
(mm)
sediments
Notes
Great egret foraging at
pipe drainage point,
oysters Inside pipe and on
17:51
0.5
rocks above low tide line.
Detritus floating perhaps
10.1
rip rap
from storm.
10.2
17:52
0.5
rip rap/hard bottom
10.3
17:52
0.5
mud (hard packed)
Moffatt & Nichol I Page 18

Attachment D
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Turtle & Mary's Creek Dredge Alignment

STATION 0+00
10
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 1 ' Imo--1 1 1
-0+50 0+00 0+50
SUNSET RANGE (Fl)
BEACH
STATION 4+00
10 T-
0
O
a
w -10
a
w
OCEAN ISLE
BEACH
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 F7)
-Ni.6RMLM
-20 1 1 1
-0+50 0+00 0+50
SUNSET RANGE (FT)
BEACH
10 STATION 2+00
MHW (4.73 F7)
NAVD (2.94 F7)
W
3 0
z
P
w -10
w
-20 �1
-0+50 0+00 0+50
RANGE (FT)
10 STATION r -
OCEAN ISLE
BEACH
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 I- I
-0+50 0+00 0+50
OCEAN ISLE SUNSET RANGE (FT)
BEACH BEACH
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
----- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
- ----- — - PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
TURTLE CREEK PROFILES
PG. 2 OF 3 STA 0+00 TO 6+00
IX.'EAN ISLI'.
BEACH
0' 5'
10'
VERTICAL SCALE:
1"-10'
0' 50'
1w
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1"-100'
,",moffott & nlchol

STATION 8+00
10
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 1 i -
-0+s0 0+00 0+50
S NSU RANGE (FT)
BEBCH
O NISI
BMA
A
10 STATION 10+00
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 F 1 1 1i 1 1 4 11
-0+50 0+00 0+50
RANGE (FT)
O N ISLE
BEA
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
--- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
-- PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
----- -- PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE n' s' ,o'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=W
v By 10D'
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=100'
TURTLE CREEK PROFILES ,", m 0 ffa tt & n I C h 01
N, OF 3 STA 8+00 TO 10+00

To
pm
10 STATION 0+00
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVE) (2.94 FI)
-20 1 I I
-0+50 0+00 0+50
SUNSU RANGE (FT)
BMA
10 STATIrT--r, �NTrT
OCEAN Isu
BmA
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
10 STATION 2+00
MHW (4.73 PI)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 1 I
-0+50 0+00 0+50
SUNM RANGE (FT)
BFACN
10 STATION 6_+00
0
d
w
-10
a
w
-20 I i
-0+50 0+00 0+50
al* RANGE (FT)
OCWN ISIE
BPACII
MHW (4.73 FF)
NAVD (2.94 FI)
-20 1 f
-0+50 0+00 0+50
ocBnn Is1,e suNSBr RANGE (FT)
BBACH BB.�CB
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
--------- EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
— — — — — PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
MARY'S CREEK PROFILES
Na 2 01: 3 STA 0+00 TO 6+00
MMN Isl.f.
BBACB
o' s•
10'
VERTICAL SCALE:
1•'=10'
0' SO•
tar
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1"=100'
,,,,moffatt & nlchol

STATION 8+00
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 FT)
-20 1 I�
-0+50 0+00 0+50
SUNSU RANGE (FT)
."m
O N ISLE
BMM
to STATION 10+00
MHW (4.73 FT)
NAVD (2.94 F7)
-20 F--
A+50 0+00 0+50
SUNSET RANGE (FT)
BEAM
MEAN ISLE
BPAOI
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
EXISTING PROFILE (FEB. 2016)
PROPOSED DESIGN TEMPLATE
- - - - - PROPOSED OVERDREDGE TEMPLATE 0®
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=10'
v
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
DREDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=100'
MARY'S CREEK PROFILES ,",moffatt & nlchol
STA 8+00 TO 10+00

,. ,
Attachment E
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Sediment Analysis Summary

c
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
PRE -DREDGE ANALYSIS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
SHEET INDEX
SHTI-COVERPAGE
SHT 2 - ANALYSIS SUMMARY (COMPATIBLE & NON -COMPATIBLE MATERIAL VOLUMES / LOCATIONS)
SHT3- SEDIMENT SAMPLING MAP
APPENDIX A - JINKS CREEK GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B - FEEDER CANAL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C - BAY AREA GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS PLAN VIEW - (PROVIDED BY CALTIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTIST)
PREPARED FOR:
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH, NC
700 SUNSET BOULEVARD NORTH
SUNSET BEACH, NC. 28468
MOFFATT & NICHOL
272 N. FRONT STREET, STE. 204
WILMINGTON, NC. 28401
"h,moffatt & nlchol

SEDDMIENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE
Station
Volume (CY)
Composite Summary(% B Wt. Passin)
Mean
Sorties
Skewness
Kurtosis
Work Area
Sub -Area
Start
Stop
Compatible
on -
Compatible
Fines
Sand
Granular
Gravel Total
(rote)
(o)
(a)
(8)
Jinks Creek
1
0+00
12+25
6,975
6.35%
72.69%
420%
16,76%
100%
0.44
2.77
-0.45
066
2
12+25
25+00
8,342
12.W,
73.72%A246%
11.02%
100%
0.21
L68
-0.28
2.30
3
25+00
45H10
17,005
2.64%
85.25%
9.09%
100°/
0.26
1.23
-0.32
1.77
45+00
51+00
13,246
51.88%
47.92%
0.15%
100%
0.05
2.21
0.14
0.33
5
51+00
68+50
68660
3.29%
96.71%
0.00%
100%
0.17
046
0.03
0.81
SubTotal
0+00
68+50
100,982
13,246
9.71%
86.20%3.20%
100%
0.19
1.01
-0.06
0.99
Sub-Areal-3&5
100,982
4.17%
91.22%
3.60%
100%
0.20
0.85
-0.08
1.08
Feeder Canal
1
Finger Canals
10,659
65.27%
34.54%
0.07°/
0.12%
100%
0.04
2.30
-0.05
0.24
8+00
21+50
6,672
50.34%
49.63%
0.03%
0.00%
100%
0.07
1.59
-0.05
0.23
r34
21+50
40+00
11,944
33.34%
66.48%
0.09%
0.09%
100%
0.11
1,16
0.29
0.24
40+00
42+001
3,5851
1 4.40%
9560%
0.00%
000%
IW/.
til5l
0.57
0.12
0.51
SubTmil
0+00
1 42+00
1 3,585
1 19,275
1 44%
1 56%
1 0%
0%
1 100%
0.08
1.55
0.09
1 0.27
Bay Area
l -0+50
20+50
i
1 17,555
1 87.08%1
12.67%1
0,09%1
0.17 %
100%
0001
5,921
0.00
0.33
2 20+50
21+00
1 645
1
1 2.40°/a
97.609/6
0.00%j
0.00%
IW/.l
0.17
0,421
0.00
127
SubTotal 1 -0+50
1 21+00
1 645
1 17,555
1 84.08%
1 15.68%
1 0.08%
0.16%
100%
1 0.01
5.72
1 0.00
1 0.36
Mary's Creek
Na OMO 10+75 8,066 -
Turtle Creek
Na 0+00 11+00 7,830 - -
Notes:
1 Composite values determined by weighted averages.
2 Mary's & Turtle Creek were only tested for chemical analysis. Historically the material from these systems has been placed in an USACE material placement site. Therefore, a grain size analysis was, not
conducted as the material is assumed to be fine grained and not beach compatible.
3 Conceptual plans include utilizing material from Junks Creek Subarea 1 & 2 for a marsh restoration project between Mary's & Turtle Creek adjacent to the AIW W.
4 Total volumetric quantities equal 105,212 CY for compatible material and 75,972 CY for non -compatible material.
5 Compatible & non -compatible volumes we estimated and the qualifying statistics must be confirmed with NCDCM. Additional testing of the recipient beach or placement area may be required to confirm
the compatibility designations.
„"moffatt & nlchol

i : c .. _ •. _� a
�a o
At area Jn •,, :•+ - � _ �- ,
�11.- y♦
;2FUIY St .
��•.r� 7`9aI P, 0
�a
Csunset Beach
U
c
m
' lour Gude ,.
�+e..s�de•D� N�S� � r
Goae /
6
2016r ogle = ' Goggle Earth

WP
d
�flt`r}• �' � 51� '•
.�, H�cgo'V' ,•�n.P
i
� v a
c
N
m
�e
���.6-arvai I
02016 Googie
Tour Gude � L 1^'w
r Q
Google Earth

Bodnar, Gre
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 5:07 PM
To: Benton Mark; Rich Cerrato; <[e-mail]>; Larkin Pete; ckscott13; Bob
Forrester
Cc: <[e-mail]>; Neil Gilbert; Gary Merritt; Sandy Payne; Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: Dredging of Jinks Creek
Council Members and Mayor Forrester,
In our ERC report of 1/5/17 we expressed concerns about the potential dredging of Jinks Creek that we simply wanted
addressed at the next scoping meeting. These concerns were the result of our discussions with several academic
scientists who have the necessary expertise. One of the concerns was that a navigational channel could have a negative
impact on Palm Cove and the east end of OIB. Since submitting our report, you have also received a similar concern
expressed by Dr. Swanson who was the Chair of the Department of Geology at the University of Georgia.
At the last council meeting Moffat and Nichols (M&N) attempted to address this concern using computer modeling.
Their model suggested that a navigational channel (6 feet deep and 80 to 100 feet wide) would not have a negative
impact on Palm Cove or the east end of OIB. While computer modeling is an important tool it has its limitations! It is one
of several tools in the tool box that scientists use to approve/disapprove what computer models predict. There are two
main reasons for this limitation. First, the computer programs are developed by humans! The only equations we can put
into the program is information that we currently understand regarding the ongoings of Mother Nature. Unfortunately,
Mother Nature is very complex and she has shared with us very little of what she knows. In other words, computer can
only use use information that we are aware of and not information unknown to us! Secondly, the output prediction
totally depends on what data was inputed. Clearly, you understand that computer modeling is nothing more than a
prediction. It is up to humans to supply the documentation that confirms or denies the prediction.
As an example to illustrate this I will use the current debate over global warming/ climate change. In the 1970s using
computer models climate scientists predicted that global warming/climate change was real and humans were
responsible by their burning of fossil fuels. However, the computer model could not adequately address the other
factors that Mother Nature uses to regulate global temperature. Some examples are solar radiation, volcanic eruptions,
sulfate aerosols, water vapor, clouds, prevailing winds, ocean currents, etc. Thus to approve or disapprove this
hypothesis it was up to the climate scientists to generate the necessary data. They were very successful because today
96% of the climate scientists agree that global warming/climate change is real and it is caused by humans. If you think
about it, a 96% consensus is quite remarkable!
M&N used a computer model to predict that a navigational channel in Jinks Creek would not have a significant negative
impact on Palm Cove or the east end of OIB. However, to date, all scientists who have commented on this issue show no
data to support this prediction. In fact, they all conclude that a navigational channel in Jinks Creek will have a negative
impact! If this council is sincerely concerned about protecting the environment surrounding SSB they must request that
M&N supply supporting data to support their prediction.
Please note what I have stated above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the opinion of other
members of the ERC .
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPhone

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Categories:
Memo To: Scoping Committee
[e-mail]
Wednesday, March 15, 2017 3:54 PM
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Farrell, Sean C;
[e-mail]; Hall, Rhonda B; Dunn, Maria T.;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bodnar,
Gregg; Wilson, Debra; Coburn, Chad; Weaver, Cameron
[e-mail], [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail],
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; gmerr946
@aol.com;[e-mail]
SUNSET BEACH ERC / SCOPING MEETING
CAMALandUseDocument.pdf; CAMAShellfishReg ulationsjpg; EmailfromPatSmith.docx;
JinksCreekLowTide-2jpg; JinksCreekLowTide-5jpg; JinksCreeklowTide9.jpg;
JinksCreekOysterbeds7jpg; JinksCreekoysterbeds9jpg; NCWaterbodyList.pdf
Important
From: Sunset Beach Environmental Resource Committee
Re: Review of Sunset Beach Shoreline Management Project
Date: 3/15/17
The Sunset Beach Environmental Resource Committee (ERC) has performed extensive research on the
proposed Shoreline Management Project, including consultations with several academic scientists who have
expertise in shoreline management. Based on this research, we have two major concerns about the proposed
dredging of Jinks Creek. We believe it is critical that the scoping committee members be aware of our
concerns with the hope that the concerns will be discussed at the next scoping meeting.
1. Our first concern is the fact that Jinks Creek has a high density of oyster beds.
(See the attached five photos). ERC believes it is important to address the oyster bed issue
because CAMA regulations clearly states that dredged navigational channels must be aligned so as
not to interfere with shellfish beds (1 and attached CAMA Shellfish Regulation). Furthermore,
Jinks Creek has been designated a shellfish area and a high quality water area (attached North
Carolina Waterbodies List). Other CAMA rules prohibit dredging if dredging would violate water
quality (attached CAMA Land Use Plan).
The ERC believes both the shellfish and water quality issues need to be addressed.
2. Our second concern is the status of the nursery designation of Jinks Creek.

It appears Jinks Creek was deemed a non -primary nursery area in the 1970s by default. The relevant
data generated for Jinks Creek are from a single survey conducted in 1971; apparently this single
one -month survey did not generate sufficient data to merit a written report. Obviously, a primary
nursery area (PNA) could not have been designated on the basis of these data nor could such a
designation be ruled out (2 and attached Pat Smith's email). Jinks Creek is completely surrounded
by PNAs and is the connection between the PNAs and the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal
Waterway. The Creek provides for a flow of nutrients to the PNAs and a pathway for juveniles to
move to other areas. Furthermore, Jinks Creek has never been dredged.
The ERC believes more research needs to be performed in order to develop the appropriate nursery
area designation for Jinks Creek.
1. https:Hncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Coastal
Management/documents/P DF/CAMA/t15a-07h. Q20Q. Pdf
2. Correspondence (Feb. 2nd, 2017) Patricia Smith, Public Information Officer, North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries

Bodnar, Gre
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: Fwd: Town of Sunset Beach - Email 3/15/17 from Sunset Beach Environmental Resource
Committee
Attachments: ERC_Mission_Statement.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: doeeenomeaa,email.com
Date: March 20, 2017 at 7:54:50 PM EDT
To: Geoff Gisler <s ig slernaselcnc.org>, Mike Giles <mikeg-(a,nccoast.ore>
Subject: Fwd: Town of Sunset Beach - Email 3/15/17 from Sunset Beach Environmental
Resource Committee
FYI
This is a response from a member of the ERC to the town's response to the scoping committee
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: gmerr946nd,aol.com
Date: March 20, 2017 at 6:26:47 PM EDT
To: langlin(a,atmc.net,<mailto:Tyler.Crumbly@,usace.army.mil>,
<mailto:Fritz.Rohdel7anoaaRov>, dgraham66t7a.atmc.net,
Sean.Farrellnancdenr.gov, JMcCrain(&,moffattnichol.com,
Rhonda.Hall(a)ncdenngov, Maria.Dunnna,ncwidlife.org,
Kathryn MathewsAfws. , Ken.Riley@d noaa.gov, meal _,moffatnichol.com,
grregg.bodnsraamcdenr.gov, Debra. Wilsonna,ncdner.gov,
Chad.Cobum a ncdener.gov, Cameron.Weaver(@,ncdenr.gov
Cc: srparker ,atmc.net, ckscottl3(d)sunsetbeachnc.gov,
rcerrato a sunsetbeachnc.gov, mbenton(a,sunsetbeachnc.gov,
plarkinna,sunsetbeachnc.gov,icorbettidsunsetbeachnc.gov,
meal _,moffattnichol.com, doggenomegmail.com, ianharris&atmc.net,
n4gilbertaa,aol.com, jspayneaa,atmc.net
Subject: Re: Town of Sunset Beach - Email 3/15/17 from Sunset Beach
Environmental Resource Committee
To all concerned:
NAGILBERTCcD.aol.com is the elected corresponding secretary of Environmental
Resource Committee.

The referenced email was voted upon on March 15, 2017 at an open ERC meeting with
one member of the Sunset Beach Town Council present. He was made aware the email
was going to be sent and to whom it was being sent. It was never sent to represent the
Sunset Beach Town council but does represent the ERC. I have no idea how it "is directly
contrary to formal action which had been taken by the Town Council". The document is
part of the minutes of the meeting and is therefore a public document.
There are no efforts on the behalf of any individual member of the ERC or the ERC as a
group to press private agendas. Regarding the content of the email, there is no selective
or incomplete information and since all ERC meetings are public, all of the information is
included in previous meetings.
There are many questions needing answers regarding the proposed dredging project
before it becomes a reality. Members of the ERC have spent many hours researching
these issue's and providing information from professionals as well as supporting
documentation to the Sunset Beach Town Council. The information and
recommendations contained in the email are information and recommendations
recognized by Moffat and Nichol as needing resolution. The Sunset Beach Town Council
received this particular document on January 5th, 2017 but it was not accepted by them.
The ERC has been told the Scoping meeting would probably take place late March 2017
and the ERC will be allowed to send a member to the meeting as an observer only. Since
there are no more ERC meetings scheduled until April 5th, the ERC felt it was very
important the information and concerns of the ERC be received by all involved. Decisions
should be made on facts, not opinions.
In closing, please find attached a copy of the Sunset Beach Resource Committee Mission
Statement as communicated by the Sunset Beach Town Council. As a member of the
ERC, I have never been told by any council member not to communicate anything
discussed or approved in the ERC public meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Merritt
PH: 336.829.0102
Email: GMERR946(a aol.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Lisa Anglin <langlin(o)atmc.net>
To: mailto:Tyler.Crumbly <mailto:Tvler.Crumblv(a)usace.armv mil>; mailto: Fritz. Rohde
<mailto:Fritz. Rohde(o)noaa.gov>; Dustin Graham <dgraham66aC)atmc.net>; Sean.Farrell
<Sean.Farrell(o)ncdenr.gov>; JMcCrain <JMcCrainna.moffattnichol.com>; Rhonda.Hall
<Rhonda.Hall(o)ncdenr.gov>; Maria.Dunn <Maria.Dun n(o')ncwidlife. oro>;
Kathryn_Mathews <Kathryn Mathews(o)fws.gov>; Ken.Riley <Ken.RllekDnoaa.gov>;
meal <rneal(a)moffatnichol.com>; gregg.bodnsr <gregg.bodnsr(alncdenr.gov>;
Debra.Wilson <Debra.WIIson(7o ncdner.go >; Chad.Coburn
<Chad.Coburn (ncdener.gov>; Cameron.Weaver <Cameron.Weaver(ancdenr.gov>
Cc: Susan Parker <srparker(a)atmc.net>; Carol Scott <ckscottl3(5,)sunsetbeachnc.gov>;
Rich Cerrato <rcerrato(dsunsetbeachnc.gov>; Mark Benton
<mbenton(a sunsetbeachnc.gov>; Pete Larkin <plarkin()a.sunsetbeachnc.gov>; John
Corbett <>; meal <rneal(a)moffattnichol.com>; Richard
Hilderman <doggenome(a gmail.com>; Jan Harris <ianharris(a),atmc.net>; Neil Gilbert
<n4gilbert(a)aol.com>; jspayne <ispayne(a)atmc.net>; gmerr946 <gmerr946(aaol.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 20, 2017 2:21 pm
Subject: Town of Sunset Beach - Email 3/15/17 from Sunset Beach Environmental
Resource Committee

A
Please find attached correspondence from the Town of Sunset Beach Mayor Robert
Forrester concerning the 03/15/17 Email from the Sunset Beach Environmental
Resource Committee.
Sincerely,
Lisa H. Anglin
Town Clerk
Town of Sunset Beach
700 Sunset Boulevard North
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Phone: [phone] Ext. 1003
Fax:[phone]
Website: www.sunsetbeachnc.gov
Town Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/townofsunsetbeach/
Police Dept. Facebook: https://www.facebook.COM/sunsetbeachpolice/
Please note: pursuant to NC General Statutes, Chapter 132, this message and any
attachments
that may be sent in response to it may be considered public records and therefore are
subject to public record requests for review and copying under the Public Records Law.

700 Sunset Boulevard North • Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Telephone: [phone]• Fax:[phone]
Website: www.sunsetbeaclinc.gov • Email: [e-mail]
Susan Parker, Administrator
March 20, 2017
Tyler .Crumbly(a,usace. army.mil
Fritz. Rohde aAnoaa.gov
DGraham66(a),atmc.net
Sean. Farrell(a,ncdenr.gov
[e-mail]
Rhonda.Hall a,ncdenr.l,ov
Maria. Dunn@ncwidl i te.org
Kathryn [e-mail]
Ken.Rilev(a)noaa.gov
[e-mail]
gregg.bodnsr ,ncdenr.gov
Debra. [e-mail]
Chad.Cobum(RRncdener. gov
Cameron. Weaver@,,ncdenr.gov
Re: EMAIL 3/15/17 SUNSET BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE
Dear Addressees:
I am writing to advise that the above referenced email, which was addressed to you from
N4GILBERT(@,,ao1.com on March 15, 2017, does not contain the positions, statements, suggestions,
questions or comments of the duly authorized and created government of the Town of Sunset Beach,
is entirely unauthorized; was done without the approval, participation or input of proper government
representatives, and is directly contrary to formal action which had been taken by the Town Council.
The only individuals or entities authorized to speak for the Town of Sunset Beach with regard to
shoreline management and pre -dredging analysis are representatives of the consultant retained by the
Town, Moffat and Nichol, and Susan Parker the Town Administrator.
Mayor Robert Forrester • Mayor Pro-Tem: Carol Scott
Town Council: Mark Benton • Richard Cerrato • John Corbett • Peter Larkin
Part of North Carolina's Brunswick Islands

700 Sunset Boulevard North • Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Website: 'www.sunsetbeachnc.gov • Email: [e-mail]
ahnc.net
Susan Parker, Administrator
This is not intended to comment on the specific content of the email, except to state that the
submission may contain some selective and incomplete information and is an apparent effort to press
private agendas, which individuals or groups are certainly entitled to do, but not under the guise of
speaking pursuant to some non-existent representative official capacity.
Cc: via email:
Susan Parker, Administrator
Lisa Anglin, Town Clerk.
Carol Scott Mayor Pro Temp
Richard Cerrato, Councilman
Mark Benton, Councilman
Peter Larkin, Councilman
John Corbett, Councilman
Moffat and Nichol
Richard Hilderman
Jan Harris
Neil Gilbert
Sandy Payne
Gary Merritt
2
Very truly yours
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
Robert A. Forrester
Mayor
Mayor Robert Forrester • Mayor Pro -Tern: Carol Scott
Town Council: Mark'Benton • Richard Cerrato • John Corbett • Peter Larkin
Part of North Carolina's Brunsivick Islands

N.' 'r-0.
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
December 11, 2016
Ms. Sue Weddle
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Dear Ms. Weddle:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your recent letters provided to several Division of Coastal Management staff members,
regarding your concerns about a proposal by the Town of Sunset Beach to dredge Jinks Creek. The Division
appreciates your concerns on this matter. I would like you to know that as of this moment, the Town has not yet
submitted a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit application to the Division for the proposed project. We
will retain your comments on this potential project, and they will be added to the permit application review file at such
time as an application may be submitted. Please let me know should you have any questions concerning the future
status of this project.
Cc: Debbie Wilson
Braxton Davis
Mike Lopazanski
Gregg Bodnar
gcerely,
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits Section
State of North Caroline I Environmental Quality I Cdntal Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

November 19, 2016
Hello Mr. Bodnar,
Enclosed are comments on a proposal by the town of Sunset Beach to dredge a natural
tidal creek, Jinks Creek, that has never been dredged. I hope you will give this your
personal attention. You know how important these tidal creeks are to the coastal ecology.
Permitting the dredging of Jinks Creek would open the door to dredging every tidal creek
in North Carolina.
Thank you for your attention.
Sue Weddle
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
910-393-9967
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Bodnar, Gregg
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:34 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg; Weaver, Cameron
Cc: Leonard Pietrafesa; Davis, Braxton C; Samuel E Swanson; Mark Benton; Jan harris; Rich
Cerrato; Nina Marable; Ted Janes; greg weiss
Subject: [External] Dtedging
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto: repo rt.spa m @ nc.gov>
Gregg and Cameron,
Per the Pietrafesa et al document I sent you yesterday. They agree with my assessment that to solve the water quality
issue at the feeder canal Jinks Creek junction the entire North or South Jinks Creek does not need to be dredged as
recommended by Mr. Neal.
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPhone

March 25 2018
Memorandum to Dr. Richard Hilderman
Subject: Comments Regarding Jinks Creek South and Other Issues
From Dr. Len Pietrafesa - Professor Emeritus NC State U, Dr. Shaowu Bao —Assistant Professor Coastal
Carolina U, Dr. Paul Gayes— Chaired Professor and Center Director, Coastal Carolina U
1) Photographic Evidence dating back to 1938 (Masterson et. a[, 1973. Sediment Movement
through Tubbs Inlet), shows clearly that Jinks Creek South has been open for free flowing
volumetric flux from at least 1938 to 1973. More recently, in other aerial views, from 1973 to
2018 the Creek is open. _
2) Therefore, given # (1) one can conclude that from 1938 to the present, there has not been nor
is there presently a threat to Jinks Creek South not remaining open to flow from the
Intracoastal Waterway to/from Tubbs Inlet. The Intracoastal and Tubbs Inlet communicate
hydro -dynamically via Jinks Creek South.
3) The RMA-2 hydrodynamic model utilized by Moffat & Nichol is a finite element code and is
vertically averaged.
4) Because of # (3), the vertical profile of the horizontal velocities and the bottom boundary
layer cannot be explicitly modeled.
5) Because of #'s (3 and 4), the Bottom Shear Stress cannot be explicitly calculated. Thus
sediment transport under any external non -local or local forcing conditions cannot be
explicitly determined, either deterministically or probabilistically.
6) The horizontal eddy coefficients (taken as 500 in Moffat & Nichols) in these kinds of
environments and platforms, have not actually been determined and should be considered
only as a best guess to yield numerically stable and reasonable looking model output results.
7) The RMA-2 model runs conducted by Moffat & Nichol only used Astronomical Tidal Forcing at
the mouth; which is located at Tubbs Inlet but is also communicated via the Intracoastal
Waterway.
8) We now consider some Actual Observations versus Moffat & Nichols RMA-2 Model Output.
Examples of these are shown clearly in the Moffat & Nichol Report.
9) From reviewing Report model results, one finds that the Moffat & Nichols RMA-2 model
generally under predicts the actual Volumetric Flux. An example of this is shown in the Figure
below (12), where the model predicts a 3000 fts/sec flux (the red line), while the observations
show a 5000 W/sec flux (shown explicitly as a black diamond). This is an underestimate of the
volumetric flux of approximately 2000 W/sec.
10) Thus, in this representative example [the figure in (12)], the model estimate versus the actual
volumetric flux of water through the system is an underestimate of about 40 %. Many other
examples of the differences between model output and actual observations are documented
in the Report.
11) Why are there differences presented in #'s (9, 20), such as that shown in the Figure in # (12)
below, at 11/16/20:00?

