91-18 Carteret County

Permit Class
NEW
Permit Dumber
91-18
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
V erm i t
for ^LEI
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 SEp U 7
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 0CM-A4HD
Issued to Carteret County PO Boa 4297 Emerald Isle NC 28594
Authorizing development in Carteret County at Bo_gue Inlet and Atlantic Ocean, Ocean Beaches from
Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road , as requested in the permittee's application dated 5/25/18 (MP-1 & MP-2/Project #1).
& 4/6/18 (MP-2/50-yr Project), including attached workplan drawings (84), as referenced in Condition No. 1 below.
This permit, issued on September 4, 2018 , 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
x subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and vold.
Boeue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan (BBMBNP)
1) Unless specifically altered herein, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the
attached workplan drawings (84), labeled Typical Plan View Sheets 1-7 of 7, Typical Cross Section
View Pages 1-16 of 16, dated 7/10/14, and Project 1 Plans labeled Sheets 1-6 1, all dated May 2018
and Received DCM Wilmington 6/7/18; permit narrative dated Received DCM Wilmington 6/4/18;
and AEC Hazard Notice dated 5/9/18.
2) In order to protect threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse impacts to offshore,
nearshore, intertidal and beach resources, no excavation, fill or beach nourishment activities,
including mobilization and demobilization, shall occur from May 1 to November 15 of any year
without prior approval from the Division of Coastal Management in consultation with the appropriate
resource agency personnel, and subject to Condition No. 3 below.
(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.
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, 2021
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 DEQ and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
k-'AtY/7 �77P+
a Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature ofPermittee

Carteret CountyBogue Banks Master Plan Permit No. 91-18
Page 2 of 5
F41111)1.10)\ A 1011)`►I U"(1) K
3) In addition to the timing restrictions referenced in Condition No. 2 above, and in order to protect
threatened and endangered species within the inlet complex, no fill or beach nourishment activities,
including mobilization and demobilization, shall occur from April 1 to April 30 of any year at or
adjacent to Bogue Inlet without prior approval from the Division of Coastal Management, in
consultation with the appropriate resource agency personnel.
4) Excavation for each event shall in no case exceed that shown on the approved project workplan
drawings.
5) All excavation shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on the approved workplan drawings.
6) In order to prevent leakage,. dredge .pipes shall be routinely inspected. If leakage is found and repairs
cannot be made immediately, pumping of material shall stop until such leaks are fixed.
Beach Nourishment
7) This permit authorizes beach nourishment activities to be carried out in accordance with the projected
intervals and volumes as stated in the application. Any request to carry out additional activities not
referenced in'the attached'application may require a modification of this permit.
8) Prior to initiating any project shoreline protection activities specified in the BBMBNP, a notification
request shall -be submitted to Division of Coastal Management (DCM) for prior approval. This
notification must provide'a full and complete project event description, including but limited to,
justification/need for the project, and how it correlates with the BBMBNP's assumptions, construction
footprints, construction methods and timeframes,.borrow source(s), dredging dimensions, beach
placement amounts and profiles, and exact reach dimensions/location(s). A cumulative summary of all
events completed to the date of submittal under the BBMBNP must be included in the notification to
keep a historic record over the 50-yearperiod. The summary must provide a list of all past events that
includes the following: Start/end timeframes, placement footprints, dredging footprints, and volume
amounts. This notification shall also:include full documentation demonstrating that the proposed
project's sand source(s).complies with'15A NCAC 07H .0312 (Technical Standards for Beach Fill
Projects), as well as any. other applicable rules at the time of submittal. This notification shall be
submitted a minimum of 30 days prior to anticipated initiation of construction. DCM concurrence with
the proposed event shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the authorized activity.
NOTE: The notification requirements of Condition No. 8 have been satisfied through the initial permit
application review process for Project No. 1.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that future event approvals may be subject to additional conditions.
9) Prior to initiation of each beach nourishment activity along each section of beach, the existing mean
high water line shall be surveyed, and a copy of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal
Management.