..
C
=aS�C
�
6p
—_J
•-p7
"-SSE
12) Moffat & Nichols RMA-2 Model Output (red line) Versus Actual Observations (black
diamonds).
13) Finding: The differences in Moffat & Nichols model output and Actual Observations, shown
above in # (12), demonstrate_ the importance of the consideration of Atmospheric Wind
Forcing.
14) For example, at the time of the observations alluded to in #'s (9,10,11 and 12) the local winds
were from the Northwest and West at _ 7 to 12 mph; as observed by the U.S. National
Weather Service. These are not excessive or unusual wind speeds for this area as shown by
the monthly averaged winds derived by the National Weather Service as shown in the upper
two rows of Table # (16) below.
15) Further, according to Weisberg and Pietrafesa (1983), [W&P in the bottom row in the Table in
# (16) below], they found that the alongshore winds along the Southeast coast are actually
20% higher than those at the National Weather Service site. While the Astronomical Tides are
persistent and regular, a little bit of coastal wind can go a long way in creating stronger Floods
and stronger Ebbs through Jinks Creek South.
16) Here are the NOAA NWS documented average winds in the region of Tubbs Inlet:
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
JUI
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ave
NWS
10.4
10.6
11.6
11.6
31.6
10.4
10.4
30.4
9.3
10.4
10,4
10.4
30.6
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
mph
W&P
12.5
12.6
13.9
13.8
13.8
12.6
12.6
12.5
11.2
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.7
17) Given #'s (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13) above, and the actual facts presented in the Table in
# (16) regarding the wind speeds for the locale, one can clearly state that, the Moffat & Nichols
RMA-2 Model output needs to be increased by at least 40%- 60% in terms of the true
Volumetric Flux through Jinks Creek South. This is a significant Flux of water and explains why
finks Creek South has remained open and functional from, at least,1938 to the Present; as
documented.
18) No Wind Forcing was imposed in the RMA-2 model runs either non -locally at Tubbs Inlet or
upon any part of the system directly. However, it has been shown by numerous publications
in the peer reviewed literature that Wind generated effects can be significant in these coastal

systems; resulting in considerably higher and lower flows and water levels throughout such
coastal systems.
19) Wind generated waves were not considered in the RMA-2 model system model runs by
Moffat & Nichols. These can contribute to water flux and sediment transport as well.
20) The lack of consideration of Wind Forcing in the Moffat & Nichols model runs resulted in
underestimates of flow velocities and thus of volumetric flux estimates through Jinks Creek
South.
21) Conclusion: Wind Effects cannot be ignored in computing the Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly,
Yearly or Inter -annually Averaged Volumetric Flux through Jinks Creek South.
22) Conclusion: The Moffat & Nichols RMA-2 Model Runs, as configured, are basically "first
approximations" to the actual fluxes of water into and out of (through) the system and are
limited by the absence of some significant influences on flow velocity, tidal prism and
sediment availability. The more limited representation of higher flux events by the model
should be recognized as a significant limitation in real world model applications.
23) Anyone who lives on Sunset Beach and has Whirly-Gigs on their front or back decks knows
well that Coastal Atmospheric Winds are Omni -Present, in addition to the Astronomical Tides
and Precipitation events; all of which contribute to fluxes of water through Jinks Creek South.
24) To avoid the stagnation of waters in the Sunset Beach Tributaries which abut and feed the
Intracoastal Water Way and Jinks CreekSouth, the Tributaries should not be dredged to
depths deeper than either of the two major water bodies.
25) In the present situation of heavy mainland upstream nutrient loading, the entirety of the
coastal marsh areas must be allowed to flush themselves naturally. They are fluid systems
which must be allowed to move laterally and vertically with storms, and that is why they have
survived over time. The only waterbody that should be dredged is the Intracoastal Water
Way; and that is for reasons of shipping related Commerce.
26) If the enormous Natural Marsh areas of Sunset Beach are to be maintained as living ecological
coastal resources, and the natural habitats used for the early stage lives of estuarine and
coastal marsh dependent finfish, birds and other life forms, the natural system should not be
disrupted by dredging or any other in -kind disruptive activities.
27) Dredging carries with it the reintroduction of heavy metals, which are buried in the sediments
of Jinks Creek South, back into the water column. We ourselves do not have chemical
expertise, but we do know from the prior studies of S. Riggs (ECU), D. DeMaster (NCSU), W.
Showers (NCSU), J. Ramus (DUML), H. Paerl (UNC-IMS) and others that heavy metals are,a
bane to fish, fowl and humans in these types of watersheds. Fortunately there is chemical
expertise on site (R. Hilderman, Clemson) who could speak to this.

PROJECT AND PURPOSE
The project is to "maintenance dredge" approximately 3.5 miles of canals and feeder
channels on the east end of Sunset Beach Island "to support recreational navigation. The
proposed project would significantly improve access through the referenced waterways."
(See Exhibit A enclosed Moffatt & Nichol Pre -Dredge Analysis)
Comments: The use of the words "maintenance dredge" is factually wrong and
misleading. Almost half of the project is Jinks Creek, a natural tidal creek that has never
been dredged. The town received a grant from the state of $2,779,327 of our tax dollars
for this project based on this false and misleading statement that the project was a
"maintenance dredge." (See Exhibit B the State's award of $2,779327) (See Exihibit C
of attached pictures of Jinks Creek. These were taken at low tide. Note the oyster beds,
and bottom vegetation.)
WHY WAS THE PROJECT REQUESTED? WHO BENEFITS?
This effort began 2011 with a proposal from Sammy Vamam on pier head alignment.
Varnam is the developer who is connected to two properties (Palm Cove and Ocean Club
Estates, formerly Riverside Drive) that would benefit the most through this proposal.
(Note: Palm Cove would not be dredged and would pay no part of the assessment. But as
a consequence of dredging Anks Creek, Palm Cove would be accessible to large boats.
Vamam is now advertising the Ocean Club Estates project (69 platted lots on the old
Riverside Drive site) with a picture of a large boat and a text that reads, "providing deep
water access to the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean." (See Exhibit D).
There has never been deep water access available to Sunset Beach. We have a half mile
of tidal marsh between us and Ocean Isle, a half mile of tidal marsh between us and the
Intracoastal Waterway, and probably a mile or more of tidal marsh between us and Little
River Inlet in South Carolina. Our southern side is the Atlantic Ocean.)
The two natural tidal creeks that traverse the marsh — Jinks on the east end of the island,
Blane on the west end of the island, are SHALLOW. Shallow is part of the definition of
a tidal creek.
The original proposal has now morphed into the total dredging of every body of water on
the east end — including the natural, never dredged, tidal creek of Jinks. These proposals
have enjoyed the strong support of Councilwoman Scott, whose house is one of a couple
directly on Jinks Creek, would benefit substantially from the project. John Corbett, just
appointed to the Sunset Beach Town Council on a motion by Scott to fill the seat of a
councilman who resigned, would also benefit financially. His house is on the bay.
(Check pictures in the Moffat and Nichols proposal. (Exhibit A)
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Deep water access properties are worth more than shallow water access properties.
Financial gain is defined in North Carolina law as requiring a recusal. I disagree with the
town attorney's opinion that there is no conflict of interest for Scott and now Corbett. I
have spoken to two Sunset Beach island property owners who practice law in North
Carolina. They both disagree with the town attorney's opinion as well.
I don't believe the man-made canal property owners would benefit. The canals are too
narrow to accommodate a large boat on either side of the canal and leave a channel for
ingress and egress. The canal property owners would pick up the lions share of the cost.
There are no houses on Jinks Creek except a couple (Scott's among them) at the point
where Jinks Creek empties into the bay.
Also not benefiting would be St. Marys and Turtle Creek property owners. They are
virtually sitting on the Intracoastal Waterway and have no need of a deeper Jinks Creek
to provide them deep water access to the ocean. Little River Inlet is a quick scoot right
down the Intracoastal.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES TO CONSIDER BEFORE GOING FORWARD?
Environmental issues to quote from the abstract presented by the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries at the Tidal Creeks Summit of 2011 (See Exhibit E).
Abstract: North Carolina's extensive estuarine systems serve as a nursery ground
supporting the vast majority of the state's important fishery species. These areas provide
protection, foraging opportunities, and suitable environmental conditions for the growth
and development of young finfish and crustaceans during critical stages in their life
history. Failure to adequately protect these areas could result in a recruitment bottleneck
to multiple fisheries. Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) were designated by the Marine
Fisheries Commission to provide protection to the upper portions of estuaries in tidal
creeks and shallow bays where initial post -larval development takes place. The PNA
designation is intended to maintain these habitats, as much as possible, in their natural
state allowing juvenile populations to develop in a normal manner with as little
interference from man as possible. Approximately 80,000 acres have been designated as
PNA's in North Carolina. Multiple state agencies use the PNA designation to protect
tidal creeks and their dependent fisheries from threats such as bottom disturbing fishing
gear, dredging, (emphasis mine), and poor water quality. In addition, recommendations
of the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan resulted in an increase in the role of
the Division of Marine Fisheries in the permit review process. Two positions dedicated
to pemrit review and habitat protection to help to ensure that there is no dred * in
vegetation, and tidal creeks are minimized. (Emphasis mine.)
I understand there is some confusion about whether or not Jinks Creek is a PNA. Well, it
is, and as soon as Marine Fisheries comes down here and takes a look, they will agree. I
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

believe the confusion comes from a Marine Fisheries map that appears to show part of
Jinks Creek as land. The map in the Moffatt and Nichol project study clearly shows
Jinks Creek running the entire width of the marsh from the Intracoastal Waterway to the
bay at Tubbs Inlet. (Check the map in the Project Report, page 7 of 7, yellow x on the
page).
This is further confirmed by the 2010 Sunset Beach Land Use Plan (the one that currently
covers us — the update is in process but hasn't reached final approval as yet.) The 2010
LUP points out that Jinks Creek and an area at Tubbs Inlet although impaired were
conditionally open to shellfishing (See Exhibit F, pages 35 and page 42).
Cost. An Arm and a Leg. In the past the property owners on the man-made canals have
gone to the Town Administrator and asked for arrangements to be made to dredge the
canals and agreed to be assessed. Simple, slick, no problems. They asked when the
majority of them felt it was necessary. This has happened three or four times in the past
28 years I have lived here. As I recall the last dredging was at a cost of somewhere
between $4,000 and $5,000 for a 50 foot lot.
With a project that includes Jinks Creek, I can't even imagine the cost. Aside from Scott
and a neighbor or two, there are no property owners lining Jinks Creek to help pay for the
cost.
Re¢ulatory Issues. In order to protect these critically important natural features, the
State of North Carolina restricts from dredging activities primary nursery habitats,
shellfish areas, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, and significant areas of regularly or
irregularly flooded coastal wetlands. Jinks Creek qualifies through every one of these
features. ( See Exhibit G — A GUIDE TO PROTECTING COASTAL RESOURCES
THROUGH THE CA MA PERMIT PROGRAM.)
This is an ill-conceived, illegal, environmentally damaging, costly project that never
should have seen the light of day. Plus the town should never have extorted
taxpayers money from the state to offset the cost by presenting this project to the
state as a "maintenance" dredge. I can guarantee you there will be no further state
grants related to this project.
This effort needs to end now. The town needs to ask the affected property owners on the
man-made canals if they want to be assessed and have a planned dredge every so many
years OR if they want to keep the option of when and how in their hands. That is up to
them.
Sue Weddle
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
910-393-9967
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 1 - Draft Scope of Work (01/20/16)
BACKGROUND & UNDERSTANDING C
The Town of Sunset Beach (Town) intends to maintenance dredge approximately 2.8u nals and
feeder channels to�support recreational navigation and tidal flushing. The work area includes Jinks Creek,
which connects Tubbs Inlet with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), along with Mary's Creek
and Turtle Creek. The work area also includes the feeder canal extending from Jinks Creek to Cobia Street
and the connecting forger canals adjacent to Marlin, Sailfish, Dolphin and Cobia streets. In addition, the
work area includes the canal positioned between North Shore Drive and Canal Drive, which forms the
widest canal, from shoreline to shoreline, included in the work separate of Jinks Creek. Sediment shoaling
induced from storm water run-off and tidal currents threaten continued navigation within these
passageways. Sediment accumulation within the bay area at the confluence of finks Creek and Tubbs Inlet
also impedes navigation traversing towards the inlet.
The proposed project would significantly improve access through the referenced waterways and establish
a long-term template for maintaining the navigation depths. The project would also assist in managing the
construction of future piers or docks by establishing a fixed deep water path through the canal. Once
obtained, the proposed state and federal permit authorizations would provide a long standing record of the
channel dimensions and alignment. The sediment removal may also improve tidal flushing and help
improve nursery habitats within the tributary systems. Future pier or dock development could also maintain
compliance with a Town regulated 5-foot buffer from the navigation channel with reasonable assurances
deep water access will be available.
In order to provide a cost effective approach, the following scope details an initial phase for investigating
the cost and feasibility of permitting the four (4) sites listed below and shown on the attached figures.
• Site 1 — Canal Street connector and forger canals adjacent to Marlin, Sailfish, Dolphin, and Cobia
streets; in addition to the North Shore Drive Canal (approx. 6;800 ft)
• Site 2 — Jinks Creek (approx. 5,600 ft)
• Site 3 — Mary's Creek (approx. 1,100 ft)
• Site 4 — Turtle Creek (approx. 1,100 ft)
The scope details the work necessary to collect sufficient information to hold a coordination meeting with
the environmental agencies. The meeting should identify the permitting constraints for each project area
and allow for the proper estimation of the design costs required to move forward. After review of the
estimated costs, the Town may elect to proceed with permitting all, any, or none of the proposed sites.
Task 1.0 — Project Coordination
Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) will provide written monthly progress reports to the Town to document the
project status, current work efforts, and anticipated completion dates. M&N will also be available for
conference calls at the Town's convenience to discuss the status of the project and answer any questions
that may arise. Due to the short duration of the initial phase, no public meetings or presentations are
envisioned for this task.
The Proposed Lump Sum Fee for Task 1 is 1$ .237f
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 1 — Draft Scope of Work (01/20/16)
Task 2.0 — Hydrographic Survey
M&N will sub -contract Geodynamics LLC. to provide a hydrographic survey of the four (4) proposed sites
to determine excavation quantities. The surveys will be conducted by a North Carolina licensed professional
surveyor along transects spaced between 50 ft and 250 ft as shown in the attached figures. The surveys will
be conducted by hydrographic techniques using a vessel mounted fathometer or other similar equipment
along with kinematic GPS. Data points will be continuously collected during the hydrographic work with
a maximum horizontal spacing of 10 ft. The survey will be conducted as close to high tide as possible to
allow for data collection to be completed during one (1) tide cycle. The survey will not include any
topographic points or `walking' points and will be completely conducted by the shallow draft survey vessel.
Deliverables for this task include a survey report, a color coded GIS compatible surface of each dredge
area, and a digital X,Y,Z (easting, northing, elevation) file along with a station, range, elevation (BMAP)
file. The X,Y,Z file will assist with plotting the survey data in AutoCad or GIS software while the BMAP
file is necessary for analysis in CEDAS (Coastal Engineering Design & Analysis System) software. The
color coded surface will be generated by computer interpretation of the elevations between the collected
data points and should be considered an approximation of the existing conditions. The survey data will be
referenced to North Carolina State Plane NAD83 US foot horizontal coordinates and NAVD88 vertical
coordinates.
The Proposed Lump Sum Fee for Task 2.0 is 16$.897."
Task 3.0 — Develop Project Goals and Constraints
M&N will use the hydrographic survey data collected by Geodynamics to estimate the dredge quantities
for each project area. Representative cross sections will be prepared to show the typical dredge depths for
the project. Color coded maps will also be generated to show the depth of excavation required in plan view
for the four (4) project sites. The plan view drawings will show potential upland disposal sites that may be
used for the project. The drawings and volume estimate will be provided for discussion at the agency
coordination meeting discussed below.
M&N will research if any of the project area falls within a designated critical habitat area such as a Primary
Nursery Area (PNA) for fisheries or critical habitat for wading shorebirds. This will include contacting
representatives within the CAMA habitat section to verify the PNA boundary and restrictions believed to
be in -place for Jinks Creek and the feeder canals adjacent to Canal Drive and North Shore Drive.
M&N will also work with the Town to identify potential upland disposal sites and obtain conceptual
agreement for their use. This includes sites such as Bird island, the disposal islands within the AIW W, and
beach placement locations along the western end of Ocean Isle. The Town will take the lead on all
communications with the site owners or management designees and M&N will provide supporting
documentation and drawings to assist in explaining the request.
In addition, M&N will inquire on the potential eligibility for state cost sharing through the shallow draft
navigation fund. M&N will discuss the project with NCDEQ staff to provide a conceptual outlook on the
funding potential from the state.
M&N will also research the expired CAMA major permit (22-02) for Mary's Creek and Turtle Creek to
identify potential permitting issues. All of the pertinent information reviewed will be discussed at the
agency coordination meeting discussed below.
The Proposed Lump Sum Fee for Task 3.0 is 7$,079.00 RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 1 — Draft Scope of Work (01/20/16)
Task 4.0 — Agency Coordination Meeting
M&N will request and chair an agency coordination meeting with representatives of the Town, the USACE,
LAMA, and others to discuss the potential and requirements for permitting the proposed project. M&N will
present the findings of Task 3.0 to the invited members a minimum of 1 week prior to the meeting to allow
each member ample review of the project. A written summary of the meeting will be provided to all
participants along with contact information for each attendee.
The outcome of the Agency Coordination meeting will be a determination of the level of effort required to
permit and design each of the four (4) potential dredge areas. Based on the results of the coordination
meeting, M&N will prepare a scope of work for the Town's review. The scope will identify the specific
tasks (including field investigations) recommended to complete the design and permitting work The
anticipated field investigations include soil borings and testing to determine the sediment characteristics
along with cultural surveys and potentially hydraulic modeling.
The Proposed Lump Sum Fee for Task 4.0 is $4.694.00
The total proposed M&N fee for the work equals $29,952.10. M&N appreciates the opportunity to assist
the Town of Sunset Beach with Phase 1 of the Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis. To assist
with the review of this scope, Table 1 below provides a breakdown of M&N man hours and costs associated
with each task. (Table 2 from Geodynamics provides a summary of the costs associated with the
hydrographic surveying.)
Table 1—M&N Estimated Costs
PROJECT TASK COMPLETION CHECKLIST
Fimr Wilatl 614 T 1
&a., 6a%n - 91pgh. Mi a,ainbni a pmH aai Ana1,Y
SfMre al.
DM. 21 Jah 16
wWM
NOUro tuPrwasni Dab
TASK-
rttlaal r
rIp6]n.W .ENp1n
Ott
Mer
CORd1'Ialr
Enok
L
COIN:
ao-r
EnWIm
sp.w
A-T ..I.
Totl4
CMekki " i.
&IRales
W
uI,
vnf.ro
mw
en a
TaaBt. Pr .KooNbatlon .
. _LCno
M.
Ile,
Ms.
Mn_
;oorainaoon iW 1
1 2W .
TaeF 1 Torah 1M I6.oa
ZIO 9.00 tl,iir
Teak n
-
T2 TotalsW
TAMNA . Pro '
aGiiati
.C"'rmmrcl 11m
2
600
Reerlcn CN.l.aGUD
1 W
1 W
4 W
kmM Pobnoel Dis bse15Ma80Mem ConceOlueUseA reeoenl 050
SW
tW
Shah Da El WI I W
]W
_
Ra.kEauen.hin, mloT¢Ibn & dariffy PoIMGI Permmm
Z.Op
6 W 2 W
Task3 TobM I 2E0
1 1.1
W.
I 6.M
I HAS 1 4.101
6.00
57AO 1 S]AIi
Tehil Caa Kievan-
Pra rohir rdiMan
LoorkboMin MenO IW
1W SW
2W
Chair M Coo
R &C r onM
!-ISW
tffl and
Meng Sw brMwin Foryara IW
1W 2.W
3W
TiYaTelak 2CY
8M 1..Oo
4M
1
N6Se
Taal M.nikura 5W ]W 36W 61024W
IOW 6W 2W %W
TP Pilsonn.l Ee n $I A35 51,2% 5, . I 5'.
I . I $660 I SIMI S13010 $13,010
Mlscelanrous Evpenses
9uMmenc.
s0
PMlopnipas. Telephone, Shippoo. Supplln, S MW Eammes
W
RepoM1ltlbn.
so
ANkmotib 8 Tp»I I I diys Q S451ka,)
S45
Sa"Na'aI aabple arerysia
30
Trial M.11K.oue ape .
Sp
T.1 P.r .l am.
gp
--> WIMBN PanonrWd ra:S 313.055
Giacak. n
-> TMI SilarrOrt.Wl EVPonaei.5 $16,897
==>TWIPro nFee S S29,652 S16,897
RECEIVED
Nnv i n mig
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 1— Draft Scope of Work (01/20/16)
i aute z.
u0st
zone f3aD xeabaered spneeweA Namrwn.
ro ecf
., n •
61vfbll A N2hv1
r N.mre/OaSr.......
s—". feaM1, NC Singhhnam ConNilivn $ufveYS
-�0pe Nanre/ROY NO
Emrl'Vfbal SOope p/7 1/161
_ 6,00N SubConfraCl All,
NIA
. `rsk Onlef NO,
WA
niotl vlPMvrmm.ce:
Feb46
rof Rvpvsal Revmm� No:
of
"mpesrl Dale'
ttl2(1016
Fn109uPpc,:
.po1:ILabpr/Har6wanl
NY6ra Survey 9uPPvrS fLdM1arl U-e,,
f1Xrce Mminl Re'dew
to^rmno=,
Saflwarel
Egmpl 6npparc
111+Im
015
as".
nprrpr hrppmax
i.Mg4 LMMyam
Surrey
mFNllaGanewtm�a111'-
S�Wewm OPS Lnry
alNpe pvaenpr
Na. dSM CeSenpllon
Ya'gv $prvryp
Spc YNI CIS ie
aI' SmvSyabm Pvry CNss!
mwprma MI
bµ TMl
rmlen Smup I namm
1
Proln;I Setup
1
P '
NON
61f
2
LI.
60
NON
i
Mmnnrnfo+
20
NOW
w"'aeaa kydm Survey
f
small,
I
NeL Yaaam
2?
20
30
30
150.0
N1020)
M
RTN-CaecW l Calibla0on
20
30 50.0
RCO
3
Hyhvplapbk SVlveY
120
120
52W.02
a
orHh RazsnN ra4AL
10
NOW
oemplarzabm
20
20
30
30
Iwo
NI@.m
Nn Prefµfugl als
f
AM 39
siglelxari I]ala P,.—,, 11151
150
NO
:5M
OBa Genennon 6 Gls Crory ,,
t 0
160
2.0
sow
a /2
.-0 Cpregbdbry
4 0
sow
FhNI a6aC I WOfdan
20
3.0
fOm
M
FNaI WpplllglDNlvNaMaa
f
3.A 33
ao
1e0
11q
�1
]
Fiv Def—b
FiM DeIHm Ws/9aqup
10
0.0
SOm
NOm
• e •
Ten/ITldsf Ip:
TgfI COFd:
01
fIMAa
AZ
Of268
71
f3T132
ft,002.30
102
00 25.0
W.m f3A0136
fd]fl.3f
=.
16p
f3,pN,12
f36252
62
N 500 3W 0
H6661 f2B60 f294.00
- SII.Fl46r
{6LO.02
I00LO%
vSub Tofal: 515 Sao 55
hEEa DN/very pyFlnel Den:
MOO
~4a IM,
$15.06
Re/eel Tear:
i+a.efe.fl
NaSµ/Aswnpaama:
' Aesvnes vfe d NGGS RTN ctalon fl s SDalbp¢
' AN alht ps I W b get bank to W nk towage at rays fde wl wdaiatalafy thel there s Mtry auras lhel wll rM he passalYt feth Irydry
T
' No b11lep041e m Wdgelee
1.,
• WII IIaad b Dck a survty wavJ. vlln hgh tat n natklk of Ma day
' Salety Of Ihe M1ea O,M a pe p rt,
$inset Raad`_Nyoa_v1
a

u
OWN
I i3j[T
pOor>.
r • �
s
I

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 1 —Draft Scope of Work (01/20/16)
FiguqZ1—Canal' i
o n
CD
m
0
0 <
and North Shore Drive Feeder Canal Survey Layout

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 2 — Design Scope of Work
Page 6 of 7
D 1N0 zWo C.We F.
Preliminary Planning Map
NC '79�s,
IIDSDD
leant
Feb. 2016 DEM
x b M
SinpkEUm Gaverpp ane xCwina.
WIWI 11"lC: .. MY1
mlCllry/Wl alnpMbeam
Eeva4om "N4VUBB
�^ bbarYb]I
fopYCmpnic Covnape
ylO Tb 6uq Pknbl h,
� Y �
p e
t4Y^ane�xxpl„Mp rtY'Ja
umn��aaao mb� rperY
•
SC.r�'
'.Ya
rtp�x xtlon p map Naavex •
YaYYnfa�bruean�Y�Gxx wmx
d SDYp delta Mb a
Mtp ND" 1 Jnvn pY Den Sum qlp' qpn 12, l01
aDpY Canai Favnml
DEN
I
Figure 1. Phase 2 Proposed Survey Line work (Geodynamics)
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Phase 2 — Design Scope of Work
Figure 2. Phase 2 Proposed Sediment Sampling Plan
Page 7 of 7

Table 1. Moffatt & Nichol Proiect Fee Proposal
�c-sx-���
�c:r�r..sr,>•�-r,:a�x•��r,>•�rz•r�t•��-�
�r,>•
�v:.r,>.�,�
Ewa
�����xsa��•����c,:•t�����:x>trs
Asa
���r•>t��c:•>t�>t��������:xx•>t�r.
�A
wit'7t16i1�T7���[_ib7Eill'���[�'rli�r'316r
e .. ..
-
�]f_d�!1657iT37i5T57iTxI7�?76:d�dG37�'7S:dG7�-0f37�d[id�dfiil�df:dfb?r!•7�
`•-
�iL•57"IifF:l[�fL�3C3'7ff31QF7EF]t!flir'dE51iG7E'd�'7�'l�'7['1
v :
so
0
SO
so
M [!FlSIMM
G41.inr
It
13.
7
l
15.
6.
l
CD
J
0
�7
AktJWA
rMA
•. .... . . . ...
IM
to
..
i S7
�il
�L7
�b7
�s'yl
M&N Client Agreement - 03/10/11

tVoter Rrsour � r--
pl
July 15, 2016
Mayor Ron Watts
Town of Sunset Beach
700 Sunset Beach Boulevard North
Sunset Beach, North Carolina 28468
Dear Mayor Watts,
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
JAY ZIMMERMAN
I am pleased to announce that $2,779,327 in financial assistance for the "2016 Sunset Beach Canal &
Channel Dredging Project" has been tentatively approved by the State of North Carolina. The award is
pending the successful execution of a grant contract between the State and your town.
I congratulate you and the Sunset Beach Town Council on the sponsorship of this project. These funds
are being provided to financially assist the Town with both the engineering, design, permitting of the
project and the performance of maintenance dredging along approximately 3.5 miles of canals and
channels within the town's jurisdiction. As envisioned, this dredging project should significantly
improve navigability in the various waterways. You and the Town Council are to be commended for this
effort to keep the channels safe and navigable.
The Division of Water Resources of the Department of Environmental Quality will be contacting your
Town Administrator concerning the grant contract and the administrative requirements for the use of state
funds for this project.
Sincerely,
S. i merman, P.G.
Director, N.C. Division of Water Resources
RECEIVED
cc: Ms. Susan Parker, Town of Sunset Beach NOV 3 U 2016
Mr. Robert Neal, Moffatt & Nichol
DCM- MHD CITY
-'"Nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I water Resomaes
1611 Mail Service Carter I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

l
Oyster Beds In the North Jinks Creek
CAMA rules specify: `Navigation channels, canals, and boat basins shal
be aligned or located so as to avoid primary, nursery areas, shellfish
beds, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation."
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

�) I A) Kil
c qK£k
://Webmail.atrnc.ner/Service/honle/ /'a
°th�&loc=en ijS&id=60dcn.,
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

N
Dockable homesites with unobstructed water views are just steps from white sand beaches at this gated
community on the southern island of Sunset Beach, North Carolina. New improvements to local infrastructure
have allowed for development of these island homesines, creating a limited opportunity to own real estate on
Sunset Beach.
All homesites have private docks, providing deep water access to the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean,
as well as saltwater and freshwater fishing in the ocean, marshes, and estuaries. Residents can also set afloat
from the kayak and canoe launch to explore miles of inland water vays.
More than 55 acres of the community contain walking trails and boardwalks to remote islands. Sunset Beach is
part of the North Carolina Birding Trail, and Ocean Club Estates' private observation platform allows for viewing
of the island's native wildlife.
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

'x h,-k�s
Primary Nursery Areas and Tidal Creek Protection in North Carolina
Christine Jensen and Jessi Baker
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, [e-mail], jessi.baker@ncdenrgov
ABSTRACT: North Carolina's extensive estuarine systems serve as a nursery ground supporting the
vast majority of the state's important fishery species. These areas provide protection, foraging
opportunities, and suitable environmental conditions for the growth and development of young finfish and
crustaceans during critical stages in their life history. Failure to adequately protect these areas could
result in a recruitment bottleneck to multiple fisheries. Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) were designated
by the Marine Fisheries Commission to provide protection to the upper portions of estuaries in tidal
creeks and shallow bays where initial post -larval development takes place. The PNA designation is
intended to maintain these habitats, as much as possible, in their natural state allowing juvenile
populations to develop in a normal manner with as little interference from man as possible.
Approximately 80,000 acres have been designated as PNAs in North Carolina. Multiple state agencies
use the PNA designation to protect tidal creeks and their dependent fisheries from threats such as bottom -
disturbing fishing gear, dredging, and poor water quality. In addition, recommendations of the North
Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan resulted in an increase in the role of the Division of Marine
Fisheries in the permit review process. Two positions dedicated to permit review and habitat protection
help to ensure that there is no dredging in PNAs, no new slips in shallow water, and that impacts to
shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation, and tidal creeks are minimized.
t RECEIVED
Use of Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring in the Management of Water Quality in th0 1JA U 2016
Creeks of Murrells Inlet and Surfside Beach, SC
Susan Libes', Ken Hayes2, James Wilkie and Sue Sledz° DC M- M H D CITY
'Waccamaw Watershed Academy, Coastal Carolina University, [e-mail]
2Waccamaw Watershed Academy, Coastal Carolina University, [e-mail]
'Murrells Inlet 2020, Murrells Inlet, SC, [e-mail]
°Waccamaw Watershed Academy, Coastal Carolina University, [e-mail]
ABSTRACT: Since May 2008, Horry and Georgetown counties have partnered to support a volunteer
water quality monitoring program in Murrells Inlet, SC. This effort was expanded into the northern
adjacent municipality of Surfside Beach, SC in 2010. Sampling is focused in the tidal creeks to test the
hypothesis that flows from these creeks carry significant amounts of contaminants into the coastal waters.
Both areas have chronic exceedances of bacterial water quality standards causing impaired uses for
recreation and shellfish harvesting. In Murrells Inlet, a TMDL was issued in 2005 requiring an 80% load
reduction in fecal coliforms inputs.
The monitoring programs were implemented to help meet regulatory requirements under the NPDES
Phase II Stormwater Program. They are structured to use a watershed approach for tracking the sources
of known and suspected pollutants. Other issues of concern that are being monitored are hypoxia,
eutrophication, and sediment pollution. The programs are designed to detect long term trends, geographic
Tidal Creeks Summit 2011 30

4.1 Defining Natural Features and Areas of Environmental Concern
As stated in the introduction to CAMA and the permit process, the Division of Coastal
Management places emphasis on protecting Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs).
Definitions for AECs can be found in the CAMA Guide to Development in Coastal North Carolina
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Handbook/contents.htm
Features 1— 7 following are all considered and regulated as Areas of Environmental Concern.
1) Coastal Wetland AEC - Coastal Wetlands are any marsh (salt, brackish, or freshwater) in
the 20 coastal counties that regularly or occasionally floods by lunar or wind tides, and that
includes one or more of 10 plant species: Salt Marsh (Smooth) Cord Grass, Black Needlerush,
Glasswort, Salt (or Spike) Grass, Sea Lavender, Bulrush, Saw Grass, Cattail, Salt Meadow Grass,
Salt Reed or Giant Cord Grass.
Coastal Wetlands in Sunset Beach RECEIVE
The type of coastal wetlands found in the Sunset Beach planning jurisdiction is NOy 3 0 Z016
Salt/Brackish Marsh primarily in the extensive tidal marsh and creek system surrouncQ
the island and running along the Intracoastal Waterway. There are appro6 M H D Ci
acres of coastal wetlands in the planning jurisdiction. See the Areas of Envir
Concern Map [Map 1] and natural features inventory table for additional information.
The Town of Sunset Beach supports the preservation of coastal wetlands for their
aesthetic qualities, flood and erosion prevention benefit, and for their water cleansing
ability. The Town supports state regulations [15A NCAC 7H .0205 - .0208) which limit
the use and disturbance of coastal wetlands.
2) Inlet Hazard Area AEC - These areas cover the lands next to ocean inlets. Inlet shorelines
are especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding and can move over relatively short time periods.
For each inlet along the coast, the Division of Coastal Management prepares a hazard area map.
Each area is mapped based on a statistical analysis of inlet migration, previous inlet locations,
narrow or low lands near the inlet, and the influence of man-made features, such as jetties and
channelization projects.
Inlet Hazards in Sunset Beach
Sunset Beach has two inlet hazard areas, Tubbs Inlet and Mad Inlet. Mad Inlet is closed
to water movement but remains a threat area. The closing of Mad inlet now connects the
state estuarine reserve of Bird Island to Sunset Beach. See the DCM Erosion Rate Map
[Map 2] for visual depiction.
Because of their dynamic and constant movement, dense or large-scale development
(such as multi -family or buildings in excess of 5,000 total square feet) should be
discouraged or not allowed by the Town in an inlet hazard area. Examples of dangers
from moving inlets to development can be seen in communities such as Ocean Isle Beach,
Wrightsville Beach and North Topsail Beach. In Sunset Beach, there are approximately
384 recorded lots totaling 93 acres intersected by the Inlet Hazard Area (IHA) in the
Town limits (Island). According to County Tax records, 65 of those lots totaling 37 acres
FINAL DRAFT of LUP 6/07/10 Section 4: Natural Systems Analysis 30

Water Quality in Sunset Beach
Sunset Beach water quality classifications are SA for the Intracoastal Waterway and all other
waters surrounding the island, except the ocean which is classified SB (See Water Quality
Characteristics Map [Map 3]). Sunset Beach is located in the Lumber River Basin, and falls
within subbasin 03-07-59. This subbasin contains the southwest corner of Brunswick County
primarily east of Highway 17. There are no classified surface waters impaired for aquatic life or
recreation in subbasin 03-07-59. However, all waters are impaired for fish consumption.
Impaired fish consumption generally means there is an ongoing advisory (since 1996) regarding
mercury levels in tissue of certain fish species found east of Interstate 85 (piedmont area) which
exceeds state safety standards for large levels of consumption (added 9/20/06). For more
information on fish consumption impairment, visit:
http://www.gpi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/info.html.
At the time of the last Land Use Plan update in 1997, shellfiching had been an "impaired" use for
all of the planning area's estuarine waters and it continues to be impaired as of the date of this
Land Use Plan update (See Water Quality Characteristics Map [Map 3]). According to the
Shellfish Sanitation Branch of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health, the
permanent closure and conditional approval of shellfishing areas in the jurisdiction has been
attributed to long-term septic system use in flood prone areas as well as existing manmade
canals and residential lawns with little or no vegetative buffers to filter stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff has been cited as the main contributor to shellfish closures The
Inlet e closed-Juring every rain event causing -.5-inch to 1.5 inches oo'rain primarily due
pollutants such as fecal coliform (i.e. pet, animal and human (septic system) waste) in the
runoff. Portions of Jinks Creek and Tubbs Inlet were the only two areas conditionall opelLto
shin t tune of the 19 _ se Plan upda- t�e�Goo a us g from water
moving�u she c 1y there noas des aseaze s have remained conditionally open.
There is one Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water quality monitoring station (established in
1983) in the planning jurisdiction located near the Sunset Beach bridge. This station (Station
I198800) has shown that fecal coliform in the water exceeded safe levels for shellfishing as of the
1997 Lumber River Basin Water Quality Plan and as of the 2003 Lumber Basin plan. The DWQ's
2002 Lumber Basin Assessment also showed that there has been a statistically significant and
steady decrease in pH and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) at this monitoring station since 1983 to the
date of the report
(htto.//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/BasinNdde/Lumber%20River%20Basin%202002%20Report.FinaL .
While the Assessment could not pinpoint the source of the decrease in DO and pH, those types
of decreases likely can be linked to higher levels of fecal coliform (septic waste) and phosphorus
(fertilizers from lawns and golf courses and/or septic waste).
RECEIVED
Nov 3 0 2016
FINAL DRAFT of LUP 6/07/10 S a s erns ysis 35

juveniles, many commercial fishing activities are prohibited in these waters; including the use of
trawl nets, seine nets, dredges or any mechanical methods used for taking clams or oysters.
Marina activities that will require new dredging activities are not allowed in Primary Nursery
Areas.
Special Secondary Nursery Areas are located adjacent to Secondary Nursery Areas but closer to
the open waters of sounds and the ocean.
Fish Nursery Areas in Sunset Beach
There are 80,144 acres designated as Primary Nursery Areas in North Carolina, the
Sunset Beach planning jurisdiction contains 2,712 acres or about 3.4% of the states total.
There are 31,362 acres designated as Special Secondary Nursery Areas, the Sunset Beach
planning jurisdiction does not contain special secondary or secondary nursery areas. See
the Primary Nursery Areas and Significant Natural Heritage Areas Map [Map 7].
The Division of Marine Fisheries prohibits new dredging in waters classified as Primary
Fish Nursery areas. Areas where dredging has occurred in the past is grandfathered and
allowable with conditions. The new dredging prohibition includes any activity
including piers, docks and marinas. As with 404 wetlands, a final site survey is necessary
for verification of the area's environmental condition (e.g. whether the exact site is a
functional Primary Nursery or not).
13) Environmentally Fragile Areas (Significant Natural Heritage Areas) - Significant Natural
Heritage Areas (SNHA) are areas identifying sites (land or water) that have special
environmental significance. A site's significance may be due to the presence of rare species, rare
or high quality natural habitat, or other important ecological features.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) in Sunset Beach
Bird Island
Bird Island (262 acs.) on the southwestern side of the Sunset Beach barrier island is
considered a Significant Natural Heritage Area. It was identified in the Town's 1997 Land
Use Plan Update as a priority protection area and has since been acquired by the state as
an estuarine reserve. See the Primary Nursery Areas and Significant Natural Heritage
Areas Map [Map 7]
Bonaparte Landing Maritime Forest
The Bonaparte Landing Maritime Forest (55 acs.) in the westernmost portion of the
mainland Town limits is listed as an SNHA. The Bonaparte site is currently undeveloped
and largely unsubdivided, but privately owned and zoned by the Town as MR-1 and MR-
2. Those zones allow single family at 2.9 to 4.3 units per acre. If no vested rights are in
place and the Town wished to better conserve this area, the Town could consider re-
zoning this area to AF-1 or CR-1 which would allow single family on minimum lot sizes
of one acre. See the Primary Nursery Areas and Significant Natural Heritage Areas Map
[Map7]. RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
FINAL DRAFT of LUP 6/07/10 Section 4: i

Wood Stork Ponds
The Wood Stork ponds area is 554 acres north of Shoreline Drive on the mainland, which
includes parts of Sea Trail (Clubhouse Dr.) and Lake Shore Dr. The area is subdivided
and developed as residential and golf course use. The existing zoning is primarily MR-2
(single family/4.3 units/acre) with some MR-3 (single family and multi family/21 units
per acre max.). See the Primary Nursery Areas and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Map [Map 71.
14) Closed Shellfishing Areas —Closed shellfish areas are areas where shellfish harvesting is
prohibited by law due to unsafe levels of pollutants caused by conditions such as wastewater
discharge and non -point source stormwater run-off.
Closed Shellfishing Areas in Sunset Beach
Within the planning jurisdiction of Sunset Beach, all waters are classified as
permanently closed to shellfishing except conditionally open areas around finks Creek
and Tubbs Inlet (See #8 Water Quality in this section for more description on water
quality in the planning jurisdiction). Also See the Water Quality Characteristics Map
[Map 3].
Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Town shall refer to its adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan for policy guidance and
recommendations on any Town restructuring, reorganizing or development of any
programs regarding the provision of emergency services, emergency services
preparedness, emergency command procedure, public awareness, or evacuation
procedure.
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
FINAL DRAFT of LUP 6/07/10 Section 4: Natural Systems Analysis 42

Natural Features and
Acres in Planning Jurisdiction
Comments
Environmental Conditions
Town Limits and
Non -coastal wetlands (CREWS)
Wetlands not classified as "coastal
wetlands", but have hydric soils and/or land
covet conducive to wetlands.
Exceptional significance, high
90
In the jurisdiction, wetland type is
potential risk to watershed quality if
primarily "swamp forest" and "hum

�lU/yrv/i
�l
�^t��•y
Ittrrr�ecc�iG
in North Carolina,%��Jl�tf�
Coordination Mechanisms & Permit Processing. Through the state's Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) there are several different types of permits issued dependent upon the project location, scope, and
size. This permit system is based upon defined "Areas of Environmental Concern" (AEC) which include
four distinct areas within the coastal zone; estuarine system, ocean hazard system, public water system, and
natural and cultural resource areas 19 If a dredge and fill activity is to take place in one of these AECs a
CAMA major development permit is most often required. A CAMA permit application also serves as an
application for a state permit to excavate and/or Fill, an easement in lands covered by water, a water quality
certification, and also as a federal consistency application. Also, the CAMA permit serves as the application
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) §404/10 permits, making for a less complicated application
process and a more coordinated review by federal and state regulatory agencies. Permit and federal
consistency action involving dredging are listed in the monthly permits/consistency report circulated to
interested parties. A Memorandum of Understanding between the ACE and the state covers the review of
emergency dredging projects.
There is a detailed guide available to project applicants on the CAMA permitting process along with an on-
line Environmental Permit Information Center for all state environmental permits, including the Division of
Coastal Management. The on-line Information Center provides pennit information, down-loadable
applications and permitting contacts. In the Coastal Management Division, there are three program review
coordinators that work extensively with dredging and eight to ten field staff that work on site visits and field
reports.
CAMA permits are public noticed in local papers. Also, public notice and participation are required as a part
of developing local land use plans outlined in the Coastal Management Land Use Planning Guidelines (N.C.
Admin. Code tit.15A, r. 7B.0215).
Economic Concerns. North Carolina has no policies on how a project's economic benefits should be
weighed against its environmental costs during permit decision making. Economic benefits and
environmental costs are balanced during the development of regulations and may be considered through
variance and appeal proceedings before the Coastal Resource Commission.
Habitat, Sediment, & Water Quality. As part of the CAMA permitting process the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources' Water Quality Section reviews projects to ensure that they meet state
water quality standards for §401 water quality certification.
Areas restricted from dredging activities include primary nursery habitats, shellfish areas, submerged aquatic
\ vegetation beds, and significant areas of regularly or irregularly flooded coastal wetlands. No development is
--Ji allowed in any AEC which would have a substantial likelihood of causing pollution in an area in which
shellfishing is an existing use to the extent that such waters would be officially closed to the taking of
shellfish. Before a permit is issued the applicant must demonstrate that dredging will be timed so that it will
have minimum adverse significant affects on life cycles of estuarine and ocean resources.
Dredging Techniques & Best Management Practices. The Coastal Management Division has no
policies on preferred dredging techniques and best management practices.
Dredged Material Disposal. The state has no policies on long-term dredged material management plans.
Although there is a policy with regards to marinas that states that, marinas which require dredging must
provide acceptable areas for disposal needs for future maintenance. There are several policies under the
specific uses sections of navigation, dredging, and marinas that dictate where material should and should not
be placed. Spoil materials should be placed on confined high ground landward of flooded wetlands, placed
on non -wetland areas, on remnant spoil piles; and if the material is suitable it can be placed on the beach for
renourishment purposes. Disposal of spoils on regularly flooded wetlands is not permitted.
19 Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Res 7lGlIW6 ro PmTidrrDtg Coarto!
Raoarra Thmvgh the C..9MA Pawl! Program.
72 NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

l
Dredging in North Carolina
Policies that deal with upland disposal and CDFs dictate that all spoil material must be stabilized to prevent
entry of sediments into adjacent water bodies or marshes, the effluent from CDFs shall be contained by a
pipe or similar device to aid in discharge waterward of emergent vegetation, water control structures must be
installed at intakes for effluent pipes, and when possible, effluent should be discharged into the same area
that has been dredged. Underwater disposal sites are only allowed where material is clean and will not
adversely affect shellfish or submerged aquatic vegetation resources.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material. Policies on beneficial use of dredged material state that material from
excavation or maintenance of navigation channels be used in a beneficial way whenever practicable and also
encourages research on the beneficial uses of dredged material. There is no formal review process
specifically for evaluating beneficial use projects. However, if dredged material is to be used for beach
nourishment, the material must first be dewatered and be of acceptable grain size. Direct placement on the
beach from dredge or dragline during maintenance excavation is not allowed on estuarine shorelines.
State Specific Issues. North Carolina's Coastal Management Division did not identify any complex or
controversial issues related to dredging.
North Carolina Dredging Contact Information:
Donna Moffitt, Director
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638.
919-733-2293
Fax:[phone]
Email: donna.moffitt@ncmailnet
Internet: Htm://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/MAIN PAGE.HTM
References:
1. Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
A Guide to Protecting Coastal Resources Througb the CAMA Permit Program.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management and North Carolina Coastal Management program, North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development State of Nortb Carolina Coartal Management Program and
Final EnmronmentalImpact Statement - 078.
3. CAMA and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
HtW://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/MAIN PAGE, HTM 7/9/99.
4. North Carolina Administrative Code Tide 15A-Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Chapter 7 Coastal Management
HtW://dcm2/enr.state.nc.us/Rules&Permits/Rules/ rules/TOC.htm 7/9/99.
5. Steve Benton, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Comments on North Carolina Draft
Dredging Template. 11/16/99.
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
73

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Sue & Owen Weddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:09 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron; Coburn, Chad; Wilson, Debra; Bodnar, Gregg; 'King, Julie'; Ken Riley;
Kathy Matthews; Dunn, Maria T.; Hall, Rhonda B; Farrell, Sean C; Fritz Rohde;
[e-mail]
Cc: Jan & Butch Harris; Richard Hilderman
Subject: FW: DREDGING ALL CANALS AND CREEKS ON THE TIDAL MARSH ON THE EAST END
OF THE ISLAND
Hello Scooping Group for Pre -Dredge Analysis of Jinks Creek at Sunset Beach, NC. FYI, I sent the email
below to about 900 property owners at Sunset Beach Island. This issue is of serious concern to all of us but
particularly to those who own property in the affected area.
HELLO KINDRED SPIRITS;
The Sunset Beach Town Council is pursuing dredging the man-made finger canals, the long canal that provided
an exit to the finger canals, the bay between Canal Street and the Old Campground, and Jinks Creek from the
Intracoastal Waterway to where it empties into the bay at Tubbs Inlet, Also they plan to dredge on
the mainland the tidal creeks of St. Marys and Turtle creeks. All of the navigable waters in the tidal marsh on
the islands east end, and on the north side of the Intracoastal Waterway side are part of this project. This tax
district would affect anyone whose property is on these waterways.,
Toward that end, they have acquired state legislative approval to set up a special tax district to pay for the initial
dredging and the maintenance dredging that will be required. This tax district would affect anyone whose
nronertv is on one of these waterways.
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The shallow tidal creeks and tidal marshes are one of the most productive ecosystems on earth. Plants and
animals in the estuary are richly interconnected, and every species depends on several other species to
survive. More than 150 species of fish and invertebrates live in North Carolina estuaries. Oysters and clams
attach to gravel and old shells on the shoreline, forming spiky oyster beds that help protect the land from
erosion. Blue and stone crabs and grass shrimp hatch in the oyster beds and begin to grow there. Black sea
bass and flounder forage for food among the oysters. Underwater grasses and plants provide food for sea trout,
red drum fish, pink shrimp, spots, kingfish, and clams.
Migratory birds — tundra swans, sea ducks, snow geese - winter in the estuary. Egrets and herons fish in the salt
marshes. Loggerhead sea turtles hatch on the beach and head for the estuary to feed. Threatened species living
in the estuarine system include the green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, bald eagle, and piping
plover. (Abstracted from the Southeast Tidal Creeks Summit of 2011.)
State Protection for These Estuarine Areas: "Areas restricted from dredging activities include primary
nursery habitats, shellfish areas, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, and significant areas of regularly or
irregularly flooded coastal wetlands." Page 72 A Guide to Protecting Coastal Resources Through the CAMA
Permit Program. In short, this describes Jinks Creek to a T. A picture ofJinks Creek is attached.