Carteret Coursty/Bogue Ranks Master Plan Permit No. 91-18
Page 3 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the State of North Carolina claims title to all currently submerged
lands and any future lands that are raised above the mean high water level as a result of this
project.
10) Prior to the initiation of any single event that is considered by the rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission to be a large-scale beach nourishment activity (currently defined as any volume of
sediment greater than 300,000 cubic yards), the permittee shall coordinate with the Division of Coastal
Management to determine if an additional static vegetation line(s) shall be required. Any new static
vegetation line(s) shall be used as the reference point for measuring future oceanfront setbacks. The
static vegetation line, which is defined as the vegetation line that existed within one year prior to the
onset of initial project construction, shall be established using on -ground observation and survey or
aerial imagery. The static vegetation line(s) shall then be marked and a survey depicting this static
vegetation line(s) shall be submitted to the Division of Coastal Management prior to any large-scale
beach nourishment activities.
11) The seaward nourishment limit shall be constructed in accordance with approved work plats.
12) Prior to the initiation of any beach nourishment activity on a specific property, easements or similar
legal instruments shall be obtained from the impacted property owner(s).
13) Should excavation op rations encounter sand deemed non -compatible with 15A NCAC 07H .0312
(Technical Standards.'br Beach Fill Projects), the contractor shall immediately cease operation and
contact the 1ivision of Coastal Management. Operations shall resume after resolution of the issue of
sand compatibility
14) In order to ensure compliance with Condition No. 13, the permittee shall ensure that an inspector is
present during all beach disposal activities and immediately report to DCM in the event any
incompatible material is placed on the beach. During operations, material placed on the beach shall be
inspected daily to ensure compatibility.
15) Any sediment sample monitoring, dredging or as -built surveys required by the USACE shall also be
provided to DCM.
15) The permittee shall provide written notification of project completion to DCM within one (1) week upon
completion of each event authorized by this permit.
17) Land -based equipment necessary for beach nourishment work shall be brought to the site through
existing accesses. Should the work result in any damage to existing accesses, the accesses shall be
restored to pre -project. conditions immediately upon project completion in that specific area.
NOTE: The permittee is. advised that any new access site would require a modification of this permit.
18) Prior to any nourishment.activities occurring between April 1 and October 31 of any year, the Division
of Marine Fisheries, Shellfish Sanitation Section shall be notified so that any necessakg&lb
advisories may be posted.
SEP 0 7 2018

Carteret CountyBogue Banks Master Plan Permit No. 91-18
Page 4 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
. 19) _ Dune disturbance shall be kept to: a minimum. Any alteration of existing dunes shall be coordinated with
the Division of Coastal Management as well as the appropriate property owner(s). All disturbed areas
shall be restored to original contours and configuration and shall be revegetated immediately following
project completion in that specific area.
20) Where oceanfront development exists at elevations nearly equal to that of the native. beach, a low
protective dune shall be pushed up along the backbeach to prevent slurry from draining towards the
development.
21) Oncea section.is complete, all heavy equipment shall be removed or shifted to a new section and the .
area graded and dressed to final approved slopes.
22), This permit does.not authorize'any permanent or.long-term interference with the public's right of access
and/or usage of all State lands and waters..:
23) ,'. The authorized project shall not interfere .with the public's right to free. navigation on all navigable
waters of the United States. No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use
by the public of all navigable waters at. or adjacent to the authorized work for reason other than safety.
Project No.1 Conditions
24) . Excavation.for Project No. 1 shall not exceed -50' NAVD88.(with a maximum 2' overdredge
allowance)..
25) All excavation shall take place.entirely within the areas indicated on the attached workplan drawings for
Project No. 1.
26) ` In addition to. Conditions. 24-and 25 above, the permittee.shall'adhete to all permit conditions listed
herein during -construction of Project No. L.
. ' General
27), The.permittee.shall obtain any necessary authorizations or approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and N.C. Division:of-Water Resources priortoinitiation of any permitted activity. Unless
altered by a specific Condition.of this Permit, the permittee shall adhere to all conditions on the Federal
approval and 401 certification.
28) Throughout the duration of the permit, should there be significant differences in projected volumetric
thresholds, project scheduling, or other significant changes compared to the assumptions made aspart of
.the initial permit application andEnvironmentalImpact Statement, the Division of Coastal Management
reserves: the right to reinitiate review through the permit modification process.
29) If, at, any time, the Bogue Banks 50-year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) Federal Project is
funded and the permittee chooses to participate in the CSDR project, the permittee shall notify DCM. of
their participation in the federal project. Participation in the CSDR project may require a modification.
of this permit.

Carteret CountyBogue Banks Master Plan Permit No. 91-18
Page 5 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
30) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
31) The permittee and his contractor shall schedule a pre -construction conference with the Division of
Coastal Management and the. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the initiation of any activities
authorized by this permit.
32) Unless specifically altered herein, the permittee shall implement all mitigation and monitoring
commitments made in the permit application and the Environmental Impact Statement.
33) No sand shall be placed on any sandbags that have been determined by the Division of Coastal
Management to be subject -to removal under 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2). In order to ensure.
compliance with this condition, the- Division ofCoastal Management. shall be contacted at (910) 796-
7302 prior to initiation of each event so :that Division staff may meet on site with the permittee and/or
contractor.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the Division of Coastal Management shall regulate the removal of
existing -sandbags and the placement of new sandbags in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H
.0308(a)(2), or in accordance with any variances granted by the N.C. Coastal Resources
Commission.
34) The N.C. Division of Water Resources has assigned the proposed project DWR Project No. 20180944
and is authorizing under Certification No. WQC004169. Any violation of the Water Quality
Certification :,hall also be considered a violation of this CAMA Permit.
NOTE: The pecmittee's contractor is advised to contact the U.S. Coast Guard at [phone], ext. 108
to discuss operations and appropriate lighting, markers, etc. for all dredge equipment.
_NOTE: This permit does not. eliminate She need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
NOTE: Should disturbance landward of the first line of stable, natural vegetation exceed 1 acre in area,
an Erosion and Sedimentation.,Controi Plan may be required for this project. This plan must be
filed at least thirty (30) clays prior to the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this
plan to the Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Section, 127 Cardinal :Drive
Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW
2009-60293.
NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also
satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water
Resources for Project No. 1. RECEIVED
SEP 0 7 2018
M-MHD CITY