A;�you haw from the above, not only is tl"' wn trying to dredge the man-made cc-`-, and the bay, they are
trying to dredge Jinks Creek (which hs,. , wer been dredged) from the time it ers the tidal marsh that
lies between Sunset and Ocean Isle to the point it empties into the bay that exits through Tubbs Inlet.
The town of Sunset Beach acquired a grant of $2,779,327 by misleading the state agency that gave us the
grant. The town requested the grant to assist with "the engineering, design, permitting of the performance of
maintenance dredging along approximately 3 d miles of canals and channels within the town's jurisdiction."
In other words, the town failed to mention that 6800 feet, the single largest part of this proposal was to
dredge a natural tidal creel, that had never been dredged and where such dredging is forbidden by state
regulations. Instead the town's request is for "maintenance dredging" of "canals and channels." If you study
the document presented by the town to the state carefully, you will find a color coded map of all of the
areas to be dredged. Jinks Creek is color coded as never having been dredged which is a fact.
WHY WOULD THE TOWN PROPOSE SUCH A SWEEPING, COSTLY,
IMPERMISABLE PROJECT?
The purpose is to turn the east end of the Island into deep water to accommodate large boats. Deep water lots
sell for more than shallow water lots. Information received from reliable sources says this project was first
proposed by Sammy Varnam in 2010. Sunset Beach has always been an island of shallow -water, shallow -draft
boats. One of the more enjoyable sights around Sunset Beach is the Summertide kayak tours plying the tidal
creeks. No roaring big speed boats, we have bought into a more natural, quieter experience to commune with
nature.
We can expect the environmental community to have major objections to this proposal: But putting aside the
environmental havoc created by this, proposal, let's look at costs versus benefits fo the various property owners.
COSTS: Who is getting what and at what cost?
The cost to do the initial project is estimated at $4,168,000. The town has obtained a grant for this initial phase
of $2,779.327 (by misrepresenting the project). Property owners in the affected areas would be responsible for
the initial and ongoing costs (every 6 years) in perpetuity. They are:
Mainland: the properties on Turtles and St. Mary's Creek. It seems they would benefit least. They are a
few feet away from the Intracoastal Waterway with plenty of deep water and access to the Atlantic though Little
River Inlet — all Corps of Engineers maintained.
The Island: Those who would benefit most would be the developer, Sammy Varnam, through the Riverside
Drive property (proposed 69 houses on state-owned land), and the Palm Cove property. The 19`h Street
subdivision (Councilwoman Carol Scott's home) would benefit financially). The Bay area which is large'
enough to dock big boats would also benefit.
Those who would benefit the least but who would shoulder the majority of the costs would be property owners
on the finger canals and the long canal. Looking at these canals, I believe they are too narrow to accommodate
large boats on either side of the canal and leave'a channel for ingress and egress for these boats.
Jinks Creek: Although Jinks Creek is the single largest portion of the project, there are no houses lining Jinks
Creek to chip in to pay for the dredging other than 3 or 4 houses in the 19°i Street subdivision (Councilwoman
Scott's subdivision).

Jinks Creek dredging cost would be part of the tax assessment of all the other areas where there are actual lots
and houses. Councilmen Rich Cerrato and Mark Benton did not vote for including Jinks Creek in the area to
be dredged.
WHAT NEXT?
Although the town has kept this project pretty quite, there are state requirements that must be fulfilled to go
forward. To quote from the North Carolina law 113-229 on dredge and fill:
An applicant for a permit shall notify the owner of each tract of riparian property that adjoins that of the
applicant. An applicant may satisfy the required notification of adjoining riparian property owners by
either obtaining from each adjoining riparian property owner a signed statement that the adjoining
riparian property owner has no objection to the proposed project of providing a copy of the applicant's
permit application to each adjoining riparian property owner by certified mail. An owner may file
written objections to the permit to the Coastal Resources or Division of Coastal Management for 30 days
after the owner is served with a copy of the application by certified mail.
In addition to the above, there are permits required by other state and federal agencies.
Councilmen Benton and Cerrato convinced the other members of the Council to have a public forum for all
impacted owners. Presently this, meeting is scheduled for Saturday October I8t' at the Sea Trail Convention
Center. In the near future, the Town will be sending invitations to all impacted owners. If I were an impacted
owner, I would make it my business to attend that meeting. Whether or not we are a directly impacted owner,
we all have an interest in the environment around the island. I plan to attend although I am not directly
impacted.
I will try to keep you up to speed as we move through the process.
Cheers!
— Sue----
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
910-393-9967
P.S. I apologize for giving you such a long, complex document.

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Afternoon Dr. Hilderman,
Bodnar, Gregg
Monday, August 22, 2016 4:25 PM
'Richard Hilderman'
Davis, Braxton C; Lopazanski, Mike; Huggett, Doug
RE: MFC definitions
Click this link to reach the NCAC table of contents..
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp
From there follow the string
15A Environmental Quality
03 Marine Fisheries
I Subchapter
Then look for the entire string 15A NCAC 031.0101 Definitions
Scroll down to (4) Fish Habitat Areas
Then each lower case letter is a different subheading. PNA, Shellfish and SAV are located here'.
It can be hard to follow and navigate the'site, I know, but this should take you to those definitions.
Hope this helps,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. [e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
l�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Cal olina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

-.• NothinejC:ompares -I
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
1367 US Huy 17 South I Elizabeth City, NC 27909
t 252-264-3901

From: Richard Hilderman[mailto:rich@[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:54 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MFC definitions
Gregg,
I am a novice at attempting to find government regulations. I have no idea what 15A NCAC 03I.0101 (4)
stands for or where to even begin to look for it. Can you give me better guidance??
Richard
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]> wrote:
Morning Dr. Hilderman,
Braxton forwarded me your questions pertaining to habitat definitions and our CAMA rules. Some
MFC habitat definitions can be found in 15A NCAC 03I.0101 (4). Braxton is on leave this week as well as
I others, so I will begin to gather information and get some clarity from our folks and DMF as well when they
are available.
I hope this helps and please let me know if there are any other questions,
I
, Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
it
252 808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. Bodnarna ncdenr.gov
400 Commerce Ave
2":

0
0
Bodnar,
From:
Davis, Braxton C
Sent:
Sunday, August 21, 2016 7:15 PM
To:
Bodnar, Gregg; Lopazanski, Mike; Huggett, Doug
Subject:
Fwd: MFC Definition
Categories: Important
Hi Gregg, will you please reply -all with at least the beginning of an answer, and let them know I am out on
vacation this week... You may want to discuss this question with Mike L since there is some history on this
particular CRC rule that i think he is very knowledgeable be on:.. But he is out until Thursday. In the meantime
you can also discuss with Doug and/or Anne Deaton, or you may already have a good answer. Thanks
Sent from my I erizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>
Date: Aug 21, 2016 6:49 PM
Subject: MFC Definition
To: [e-mail],"Davis, Braxton C" <[e-mail]>
Cc!.
Richard,
There are maps of the primary nursery areas that you can check. As far as leased or managed shellfish beds
there are records of those as well. Areas with submerged vegetation can be more subjective although you can
see SAV in some cases fairly easily. Of course Braxton is a real expert and can easily answer your questions
and put you in contact with his staff.
I am copying Braxton on this e-mail.
Thanks for you interest and please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Mike
On Sunday, August 21, 2016, Richard Hilderman <richardhilderman@a,gmail.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon Mike,
The Town Council of Sunset Beach has recently created the Environmental Resource Committee to advise the
Council on Sunset Beach environmental issues. Jan Harris and myself are first two appointees. We are
researching a proposed dredging project for the Jinks Creek area at the west end of Sunset Beach. CAMA
rules state "Navigation channels, canals, and boats shall be aligned or located so as to avoid primary nursery
areas, shellfish beds, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation as defined by MFC". I can't find the MFC
definition. Can you help us? 10
Thanks
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.

(�lFC I�C10rTq"t
�K�'"�
17.', r7�'�dclwtan .
- Is
A z
Cr4 C
,ve,
15A
,01
'Ve r r
-II
<' / /zap
,,Mee
I5 /�. C
I
II AAr
�N �T
ALYS
r14 A- NC 63'
WC
of f a
I SA cA,- 3 .0
I 1 (466,
-
S�ell�s ?x�SS
S t Vl
a
os ISA- AlA
lC
&
W,:Vok
t5A 1lC C
T, ch 1
6A /1C. c 3K,! l
w .PrinlablePaper.net

11-22/2016a reports.oah.state.nc.us/nca4- environmental quality/chapter 03- marinefisherie0hapter i/subchapter i rules.htmI
SUBCHAPTER 03I — GENERAL RULES
SECTION .0100 — GENERAL RULES
15A NCAC 03I.0101 DEFINITIONS
All definitions set out in G.S. 113, Subchapter IV and the following additional terms apply to this Chapter.
(1) Enforcement and management terms:
(a) Commercial Quota. Total quantity of fish allocated for harvest by commercial fishing operations.
(b) Educational Institution. A college, university, or community college accredited by an accrediting
agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education; an Environmental Education Center
certified by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Environmental
Education and Public Affairs; or a zoo or aquarium certified by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums.
(c) Internal Coastal Waters or Internal Waters. All Coastal Fishing Waters except the Atlantic Ocean.
(d) Length offinfish.
(i) Curved fork length. A length determined by measuring along a line tracing the contour
of the body from the tip of the upper jaw to the middle of the fork in the caudal (tail) fin.
(ii) Fork length. A length determined by measuring along a straight line the distance from
the tip of the snout with the mouth closed to the middle of the fork in the caudal (tail) fin,
except that fork length for billfish is measured from the tip of the lower jaw to the middle
of the fork of the caudal (tail) fin.
(iii) Pectoral fin curved fork length. A length of a beheaded fish from the dorsal insertion of
the pectoral fin to the fork of the tail measured along the contour of the body in a line that
mns along the top of the pectoral fin and the top of the caudal keel.
(iv) Total length. A length determined by measuring along a straight line the distance from
the tip of the snout with the mouth closed to the tip of the compressed caudal (tail) fin.
(e) Recreational Possession Limit. Restrictions on size, quantity, season, time period, area, means, and
methods where take or possession is for a recreational purpose.
(t) Recreational Quota. Total quantity offish allocated for harvest for a recreational purpose.
(g) Regular Closed Oyster Season. March 31 through October 15, unless amended by the Fisheries
Director through proclamation authority.
(h) Scientific Institution. One of the following entities:
(i) An educational institution as defined in this Item;
(ii) A state or federal agency charged with the management of marine or estuarine resources;
or
(iii) A professional organization or secondary school working under the direction of, or in
compliance with mandates from, the entities listed in Subitems (h)(i) and (ii) of this Item.
(i)
Seed Oyster Management Area. An open harvest area that, by reason of poor growth
characteristics, predation rates, overcrowding or other factors, experiences poor utilization of
oyster populations for direct harvest and sale to licensed dealers and is designated by the Marine
Fisheries Commission as a source of seed for public and private oyster culture.
(2) Fishing Activities:
(a)
Aquaculture operation. An operation that produces artificially propagated stocks of marine or
estuarine resources or obtains such stocks from permitted sources for the purpose of rearing in a
controlled environment. A controlled environment provides and maintains throughout the rearing
process one or more of the following:
(i) food;
(ii) predator protection;
(iii) salinity;
(iv) temperature controls; or
(v) water circulation,
utilizing technology not found in the natural environment.
(b)
Attended. Being in a vessel, in the water or on the shore, and immediately available to work the
gear and be within 100 yards of any gear in use by that person at all times. Attended does not
include being in a building or structure.
(c)
Blue Crab Shedding. The process whereby a blue crab emerges soft from its former hard
httpl/reports.oah.state.nc.uslncac/title%2016a%20•%20environm ental %20quality/chapter%2003%20-%20mari ne%2Ofisheries/subchapter%20i/subchapter%20... 1116

8122/2016 reports.oah.state.nc.4Wtitle 15a- environmental quality/chapter 03- marine ties/subchapter i/subchapter i rules.html C = "
exoskeleton. A shedding operation is any operation that holds peeler crabs in a controlled
environment. A controlled environment provides and maintains throughout the shedding process
one or more of the following:
(i) food;
(ii) predator protection;
(iii) salinity;
(iv) temperature controls; or
(v) water circulation, utilizing technology not found in the natural environment. A shedding
operation does not include transporting pink or red -line peeler crabs to a permitted
shedding operation.
(d)
Deputation. Purification or the removal of adulteration from live oysters, clams, or mussels by any
natural or artificially controlled means.
(e)
Long Haul Operations. Fishing a seine towed between two vessels.
(i)
Peeler Crab. A blue crab that has a soft shell developing under a hard shell and having a white,
pink, or red -line or rim on the outer edge of the back fin or flipper.
(g)
Possess. Any actual or constructive holding whether under claim of ownership or not.
(h)
Recreational Purpose. A fishing activity that is not a commercial fishing operation as defined in
G.S. 113-168.
(i)
Shellfish marketing from leases and franchises. The harvest of oysters, clams, scallops, or mussels
from privately held shellfish bottoms and lawful sale of those shellfish to the public at large or to a
licensed shellfish dealer.
Shellfish planting effort on leases and franchises. The process of obtaining authorized cultch
materials, seed shellfish, and polluted shellfish stocks and the placement of those materials on
privately held shellfish bottoms for increased shellfish production.
(k)
Shellfish production on leases and franchises:
(i) The culture of oysters, clams, scallops, or mussels on shellfish leases and franchises from a
sublegal harvest size to a marketable size.
(ii) The transplanting (relay) of oysters, clams, scallops, or mussels from areas closed due to
pollution to shellfish leases and franchises in open waters and the natural cleansing of
those shellfish.
(1)
Swipe Net Operations. Fishing a seine towed by one vessel.
(m)
Transport. Ship, carry, or cause to be carried or moved by public or private carrier by land, sea, or
air.
(n)
Use. Employ, set, operate, or permit to be operated or employed.
(3) Gear.
(a)
Bunt Net. The last encircling net of a long haul or swipe net operation constructed of small mesh
webbing. The bunt net is used to form a pen or pound from which the catch is dipped or bailed.
(b)
Channel Net. A net used to take shrimp that is anchored or attached to the bottom at both ends or
with one end anchored or attached to the bottom and the other end attached to a vessel.
(c)
Commercial Fishing Equipment or Gear. All fishing equipment used in Coastal Fishing Waters
except:
(i) Cast nets;
(ii) Collapsible crab traps, a trap used for taking crabs with the largest open dimension no
larger than 18 inches and that by design is collapsed at all times when in the water,
except when it is being retrieved from or lowered to the bottom;
(iii) Dip nets or scoops having a handle not more than eight feet in length and a hoop or
frame to which the net is attached not exceeding 60 inches along the perimeter,
(iv) Gigs or other pointed implements that are propelled by hand, whether or not the
implement remains in the hand;
(v) Hand operated rakes no more than 12 inches wide and weighing no more than six pounds
and hand operated tongs;
(vi) Hook -and -line and bait -and -line equipment other than multiple -hook or multiple -bait
trotline;
(vii) Landing nets used to assist in taking fish when the initial and primary method of taking
is by the use of hook and line;
(viii) Minnow traps when no more than two are in use;
(ix) Seines less than 30 feet in length;
httpl/repDrts.oah.state.nc.us/ncarJtilie%20l5a%20-%20envirmmental%20quality/chapter%2003%20-°/,20m ari ne%20fisheries/subchapter%20i/subchapter%20... 2/16

42Y/201% reports.oah.state.nc.us/45a- environmental quality/chapter 03- marine fisheriwhepter i/subchapter i rules.htrnI
(x) Spears, Hawaiian slings, or similar devices that propel pointed implements by mechanical
means, including elastic tubing or bands, pressurized gas, or similar means.
(d)
Corkline. The support structure a net is attached to that is nearest to the water surface when in
use. Corkline length is measured from the outer most mesh knot at one end of the corkline
following along the line to the outer most mesh knot at the opposite end of the corkline.
(e)
Dredge. A device towed by engine power consisting of a flame, tooth bar or smooth bar, and
catchbag used in the harvest of oysters, clams, crabs, scallops, or conchs.
(f)
Fixed or stationary net. A net anchored or staked to the bottom, or some structure attached to the
bottom, at both ends of the net.
(g)
Fyke Net. An entrapment net supported by a series of internal or external hoops or frames, with
one or more lead or leaders that guide fish to the net mouth. The net has one or more internal
funnel -shaped openings with tapered ends directed inward from the mouth, through which fish
enter the enclosure. The portion of the net designed to hold or trap fish is completely enclosed in
mesh or webbing, except for the openings for fish passage into or out of the net (funnel area).
(h)
Gill Net. A net set vertically in the water to capture fish by entanglement of the gills in its mesh
as a result of net design, construction, mesh length, webbing diameter, or method in which it is
used.
(i)
Headrope. The support structure for the mesh or webbing of a trawl that is nearest to the water
surface when in use. Headmpe length is measured from the outer most mesh knot at one end of the
headrope following along the line to the outer most mesh knot at the opposite end of the
headrope.
(j)
Hoop Net. An entrapment net supported by a series of internal or external hoops or frames. The
net has one or more internal funnel -shaped openings with tapered ends directed inward from the
mouth, through which fish enter the enclosure. The portion of the net designed to hold or trap the
fish is completely enclosed in mesh or webbing, except for the openings for fish passage into or
out of the net (funnel area).
(k)
Lead. A mesh or webbing structure consisting of nylon, monofilament, plastic, wire, or similar
material set vertically in the water and held in place by stakes or anchors to guide fish into an
enclosure. Lead length is measured from the outer most end of the lead along the top or bottom
line, whichever is longer, to the opposite end of the lead.
(1)
Mechanical methods for clamming. Dredges, hydraulic clam dredges, stick rakes, and other rakes
when towed by engine power, patent tongs, kicking with propellers or deflector plates with or
without trawls, and any other method that utilizes mechanical means to harvest clams.
(m)
Mechanical methods for oystering. Dredges, patent tongs, stick takes, and other rakes when towed
by engine power, and any other method that utilizes mechanical means to harvest oysters.
(n)
Mesh Length. The distance from the inside of one knot to the outside of the opposite knot, when
the net is stretched hand -tight in a manner that closes the mesh opening.
(o)
Pound Net Set. A fish trap consisting of a holding pen, one or more enclosures, lead or leaders,
and stakes or anchors used to support the trap. The holding pen, enclosures, and lead(s) are not
conical, nor are they supported by hoops or frames.
(p)
Purse Gill Nets. Any gill net used to encircle fish when the net is closed by the use of a purse line
through rings located along the top or bottom line or elsewhere on such net.
(t)
Seine. A net set vertically in the water and pulled by hand or power to capture fish by
encirclement and confining fish within itself or against another net, the shore or bank as a result of
net design, construction, mesh length, webbing diameter, or method in which it is used.
(4) Fish
habitat areas. The estuarine and marine areas that support juvenile and adult populations of fish
species,
as well as forage species utilized in the food chain. Fish habitats as used in this definition, ate vital
for portions of the entire life cycle, including the early growth and development of fish species. Fish
habitats in all Coastal Fishing Waters, as determined through marine and estuarine survey sampling,
include:
(a)
Anadromous fish nursery areas. Those areas in the riverine and estuarine systems utilized by post -
larval and later juvenile anadromous fish.
(b)
Anadromous fish spawning areas. Those areas where evidence of spawning of anadromous fish
has been documented in Division sampling records through direct observation of spawning,
capture of running ripe females, or capture of eggs or early larvae.
(c)
Coral:
(i) Fire corals and hydrocorals (Class Hydrozoa);
hV://reports.oah.state. nc.us/ncwAde%2015a%20-%20ernironm ental %20quality/chapter%2003%20-%20mari ne%20fi sheri es/subchapter%20i/subchaptw%20... 3t16

at22/2016 reporls.mh.stale.nc.uWfitie 15a - emironmental quality/chapter 03 - marinslgies/subchapter i/subchapter i rules.htrnl r I
(ii) Stony corals and black corals (Class Anthozoa, Subclass Scleractinia); or
(iii) Octocorals; Gorgonian corals (Class Anthozoa, Subclass Octocorallia), which include
sea fans (Gorgonia sp.), sea whips (Loptogorgia sp. and Lophogorgia sp.), and sea pansies
(Renilla sp.).
(d) Intertidal Oyster Bed. A formation, regardless of size or shape, formed of shell and live oysters of
varying density.
(e) Live rock. Living marine organisms or an assemblage thereof attached to a hard substrate,
excluding mollusk shells, but including dead coral or rock. Living marine organisms associated
with hard bottoms, banks, reefs, and live rock include:
(i) Coralline algae (Division Rhodophyta);
(ii) Acetabularia sp., mermaid's fan and cups (Udotea sp.), watercress (Halimeda sp.), green
feather, green grape algae (Caulerpa sp.) (Division Chlorophyta);
(iii) Sargassum sp., Dictyopteris sp., Zonaria sp. (Division Phaeophyta);
(iv) Sponges (Phylum Porifera);
(v) Hard and soft corals, sea anemones (Phylum Cnidaria), including fire corals (Class
Hydrozoa), and Gorgonians, whip corals, sea pansies, anemones, Solengastrea (Class
Anthozoa);
(vi) Bryozoans (Phylum Bryozoa);
(vii) Tube worms (Phylum Annelida), fan worms (Sabellidae), feather duster and Christmas
treewomms (Serpulidae), and sand castle worms (Sabellaridae);
(viii) Mussel banks (Phylum Molluscs: Gastropoda); and
(ix) Acorn barnacles (Arthmpoda: Cmstacea: Semibalanus sp.).
(0 Nursery areas. Areas that for reasons such as food, cover, bottom type, salinity, temperature, and
other factors, young finfish and crustaceans spend the major portion of their initial growing
season. Primary nursery areas are those areas in the estuarine system where initial post -larval
development takes place. These are areas where populations are uniformly early juveniles.
Secondary nursery areas are those areas in the estuarine system where later juvenile development
takes place. Populations are composed of developing sub -adults of similar size that have migrated
from an upstream primary nursery area to the secondary nursery area located in the middle portion
of the estuarine system
(g) Shellfish producing habitats. Historic or existing areas that shellfish, such as clams, oysters,
scallops, mussels, and whelks use to reproduce and survive because of such favorable conditions
as bottom type, salinity, currents, cover, and cultch. Included are those shellfish producing areas
closed to shellfish harvest due to pollution.
(h) Strategic Habitat Areas. Locations of individual fish habitats or systems of habitats that provide
exceptional habitat functions or that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability,
or rarity.
W Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat. Submerged lands that:
W are vegetated with one or more species of submerged aquatic vegetation including bushy
pondweed or southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum),
eelgrass (Zostera marina), homed pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), naiads (Najas spp.),
redhead grass (Potamogeton perfoliatus), sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata, formerly
Potamogeton pectinatus), shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), slender pondweed
(Potamogeton pusillus), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), water starwort (Callitriche
hetemphylla), waterweeds (Elodea spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), and wild
celery (Vallisneria americana). These areas may be identified by the presence of above-
ground leaves, below -ground rhizomes, or reproductive structures associated with one or
more SAV species and include the sediment within these areas; or
(ii) have been vegetated by one or more of the species identified in Sub -item (4xixi) of this
Rule within the past 10 annual growing seasons and that meet the average physical
requirements of water depth (six feet or less), average light availability (secchi depth of
one foot or more), and limited wave exposure that characterize the environment suitable
for growth of SAV. The past presence of SAV may be demonstrated by aerial
photography, SAV survey, map, or other documentation. An extension of the past 10
annual growing seasons criteria may be considered when average environmental
conditions are altered by drought, rainfall, or storm force winds.
This habitat occurs in both subtidal and intertidal zones and may occur in isolated patches or
hltpl/reports.cah.stats.nc.uslncwJtitle%2015a%20-%20wM rome-bl%20qual ity/chapter%2003%20-%20marine%206sheries/subchapter%20i/subchapter%20... 4/16