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Carteret County
PROJECT NAME: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Project
COUNTY: Carteret
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Bogue Banks, from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 6-6-18
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: NO To Be Forwarded: n/a
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: No
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Heather Coats
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE REC`D: 6-28-18
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO:
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE: 6-26-18
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY
To Be Forwarded: n/a
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DISTRICT OFFICE: if71MEVGTON
FEE REC'D: through AMC office
END OF NOTICE DATE: 7-20-18
DEED REC'D:�_
ON:
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 7-20-18
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
DRAFT
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTION
S:
YES NO
NOTES
Division of Community Assistance
717iS// f
/
Division of Coastal Management-LUP Consistency
b % l q
I/
Public Water Section (DWR)
/Zs//9
/
Land Quality Section (DEMLR)
7 2-09
Division of Water Resources - 401 Section
i g
✓
U f W6G�f/ bW
Storm Water Management(DEMLR)
7/�-1 IQ
✓
1�d SW / 7 7 en"�,-
State Property Office
/ I2,
Division of Archives & History
% Z3
Division of Marine Fisheries - Shellfish Section
71316
Division of Highways (NCDOT)
7 6,1
Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Permit Officer
Dept. of Cultural Res / Underwater Archaeology
Division of Marine Fisheries - DCM
7�Lfr /Q
✓
Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch
Ste, ZOO . oW2113

e
ROY COOPBt#
TO
MIDGHARL S. REGAN
13RAXTON DAVIS
June 26,. 2018
To: Lee Padrick
Chief Economio DevelopmQnt Planner
Northeast Prosperity. Zone
N.C. Department of Comnlerce
From:
NCDEQ - Division ofCoastal-Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NO2W5 bftthgr eoatslcDncrtenrnay
Fax, 395-3964
Subject: CAMA /Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County, Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beath Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court.to TarLanding Road in Carferet County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
,ln Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
[download all essociat:ed',files
Please indicate be[ dw your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
at.fhe address above by July 20, 2018. If you have any questidns,regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at (91'0) 796-7302 when appropriate in-depth domments with supporting data is requested,
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
*Additional comments may bar attached"
phis agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency. objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
DATED —,i?�T
sra,, ofxmcCarotiva I Fnvir __WQ_1a91C�.steldrnV=.1 RECEIV
EEF-
127CazdbWDiMFA.WdmiDMNC2405 9197967215
JUL 2 5 20113

—
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 26, 2018
To:
From:
Subject:
Applicant:
Project Location:
ROY COOPER
Govemar
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secmlary
BRAXTON DAVIS
0woo,
Rachel Love-Adrick, District Planner
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
Heather Coats, Beach & Inlet Management Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a).ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Carteret County: Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated files
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 20, 2018, If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: -7x— This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
"Additional comments may be attached"
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments. (�
SIGNED DATED 31201
RECEIVED RECEIVED
Slate ofNonh Carolina Environmental Quality I Ca"al Management DCfvi WILMINGTON, NC
127 Ca dinal [hive Exr, Wilmington, NC 28405 919 79b 7215
JUL 13 , .iJL v 3 2018

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Zrd11 • t 1 L 70
TO: Heather Coats, Beach & Inlet Management Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Rachel Love-Adrick, District PlannertE/A
Division of Coastal Management OVA
ROY COOPER
0,111111,11
MICHAEL S. REGAN
BRAXTON DAVIS
u„e<al.
SUBJECT: Major Permit Request by Carteret County, Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Plan
DATE: June 29, 2018
Consistency Determination: The request is consistent with/not in conflict with the following land use
plans: Carteret County Land Use Plan certified by the CRC on December 20, 2010, the Town of Atlantic
Beach - Core Land Use Plan certified by the CRC certified July 24, 2008, the Town of Pine Knoll Shores -
CAMA Core Land Use Plan 2015 certified by the CRC certified Sept. 23, 2015, the Town of Indian Beach -
CAMA Core Land Use Plan certified by the CRC certified November 30, 2007 or the Town of Emerald Isle
- Comprehensive Land Use Plan certified by the CRC certified January 24, 2018.
Overview: The applicant is proposing a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan for ocean
beaches on Bogue Sound, from Bogue Inlet at Emerald Isle to the beginning of Fort Macon in Atlantic
Beach. The overall project length is approximately 23 miles (121,702 linear feet). The project spans
multiple jurisdictions, including four municipalities (Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Pine Knoll Shores and
Atlantic Beach) the unincorporated community of Salter Path, and Carteret County. This is a phased
project over 50-years that will include -7,413 acres of beach fill over the total fife of the project. The first
project is expected to include ^356 acres of beach fill.
AECs involved include Ocean Hazards (OH), Inlet Hazard Area (IHA), and Public Trust Area (PTA). At the
waters of Bogue Sound and Beaufort Inlet the waters are classified as SA-ORW. The waters adjacent to
Beaufort Inlet are classified at SA. The project site is closed to shellfishing and is not a Primary Nursery
Area (PNA). There are no foreseen impacts to shellfish resources at this time. A review of SAV, wetlands,
archaeological and cultural resources was not provided.
Anticipated impacts: The proposed dredging associated with the first 2018/2019 project would result in
impacts to up to 773 acres of submerged bottom located in both state and federal waters. The first project
would result in the filk.of approximately 128.5 acres of upper beach (above NHW) and would fill
approximately 41.9 acres of intertidal area and near -shore shallow bottom. The dredging and beach fill
would result in temporary increases in turbidity. The overall SO -year project is anticipated to result in the
placement of up to 51.6 mcy of material over the 23.5 miles project area and would fill approximately
RECEIVED REC;=IVE0
GCovi WILMINGTON, NC
JUL 13 2018 Sma, fNonhC�. b 3 2018
Quality I Combl Mavagemrnl
400 Cammeme Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
DCM-MHD CITY 252-808-28091252-247-3770(fuc)

r- %
North Carolina Department of Environmental Q tality rt±.;;iJ :1
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 4
7,412 acres of beach.. Final figureswill be, dependent on future conditions and are subject to change, but
thresholds have been set forthto limit impacts.
Basis for Determination:
The project site is located to multiple land use plans:
• Carteret County - 2005 Land Use Plan Update (CRC certified December 20, 2010)
• Town of Atlantic Beach - Core Land Use Plan (CRC certified July 24, 2008)
• Town of Pine Knoll Shores - CAMA Core Land Use Plan 2015 (CRC certified Sept. 23, 2015)
• Town of Indian Beach - CAMA Core Land Use Plan (CRC certified November 30, 2007)
• Town of Emerald Isle -Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CRC certified January 24, 2018)
The project has been reviewed against each land use plans Future Land Use Map (FLUM), policies, and
implementation statements. The following LUP statements may be applicable to this project:
Carteret County
The Carteret County's FLUM designates the site as Conservation due to the sites location in Public Trust
AECs (Areas of Environmental Concern). Land uses allowed in Areas of Environmental Concern "are those
consistent with the State's minimum use standards, except when the policies contained in this plan are
more restrictive that State standards" (pg. 94).
2.0 Land Use Compatibility
2.2.2: Carteret County will allow all uses (such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) in
estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline areas, provided all local, state, and federal standards are
satisfied.
2.4.1: Carteret County will only allow development in estuarine and public trust waters that are associated
with water -dependent uses, consistent with state and federal standards, and meet all local polices
contained in this plan.
4.0 Natural and Man-made Hazard Areas
4.1: All development within the flood hazard areas and ocean hazard area AECs will be coordinated with
the County Department of Planning and Development North Carolina Division of Coastal Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Army Corps pf Engineers. The County will
implement the following measures to mitigate risk.
...6: Carteret County is supportive of local beach nourishment programs, including the Carteret County
Shore Protection Program.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
4.{' . • 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808 1252-247-3330 (fax)

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM,
Page 3 of 4
Atlantic Beach
The Town of Atlantic Beach FLUM does not designate a land use category to the proposed project area.
Conservation — Policies & Implementing Actions
P.22 - The Town of Atlantic Beach supports 15A NCAC 7H for the protection of all AECs.
1.35 - The Town of Atlantic Beach will protect ocean hazard areas by the following actions:
(1) Atlantic Beach will support only uses within the ocean hazard areas which are allowed by 15A NCAC
7H and are consistent with the town's zoning and land protection ordinances. Schedule: Continuing
Activity.
(2) Atlantic Beach supports the deposit of dredge spoil by the US Army Corps of Engineers on the beach
and relocation as the preferred erosion control measures for ocean hazard areas. Schedule: Continuing
Activity.
(4) The town supports state requirements pertaining to shoreline stabilization in ocean hazard areas.
Schedule: Continuing Activity.
Natural Hazard Area — Policies
P.44 - The Town of Atlantic Beach supports beach renourishment efforts at least once every eight to ten
years. NOTE: Implementation of this policy is essential for the following reasons, including protection of
natural hazard areas....
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
The Town of Pine Knoll Shores FLUM does not designate a land use category to the proposed project
area.
Natural Hazard Area
NHA. 2.5. The Town will maintain its beach renourishment program, including maintaining and
advocating for adequate funding for future renourishment projects.
NHA. 4. The Town supports the efforts of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office to establish a long
term comprehensive approach to addressing beach renourishment throughout oceanfront portions of
the Town's jurisdiction. (Actionable)
NHA. 4.3. The Town will maintain adequate funding for beach renourishment.
NHA. 4.4. The Town will lobby for state and federal funding of beach renourishment.
RECEIVED
-t:% Nothing Compares,,. JUL 13 2018
State of North Carolina I Envim mental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Camme 252-808-28091252--27--t330 c&x,57 DCM-MHD CITY