_N=011 reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac*5a- environmental quality/chapter 03-marine fisheriohapter i/subchapter i rules.himI
cover extensive areas. In defining SAV habitat, the Marine Fisheries Commission recognizes the
Aquatic Weed Control Act of 1991 (G.S. 113A-220 et. seq.) and does not intend the submerged
aquatic vegetation definition, or this Rule or Rules 03K .0304 and .0404, to apply to or conflict
with the non -development control activities authorized by that Act.
(5) Licenses,
permits, leases and franchises, and record keeping:
(a)
Assignment. Temporary transferal to another person of privileges under a license for which
assignment is permitted. The person assigning the license delegates the privileges permitted under
the license to be exercised by the assignee, but retains the power to revoke the assignment at any
time, and is still the responsible party for the license.
(b)
Designee. Any person who is under the direct control of the pemmittee or who is employed by or
under contract to the pemmittee for the purposes authorized by the permit.
(c)
For Hire Vessel. As defined by G.S. 113-174, when the vessel is fishing in state waters or when
the vessel originates from or returns to a North Carolina port.
(d)
Holder. A person who has been lawfully issued in his or her name a license, permit, franchise,
lease, or assignment.
(e)
Land:
(i) For commercial fishing operations, when fish reach the shore or a structure connected to
the shore.
(ii) For purposes of trip tickets, when fish reach a licensed seafood dealer, or where the
fisherman is the dealer, when fish reach the shore or a structure connected to the shore.
(iii) For recreational fishing operations, when fish are retained in possession by the fisherman.
(f)
Licensee. Any person holding a valid license from the Department to take or deal in marine
fisheries resources.
(g)
Logbook. Paper forms provided by the Division and electronic data files generated firm software
provided by the Division for the reporting of fisheries statistics by persons engaged in commercial
or recreational fishing or for -hire operators.
(h)
Master. Captain of a vessel or one who commands and has control, authority, or power over a
vessel.
(i) New fish dealer. Any fish dealer making application for a fish dealer license who did not possess
a valid dealer license for the previous license year in that name. For purposes of license issuance,
adding new categories to an existing fish dealers license does not constitute a new dealer.
(j) Office of the Division. Physical locations of the Division conducting license and permit
transactions in Wilmington, Washington, Morehead City, Roanoke Island, and Elizabeth City,
North Carolina. Other businesses or entities designated by the Secretary to issue Recreational
Commercial Gear Licenses or Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses are not considered Offices of
the Division.
(k) Responsible party. Person who coordinates, supervises, or otherwise directs operations of a
business entity, such as a corporate officer or executive level supervisor of business operations,
and the person responsible for use of the issued license in compliance with applicable statutes and
rules.
(1) Tournament Organizer. The person who coordinates, supervises, or otherwise directs a
recreational fishing tournament and is the holder of the Recreational Fishing Tournament License.
(m) Transaction. Act of doing business such that fish are sold, offered for sale, exchanged, bartered,
distributed, or landed.
(n) Transfer. Permanent transferal to another person of privileges under a license for which transfer is
permitted. The person transferring the license retains no rights or interest under the license
transferred.
(o) Trip Ticket. Paper forms provided by the Division and electronic data files generated from
software provided by the Division for the reporting of fisheries statistics by licensed fish dealers.
HistoryNote: Authority G.S. 113-134; 113-174; 143B-289.52;
Eff. January 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. March 1, 1995; March 1,1994; October 1, 1993; July 1,1993;
Recodifred from 15A NCAC 031.0001 Eff. December 17,1996;
Amended Eff. April 1, 1999;August 1, 1998;April 1,1997;
Temporary Amendment Eff. May 1, 2000; August 1, 1999; July 1, 1999;
Amended Eff. August 1, 2000;
httpllreports.mh.state.nc.wlncac/fine%2015a%20-%20envirmm wtal%20qual ity/chapter%2003%20-%20marine%20fisheries/subchapter%20ilsubchapter%20... 5/16

0
Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Bodnar, Gregg
Sent:
Monday, August 22, 2016 10:20 AM
To:
'Richard Hilderman'
Cc:
Davis, Braxton C; Lopazanski, Mike; Huggett, Doug
Subject:
MFC definitions
Morning Dr. Hilderman,
Braxton forwarded me your questions pertaining to habitat definitions and our CAMA rules. Some MFC
habitat definitions can be found in 15A NCAC 031.0101 (4). Braxton is on leave this week as well as others, so I will begin
to gather information and get some clarity from our folks and DMF as well when they are available.
I hope this helps and please let me know if there are any other questions,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal.Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252'808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. [e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, INC 28557
"Nothing Cornpai'rs,.-v_
t A
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

u
T.
Bodnar, Gregg
From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:57 AM
To: 'Richard Hilderman';'[e-mail]'
Subject: Ability for public comment on CAMA applications
Morning all,
Once an application is received as complete a public notice is placed in the Wilmington Star News in the
classifieds. Comments will be gathered by the Assistant Major Permits Coordinator (Heather Coats in this occasion) and
attached to the project. .
I hope this answers your question.
I
Thanks,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
` 252 808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. [e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
it iG ''Nothing
i r'+
I
Email correspondence, to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

I
Bodnar, Gregg
From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: Fwd: Yesterday's Phone Conference
For your records, see notes below. That was an interesting call yesterday regarding Jinks Creek
dredging. Give me a call if you need to discuss. -Ken
Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Hilderman <richardhilderman(@,gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Yesterday's Phone Conference
To: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal <ken.rileyCCa)noaa.gov>
Cc: Janice Harris <lanharrisaatmc.net>, Mike Giles <mikeg a),nccoast.org>, Richard Hilderman
<dogyenome a,gmail.com>
Thanks Ken,
Figured you would not be able to help me with specific contacts. At least knowing what agencies to contact
will point me in the right direction. This project won't be going forward for at least several month because the
Town has scheduled a community meeting on Oct 6 to get citizen input. It is my understanding the Council
wants the ERC to submit a report after the community meeting probably at the Nov Council meeting. Thus I
don't think a permit will be filed until after the first of the January. However, I have been wrong before!!!!
Richard
Od Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Ken Riley - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Richard,
I can only speak on behalf of the NMFS and generalize about the other agencies. I am sorry I can't
be more descriptive and provide specific contacts. Many of the agencies involved have regional staff
and a larger body of regulators than our office. I am not sure who will be assigned to a specific
project; however, you have already contacted Kathy Mathews with the USFWS. She is a great
contact for that agency and I appreciate her referring you to our office.
We have two biologists in our office, myself and Fritz Rohde. The NMFS is the nation's federal
trustee for the conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and diadromous fishery
resources. We provide comments pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act).
My responses to your questions are copied below in blue.
-Ken

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Richard Hilderman <richardhildermanngmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ken,
I would like to express my appreciation for the time you took in talking with us yesterday. After our
discussion I have a somewhat better understanding of how government agencies will be involved in the
dredging. I would like to briefly summarize what we discussed yesterday and I also have a few follow up
questions.
1. Short nose sturgeon. I believe you stated that there is no documentation that this sturgeon resides in Jinks
Creek or the associated PNAs. In your opinion this sturgeon is only a transient user of Jinks Creek as it
migrates to and from spawning grounds. Am I correct in assuming that dredging will not be allowed during
its migration season? Can you inform me which agency and appropriate contact person who will be
responsible for determining this? INMFS '
2. You also stated that larvae and juveniles of various marine species reside in Jinks Creeks. In addition, you
stated that dredging will not be allowed during the time of year of their occupation of the creek. Can you
inform me which agency and appropriate contact person who will be responsible for determining this?
NMFS would request an environmental window (dredging moratorium) for spring -summer. The NC
Division of Coastal Management may request an environmental window, although our times often
vary slightly.
3. It is my understanding that you informed us that government agencies will be responsible for determine the
oyster/shell fish and submerged plant vegetation population/density in the' area that will be dredged along with
determining the slope and depth of the dredging cut in order to inhibit potential erosion after the channel is
created. You also stated that government agencies will perform field studies pertaining to these issues.
The NMFS, USACE, EPA, USFWS, USCG, and a multitude of state agencies largely under the NC
Department of Environmental Quality will review the Permit Application including the EA or EIS provided by
the Town of Sunset Beach. The NMFS at its discretion and other agencies will participate in site visits to
review the environmental surveys and confirm habitat mapping through field investigations. I will plan to visit
this site to confirm the environmental assessment and review the plans when the time is appropriate and when I
receive and process the application materials. The public does not attend or participate in the NMFS site
visits. I welcome you to contact me if you have specific concerns related to the project and I will address those
concerns, as appropriate, in my site investigation.
At the present time, I have not received any indication that this project is evert moving forward.
Can you tell me which agencies and the appropriate person to contact that will conduct field studies for all
these issues? If possible, I would like to be present when these studies are performed. Also what type of
information, if any, must the Town or the consultant group have in the permit regarding these issues?
I apologize for these additional questions but I came out of the academic world and only have a superficial
dealing with government agencies such as NIH, NSF and USDA in terms of writing research proposals and
performing peer review of research proposals.
I encourage you to continue to attend the Town meetings and communicate with the Town about any concerns
that you may have. You can also check with the USACE, Wilmington District website regarding Public
Notices for the project or other projects in your region. During Public Notices is a great time to submit
comments and concerns for the official public record. Here is the
website: http://www.saw.usace.atmv.mil/N4issions/Re ug latoEy-Permit-Proaram/Public-Notices/

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 11:01 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: Jinks Creek
Hi Greg -
I just wanted to let you know that we would request an 1 FH Assessment for the Town of Sunset Beach
Shoreline Management Project that includes dredging in Jinks Creek.
-Ken
Kenneth Riley, Ph.D.
Fishery Biologist
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
lol Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516
Office: 2S2-728-87SO I Cell: 252-864-6i94 Email:. ken.riley(anoaa.gov
a
N
1
i

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Stewart, Chris
Sent:
Friday, August 05, 2016 11:54 AM
To:
Bodnar, Gregg
Cc:
Davis, Braxton C; Murphey, Trish
Subject:
FW:
How do you guys want me to handle this? Should I give him the following answers, I'm afraid it will just lead to more.
But, I hate to leave him hanging. Gregg, could you please confirm when the designations were made if we/I choose to
respond.
1) The designations were made around 1976 and sampling was done from 1970-76. 2) Currently, there is no
"environmental barrier" in the sense that the creek on the mainland side of the IWW is not part of links Creek. Prior to
the IWW being dug, it may have been at one point, but now I would not call it part of the creek. 3) The northern portion
of links is closed due to pollution (see map 50).
Chris
From: Richard Hilderman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:30 AM
To: Stewart, Chris <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janice Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Chris,
I sent you the email below on 7/29. I realize you are probably busy but could you respond whether you intend
to address my three questions?
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.
Chris,
In a previous email you said you have not been at Jinks Creek at low tide. Thus you don't have a feel for the
oyster beds in the creek. I have attached 4 photos which shows the oyster beds at low tide.
I would like to, point out a few things about the pictures
1. I have several more pictures but feel these three make my point
2. I only took pictures at the area where Jinks Creek joins the ICW (proposed area of dredging). Needless to
say there are additional oyster beds as you travel up Jinks Creek and if necessary I can get pictures of these.
3. The attached pictures were only taken on the west side of the creek.' There are also oyster beds on the
east side.
4.. I didn't take pictures of the oyster beds found in the tidal creeks that enter Jinks Creek in this area. These
beds are more extensive then the beds in Jinks Creek. Needless to say dredging will stir up a tremendous
amount of sediment that could have a negative impact on the survival of these adjacent beds.
5. The fourth picture is a sign prohibiting harvesting of oysters, clams and mussels in certain areas of Jinks
Creek.

These three pictures don't give you a comprehensive view of the extent of oyster beds in Jinks Creek. You need
to visit at low tide. I have two kayaks and would be willing to kayak with you at low tide. We can transverse
the entire creek and the feeder canals at low tide. `
As you•know I am on a SSB environmental committee and the Council has asked us to develop questions
pertaining to the potential dredging of Jinks Creek. Thus I would appreciate a response from you pertaining to
the following questions. Q
1. What year was the southern portion of Jinks Creels determined not to be(OaPNA? I believe you said in a
previous email sometime in the 1970s. Please advise if this is correct.
2. Since the north end of Jinks Creek is a PNA but the southern end is not, it is difficult for me to
comprehend because I don't understand why the ICW would be an environmegttbarr'er. Can you explain why
there is two different PNA designations for Jinks Creek? w6L saw[ ngwQ� c�% ee. creeks
3. Why is harvesting of clams, oysters and mussels prohibited in certain areas of Jinks Creek?
To me the fundamenial biological question CAMA needs to address pertaining to approval of a permit to dredge
Jinks Creek is dredging the creek to allow boaters to enter the ICW at low tide when they can now enter at high
tide worth the potential risk dredging will cause to the oyster population and other benthic species? Without
viewing these beds a low tide CAMA can',_t make a logical decision. E
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.
2

I II
�. idei «Gn
,
M J�SCUS
yj
iun v�2 /
i
�tU Er bQoa4
��4 .IF7I4-^ c '
K -
q
Our o�
T
\/I
n Wr d
mneplig
J
SO ((
Wl w em Cm 9,r,.
U
%
4, ex Hey
p7aeonsvcr
Meie or
I rn
lM
Cb
Gf
/t nT' 17a77
C-e
e& t fj
licwr I jLi,
Cis a'�
Cy+alltcvYc� c:+
ors
rt O
.D�/l
o
4*!e-4,2
www.PrintablePaper.net

v
zc4 a4 GYM u
tt50u
1 ,o we.( u (it iva4leel
r
=0� �
� r � i./L 09
r
Q tL r
I �
Ic ryl
cL
t IIMin Ica— Lug n I6 T'cr✓ o/!
�µl�nt II�
,aSlcT�
�.r i tiGt
.I
www.PrintablePaper.net

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Stewart, Chris
Sent:
Friday, July 29, 2016 2:56 PM
To:
Davis, Braxton C
Cc:
Bodnar, Gregg
Subject:
FW: PNA Letter
I received these just now. I have not sent a response to either, I will wait till I hear back from you before proceeding with
anything at this point. However, to answer his questions below: 1) Talking with Rich Carpenter— he said the designations
were made around 1976 and sampling was done from 1970-76 (I'm still checking on that and looking for the original
files, data however is in BDB ). 2) I'm not sure what he is referring to as an "environmental barrier" in the sense that the
creek on the mainland side is not part of Jinks Creek. Prior to the IWW being dug, it may have been at one point, but
now I would not call it part of the creek. 3) The northern portion of Jinks is closed due to pollution (see map 50);
however, there is no way for me to be 100%sure based on his picture.
Thanks,
Chris
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Richard Hilderman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stewart, Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PNA Letter
Richard
Excellent. And excellent photos. Moffatt and Nichols has not allocated any dollars to Oyster survey of Jinks Creek in their
proposal.. Only Mary's and Turtle. Why?
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTESmartphone
------ Original message ------
From: Richard Hilderman
Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2016 1:16 PM
To: chris.stewart a,ncdenr.gov;
Cc: ianharris(aannc.net;Richard Hilderman;
Subject:Re: PNA Letter
Chris,
In a previous email you said you have not been at Jinks Creek at low tide. Thus you don 't have a feel for the oyster beds in the
creek. I have attached 4 photos which shows the oyster beds at low tide.
1 would like to point out a few things about the pictures
I. I have several more pictures but feel these three make my point
2. 1 only took pictures at the area where links Creekjoins the ICW (proposed area of dredging). Needless to say there are
additional oyster beds as you travel up Jinks Creek and if necessary I can get pictures of these.
3. The attached pictures were only taken on the west side of the creek. There are also oyster beds on the east side.

4. 1 didn't take pictures bf the oyster beds found in the tidal creeks that enter Jinks Creek in, this area. These beds are more
extensive th en the beds in Jinks Creek. Needless to say dredging will stir up a tremendous amount of sediment that could have a
negative impact on the survival of these adjacent beds.
>. The fourth picture is a sign prohibiting harvesting of oysters, clams and mussels in certain areas of Jinks Creek.
These three pictures don't give you a comprehensive view of the extent of oyster beds in Jinks Creel. You need to visit at low tide. I
have two kayaks and would be willing to kayak with you at low tide. We can transverse the entire creek and the feeder canals at low
tide.
As you know I am on a SSB environmental committee and the Council has asked us to develop questions pertaining to the potential
dredging of .links Creek. Thus I would appreciate a response from you pertaining to the following questions.
1. What year was the southern portion of Jinks Creek determined not to be a PNA? I believe you said in a previous email
sometime in the 1970s. Please advise if this is.conect.
2. Since the north end of Jinks Creek is a PNA but the southern end is not, it is difficult for me to comprehend because I don't
understand why the IC W would be an environmental barrier. Can you explain why there is two different PNA designations for Jinks
Creek?
3. Why is harvesting of clams, oysters and mussels prohibited in certain areas of Jinks Creek?
To me the fundamental biological question CAMA needs to address pertaining to approval of a permit to dredge Jinks Creek is
dredging the creel: to allow boaters to enter the 1CW at low tide when they ca in now enter at high tide worth the potential risk
dredging will cause to the oyster population and other benthic species? Without viewing these beds a low tide CAMA can't make a
logical decision. ,
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:49 PM, <doggenome0.entail.com> wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for Jan for clearing it,up. 1 agree with Jan that the rest of Jinks Creek should be'reevaluated to determine if it is a PNA. In
the area where you &nbs p;say the creek•is only about 3 feet at low tide has extensive oyster beds and I suspect they extend
southward further into the creek. Plus the two areas of Jinks Creek are separated by only the ICW. Is this such a strong
environmental barrier to make one part of the creel: PNA and the other not ? Finally can you tell me when the north end of Jinks
Creek was designated a PNA?
Richard
Sent fiom my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:09 PM, "janharris ,attne.net" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Chris
I believe I can clear up some confusion here. The Jinks Creek that the 1996 letter is referring to is a portion of
Jinks Creek located on the mainland side of the A1WW.
Back in the early'70's, Gore dredged a 6onnector canal between Mary's and Turtle Creeks parallel to the AIWW on
the mainland side without a permit. This connector canal went through a portion of Jinks Creek located on the
mainland side of the AIWW.
In 1996 and 1997 when property owners wanted that dredged again, they were denied. That portion o f Jinks
Creek is shallow enough to be considered PNA.
But now, I have a question.

L
If, in fact, Jinks Creek on the south side of the AIWW is too shallow to navigate, is it not possible that it too has
become PNA? I believe it was classified a non PNA sometime back in the'70's.
Should it not be re-evaluated to make sure before dredging is considered?
And should it not be done now before this project gets too far down the road pricewise?
< br>
And shouldn't it be done by someone else other than the paid hire d hand, Moffat & Nichols?
Thanks
Jan
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
------ Original message ------
From: Richard Hilderman
Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2016 3:43 PM
To: [e-mail];
Cc: Janice Harris;Richard Hilderman;
Subject:PNA Letter
Chris,
Letter is attached. Believe there is an extremely larger paper trail with this denial of dredging of Jinks Creek.
Richard

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Duval, Michelle
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:10 PM
To: Deaton, Anne; Bodnar, Gregg; Jenkins, Shannon
Cc: Davis, Braxton C; Lupton, Dee; Stewart, Chris
Subject: FW: The Proposed Dredging of Jinks Creek
Attachments: finks Creek Low Tide-5jpg; Jinks Creek low tide-6jpg; Jinks Creek low tide 7jpg; links
Creek Sign.jpg; RE: Larkin Reply - Blane Creek dredging
All,
Please see below — I am willing to respond to Dr. Hilderman, but am out of town at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission meeting, and unable to address this until Friday. However, I will need some assistance —
1) the first question deals with a reevaluation of the PNA designation of finks' Creek (can/should it be);
2) the second question deals w/CAMA dredging rules;
3) the third deal with the prohibited shellfish areas in Jinks Creek
This email is the latest in several that both Anne Deaton and I have received regarding the application by Sunset Beach to
dredge part of the canal — both Chris and Gregg have been cc'd on a previous email string, which I have attached here for
reference. I will respond to Dr. Hilderman and let him know that it will likely be the first of next week before I can
respond. I'm sure these are fairly easy questions that I could find the answers to them if I was in the office, but if you all have
answers top of mind, that would be great. Many thanks in advance.
Michelle Duval
Executive Assistant for Councils
Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8011 office (direct)
252 726 7021 main
mi ch a Ile. duvalCa) ncden r.aov
P.O. Box 769
(3441 Arendell Street)
Morehead City, NC 28557
AM_. srvu�I..ng.... n's
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Richard Hilderman[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:13 AM
To: Duval, Michelle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Richard Hilderman <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Proposed Dredging of Jinks Creek

Dr. Duval,
I have recently been appointed to the Environmental Resource Committee of Sunset Beach. The Council
has charged the committee to look into the proposed dredging of Jinks Creek. This creek is located at the east
end of Sunset Beach and runs from the Intercoastal Waterway and enters the ocean via Tubbs Inlet. The creek
is surrounded on both sides by extensive and elaborate marshes which are primary nursing areas. The main
reason the Town is considering this dredging project is to give property owners adjacent to the creek boat access
to the Intercoastal Waterway. Currently in Jinks Creek there is boat access to the Intercoastal Waterway at high
tide but not at low tide.
I have a few questions which I hope the Division of Marine Fisheries can answer. I have attached 4
photos. Three of these photos clearly demonstrate that at least part of Jinks Creek is a shell bottom creek. The
4th photo is a sign prohibiting the harvesting of oysters, claims and mussels in Jinks Creek. This sign is posted
on both sides of the creek about half way between the Intercoastal Waterway (ICW) and Tubbs Inlet.
I would like to point out a few things about the pictures
1. I have several more pictures but feel the three oyster bed pictures make my point.
2. 1 only took pictures in the area where Jinks Creek joins the ICW (one of the proposed area of
dredging). There are additional oyster beds as you travel up Jinks Creek and if necessary I can get pictures of
these.
3. The attached pictures were only taken on the west side of the creek. There are also oyster beds on the
east side.
4. I didn't take pictures of the oyster beds found in the tidal creeks that enter Jinks Creek. These beds are
more extensive then the beds in Jinks Creek. The dredging will stir up a tremendous amount of sediment that
could have a negative impact on the survival of these adjacent beds.
The three oyster bed pictures don't give you a comprehensive view of the extent of oyster beds in Jinks
Creek. You need to visit at low tide. I have two kayaks and would be willing to kayak with you at low
tide. We can transverse the entire creek at low tide.
I would appreciate a response from you pertaining to the following questions.
1. It is my understanding that Jinks Creek was determined not to be a PNA in the 1970s. This was almost a.
half century ago. I am sure you will agree that in this time frame the communities and biodiversity in the creek
could change significantly. The oyster bed pictures are a good indication. Shouldn't there be a reevaluation to
determine if Jinks should be designated a PNA prior to approving the dredging project?
2. It is my understanding that CAMA rules prohibit dredging if the channel is not aligned to avoid shell fish
beds or if dredging would violate water quality. Shouldn't the shell bottom of Jinks Creek be mapped to
determine where the oyster beds are in the creek prior to the approval of a dredging permit? 14tYa e wa�¢ J
3. Why is harvesting of clams, oysters and mussels prohibited in certain areas of Jinks Creek?
S4a °�s
Look forward to your response
Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.

0

mac,` s
r _
law
'If to
r
! r
� «~ � a_ ate— �.� � • V - et —

r*

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Sue & Owen Weddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 5:07 PM
To: 'Todd Miller'; Stewart, Chris
Cc: 'Jan harris'; Deaton, Anne; Duval, Michelle; Bodnar, Gregg; Murphey, Trish
Subject: RE: Larkin Reply - Blare Creek dredging
Hello Everybody,
I think I can add some info to the conversation. My husband and 1 live on the island and have lived here for the last 27
years. We are on Blare Creek and have a pier, boat dock and boat. (I believe we have lived on the island longer than
any of the current residents.) The boat is a 16' HenryO (shallow draft and can rt(:gve around in the tidal creeks around
Sunset Beach.) ,,`` �.4%7«
links Creek is a natural tidal creek that runs from the Intracoastal WWaterway out through the outlet in Tubbs Inlet. It is $A
water and a PNA. Bob Stroud, former supervisor of the Wilmington office of the Division of Coastal Management showed
me a map in the Wilmington office and pointed out an important PNA to me in links Creek. This area was the last area
around Sunset Beach to be open to shellfishing. It closed after the 191h Street development was built. (The town runs a
stormwater system that has around 17 pipes draining directly into the tidal marsh, creek and inlets.) This tidal creek has
never been dredged. Although there have been previous attempts to gain permission to do so.
My husband and I frequently boat links Creek. The configuration of the channels within this Inlet Hazard Area is:
rom the Intracoastal Waterway into links Creek, you travel a brief period before you are confronted with a
Y hummock. There is a channel on either side of the hummock. You want to take the one on the left and you want to go
slow and watch your depth finder. Using this channel you will end up shortly running along a channel that abuts Sunset
Beach Island. When you are almost to the Palm Cove peninsula, the channel will take a large left turn and run along
behind the Palm Cove peninsula at the eastern end of Sunset Beach. Pretty much stay in the center of this
channel. When the end of the wide beach at the east end of Sunset Beach arrives, you will make a sharp right turn into
the outlet in Tubbs Inlet. This will take you along the eastern end of Sunset Beach and the western end of Ocean
Isle. (The western end of Ocean Isle is all sandbagged.) Careful. As you reach the end of the outlet and the beginning of
the ocean proper, there is a really high spot. Beach walkers from Sunset and Ocean Isle routinely walk this ridge near low
tide to travel back and forth between Sunset and Ocean Isle.
Sunset Beach is small boat territory. No one has a big boat that they keep at their dock. If they have a big boat, they
keep it on a marina on the mainland.
Sue Weddle
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
910-393-9967
From: Todd Miller (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Stewart, Chris
Cc: 'Jan harris'; Anne Deaton; Michelle Duval; Bodnar, Gregg; Murphey, Trish; Sue & Owen Weddle
Subject: Re: Larkin Reply - Blare Creek dredging
Stewart and Anne,
CAMA rules ( http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Coastal
Manaeement/documents/PDF/CAMA/tl5a-07h.O20O.pdf: ) require that new navigation channels
must avoid shellfish beds along with designated PNAs. Has DMF conducted a survey of shellfish

along the proposed channel alignment yet, and if so, what densities of shellfish were found? Is the
standard for what constitutes a shellfish bed (of clams) still at least one clam per square meter
(based upon your samples taken with your hydraulic tongs)?
thanks. Todd:
(b) Specific Use Standards (1) Navigation channels, canals, and boat basins shall be aligned or
located so as to avoid primary nurseryareas, shellfish beds, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation as
defined by the 1v1FC, or areas of coastalwetlands except as otherwise allowed within this
Subchapter. Navigation channels, canals and boatbasins shall also comply with the follow.....
North Carolina
Coastal Federation
3. :x,i. ;. r�rrler f.:. uhtesnyCm:r
Todd Miller. Executive Director
[phone] (o)
[phone] (c)
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean),
Newport, NC 28570
Visit www,nccoast.org to join or learn more.
Get the latest coastal news at Coastal Review Online
On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Stewart, Chris <chris.stewart cgncdenr.Roy> wrote:
Jan,
The portion Jinks Creek that connects the IWW to Tubbs Inlet is not a PNA. Thus, if the project is working
within the constraints of the permit guidelines and moratorium dates, dredging is allowed. However,
without any knowledge of the full extent of the project, it's really hard to comment on if it would be
harmful to the adjacent PNAs. There are many factors that determine the impact of dredging, such as
time of year, depth, and width. Attached I've included the 2015 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, it
should provide you some insight on impacts of dredging. I would also suggest you contact Gregg Bodnar
at DCM (Gre6R.Bodnar(@ncdenr.goJ), he is Cc'd on this email. Please let me know if you have any
additional questions.
Thanks,
Chris Stewart
Biologist Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7370 (office)
910-350-2018 (fax)
[e-mail]
127 Cardinal Drive

Wilmington, NC 28405
<image001.png>
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:35 AM
To: Deaton, Anne <anne.deaton ncdenr.gov>; Duval, Michelle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Todd Miller <[e-mail]>; Stewart, Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Larkin Reply - Blane Creek dredging
Chris
Can you tell me if dredging Jinks Creek will be harmful to the adjacent PNA areas?
The plan is to make Jinks Creek navigable for larger boats to have access to the AI W W even at low tide. And the
beach quality sand will placed on the beach of a private gated community.
Thank you For any help in clarification on this.
Jan Harris
Sunset Beach
Sen( from nay Verizon 4G LTE Smariphone
------ Original message ------
From: Deaton, Anne
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2016 9:47 AM
To: [e-mail];Duval, Michelle;
Cc: Todd Miller,Stewart, Chr is;
Subject:RE: Larkin Reply - Blane Creek dredging
Jan, ,r ,
I looked at the regulatory description and our maps of PNA and it is correct that Jinks Creek
channel is not designated PNA. Designation was done in the 1970s based on juvenile fish
abundance and diversity, water depth, and sediment type. The center of many creeks are not
designated, especially those adjacent to inlets. Juveniles prefer the shallowest structured and
muddy bottom. Jinks Creek, being close to the inlet, probably has a sandy substrate, no
structure and strong currents. The staff that did the sampling and designation have retired, so I
can't say for sure, but that's probably why, based on the PNA criteria. Chris Stewart is the
biologist supervisor in the Wilmington office if you need any more information.
Anne
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:11 AM
To: Duval, Michelle <michelle.duval ricdekr.gov< a=""»; Deaton, Anne
</michelle duval@ncd%nr gov<><[e-mail]< a=""»</[e-mail]<>

Cc: Todd Miller <[e-mail]< a=""».</[e-mail]<>
Subject: Fw: Larkin Reply- Blame Creek dredging
Hi Michelle and Anne
Please see email below from one of Sunset Beach"s Councilmen.
Debra Wilson out of the DCM office in Wilmington has told the Town that the center of Jinks Creek is not in a
PNA.
How can that be when Jinks Creek has never, never been dredged and is a naturally occurring tidal creek?
< o: P>
There is a very small portion called Jinks Cre ek on the mainland side of the AIW W that was dredged without a
permit during the mid'60's. In the late 90's a permit to do maintenance dredging was denied twice because the area
was a PNA. -
Again, How is it possible for the Jinks Creek from the island to the AIWW have a center that is not PNA. And
again, this part of Jinks Creek has never been dredged.
We have a Council Meeting where the Town is going to take action to go forward with the permitting process and to
apply for grants to dredge this part of Jinks Creek.
I plan to speak to the issue,tonight and I need to have the correct information.
Can you help me?
r
Thanks so much for your good work for our coast.
Jan Harris
Sunset Beach
919 414 0037 c
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
------ Original message ------
From: Nina Marable
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2016 6:49 AM
To: Noelle Kehrberg;Janice Harris;
Cc:
Subject:Fwd: Larkin Reply - Blane Creek dredging
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: plarkin <plarkin(c>),sunsetbeachnc.Rov>
Dat e: Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Subject: Larkin Reply - Blane Creek dredging
To: Nina Marable <ninam20136minena gmail.com>
Cc: Linda Danieley <lindadanieley @gmail.com>
Hi Nina and Linda:
Thank you both very much for your input regarding the present dredging topic. Comments from
informed citizens is important in order for the Town to act in the best interests of our residents
and visitors, while acting responsibly regarding the environment.
The State of NC has initially determined that t he Jink's Creek proposed dredging alignment

footprint now outlined by our consultant (Moffatt and Nichol) at the east end of Sunset Beach
Island does not fall within the designated Primary Nursery Area (PNA). Also, per the recent
request of several residence of the west end of our island, we've requested a determination of the
feasibility of dr edging Blane's Creek and a cost estimate for a pre -dredging analysis from
Moffatt and Nichol as well. However, Blane's Creek appears to be problematic because it may
be within a PNA and previous dredging operations have not been identified.
Regards,
Pete.
Pete Larkin
Sunset Beach Town Council Member
700 Sunset Blvd., N.
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
email: [e-mail]
cell: 443-994-4242
Please note: pursuant to NC General Statutes, Chapter 1 32, this message and any attachments
that may be sent in response to it may be considered public records and therefore are subject to
public record requests for review and copying under the Public Records Law.
---- Original Message ----
From: "Nina Marable" <ninam20136 [e-mail]
Sent: 6/26/2016 4:31:48 PM
To: "plarkin" <plarkin nsunsetbeacluic.gov>
Cc: "Linda Danieley" <lindadanieleyggmail.com>
Subject: Re: blane creek dredging
Pete ... just so you know, I thought Linda should express her opinion, but I am absolutely
opposed to dredging this primary nursery area. If the stormwater issues were addressed, such as
the outfall at 30th street, Blane Creek would stop filling in.
Please don't use my name in any discussion during council meetings.
Thanks for your service to the Town.
On Sun, .Tun 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Linda Danieley <[e-mail]> wrote:
Nina tells me that the question of dredging Blane's creek is going to come up soon, and
suggested that I let you know my thoughts. My reason for bringing it up is that that area is
filling in, probably because of run-off from the island storm water drains, and if it does fill in,
then all the people who live along the creek will lose the access that they currently have to the
Intracoastal Waterway. It seems that, as long as the town is looking into the possibility of
dredging for the 'Fish streets and othez areas east of the causeway, that it also should look into
protecting waterway access for western residents. Such dredging might not be financially
feasible or environmentally desirable, but I think that it should at least be considered.
Linda Danieley

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Sue & Owen Weddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:47 PM n �u
To: Bodnar, Gregg KC
Subject: RE: Jinks Creek
I can show you exactly where Bob Stroud showed me the prime shellfish bed is located. It is off the I V Street
subdivision on the eastern end of the island shortly before it opens into the bay that runs behind the peninsula that
extends from the east end. With a map I can point to it. I don't know what a GPS is, and I have never used Google
Earth@ Sorry. I'll hunt for a Sunset Beach Island map and put an x on the spot.
Sue
From: Bodnar, Gregg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:05 AM
To: Sue & Owen Weddle
Subject: RE: Jinks Creek
Good morning Mrs. Weddle,
Sorry I haven't been able to get to your message until now. I have been on leave over the holiday week. Thank
you for your interest in our state's resources and this project in particular. In my review of Jinks Creek it looks as though
the rule wording does exclude Jinks Creek from PNA status. It seems that this is a peculiar situation because the creek
directly connects the inlet to the AIWW. I am in the process of gathering additional information on the area and how it
fits into any nursery functions. If you are able to provide further information on the location of the oyster beds (GPS
numbers or a Google Earth picture), it would be appreciated. The biological data and local knowledge such as yours
should produce a clearer picture of the creek's function and better aid the regulatory agencies in making the best
decisions.
I appreciate your input and I'll make sure your comments are noted,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. [e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City,, NC 28557
t� r' 7 `r�th4r g CtsznareS , �.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Sue & Owen Weddle [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:02 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jinks Creek
Mr. Bodnar,
In my 27 years on Sunset Beach Island (with a shallow draft boat), I've always been told Jinks Creek was a PNA. In fact,
Bob Stroud, former Supervisor of the DCM Wilmington Office showed me a map in the Wilmington office and pointed to
where a very significant shellfish bed lay. This area was the last to close to shellfishing in the waters around Sunset
Beach. I can show you exactly where it is — in person or on a map.' So when did this stop being a PNA and how come
none of us knew about it?
This whole area between Sunset Beach and Ocean Isle is a tidal marsh with channels running through it. Channels that
have never been dredged, and you have to know your way to get from the Intracoastal out through Tubbbs Inlet. I'll send
you an email I sent yesterday describing how to navigate these channels.
Sue Weddle
706 North Shore Drive
Sunset Beach, NC 28468

AMI North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDENR SCOPING MEETING REQUEST
Please complete all the information below. Call and Email the appropriate coordinator with the completed form.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698, alison.davidson(a)ncdenr,eov
• Mooresville or Winston-Salem Regions —Marcia Allocco 704-135-2107, marcla.allocco(a),ncdenr.rov
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Regions -David Lee 919-791-4103, david.lee(&,ncdenr, eov
• Washington Region - Lyn Hardison 252-948-3842, lvn.hardison(a)ncdenneov
• Wilmington Region - Cameron Weaver 910-796-7303, cameron.weavernancdennrov
Project Name: Town of Sunset Beach 2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis County: Brunswick
Applicant: Susan Parker Company: Town of Sunset Beach
Address: 700 Sunset Blvd. N. City: Sunset Beach State: NC Zip: 28468
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: silarker(a),atmc.net
Physical Location of Project: Town of Sunset Beach
Engineer/Consultant: Robert Neal, P.E. Company: Moffatt Nichol
Address: 1616 East Millbrook Road, Ste. 160 City: Raleigh State: NC Zip: 27609
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: meal moffattnichol.com
Please provide a DETAILED nroiect narrative, pdf site plan and a vicinity man with road names along with this Request form.
The project narrative should include the following when available:
Existing Conditions- List of existing permits, previous project name(s) or owner name(s), existing compliance or pollution
incidents, current conditions or development on site, size of tract, streams or wetlands on site*, stream name and classification,
historical significance of property, seasonal high water table elevation, riparian buffers, areas of environmental concern,
setbacks
Proposed- Full scope of project with development phase plan, acreage to be disturbed, wetlands to be disturbed, waste
treatment & water supply proposed, soils report availability, % impervious surface, stormwater treatment and number of bmps,
public or private funding.
*Relative To Wetlands — Federal and coastal wetlands must be delineated by a US Army Corps Regulatory Official, Coastal
Management Field Rep or a qualified environmental consultant prior to undertaking work such as filling, excavating or land
clearing. The delineations must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) andlor the Division of Coastal
Management. Wetland delineations are valid for a period not to exceed five years from date of USACE approval.
Please provide estimated investment & expected employment numbers: S.
Jobs
For the scoping meeting, it is best to provide a list of questions and topics of concern. It is helpful to know what you
hope to gain from the meeting. Please have thoughts and presentations organized as much as possible to make the best
use of time.
Agencies Involved: Check all agencies that may be involved with project:
® Marine Fisheries ® National Marine Fisheries ® U.S. Fish & Wildlife ® NC Wildlife Resources
® Coastal Management ® Land Resources (❑ Stormwater ®Erosion Control) ® U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
❑ Shellfish Sanitation ®Water Resources: Q 401/buffer ® NPDES ❑ Non -discharge) ❑ Public Water Supply
❑ Air Quality ❑ Solid Waste ❑ UST ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ Other _ ❑ Other
NCDENR Scoping Meeting
February 2015

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
Project Description
The Town of Sunset Beach intends to maintenance dredge approximately 2.8 miles of canals and
feeder channels to support recreational navigation and tidal flushing. The work area includes
Jinks Creek, which connects Tubbs Inlet with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW)
along with Mary's Creek and Turtle Creek. The work area also includes the feeder canal adjacent
to North Shore Drive and Canal Drive along with the connecting finger canals adjacent to
Marlin, Sailfish, Dolphin and Cobia streets. Sediment shoaling induced from storm water run-off
and tidal currents threaten continued navigation within these passageways and water quality
conditions.
The proposed project would significantly improve access through the referenced waterways and
establish a long-term template for maintaining the navigation depths. The project would also
assist in managing the construction of future piers or docks by establishing a fixed deep water
path through the canal. Once obtained, the proposed state and federal permit authorizations
would provide a long standing record of the channel dimensions and alignment. The sediment
removal may also improve tidal flushing and help improve nursery habitats within the tributary
systems.
The project includes the following work areas and should result in a disturbance of no greater
than approximately 12.6 acres. (Attachment A shows the referenced work areas.)
■ Site 1: Canal Street Feeder Canals (3.1 ac.)
North Shore Drive Feeder Canal (1.9 ac.)
Finger canals adjacent to Marlin, Sailfish, Dolphin, and Cobia streets (1.5 ac)
■ Site 2: Mary's Creek (0.5 ac.)
■ Site 3: Turtle Creek (0.5 ac.)
■ Site 4: Jinks Creek (5.1 ac.)
The Town proposes to place the dredged material in an approved upland facility which most
likely will be a USACE dredge material disposal island. Beach compatible material dredged
from the southern portion of Jinks Creek may be placed on Sunset Beach or the west end of
Ocean Isle as a beneficial use for shoreline protection.
Mary's Creek and Turtle Creek are designated Primary Nursery Area's (PNA); however, DCM
permit 22-02 allowed maintenance dredging in both creeks. The permits expired in 2005 but the
permits allowed excavation to a maximum depth ranging from -6 MLLW to -4 MLLW
throughout each creek. No other portion of the work area lies within a designated PNA.
Attachment B shows the designated fishery nursery areas adjacent to the project as noted by the
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF).

Attachment A
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Proposed Work Areas

• •1! Poo�i'1•t"'' .r '� wz tyrs l:fc. t1
it
j J t ,5 �i 13' t' ca $� *•
� � �R � '!1 �.: 1�_ `t 'awl s , . +,i�• IY' �' ' .'�•4"�, "!�,w}I%4�' 11 �,�' • _-
4
�=. t " • �411/jr 42-" I t a�y� _ 'yal' ".tr Pt•
• IY.r•. ,1 tJ 4o'
T W42-`-►4- �' f \'t'' •
�{g•µ'P,ii'�*'t�R•�5.r ��. M' .,, •T' +aj►(.i`�r,� iµ�! 4. t r" V• t r.�dllj', T'n"':
t h+'1 l PYry �.2, t -` AI: ���I�:����� Ji Ate, t'7•r �,' //•W"`. r.t' .�
• y}_f. .. "'1••�'� ►: 11 �T 1ty♦.'i it ..�'.`'•.
t J r,.,,, ,_�_ ,S ���.�. ...E�'n!'�^fyF �I`IA., r '>i+•,:,
► d e Ntr:
�y� •� t • w�A �hr
' • � � • • ' � Y 1/^v�i' I 1 MI
19' tt L_ - • �� 1-'
Ilk
rr..
Feet
i � � � � _�� • 'mot
550 1,100 1,650 2,200
Town of Sunset Beach a £
,LZ
Planning and Inspections Department `5
ocntMer'mspa % ■ R•bt mire
nnel
NS� BF^A wra of tMc ma aw ner �mlaleP eolne abemeno- real pnee �M�na•tnn of 4rtalPem.sleemmplW vorn remaao aeas,palc am aver p�otc moms am mu
D / P Winary no ttblln�'lna mPlf ft ineml6uiMbrveonins U►E Momnem mntanmmne Mp
TI! IOWn of S�nfiet 68am ]SS.IIIffi no !�1lLpOn6•Ilf/ bl•It Y®(r10mn mnOneP m ale f10P

A
'A.2 v
M{
we
,46
1
.t,Yl -!r Mfg �^� 1 ✓� i
Feet
0 150 300 600 900 1200
Town of Sunset Beach aE
Planning and Inspections Department s
t`
iS:- LA ususarr7Wr Nlap Mievy W"mimina>ty atreelpropeiy bNlmWlrnn\4nmNam.a�a\mmplW aam remgaNman a" Wanevanmiamea Mms"a
�T RuebtUlw eNapal nrep)roYbl 1pine ablmen\romp�CC grtnay ntarnaaonaowmea vragoe oDflwllN brverttlmm mt lW NImR10lNN mnuntl mn{mep.
TI! imWflmi$I!R!I Etltll aWWll!{ nm !QI lSpJr$gN[I bf ne Y2 mgam mnOglN M n\flop.

5N
n
Feet
0 65 130 260 390 520
Town of Sunset Beach Re
Planning and Inspections Department s
censor niapasneraynoww imenmrymentinepenTmoftaq m6ysamonaaemmpleaoTeoneaxeost"woanwokremmaansmp
Vi[IeaT aNaTapaR nermT mMb1he lm6otsunfietS Sam
ftno"I aBJnea:aaetr" vmMoonleatinso me L Cf lC lMdRniaM 00nOaleOmmarlop.
TI! 1aWnOT91n4i Btlm aSEtI1126 no !�1lfpJ/bgllf/ blaY rrorreaon mllONm an 11 a Tap

016n,. �()�
V
Town of Sunset Beach Rf
Planning and Inspections Department s
/,... .- '.1fiClio," Mapa ! 1pa RC A(Nl nvn pfCptltJ y pOq riOT RlDDM 01l0l,pR!]M Olaf piOIC MODlOa]tl0itl.
D D my orre]i n�npRen n! nami R+plom
c� U[nsMnlm]DaR neteD/roIMOlOtne aDeHlntpnmasunano nbi*6pD ourj Iraq oe0owcon mrtOYn Of 1111ttlT]mn mltlnlOmnsi'Ilp.
TIl TOMr Or9u1KllDtltn ]]Yl11li r0 !QI laDOr6DIH/ tr ax FIOIr! Wll 0�'ItlnlO M Pamp.

Town of Sunset Beach
;s
Planning and Inspections Department s°
Ommaaner Thmmap mmvj manes mime
al nayrtoKam.a+acaomaea irmi remaeo Not,am
am mnapiDwww ma on
p
R uacanmmapam neraq roeileoemrneaTSUWIneapaao "MOnlmmamnamurara anwumemcnwlam Urnw W me mi �e Mummaon conwea an ma rmp.
111l1aWn 0r9u/rtll Baapi aa6lafla na mgll mipaMbllf} Urn rimmmtan CVIOIIea M a16 rmp.

Attachment B
Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
Fishery Nursery Areas

This map was produced by the Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
program. Informational data used to create this map were collected from
federal, state, county, and private organizations. This map is a general
guide to assist the public and is for illustrative purposes only. While every
effort is made to keep this map accurate and up-to-date, it is not intended
to replace any official source. Under no circumstances shall the State of
North Carolina be liable for any actions taken or omissions made from l
reliance on any information contained herein from whatever source nor -
shall the State be liable for any other consequences from any such reliance. ^ Y"
A/ - py
i l Shallotte River i� I ri. c�
i-
I �
- _ .0103 2, e
•s
\� -J —
cr.I�^ t .ram Shallotte Creek
(Little Shallotte
River) -
S8Ul18Pen Creek 7' .0103 21 c
Y..0103 z, d
a 1 raL r -✓`—. 1
Calabash River Gause Landing Area ( a
Shallotte River
.010b i2 (Ot�n Flats)
Saucepan
Creek
ME
o
Eastern
.0103 22 c II Little Teague- N G
.0103 22 d
Mad Inlet Area
I.0103 22 c III 81g Norge Creek
\ J Project Area 1la i 119
117
I
Background imagery are U.S. Geological Fishery Nursery Areas
Survey ,:,00,000-sceepanimebicmaps. r-1Prmary Fishery Nursery Areas
Q Permanent Secondary
® Special Secondary
® Military Danger
Zones and
locatw—P
Restricted Areas
Ell lndard xra(wac)Uroalaoel Map 28
y
Map Datum:
NAD83,
+�T s
Map Projection: NC Stale Plana
Map Data:
March 2011
1000
0 1000
2000 yards
0.7
lN�o
0 0.7
1.A Miles

may`_ '+�lr..► .-ONO
t'
Y
,/11
moffatt & nichol

Meeting Objective
Discuss & Develop the Most Efficient and
Acceptable Path Forward for Permitting the
Proposed Maintenance Dredging for the Town
of Sunset Beach.

e. •%ram ��.'. `,. '
■
Establish Goals for Proposed Project
■
Define Project Area
■
Review Previous Efforts / Permits
■
Explain Design Considerations, Disposal Locations
&
-'
Volume Estimate (Conceptual)
■
Review Environmental Considerations
L
_ s _
IMAR
i f

PEW-
t� '� . Need
- _ r
Maintenance
ose
Primary Goal:
■ Provide Long-term Management Template For
Maintaining Navigation Access Throughout Town
of Sunset Beach (Approx. 3.5 Miles).
■ Document a Pier Head Alignment for Future
Upland Development.
Secondary Goal:
■ Improve Tidal Flushing & Nursery Habitats by
Removing Shoaling Sediment Within Project Area.
■ Provide Beneficial Use Material Where Available
for Use on Ocean Isle Beach.

Mary's Creek
(t 1,100 ft)
Turtle Creek
(t 1,100 ft)
Canal Street
Feeder Canal
(f 3,500 ft)
Finger Canals A, B, C, & D
(t 900 ft ea. — 3,600 ft total)
Jinks Creek
(f 6,800 ft)
Previously Permitted Area
Initial Maintenance Event
,/
North Shore !�
Drive Feeder
Canal
(t 2,100 ft)
a�
0 500 1,0001,5002,000
Feet
Z

Design Considerations
■ Follow Deep Water Conduits Where Feasible to Reduce Dredge
Quantities & Potential Impacts.
■ Maintain Adequate Width for Vessel Clearance - Minimum of Twice
the Expected Beam Width for # of Vessels (Where Conditions Allow).
■ Allow Sufficient Depth for Vessel Navigation Where Available
■ -7 MLW Where Space Allows - o���
■ -5 MLW When Space Limited.
■ Provide Appropriate Side Slopes to Prevent Sloughing (Typ. 3HAV).
■ Maintain Minimum Construction Clearance of 5 Ft from any Pier,
Dock, Piling, or Bulkhead.
■ Maintain Consistency with Previous Permits (CAMA 22-02 & 45-02)
■ Anticipated Dredge Volume — 150,000 to 250,000 CY.