P_.\
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 4 of 4
Town of Indian Beach
The Town of Indian Beach FLUM does not designate a land use category to the proposed project area.
P.41 The town supports the efforts of the US Army Corps of Engineers in providing beach renourishment
funding through the Section 933 project. The town will continue to meet the requirements of this
program through the provision of adequate public access.
P.44 The town will continue to support the efforts of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office.
1.33 The town will continue to work with the Carteret County Shore Protection office on the
development and implementation of a long-range beach renourishment plan. Schedule: Continuing
Activity
Emerald Isle
The Town of Emerald Isle FLUM does not designate a land use category to the proposed project area.
Public Access Policies & Implementing Actions
8. The Town will continue a beach conservation and nourishment program as part of an overall program
to mitigate risks from coastal storm events (1): Schedule: High
Natural Hazard Areas Policies & Implementing Actions
35. Due to the unique risks to life,and propertythat exist within the area designated as the Ocean Hazard
System AEC, the Town strongly supports the State policies that regulate the location and intensity of
development in these areas. The Town will enforce local policies that bolster the State's programs (P).
Schedule: Continuing
-%'Nothing'Gompazes
State of North Camlma I Envuumnental Quality 1 Coastal Maoagemeat
400 Commerce Avenue i Morehead City. NC 28557
252-808-28081252-247-3330(fax)

Coastal Monagemcnr
ENVIRONMENTAL OURUiv
June 26, 2018
To:
ROY COOPER
Gnvemnr
MICHAEL S. REGAN
.Secrelary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Unecmr
From: Heather Coats, Beach & Inlet Management Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsaa.ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
Subject: CAMA /Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County. Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project. a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 20, 2018. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
DCM WILMIMGTOI
REPLY: 41
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
AUG 01 2018
"Additional comments may be attached"
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED �TJ I/I �i� Cl/ti`i� � DATED O �9
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coanal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215

Coats, Heather
From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Heather:
The download for the files did not work. However, beach nourishment that occurs seaward of the last line of stable
vegetation falls outside the jurisdiction of the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. The CAMA Major triggers a State
Stormwater review, but the lack of impervious surface creation basically means that Stormwater will review it and grant
a permit exception.
Thanks...
dan.sams
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources —Land Quality Section
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215
[e-mail]
nothing Compares
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:54 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hi everyone,
Just checking in on the status of your comments for this project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator

Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather.coats(a).ncdenr.aov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
G �/ 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.
From: Simpson, Shaun
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane
<[e-mail]>; Jenkins, Shannon <[e-mail]>; Walton, Tim
<tim.walton [e-mail]>; Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <davidharris([e-mail]>
Cc: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hello All,
Thanks for your attention to the attached Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan permit application. Due to the
size of the application, we're sending this out electronically. Please see the link referenced below (also on the attached
cover sheet) to view and download the entire file. The Field Investigative Report is also attached. Before returning your
comments to Heather Coats, please add your name/dept. in the "TO" line on the cover sheet. You can also let Heather
know if you would like to receive hard copies of any of the linked information or if you have any questions regarding the
project.
Download all associated files
Thank you,
Shaun
Shaun Simpson
Permit Support & Customer Service
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC28405
Phone: [phone]
Shaun. Simpson (Dncdenr.gov

W.
' ' R
Coats, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sams, Dan
Friday, July,27, 2018.159 PM
Coats, Heather.'`::.' I"
RE: [External],Re: Bogue Banks MBNP - update
1 was able to confirm with Dawn that no submittal for stormwater is necessary due to the scope of the project.
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources — Land Quality Section
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215
dan.sams(u) ncdenr.gov
Nothing Compares.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1:49 PM.
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: Bogue Banks MBNP - update
Hmm- that was a 2-part either/or question. Shall I take that as a yes is for the first part that no submittal on their part
(and stormwater permit condition on our part) is needed?
Thanks!
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats Ca. n cd e n r. g o v
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Nothing Compabes
Email correspondence to and from this address, is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and rniay:be disclosed to third parties.

From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1:40 PM
To: Coats, Heather <heather.coats ncdenr.eov>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: Bogue Banks MBNP - update
yes
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources —Land Quality Section
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215
[e-mail]
K� C__
nothing Compares,.,,
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1:17 PM
To: Sams, Dan <dan.sams ncdenr.gov>
Subject: FW: [External] Re: Bogue Banks MBNP - update
Hi Dan,
Were you able to confirm with Dawn that no submittal for stormwater is necessary due to the scope of the project or
will they still need to submit and obtain a formal exception/exemption? I just want to make sure we're all on the same
page!
Thanks,
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats (c. n cd e n r. g ov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
�-'/"Nothing Compares. ,