(~ SUNSFT RFACH
\
'� Mr
if
4
8
„l i`•
r �
' if .f yi .�•
��...
AnticipateMary's Creek
- I • 'ems i "7� N� t 4 6
Dredge Volume: 9,000
CY
i
Project
4d
„N maftaft d nlchal

Cimceptual
Project
Canal Street Feeder Canal
Anticipate Depth: -7 — -5 MLW
Dredge Volume: t 31,000 CY
North Shore Drive Feeder Canal
Anticipate Depth: -7 — -5 MLW
Dredge Volume: t 27,000 CY
Finger Canals A. B. C. & D
Anticipate Depth: -5 MLW
Drcdsc Volume: t 8,000 CY
TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
EXISTING CONDITIONS
NORTH SHORE DRIVE,
ENTRANCE AND
A. B, C, & D CANALS
1

b-et--w

Conceptual Volume Estimate
Site
Depth (MLW)
Volume (CY)
Mary's Creek
-7 tapering to -5
f %000
Turtle Creek
-7 tapering to -5
f 12,000
Canal St. Feeder
-7 tapering to -5
± 31,000
Finger Canals
- 5
f 8,000
(A, B, C, & C)
North Shore Drive
-7 tapering to -5
271000
Feeder Canal
Jinks Creek
-7 /
f 1501000
Total
2371000 CY

SFT WFACH
al Project
USmottalt & nlchal

ao cltt�; t'�;;,Cc't ,, Review

,1 )

\ )
tJ �� 1) l 1
Thank you!
Questions and Comments

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management and Pre -Dredge Analysis
March 24 Agency Coordination Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Susan Parker Town of Sunset Beach Ken Riley NOAA-NMF
Dustin Graham Town of Sunset Beach Fritz Rohde NOAA-NMF
Cameron Weaver
NCDEQ-DEACS
Tyler Crumbley
USACE
Debbie Wilson
NCDEQ-DCM
Gregg Bodnar
NCDEQ-Fisheries
Kathy Matthews
USFWS
Sean Farrell
NCDEQ-DCM
Chad Coburn
NCDEQ-DWR-401
Jerry McCrain
Moffatt & Nichol
Maria Dunn
NCDEQ-NCWRC
Robert Neal
Moffatt & Nichol
Acronyms:
AIWW —Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
BA — Biological Assessment
BO — Biological Opinion
CAMA — Coastal Area Management Act
DMS —NC Division of Marine Services
EFH - Essential Fish Habitat (Assessment)
ESA — Endangered Species Act
MLW — Mean Low Water
NMFS —National Marine Fisheries Service
PNA — Primary Nursery Area
USACE — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
USFWS —U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The meeting objective was established to develop the most efficient and acceptable path forward for
permitting the approximate 3.5 miles of initial and maintenance dredging in the Town of Sunset
Beach. The proposed work includes the following areas & approximate lengths:
• Mary's Creek (1,100 ft)
• Turtle Creek (1,100 ft)
• Canal Street Feeder Cana (3,500 ft)
• Finger Canals A, B, C, &D (900 ft ea,
3,600 ft. total)
■ North Shore Drive Feeder Canal (2,100 ft)
• Jinks Creek (6,800 ft)
This will be a joint CAMA-USACE permitting process. CAMA will take the lead.
Mary's Creek, Turtle Creek, and the Canal Street Feeder System including Finger Canals A. B, C,
&D
The permitting of Mary's Creek, Turtle Creek, the Canal Street Feeder, and the finger canals were discussed
first with recommendations to replicate the design of the original 2002 permits. Any work outside the
approved channel limits or deeper than what was allowed in the original permits would be considered "New
Work" and would require full evaluation for potential impacts to threatened and endangered species as well
as nursery areas for fisheries. If the Oesign maintains the same `footprint' the environmental review will
have to consider threatened and endangered species within a focus on potential impacts to sturgeons.
(Sturgeons were not a listed species during the 2002 review process.) However, an updaired Biological
Assessment may be required. The review process will entail formal consultation and may be completed in
as early as 135 days from submittal of a complete permit application.
An oyster survey will be required in Mary's and Turtle Creek, (similar to the 2002 project) and any
identified habitats may require relocation to a similar type system (closed canal) prior to construction or
other forms of mitigation. (A lease area may be used with special restrictions.) Ann Deaton was suggested
as the contact for Oyster Relay.

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
March 24 Agency Coordination Meeting Notes Page 2 of 3
Jinks Creek & North Shore Drive
The agencies expressed significant concern over the proposed dredge depths (-7 MLW) and will most likely
require some type of justification for any proposed depth. At a minimum, the proposed depths should be no
deeper than the receiving waters. (For Jinks Creek this includes Tubbs Inlet.) In addition, any change in the
water velocities was noted as a concern for scour potential and impacts on larval transport.
USACE stated they would request some type of hydraulic modeling or confirmation to help verify dredging
in Jinks Creek would not create impacts to the AIWW. The modeling would need to show how current
velocities or material shoaling changes with the proposed work. USACE recommended analyzing how the
new current velocities'impact the `S' curve in Jinks creek as well, to help ensure the historic alignment is
maintained. USACE also recommended investigating how Tubbs Inlet would adjust with any dredging in
Jinks Creek with a morphologic model.
The requirement to investigate potential impacts to the AIWW would come during a Section 408 review
by USACE Civil Works. The 408 consultation could extend the permitting process by 1 year.
Jinks Creek performs as a functioning PNA and the permitting process will need to thoroughly vet any
potential impacts that may occur. This includes the dredge depth and potential sloughing of the channel
banks. (The area outside or adjacent to the channel banks is designated as PNA, so any material sloughing
from the bank would be considered an impact to a PNA.) Appropriate side slopes with a 10 It offset was
discussed as a possible solution to prevent sloughing.
Jinks Creek and the North Shore Drive Canal will require an EFH assessment as both are new dredging
projects. An updated EFH will possibly be required for all dredging activities.
Comprehensive Comments
A major CAMA permit may be issued for all dredge sites, groups of sites, or for each individual site. Some
scheduling benefit may be available to the areas covered under, the 2002 permits (Mary's Creek, Turtle
Creek, and Canal Drive Feeder), however the benefit is difficult to define and may be negligible.
Coordination for the use of any USACE disposal island should go through Justin Arnett (Navigation) and
John Manning (Real Estate).
The use of spoil material for marsh restoration (Habitat Enhancement) efforts can be considered however,
the authorization process was unclear and believed to be arduous. The effort may require additional
monitoring requirements 'including publishing papers or research and university involvement. The
enhancement benefit would have to be described for a specific area, and this may be difficult to define near
Bird Island. DMS may be contacted through Kristin Mage (sp?). Camp Lejeune is currently conducting a
small scale marsh restoration with a thin layer of sediment, so some insight may be available from this
project. A contact was not provided.
A clarification was added'to note the secondary systems trending off from Jinks Creek located between
Canal Drive and the AMV are PNA's, which was contrary to the state supplied maps.
Concerns were also expressed for potential impacts created by the dredge pipeline since a hydraulic dredge
is anticipated for the work. The pipeline carrying sediment to the disposal or placement area must be placed
along an approved corridor and kept off the bottom of the creeks / systems.
The standard Manatee guidelines will need to be enforced during the construction process. (This requires
all vessels involved in the work to operate at slow speed minimum wake in shallow areas. Vessels must
also cease work when a manatee is spotted within a defined buffer around the work area.)

Town of Sunset Beach
2016 Shoreline Management & Pre -Dredge Analysis
March 24 Agency Coordination Meeting Notes Page 3 of 3
Any beneficial use material placement along the beach will probably require formal consultation with
USFWS unless the statewide programmatic BO has been issued and covers the proposed action.
Follow -Up Responses and Clarifications
Through email correspondence following the coordination meeting the USACE expressed confidence the
project could be processed under a GP 291, or Programmatic General Permit, with potential renewal every
5 years. (The CAMA major permit is issued for 3 years and can be renewed with a 5 year option for
maintenance assuming no changes or additions to the project, listed species, critical habitat designations,
or potential resource impacts occur.) The USACE also expressed the project would most likely require at a
minimum, a BA for ESA Section 7 assessment, and EFH Assessment under the Magnuson Stevens Act and
some type of Cultural Resources review under Section 106 (Clean Water Act). The GP 291 expires at the
end of 2016; however renewal of this permit is anticipated. The anticipated permit submittal for Sunset
Beach activities is not anticipated until after the December 31, 2016 renewal of GP 291.

Bodnar,
From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:39 AM
To: Daniels, Mark
Subject: RE: Plane trip request
Here are the days and low tides that would get me the best information. There aren't many days in October that work.
Mend 4prri—�
�uacriay�IplLamhas 1 Soh 1S�nm
Monday December 1211 5' 11:49am
Tuesday December 13`h /° 12:44pm
Wednesday December 14"'?,0 1:38pm
These dates work, but the times aren't great to be in Brunswick Co.
Monday October 17`h 3:08pm
Wednesday November 16th 2:46pm
Thursday December 15`h 2:30pm
These dates are far enough in advance with some days back to back that we should be able to get one in. Let me know
what days may work best for you based on flight times and where I. would meet you.
Thanks for the help,
Gregg
From: Daniels, Mark
Seht:'Monday, September 26, 2016 7:19 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plane trip request
Send me the dates and just call me a day or two ahead of time. Maybe check the weather before you call. Thanks MD
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]> wrote:
Morning Mark,
I am hoping to get a look at Jinks Creek in Brunswick County at low tide. The creek is between
the AIWW and Tubbs Inlet. I.am in the process of getting some days in October that would work, tide
wise, but wanted to get up with you first to see your availablility.
Thanks for the help,
Gregg
t

. - Ib
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
pmontrealtvno aol.com

Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 213 office
Gregg. Bodnar(c7,ncdenr.goy
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
<image003.png>
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Source.NOAA/NOS/CO-OPS
Station Type: Subordinate
-- Time Zone:LST/LDT
Datum: mean lower low water (MLLW) which is the chart datum of soundings
Tubbs Inlet„ 2017
Times and Heights of High and Low Waters
January
February
March
Time Height
Time
Height
Time Height
Time
Height
Time
Height
Time
Height
h m It
cm
h m
It
cm
h m it
cm
h m
It
cm
h m
R
cm
h m
e
cm
1 12 13 AM -1.2
-37
16 04:14 AM
-0.5
-15
1 04:27 AM -0.3
-9
16 05:14 AM
0.2
6
1 03:26 AM
-0.7
-21
16 05:01 AM
0.0
0
M 0926 AM 4.8
146
M 10 27 AM
4.7
143
W 1038 AM 4.6
140
Th 11:25 AM
3.9
119
W 09:29 AM
4.9
149
Th 11:02 AM
05:13 PM
4.2
0.2
128
6
03:52 PM .0.1
09:36 PM 4.0
-3
122
04:50 PM
11 05 PM
-0.3
4.2
-9
128
04<53 PM -0.5
10.59 PM 4.4
.15
134
05:32 PM
0.3
9
03:45 PM
09:46 PM
-0.8
5.0
-24
152
11:33 PM
4.4
134
2 03:56 AM 0.0
0
17 05 01 AM
-0.1
-3
2 05,18 AM .0.1
3
17 12:05 AM
4.0
122
2 04:14 AM
•0.5
•15
17 05:41 AM
0.2
6
10 11 AM 4.7
143
tifF4 RdrY�•.4ea
11:33 AM=- 44-
410
06:00 AM
F
0.5
15
10 20 AM
Th
4.7
143
11:45 AM
F
3.9
119
M 04:33 PM -0.1
1
Tu 05:35 PM
0.0
0
Th 05.42 PM -0.5
-15
12:13 PM
3.7
113
04:31 PM
-0.7
-21
05:50 PM
0.4
12
10 26 PM 4.0
122
11 S9 PM
4.1
125
11 58 PM 4.4
134
06:16 PM
0.5
15
10:40 PM
4.9
149
3 04:42 AM 0.1
3
18 05:51 AM
0.2
6
3 06 16 AM 0.0
0
18 12:55 AM
3.9
119
3 05 06 AM
.0.3
-9
18 12:18 AM
4.2
128
11:00 AM 4.5
To
137
W
�
F 12:31
06:51 AM
Sa
0.7
21
11:16 AM
F
4.5
137
06:23 AM
Sa 12:31 PM
0.5
3.7
15
113
05:17 PM -0.1
11:21 PM 4.0
-3
122
06:21 PM
0.2
6
06.36 PM .0.4
.12
01:03 PM
O 07:06 PM
3.5
0.7
107
21
05:21 PM
11:39 PM
-0.5
4.8
•15
146
06:31 PM
0.7
21
4 05 32 AM 0.2
6
19 12:52 AM
4.0
122
4 12:59 AM 4.5
137
19 01:46 AM
3.9
119
4 06:04 AM
-0.1
-3
19 01:07 AM
4.1
125
W
44 AM
Th
0.5
07:23 AM 0.2
Sa PM 4.1
6
125
07:50 AM
Su 01:53 PM
0.8
3.4
24
104
12:17 PM
Sa 06:17 PM
4.3
131
07:10 AM
Su 01:21 PM
0.7
3.5
21
107
0060:006OPMM �O06
.1
.3
1' M
O 07:10 PM
0.4
12
01:32
O 07:39 PM -0.3
-9
08:05 PM
0.7
21
-0.3
-9
07:18 PM
0.8
24
5 12,20 AM 4.2
128
20 01 43 AM
39
119
5 02:01 AM 4.6
140
20 02:36 AM
3.9
119
5 12:42 AM
4.8
146
20 01:58 AM
4.0
122
06.31 AM 0.3
Th
9
07:42 AM
F
0.7
21
08:38 AM 0.2
Su
6
08:53 AM
M
0.9
27
07:11 AM
Su
0.2
6
08:03 AM
M
0.9
27
agoo�
O 07:02 PM -0.2
-6
0&47-PM
08:05 PM
3,6
0.5
9*
15
02:35 PM 4.1
08:47 PM -0.4
125
-12
02:45 PM
09:07 PM
3.4
0.6
104
16
01:20 PM
O 07:21 PM
4.1
-0.1
125
-3
02:12 PM
O 08:14 PM
3.5
0.9
107
27
6 01 20 AM 4.4
134
21 02:33 AM
3.9
119
6 03:05 AM 4.8
146
21 03:29 AM
4.0
122
6 01:46 AM
4.7
143
21 02:50 AM
4.0
122
07:40 AM 0.3
9
08:43 AM
0.8
24
09:50 AM 0.0
0
09:51 AM
0.7
21
08:26 AM
M
0.3
9
09:03 AM
To
1.0
30
F
Sa 02:37 PM
3.5
107
M 03:38 PM 4.1
125
To 03:38 PM
3.5
107
02:24 PM
4.1
125
03:04 PM
3.5
107
08:03 PM -0.3
-9
09:00 PM
0.5
15
09:53 PM -0.5
-15
10:04 PM
0.5
15
08:33 PM
-0.1
•3
09:19 PM
0.9
27
7 02:20 AM 4.6
140
22.03:22 AM
4.0
122
7 04:08 AM 4.9
149
22 04:20 AM
4.2
128
7 02:51 AM
4.7
143
22 03:43 AM
4.1
125
08'53 AM 0.2
6
09:41 AM
0.7
21
10i53 AM .0.2
To
-6
10:43 AM
W
0.5
15
To 09:38 AM
0.2
6
W, 10:05 AM
0.9
27
Sa 02:50 PM 4.3
131
Su 03:28 PM
3.5
107
04:41 PM 4.2
128
04:30 PM
,3.6
110
03:28 PM
4.2
128
03:58 PM
3.6
110
09:06 PM -0.5
-15
09:53 PM
0.4
12
10:54 PM. -0.8
-24
10:55 PM
0.2
6
. 09:42 PM
-0.2
-0
10:23 PM
0.7.-
21
8 03:21 AM 4.9
149
23 04:12 AM
4.1
125
6 05:10 AM 5.1
155
23 05:10 AM
4.4
134
6 03:55 AM
4.8
146
23 04:37 AM
4.2
128
10:02 AM 0.0
0
10:33 AM
0.5
15
11.50 AM -0.4
W
-12
11 -30 AM
Th
0.2
6
10:41 AM
0.0
0
11:00 AM
Th
0.6
18
Su 03:52 PM 4.3
131
M 04:19 PM
3.5
107
05:40 PM. 4.4
134
05:19 PM
3.9
119
W 04:30 PM
4.3
131
04:52 PM
3.8 .
116
1008 PM -0.7
-21
10:41 PM
0.2
6
11:50 PM .1.0
-30
11:42 PM
-0.1
-3
10:45 PM
-0.4
-12
11:20 PM
0.5
15
9 04:23 AM 5.2
158
24 05:00 AM
4.3
131
9 06:06 AM 5.2
158
24 05:55 AM
4.7
143
9 04:56 AM
4.9
149
24 05:29 AM
4.4
134
11:04 AM -0.3
-9
1120 AM
Tu
0.3
9
12:41 PM -0.6
Th
-18
12:13 PM
F
-0.1
-3
1135 AM
Th
-0.2
-6
1150 AM
F
0.3
9
M 04:53 PM 4.4
134
05:07 PM
3.6
110
06:34 PM 4.6
140
06:04 PM
4.2
128
05:28 PM
4.5
137
0544 PM
4.2
128
11 06 PM .1.0
-30
11:26 PM
0.0
0
11:40 PM
-0.6
-18
-
10 05:22 AM 5.4
165
25 05:45 AM
4.5
137
10 12:43 AM -1.1
-34
25 12:26 AM
-0.4
-12
10 05:51 AM
5.0
152
25 12:11 AM
0.1
3
1201 PM -0.6
.18
12:04 PM
0.1
3
06:57 AM 5.3
162
06:37 AM
4.9
149
12:23 PM
F
-0.3
- -9
06:18 AM
Sa
4.7
143
To 05:51 PM 4.6
140
W 05:52 PM
3.8
116
F 0128 PM -0.7
-21
Sa 12:55 PM
-0.3
-9
06:20 PM
4.7
143
12:36 PM
0.0
0
07:23 PM 4.7
143
06:47 PM
4.4
134
06:33 PM
4.5
137
11 1201 AM -1.2
-37
26 12:09 AM
-0.2
-6
11 01:33 AM -1.1
-34
26 01:11 AM
-0.6
-18
11 12:31 AM
.0.7
.21
26 01:00 AM
-0.2
-6
06 18 AM 5.6
171
06 27 AM
4.7
143
07:44 AM 5.3
162
07:18 AM
5.0
152
06 40 AM
5.0
152
07:05 AM
4.9
149
W 12:55 PM -0.8
-24
Th 12:46 PM
-0.1
-3
Sa 02:13 PM -0.7
-21
Su 01:37 PM
-0.8
-18
Sa 01:06 PM
-0.4
-12
Su 01:21 PM
-0.4
-12
06:46 PM 4.7
143
06:34 PM
3.9
119
O 08:10 PM 4.8
146
0 07:29 PM
4.7
143
, 07:06 PM
4.9
149
07:20 PM
4.9
149
12 12:55 AM -1.3
-40
27 12:51 AM
-0.4
.12
12 02:20 AM .1.0
-30
27 01:55 AM
-0.7
-21
12 01:17 AM
•0.7
-21
27 01:47 AM
-0.5
-15
07 10 AM 5.7
174
07:06 AM
4.8
146
08:28 AM 5.1
155
07:59 AM
5.1
155
08:23 AM
5.0
152
07:50 AM
5.1
155
Th 01:46 PM -0.9
-27
F 01:26 PM
-0.3
-9
Su 02:55 PM •0.6
-18
M 02:18 PM
-0.7
-21
$u 02:47 PM
-0.5
-15
M 02:05 PM
-0.7
-21
0 07:38 PM 4.8
146
07:13 PM
4.1
125
08:56 PM 4.7
143
08:12 PM
4.9
149
O 08:49 PM
4.9
149
08:05 PM
5.3
162
13 01:47 AM A.3
-40
28 01:33 AM
-0.5
-15
13 03:05 AM -0.8
-24
28 02:39 AM
-0.7
-21
13 03:01 AM
-0.7
-21
28 02:34 AM
-0.7
-21
08:00 AM 5.6
F
171
07:44 AM
Sa
4.9
149
09:11 AM 4.8
M
146
08:42 AM
Tu
5.1
155
09:04 AM
M
4.9
149
08:35 AM
To
5.2
158
02:34 PM .0.9
08:29 PM 43
.27
143
02:06 PM
0 07:52 PM
.0.4
4.2
-12
128
03:35 PM -0,5
09:41 PM 4.5
-15
137
03:01 PM
08:57 PM
-0.8
5.0
-24
152
03:25 PM
09:30 PM
-0.4
4.9
-12
149
02:60 PM
0 08:60 PM
-0.9
5.6
-27
168
14 02:37 AM .1.1
.34
29 02:14 AM
-0.5
-15
14 03:48 AM -0.5
-15
14 03:42 AM
-0.5
-15
29 03:22 AM
-0.8
.24
08:49 AM 5A
165
08:23 AM
4.9
149
09:54 AM 4.5
137
09:43 AM
To
4.7
143
09:21 AM
W
6.2
158
Sa 03:21 PM -0.7
-21
Su 02:46 PM
-0.5
-15
Tu 04:13 PM -0.2
-6
04:01 PM
4.2
-6
03:35 PM
-0.9
-27
09:19 PM 4.6
140
08:33 PM
4.3
131
10:28 PM 4.3
131
10:10 PM
4.8
146
09:37 PM
5.6
171
15 03:26 AM -0.9
-27
30 02:57 AM
-0.5
•15
15 04:30 AM -0.2
-6 ,
15 04:22 AM
.0.3
-9
30 04:11 AM
-0.8
-24
09:38 AM 5.1
155
09:04 AM
4.9
149
10:39 AM 4.2
128
10:22 AM
4.4
134
10:10 AM
5.0
152
Su 04:06 PM .0.5
.15
M 03:27 PM
•0.5
•15
W 04:52 PM 0.0
0
W 04:37 PM
0.0
0
Th 04:22 PM
-0.9
-27
10:12 PM 4.4
134
09:16 PM
4.3
131
11:16 PM 4.2
128 .
10:50 PM
4.6
140
10:20 PM
5.6
171
31 03:40 AM
-0.4
-12
31 05:02 AM
-0.6
-18
09:49 AM
To
4.7
143
11:04 AM
F
4.8
146
04:08 PM
-0.6
-18
05:11 PM
-0.7
-21
10.05 PM
4.4
134
11:23 PM
5A
165
1 IfQfrl f
Disclaimer: These data are based upon the latest information available as of the date of your request, and may differ from the published tide tables.
Referenced to Station: Springmaid Pier (8661070 ) Time offset in mine (high:14 low: 15) Height offset in feet (high:' 0.89 low:'1.00)
6vncraird nn Mnn rlcr 1 c1 i 5 44 49 ITi'. 9niF Pano 9 of 5
L

(b) Shallotte River (Ocean Flats) - excluding Gibbs Creek, the area enclosed by a line beginning
at Long Point 33' 54.6210' N - 78' 21.7960' W; then bounded on the south by the IWW, the
west by Shallotte River, the north by Gibb's Creek and the east by the shoreline of the
Shallotte River back to the point of origin;
(c) Shallotte Creek (Little Shallotte River) - east of a line beginning on Shell Landing at a point
330 55.7390' N - 78° 21.6410' W, running southerly to Boone's Neck Point to a point 33'
55.5990' N - 780 21.5480' W;
(d) Saucepan Creek - northwest of aline beginning on the west shore at a point 330 54.7007N -
78° 23.4183' W; running northerly to the east shore (mouth of Old Mill Creek) to a point 33'
54.9140' N - 780 23.4370' W; and
(e) Old Channel area- all waters south oftheIWW from apoint near Beacon "83"33°54.2890'
N - 780 23.1930' W; running along the IWW to a point near Ocean Isle Beach Bridge 33°
53.7270' N - 780 26.3760' W; running southerly to a point on the shoreline 33° 53.7082' N -
78° 26.3732' W; running southerly along the shoreline to a point on the shoreline 33'
53.3827N - 780 26.2118' W; running along the shoreline to the point of origin; except the
dredged finger canals at Ocean Isle Beach located on the south side of the IWW between the
Ocean Isle Beach Bridge and IWW Marker "89"; and
(22) Little River Inlet Area:
(a) GauseLandingarea - all waters north of the IWW from apointontheshoreline 33°53.9053'
N - 78' 25.6064' W; running southerly to a point near Beacon "90" 33' 53.8790' N - 78°
25.5950' W; then following the I W W to a point at the intersection of the IWW and the South
Carolina line; 33° 52.0003' N - 78° 33.5633' W; running northerly along the South Carolina
line to a point on the shoreline 33° 52.0290' N -78' 33.5893' W; running along the shoreline
to the point of origin;
(b) Eastern Channel Area - all waters bounded on the east and south by Eastern Channel, on the
west by link's Creek and on the north by the IWW;
(c) The Big Narrows Area:
(i) Big Teague Creek - west of a line beginning on the north shore at a point 33'
52.8260' N - 780 30.0110' W; running southerly to the south shore to a point 33°
52.8040' N - 780 29.9940' W;
(ii) Little Teague Creek - west of a line beginning on the north shore at a point 33"
52.9280' N - 780 30.1500' W; running southeasterly to the south shore to a point330
52.9130' N - 78" 30.1220' W; and
(iii) Big Norge Creek - south of a line beginning on the west shore at a point 330
52.8550' N - 780 30.6190' W; running easterly to the east shore to a point 33'
52.8620' N - 780 30,5900' W;
(d) Mad Inlet area - all waters south of the IWW from a point on the shoreline 33' 52.312 F N -
78° 30.4990' W; running northerly to a point near the Sunset Beach Bridge 33° 52.8450' N -
78° 30.6510' , then following the IWW to a point at the intersection of the IWW and the
South Carolina line 33' 51.9888' N - 78' 33.5458' W; running southeasterly along the South
Carolina line to a point on the shoreline; running along the shoreline across Mad Inlet at the
COLREGS demarcation line to the point of origin; with the exception of Bonaparte Creek;
and
(e) Calabash River - all waters east of a line beginning at a point on the north side of state road
No. 1164 bridge at a point 33' 53.3850' N - 78' 32.9710' W; running southerly to the south
side of the bridge at a point 33' 53.3580' N - 78' 32.9750' W.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113-134: 113-182; 143B-289.52;
Eff. January 1, 1991:
Amended Eff. March 1, 1996; September], 1991;
Recodi ied from 15A NCAC 03R .0003 Eff. December 17, 1996;
Amended Eff. April 1, 2011; December 1, 1006; September 1, 2005; August 1, 2004; May 1, 1997.

rr C
� Ir
'•� �� '� y � ♦gyp ,
14 1%-
Y
f ti
01A
- �y
�,r �•- `
J i�

C C
.S+
i'
lio
OW
a ,
�r } WIN,
C4- I
•
mall
i
• •

Estuarine Shrub/Scrub
Riverine Swamp Forest
Salt/Brackish Marsh
Jinks Creek PNA Habitat
Brunswick County
0 220 440
880 1,320 1,760
r--� Feet

I Co1Yts i/l
y6.1
�� i�
S� �rt�u,.
' n
I ^ � ✓ti
ov r� [r Viq w rl I,�b s, e
Ui, l7uv
(� idbr�G. U
71e16
1�5. eddc� P Co
Awg4el\.A
.-g
lu
'�iz rb reo�
7Z71b
PN:1
c`n ��04
cie on ek ,4
lo
y h
�ti ion � PG'e
y `o
lr'35 � >�xl vtai-
o Qi lFo4odoA
,Ur,
m
rM4,1
QVI64�41M
D,
da
r
Vk%c Vol r( -C W ?- %
1,(51'
�\Awfa om rpoc,
w
OmA
0
4(LwWww.PrintablePapefr�? t7'rL dA4G'Ple r�416, _K�G11erZ NkatWO4 lay/or- Aurl�e?r

Atq—qZo fo
&c(i�SII lGG@irld 4✓
4rfis
J✓G�
"DIC
i� t
d rt i11G ( k `1"Qi IkPL e
PY.v_ to 1
ll Ott
v
t( 1�
aobe�i
/ f4� I� l4Me`5
`. j i i d i(� utk c�rttl
- -ZKLS rY.eiG
R e-
6t o�-ebecUW ipr l/ /z 1&
_V40
jj�(ri—
<CCWc-i
w.%/Z;e
W
�
r
rJCb iN ✓'� P W
I��i C OC �`06't'C
br"E� e w
/"�G�'r% i
prel"t,I Ito NiJ2 G
w ,' a ^" tD(ele.'.k Cam IAve
1fmad5
n o'
i�tpv de ���na `vn -6 YA
xu a
v ew
Sl•(a
�1t UC PA(A [ n
PP
�en�nei PriM.hle P.n.r no}

www.PrintablePaper.net

UWA
TC
0
{
16
_ 46 .__
uSEo?---4s
fc
K
I
1
.......... ......
PrintFreeGraph Paper. com

_ k
i
1 � ,
k
_- L._--
PrintFreeGraphPaper.com

r
I
I�
I
I
__..
_
PrintFreeGraphPaper. com

---_._...__
i
L—L
l
t � Y
PrintFreeGraphPaper. cam

-
-
-
-
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F-
---------
-
. . .
.... ....
- -
-------- -- - ---
PrintFreeGraphPaper.com

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
Field Report
July 21, 2017
Location: Jinks Creek
Attendees: Curt WeycheM NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
Ken Riley, NOAA - National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)
Sean Farrell, NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Tyler Crumbley, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Maria Dunn, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
Dustin Graham, Town of Sunset Beach (Town)
Adam Efird, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N)
Robert Neal, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N)
Low Tide predicted at approx. 12:20 PM (Tubbs Inlet)
Arrival: —10:00
Departure: — 14:00
Purpose:
1. Review initial shellfish survey results and sampling techniques.
2. General review of site conditions and areas of interest for resource agencies.
Shellfish Survey Initial Results & Sampling Techniques:
M&N demonstrated the sampling technique with a clam
rake in deep water (approx. 2.5 ft) near Transect 52 (shown
on attached map). Due to water clarity issues, most subtidal
sample sites could not be visibly inspected and required
sampling by clam rake. Figure 1 shows the water conditions
at the sample demonstration site.
The initial survey provided general results for evaluating
shellfish presence in all of Jinks Creek. The results help to
generally classify three (3) areas of shellfish presence in
finks Creek. The list below describes the three areas and
Figure 2 shows them in planview.
• Transect 1 — 8: (5.2 Acres) Oyster and clam resources
present throughout creek bed. Oyster were predominately
contained to the intertidal region along the shoreline, but
some presence was noted across the width of the creek.
• Transects 9 — 28: (12.4 Acres) Oyster were identified
along the shoreline, mostly within the intertidal region.
Clams existed throughout the width of the creek.
• Transects 29 — 55: (24.5 Acres) Oyster inhabited the shoreline along the intertidal region with
minimal clam presence. The survey only identified two (2) clams (both large) within this area.

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting Page 2 of 5
Figure 2. Jinks Creek Shellfish Survey Initial Sample Results

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
Page 3 of 5
Table I thru 3 provides a summary of the shellfish identified during the survey efforts. Please note, the sample
site quantity (# of Samples) fails to meet the 25 sample sites per acre stipulated by DMF. The initial survey
efforts covered approximately 1/3 of the required sample points. However, Table I shows extrapolated results
indicating the shellfish density expected if the survey is continued. The initial survey only included a portion
of the required sample sites to provide preliminary results for discussion purposes. A decision to complete the
survey will be made after discussion between the resource agencies and the Town.
Table 1. Results of Jinks Creek Initial Shellfish Survey Efforts
Shellfish Located
Acreage
# of Sites
Eq. e Acreag
Clams
Oyster
Area
Transects
(wrwap
Sampled
Iseaea oe xs
Spat /
Sample, per Au)
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Recruit
1
Tlto T8
5.19
129
5.16
81
4
284
1,289
1,172
2
T9 to T28
12.42
115
4.60
38
11
60
708
2,500
3
T29 to T55
24.5
132
5.28
2
0
332
1,220
3,036
Note: Equivalent (Eq.) acreage equals the quantity meeting the 25 sample per acre requirement based on the number of samples reported.
(M of Sites Sampled / 25)
Table 2. Equivalent Shellfish Presence Based on 25 Sample Sites per Acre
Eq. Shellfish Presence
Eq. Shellfish /Acre Presence
(Beeed on 25 Senorita per Ae)
(Be" on 25 Samples per Ac.)
Area
Clams
Oyster
Clams
Oyster
Spat /
Spat /
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Recruit
Recruit
1
81
4
286
1,296
1,179
16
1
56
250
228
2
]03
30
162
1,912
6,750
9
3
14
154
544
3
9
0
1,541
5,661
14,088
1
0
63
232
171
Note: (I) Eq. Shellfish Presence shows the quantity of respective shellfish expected for the complete Jinks Creek survey.
[(Acreage / Eq. Acreage)* Shellfish Located]
(2) Eq. Shellfish / Acre Presence shows the density of respective shellfish for one (1) acre expected for the complete Jinks Creek survey. (Eq.
Shellfish Presence / Acreage)
Table 3. Total Shellfish Density Expected for Each Survey Area
Area
Total / Acre
seed on 25 Sam lea per Ac.
Clams
Oysters
1
17
534
2
12
712
3
1
870

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
General Review of Site Conditions:
Page 4 of 5
Agency staff reviewed the site conditions for Jinks Creek, the Feeder Canal and Finger Canals, the Bay Area
and Turtle & Mary's Creek. Discussions included the following topics:
1. Dredging Deeper than the Surrounding Water Bodies.
DCM staff indicated NC rules require dredge designs to connect to existing waterbodies that are deeper than,
or as deep as the dredge area. This prevents the creation of a hole or `dead zone' where waters become stagnant
and loose dissolved oxygen that can result in fish kills. Meeting this requirement would be difficult with the
current status of Tubbs Inlet. [Follow up conversations with DCM indicate the condition of Tubbs Inlet will not
be considered when evaluating this rule. Additional conversations are expected to clarify how this rule will be
interpreted for N. Jinks Creek.]
2. The USACE currently does not allow sediment placement on their islands.
M&N will confirm; however, this should not affect this project as the material placement islands proposed are
privately owned. Therefore, authorization should only be required from the underlying property owner. (The
USACE holds a use agreement or easement from the property owner.)
3. Dredging in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area was noted as new work; however, all present acknowledged the area was man-made. Therefore,
as long as the new channel avoided the existing vegetation (spartina) the work should be permittable. Figure 3
shows a photograph of the existing spartina (cord grass) in the Bay Area
Figure 3. Spartina (cord grass) in the Bay Area
4. Dredging in the Feeder Canal
If the new channel in the feeder canal extended beyond the footprint of the previously permitted channel then
evidence would be required to show the new channel would not impact the existing grasses here also. Figure 4
shows a photograph of the grasses along the Feeder Canal shoreline.
Figure 4. Grasses within the Feeder Canal

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
5. The Number of Permit Submittal's
Page 5 of 5
The resource agencies suggested the Town could provide a separate permit application for Mary's and Turtle
Creek. These locations are geographically separate from the Feeder Canal and the Bay Area and face separate
permitting issues. However, unless the Town would consider constructing Mary's and Turtle Creek
independently, the benefit of separating the permit applications would be minimal.
The following photographs show the site conditions for.links Creek and the surrounding water bodies.
Photo 1. Example of Oyster Bed in Jinks Creek
Photo 2. Emergent Shoal near Tubbs Inlet
Photo 3. Turtle Creek at Approx. Low Tide.

Recommended Sampling Protocols for Shellfish application review purposes
Protocol modifications are presented in red.
Methods - Sample at the rate of at least 25 one -meter square samples per acre with no less than 10
samples per project site. Samples should be taken on a depth -stratified basis, either randomly or along
transects[ For sampling locations where water is greater Ma4 feet deep` taking or tactile -based sampling-------
will be used to determine shellfish presence/absence using s[�N Aclam rake or oyster tongs with
attached pole in an approximate one -meter square area. If shellfish are found, a count (if able to be safely
performed) or estimated count will be made at the sample location. For areas kvidtin the intertidal zone -
where shellfish are more likely, the entire meter square will be raked and if there is less than 50%
shellfish coverage of the meter square, a full count of individual shellfish will be performed. In samples
that are above 900% shellfish coverage, � 10%subsample bf the meter square will be sampled withthe------
-.
number of individuals extrapolated to the full one -meter square. Data presented in the report will
generally be the same for intertidal and subtidal areas, with detailed notes on method of survey (rake,
tongs, visual count, estimated count for deeper nice) included for each sample.
Data Collection- Samples should include at least the following data:
• Location for every sample on a map of the site
• Date and approximate local time of sampling work
• Depth (and Inner tide stage where applicable)
• Bottom salinity and water temperature — will take start of work measurements daily{ in the
approximate area where surveys are being performed.
For each sample:
• General bottom type (estimate: mud, sandy mud, muddy said, sand, shell, SAV, macroalgae)
• Numbers of oysters and/or hard clams for each sample
• Optional data:
• Shell length (umbo to lip) in mm for each oyster and clam collected — waive this optional data due to
the high number of sample sites (1000+) and large study area (42 acres) or record measurements for a
subsample of 10%of the meter squirrel ---------- __________________________--- __---- _________________________
• Omer pertinent observations (such as SAV presence)
Commented [WCR1]: I would suggest sampling the
deeper locations, in low rid« in order to avoid
presece/absence evaluations.
Commented IWCR2]: 1 would suggest adding a column in
yom evaleafion to indicate the oysters sampled in the
intertidal zone (The difference in height between mean
higher high water and mean lower low water) and the
subtidal zone so that the different habitat types can be
looked at independently.
Commented [WCR3): DMF proNcol uses a 25 cm, or a'h
met« quadrat subsample. I would wcourage the use ofthe
DMF protocols for consistency and accuracy ofthe
Commented IWCR4]: Please indicate the daily tidal point
is which the measurement was take. i.e. "mid -ebb fide -3
hours from slack low tide".
Commented IWCR51:1 would suggest a categorical
classification of spWsublegsl/legaloysters m sce Me
difleret ehons preset 1 will provide tee specific ram
shell lengths associaled with each per NCDMF protawl. It
will be much faster tied still provide useful dam.

Nor A"Ark
Attachment A — Jinks Creek Recommended Shellfish Sampling Protocols & Site Plan
Methods - Sample at the rate of at least 25 one -meter square samples per acre with no less than 10 samples
per project site. Samples should be taken on a depth -stratified basis, either randomly or along transects.
Sampling will be taken as close to low tide as reasonable to limit water depth. For locations below MLW
and with poor visibility, sampling will be conducted using a clam rake or oyster tongs with attached pole
in an approximate one -meter square area. If shellfish are found, a count (if able to be safely performed) will
be performed at the sample location. For areas within the intertidal zone where there is less than 50%
shellfish coverage of the meter square, a full count of individual shellfish will be performed. In samples
that are above 90% shellfish coverage, a 25cm or a %. meter quadrat subsamole will be sampled with the
number of individual shellfish (type and species) extrapolated to the full one -meter square. Data presented
in the survey report will generally be the same for intertidal and subtidal areas, with detailed notes on
method of survey (rake, tongs, visual count, estimated count for deeper areas) included for each sample.
The tidal zone of each sample (supratidal, intertidal or subtidal) will also be clearly indicated on the field
data sheet.
Data Collection- Samples should include at least the following data:
Location for every sample on a map of the site
Date and approximate local time of sampling work
Depth (and lunar tide stage where applicable)
Bottom salinity and water temperature — will take daily start of work measurements in the
approximate area where surveys are being performed. The daily tidal point at which the measurement
was taken will be included on the field data sheet.
For each sample:
• General bottom type (estimate: mud, sandy mud, muddy sand, sand, shell, SAV, macroalgae)
• Numbers of oysters and/or hard clams for each sample
Optional data: "
• Shell length (umbo to lip) in mm for each oyster and clam collected. — A c&gori al .lc c�caificatinn of
at/s le alllegal oysters will be made based on NCUMF Rr-otocol.
Other pertinent o serva ions suc as V presence)'..',€s

Curtis R
From: Weychert, Curtis R
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 10:44 AM
To: 'Ken Riley - NOAA Federal'
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: RE: Modified Recommended Sampling Protocols for Shellfish links Creek CRWedits
Agreed. I will put those edits into the document.
From: Ken Riley- NOAA Federal imailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Weychert, Curtis R <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<TYLER.A.Cru�[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modified Recommended Sampling Protocols for Shellfish Jinks Creek_CRWedits
Our office uses both clam rakes for SAV .(small, round tine rake) and clam rakes for sand shoals (butter knife
versions).
We should' delete "standard" as there really is no standard unless we come up with a definition.
htto://kbwhiteco.com/
h ttn://www. newrivernets. com/nrtt/shell fi sh. htm
On Mon — fun 512017 at 10:09 AM, Weychert, Curtis R <curt.wevcherta,ncdenr.aov> wrote:
With hand harvest I don't think that there is a standard set for rakes. I know there are restrictions on bull rakes used
mechanically. Assumingly, the "standard" clam rakes are the stainless'and rakes with the butter knives welded to them
haha.
The ones we used had 4" "teeth" (butter knives) on the end to make sure they'dug into the mud.
http://www.bigcountrVsportinggoods.com/da nielson-clam-rake-tooth-tvpe-
crv/?gclid=CIPNuo7wptQCFVNLDQod2vlBzA Similar to this
From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 10:03 AM
To: Weychert, Curtis R <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modified Recommended Sampling Protocols for Shellfish Jinks Creek CRWedits

3

0
I've got to ask....
what is a standard clam rake? Is there a such thing?
I know our fishing regs say they can't be more than 12" wide and weigh more than 6 lbs.
910M
Kenneth Riley, Ph
Habitat Conseiv,
National Ma'
101 Pive
Off'

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
finks Creek Agency Site Meeting
Field Report
July 21, 2017
Location: Jinks Creek
Attendees: Curt Weychert, NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
Ken Riley, NOAA - National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)
Sean Farrell, NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Tyler Crumbley, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Maria Dunn, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
Dustin Graham, Town of Sunset Beach (Town)
Adam Efird, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N)
Robert Neal, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N)
Low Tide predicted at approx. 12:20 PM (Tubbs Inlet)
Arrival: —I0:00
Departure: — 14:00
Purpose:
1. Review initial shellfish survey results and sampling techniques.
2. General review of site conditions and areas of interest for resource agencies.
Shellfish Survey Initial Results & Sampling Techniques:
M&N demonstrated the sampling technique with a clam
rake in deep water (approx. 2.5 ft) near Transect 52 (shown
on attached map). Due to water clarity issues, most subtidal
sample sites could not be visibly inspected and required
sampling by clam rake. Figure I shows the water conditions
at the sample demonstration site.
The initial survey provided general results for evaluating
shellfish presence in all of finks Creek. The results help to
generally classify three (3) areas of shellfish presence in
Jinks Creek. The list below describes the three areas and
Figure 2 shows them in planview.
Transect 1 — 8: (5.2 Acres) Oyster and clam resources
present throughout creek bed. Oyster were predominately
contained to the intertidal region along the shoreline, but
some presence was noted across the width of the creek.
• Transects 9 — 28: (12.4 Acres) Oyster were identified
along the shoreline, mostly within the intertidal region.
Clams existed throughout the width of the creek.
Transects 29 — 55: (24.5 Acres) Oyster inhabited the shoreline along the intertidal region with
minimal clam presence. The survey only identified two (2) clams (both large) within this area.

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting N e 2 of 5
Figure 2 Tnks Creek Shelifxsh Survey Initial Sample Results

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
Page 3 of 5
Table I thru 3 provides a summary of the shellfish identified during the survey efforts. Please note, the sample
site quantity (# of Samples) fails to meet the 25 sample sites per acre stipulated by DW. The initial survey
efforts covered approximately 1/3 of the required sample points. However, Table 1 shows extrapolated results
indicating the shellfish density expected if the survey is continued. The initial survey only included a portion
of the required sample sites to provide preliminary results for discussion purposes. A decision to complete the
survey will be made after discussion between the resource agencies and the Town.
Table 1. Results of Jinks Creek Initial Shellfish Survey Efforts
Shellfish Located
Acreage
# of Sites
Acreage
Eq. e
Clams
Oyster
Area
Trauatxts
(Aemd)
Sampled
�ea e.:
Sat /
P
S..pb pr Ac)
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Recruit
1
Tl to T8
5.19
129
5.16
81
4
284
1,289
1,172
2
T9 to T28
12.42
115
4.60
38
11
60
708
2,500
3
T29to T55
24.5
132
5.28
2
0
332
1,220
3,036
�1a5. t'
*Kle
Note: Equivalent (Eq.) acreage equals the quantity meeting the 25 sample per acre requirement based on the number of samples reported.
(# of Sites Sampled / 25)
Table 2. Equivalent Shellfish Presence Based on 25 Sample Sites per Acre
Eq. Shellfish Presence
Eq. Shellfish /Acre Presence
(%.. 25 Samptn per A.)
(13uMa25Snapk.WAc)
A1Y8
Clams
Oyster
Clams
Oyster
Spat /
Spat /
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Large
Small
Sublegal
Legal
Recruit
Recruit
1
81
4
286
1,296
1,179
16
1
56
250
228
2
103
30
162
1,912
6,750
9
3
14
154
544
3
9
0
1,541
5,661
14,088
1
0
63
232
575
Note: (1)
(2)
53yo1-3/M
}12 ov6lAt
S 10 OW/Alf
Eq. Shellfish Presence shows the quantity of respective shellfish expected for the complete links Creek survey.
[(Acreage / Eq. Acreage)• Shellfish Located]
Eq. Shellfish / Acre Presence shows the density of respective shellfish for one (1) acre expected for the complete links Creek survey. (Eq.
Shellfish Presence / Acreage)
Table 3. Total Shellfish Density Expected for Each Survey Area
Area
Total / Acre
(anal.. 25 S.m Ic, wAp
Clams
Oysters
1
17
534
2
12
712
3
1
870
I AL -- q00 rtL
126 045r/ i3(,(

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
General Review of Site Conditions:
Page 4 of 5
Agency staff reviewed the site conditions for Jinks Creek, the Feeder Canal and Finger Canals, the Bay Area
and Turtle & Mary's Creek. Discussions included the following topics:
1. Dredging Deeper than the Surrounding Water Bodies.
DCM staff indicated NC rules require dredge designs to connect to existing waterbodies that are deeper than,
or as deep as the dredge area. This prevents the creation of a hole or `dead zone' where waters become stagnant
and loose dissolved oxygen that can result in fish kills. Meeting this requirement would be difficult with the
current status of Tubbs Inlet. [Follow up conversations with DCM indicate the condition of Tubbs Inlet will not
be considered when evaluating this rule. Additional conversations are expected to clarify how this rule will be
interpreted for N. Anks Creek.]
2. The USACE currently does not allow sediment placement on their islands.
M&N will confirm; however, this should not affect this project as the material placement islands proposed are
privately owned. Therefore, authorization should only be required from the underlying property owner. (The
USACE holds a use agreement or easement from the property owner.)
3. Dredging in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area was noted as new work; however, all present acknowledged the area was man-made. Therefore,
as long as the new channel avoided the existing vegetation (spartina) the work should be permittable. Figure 3
shows a photograph of the existing spartina (cord grass) in the Bay Area.
Figure 3. Spartina (cord grass) in the Bay Area
4. Dredging in the Feeder Canal
If the new channel in the feeder canal extended beyond the footprint of the previously permitted channel then
evidence would be required to show the new channel would not impact the existing grasses here also. Figure 4
shows a photograph of the grasses along the Feeder Canal shoreline.
Figure 4. Grasses within the Feeder Canal

Sunset Beach Pre -Dredge Analysis
Field Report (July 21, 2017)
Jinks Creek Agency Site Meeting
5. The Number of Permit Submittal's
Page 5 of 5
The resource agencies suggested the Town could provide a separate permit application for Mary's and Turtle
Creek. These locations are geographically separate from the Feeder Canal and the Bay Area and face separate
permitting issues. However, unless the Town would consider constructing Mary's and Turtle Creek
independently, the benefit of separating the permit applications would be minimal.
The following photographs show the site conditions for Jinks Creek and the surrounding water bodies.
Photo 1. Fcample of O ster fled in .links Creek
Photo 2. Emergent Shoal near Tubbs Inlet
Photo 3. Turtle Creek at Approx. Low Tide.

Weychert, Curtis R
From: Comer, Amy M
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 9:36 AM
To: Weychert, Curtis R
Subject: P941 oyster protocol
Here's the wording. If you need the actual hard -copy document, please /at me know.
Objective 1. Oyster Habitat Suitability Study
Before arriving on site, all sampling latitudes and longitudes for all samples within the "sampling unit(s)"
should be programmed in the on -board GPS unit. Before SCUBA divers perform underwater assessments,
discrete environmental and habitat data will be recorded. Parameters measured include: date, site name,
material type, weather description, surface and bottom temperature (°C), surface and bottom salinity (ppt),
surface and bottom dissolved oxygen (DO; mg/L), secchi depth (cm), wind speed (knots), wind direction,
latitude, and longitude. The record type 2 latitude longitude should be left blank, as it's for chevron traps. After
environmental data is taken, four buoyed sinkers are thrown on the coordinates corresponding to the four
samples, labeled: main (M), A, B, and C. A'% m quadrat is used, and quadrat placement should be as close
as possible to the sinker as to maintain consistency with coordinates and prevent sampling bias. One diver will
complete M and A samples and the other will be B and C. Divers tally the number of live oysters at each
sample (M, A, B, C) into three size classes, shown as Species Status (1=recruit, 2=sublegal, 3=brood-stock)
using a measuring ruler and recording all biological and environmental data on an underwater data sheet. No
quadrat subsampling is allowed. These size classes will serve as dependent variables and will be defined as
recruit (525 mm valve length), sublegal (25 mm<valve length<75 mm), and brood -stock (z75 mm valve length).
Within a quadrat sample (see Figures 4-6), divers will also record a categorical boring sponge rating
(A=sponge not present, B=evidence of sponge (boring), C=sponge present in beta (encrusting), D=prolific
sponge cover (massive) (Topsent 1988; Vosmaer 1933; Rutzler 2002) and a value for overall sedimentation
(0=none, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=heavy). Ancillary information (see Format A) of finfish presence -absence,
predatory, and/or competing organisms will be recorded to help qualitatively explain any differences in oyster
population density between treatments. Divers will also note the depth at which the center of the quadrate is
placed. Sediment type will be categorized by divers, as well as the visibility (ft.) at time of sampling.
1. 1/4-meter quadrat:

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) evaluations will be done during daylight
hours. Staff will utilize a'% meter sampling squared quadrat made of PVC. There will be four samples
within a "sampling unit", each as a unique collection. Those samples will be taken at four randomly
selected and pre -determined locations all within a 90 ft. radius of the first sample. Subsampling within
the % meter quadrat is not allowed.
Amy Comer
Artificial Reef Biologist
Habitat and Enhancement Section
Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8054 office
[e-mail]
3441 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
N:. Nothing Compares —
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

7
I've got to ask....
what is a standard clam rake? Is there a such thing?
I know our fishing regs say they can't be more than 12" wide and weigh more than 6 lbs.
-Ken
Kenneth Riley, Ph.D.
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
ror Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516
Office: ,52- 2£ _87SQ Cell: 252-8646re,9 Email: ken.rilevtq)noaa.COV
On Mon, .Jun 5. 2017 at 9:10 AM, Weychert, Curtis R <curt.weychertLqdncdeur.eov> wrote:
I have made some edits, if you guys agree or disagree let me know. If ybu would like to add to mine, feel free.
2