NORTH CAROLINA
ROY COOPER Environmental Quality
Govil'M r
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrerary
UNDA CULPEPPER
lnrerfm Director
August 31, 2018
DWR # 20180944
Carteret County
Carteret County
ATTN: Mr. Greg Rudolph
PO Box 4297
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
Subject: Approval of Individual 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional
Conditions
Bogue Banks 50-year Master Beach Nourishment Plan including Project 11
USACE Action ID. No. SAW-2009-00293
Dear Mr. Rudolph:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. WQC004169 issued to Mr. Greg Rudolph and
Carteret County, dated August 31, 2018. This certification is not valid until the
corresponding 404 permit is issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit (or applicable authorizations) is issued by the NC
Division of Coastal Management. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before proceeding with the subject project, including those required by (but
not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. This Certification can be
contested as provided in General Statute 150E by filing a written petition for an administrative
hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within sixty (60)
calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5:OOpm, excluding official state
holidays).
'RECEIVED
„, _w SEP 04 2018
North Carolina Department of Enwonnlental Quality; Division of Water ResourtQCM WILMINGTON, NC
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center i Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Whig 8 OOVTI� wo h
IncIfferf
Irmt6al jfica0on"'Wtt60b4I6*
PagL*,2 of'S
The-peltiti6ft may beifailed to -tire OAR 6t,,(9119) 431490,ided; the,ariginalanct-bfiL copy,,,qf
I;he petition along with; any, (5) applicablewithin liyL! OAR filing fee i,5, received Oy tke. OAA
Oysirkqss,' a s,follqWingthgfAXq;firansryifss!oR.
Mailingthe:OAR ,',acId[idssIfbr th, I OAR.
if sendin4,via USPosWIS
'0frI.ce..ofAd-mirfttratIive Hearings
6714,MaWSer.vket6nt6r,
Weigh, Nc 27699-6714:
ff.sendino=Olo'detivety�serVicel(OPS,,FedEk.etc),
Office of Administrative Hearings
27.11..NeW Hope ChWtfi. Rba&
Raleigh, NC 27609.-6285,
One (I),cpOy;of the,',petitiorjnjuki al$0,116 served io.,OQ.
Willlarrf.F.. Lane, General Coungel
Oeportmb6tof Environodnta(Auallty,
Raleigh, NC 14698=1601-
Unieistsuch
Thisbirtification completes the review of thdDivislonunderTsection 401 of the Clean ,.W.ater Act,
and 00. ContactPa 61'Wojb§k)
me at karen hi ins@ncdenr;k62?ifyouhave an .quqstiqn-spjr:con
Sinc6reiv,,
et: Jiffirhy martiri'moffI atm Nithd&(vi6 email)
Mickey Sum USA'CE Wjlrningtbn"Reguldtory Fteid otfite
Todd,139w6es, EPA.(,vi,a:bdWefs.tbdd-@-Ooalgov)
'NC'DiVision of Coastal M1Aanagemgnt:
NC;DWR WIRO
NC, D,-WR 40.1-,&,Bu.ffq,r Permitting Branct-t,file:
Tkname: 201SOR446bi6deanksSOY6irMasteraeachNour,'Is�hmentPlan(Carteretj,462.!C

Bogue Banks 50-year Master Beach Nourishment Plan
DWR# 20180944
Individual Certification "WQC004169
Page 3 of 9
NORTH, CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION #WQC004169 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401,
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina's Regulations
in 15 NCAC 021-1.0500 and 15A NCAC.02B .0200, to Mr. Greg Rudolph and Carteret County NC,
who have authorization for the impacts listed below, as described within your Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) application received by the N.C. Division of Water Resources
(Division) on July 3, 2018; Public Notice issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and received
by the Division on April 18, 2017 (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS); additional
Public Notice issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and received by the Division on March
1, 2018 (Final Environmental Impact Statement, FEIS).
The, State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable,portions of
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved. The•following,impacts, as detailed in your June 12, 2018 Event
Notification Letter for Project #1 to the US Army Corps of Engineers, are hereby approved
provided that all of the other specific and general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated
Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental impacts.
[15A NCAC 02H .0506(b) and/or (c)]:
Project #1, "Year-6" Event
Type of impact'
Amount Approved (units)
Plan Location or Reference
Permanent
Open
773 (acres) total
Water/Shallow
555 Old ODMDS
Sheet 40 of 61 "Borrow Area Site Plan"
Bottom Dredge
218 Current ODMDS
Figure 3-1 and Figure 4-5 of June 12, 2018
1,974,740 (cubic yards)
Project #1 Event Notification Letter
2. Conceptual Approval of Events Proposed, in the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment
Plan (BBMBNP). The Division approves the Bogue Banks MasterBeach Nourishment Plan
(Plan) and timeline of future dredging and material placement as described in the plans.
Prior to initiating any future phases or projects outside of Project #1 approved in Condition
#1 of this Certification, a request to modify this 401 Water Quality Certification shall be

Bogue Banks 5o year Madter Beach Nourishment Plan ,
i DW Rk 26180944
" individual Certification "WQC00410
iPage4.of,9
{submitted�with the appropriate fee tothe Dniision'of Water Resources for:review and
approval. (.15A NCAC 02H .0 i06(b),and/or{c)]
3. All construction'activities shall'be.performed andsmaintained in full compliaTice with any
permit(s)issued'bythe NCDivisionof. Coastal;Management; ! ;
i �-
4: All construction aetivities,shallbe performedand maintainedin full compliance with G.S.
Chapter 113A Article 4',(Sediment and Pollution ControhAct of 1973).
S. TM perm ttee and their contractorrshallschedule a,p�e'-conSt,ructi.on conference with the..
Divisiori of Coastal Managementiand the; U:S.'Ariny'Corps of Engineers,:arid invitethii
Division of:Water Resources;;prior to the, initiation of any activities authorized by this:
,. certification.,)
6. Any monitoring; dredging or as b'uiltsurveys required by the US'Army Corps of Engineers,
'shall also be provided.to the, Divislorr of Waterllesources. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(f)]
J. The Permittee shall`adhere, specially to 15A NCAC 02BA221 Tidal"Salt Water Quality for
Class SB Waters (3)(g) pHi� shall. be,normaliforwaters, in the area, which, generally Shall
range between 6.8 and'8.S except that, swamp, waters! may have,a pH as low as 4:3 if'it_is the ,
result.of natural,conditions;`(I).Turbidity the turbidity in. the receiving water shall not.
exceed25'NTU;,ift6rbidityexceeds.thislevei,due16natural,backgroundcoriditions,:the .
i exibshall,oncreaed.y, [15A NCAC 0213;0231] i
`8.; This approval isforthe:pu�pose and design described in yourapplicationnnd as described in
the Ne plaris and specifications".for this project; are:incorporated by reference
and are: an enforceable; part ,ofthe Certification. Any;modifiwtions to the project'require
'notification to.DWR and may require'anapplication'submittal to DWR with the appropriate
fee. [15A, NCAC 02H .0501and :05021'
9.. No.Waste; spoil, solids, or fill of any.kind shall -occur it°wetlands or -waters beyond the .
footprinYofthe impacts'(includingtemporary inn cts).as;authorized,under`th s.
Certification: [15A,NCAC 02H:.0501 and .0502]
10.•When applicable, all construction activities shall., be.performed.'and maintainedIn full:
compliance with -G.S.'Chapter' 113A Article 4,(Sediment end: Pollution Control. Act of 1973).
i' Regardless of'applicabllity of,the,Sediment';and Pollution Control Act, alijprojeets-shall I
incorporate appropriate Best Management Prac6ces•for,th'e control of se,diment:and erosion
so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes;; or rules occur. [35A,14CAC,
024.0506"(b)(3) and'(c)(3),and 1SA'NCAC-02B :02001
r

Bugue;Banks 50-year Master" BeaO Nourishment Plan
DWOR 201805144.
Individual Certificatlon'NJQG004i69'
Page;s'of'4'
Design, installation', operation,, and; maintenance of all sediment, and erosion controfi
measuresshall be:,equa► morexceeId the requirements specified in the most recent version
of Vie North C1.arolina Sediment• and Erosion•Control Manual,' or for linear transportation
projects; the NCDOT Sediment and Eroslon Confrol'Manuo%.
All devices shall be maintained on all construction sites,,borrow sites; and waste pile. (spoiij
sites; including . contractor -owned° or leased borrow pits associated! with the project.
Sufficient materials required-for-stabil'iiation and/or'repair of erosion control measuresand
stormwater routing andtreatment shall be on site at atl times.
For borrow.pitsites, the erosion and sediment controt::measuresshall beAe-signed3ristalled -
operated;'and;imaintained in accordance' with the rilost.recent version of the North Carolina
Surfdee Minmg,Manual. Reclamation measures and1mplementation, shall comply with the
reclamation in aceordancewith.the reguireme'ntsofthe5gdimeniation Pallut'ion.Controi'Act
and the Mining Act -of 1471; "
If the project occurs in waters or watersh'eds.class"ified as, Primary Nursery Areas (PNM), SA,
1NS I, WS 11, HighQuaUty Waters' (HClW), otQutstanding Resource Waters:(ORW) tfi'en the -
erosion control designs shall com I ,with the re uirements"set'forth in
sedimentation and g p y q
15A NCAc 04B .0124,,Design''Standords in Sensitive Watershed:
11, Sediment and.erosi orrcontrol measures shall not be.placed in wetlands, or waters.. -
Exceptions.to this condition require application;subniittal to and written approval by the
Division. If placement of sediment artderosion control devices 1h,wetlandsand waters is
Unavoidable, then desgn:and placement of temporary:erosion control measures shah not;
be conductedin,a.manner'that.may result in dls=equilibrium of wetlands, stream beds ,or
banks', adjacent toror upstream and downstream -of the above structures. All sediment and'
erosion control,devices shall be removed and.the natural grade restored within two(2)
months ofthe date that, the Division of Energy, M!neral'and Land Resources (DEMLR) or
locallydelegd.mhe specific area withintle project.
12, An N,PDES Construction,Stormwater;Permit isrequired for construction projects that:d
one.(1) or;more acres ofland. This Permit•atlows stormwater to fie'discharged.during'
d-iistuibing construction,activities as'stipulated`in the conditions of the permit. if your
project is,covered by this permit,:full:compliance.wnith permit conditiontliriduding the;
erosiorf & sedimentationcontrol plan, inspections and maintenance,.self-rrionitoring,,I
keepingandreporting"requirementsis:requiredL. Atopy:of-the.generalpermit
(NCG010000),,.inspection log sheets, and other` information may be found at:

Rogue Banks'SG- .ear Master Beaih Nourishment Plan
DWRg20180944
IndividualCertification "WQ0004169 i
Pa' e fi of9 .i
13. Constriction Moratoriums and'Coordination: If activities must-occur,during periods ofhigh
biologicaFactivity (i.e. sea turtle nesting, fish spawning, or bird, nesting), then biological
monitoring may be. required; at the request of other state or federal agencies and _
coordinated with these activities
All.mo�dtoriu'ms on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife Resources !
Commission (WRC);.US. Fish and Wildlife'Service (USFWS),.NC Divisiorivf Marine Fisheries t j
(DMF), :r National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impads.on.trout, anedromous
fish, larval/post-larval fishes and crustaceans,. orotheraquatic species: of concern shall;be
implemented., Exceptions to thiscondition'_ require` written approval by the. re9ource:agency
responsible for:the given moratorium.
Work;withinithe.twenty-five (25).designated trout counties or Identified state'or federal
'endangered or threafened'species habitat shall be-coordinated with the appropriate WRC, j
USFWS, NMFS, and%r,DMFFpersonneL: I,
!
14. Dredging shall -not cause Shellfish -Closures. The effluent wate'rfrom the'dredge. spoil should
notrbereleased into'open sh—dfish'waters: Shellfish Sanitation and the Division of Water
Quality musi,bemotified if this is to occur. ;
15. If concrete is used'during the`construction, then':all necessary measures'shall be taken to
prevent direct contact between uncured'or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water
thatinadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be'discharged to waters of the state
due totheepotenetaifor;elevated'pH and possibleaquatic life/fish. kills.
16: All,temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the:impacted area returned to natural
conditions; within 60 days of the determination tliatthe temporary'inipact is -no longer
necessary. The Impacted areas shall be restored to original grade;,including each stream's
original cross. sectional dimensions, plan form'pattern, and longitudinarbed and bed profile, j
'and the various sites shall be stabilized with natural woody vegetation (except approved
maintenance areas) and restored.to prevent erosion. j
17: All temporarypipes/culverts/riprap pads etc, shall be installed in all -streams as outlined in
the mostrecent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion'Control Planning and
Design Manualso as not to restrictstream flow or cause'dis-equilibrium.
18., All mechanized equipment;operated,near surface -waters shall be inspected and maintained
regularly to prevent contaminationof surface waters'from fuels; lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic.niaterials. Construction shall be staged in order, to minimize the exposure of
equipment to surface waters to the maximum extent practicable.. Fueling, lubrication: and
general equipment'maintenanceshall be performed in a -manner to prevent; to the•

�I
e Banks' S0 year Mastei Baachh6rishmentPlan,
Bogu
D,WRii 20180944,,
Individual Certification #W'QC004164•
, j
I
eage of 9
maximumextent practrcable,',ontamination of surface waters by>fuels and oils. if15A NCAC j
02H .0566(b)�) and: (c)(3)-and 154 ISIM 02B.0211(12)]
19. In accordance with 143-215.85(b), tNe applicantshallreport,any petroleum! spillof 25
gallons or'rhdre; any'spill regardless of-amount'thet causes a sheen on surface. waters;' any j
petroleum pill regardless.of amountoccurring wrioin,loo.feet•of surface"waters; grid any.
m petroleuspill less`;than 25:gallons•that cannot becleaned up within 24'•hours ,
20.,The permittee,shall report to:the,Wilmingtan Regional Office at,(919),7,96-7215.(after hours !
and on weekendscall 800-858 0368)•any noncompliance with this.certificatioh, any
Violation, oFstream orwetland standards"[15A NCAC.02B..62001 inciudingbut not limited.to
sediment,impacts [3'5A NCACi,02B..02001. Information shall be provided "oraljy.within 24
i
hours (orthe next business day, if'a;weekend or holiday) from the time the applicant
became aware of the circumstances: Awritten submission shall also bepe6 ded within.5
business days :6f the:time.the'appiicant 66c6mes4ware ofthe circumstances. The written i
;i " submission shall contain a descriptioh-of the noncompliance, and its causes;#he, period, of
noncompliance, including exact dates and times, ifthe noncompliancehas not been,: ?
corrected, the anticipated time compliance is expected to Continue, and steps taken ar
' ' '".planned to;reduce,.eliminate,,and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance 'The
Division•may waive the. written submission requirement an a case -by -case basis, '
21,,1f an 6nvironmentaldocumentis required underthe-S'ate'Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
.then this General Certification is not valid -.until a;Finding of No Signifrcantimpact (FONSI)'or.
Record of,Decrsron'(ROD) is issued bythe State Clearinghouse"' If an envi-ronmentai"
documehit is required under the National Environmental Polrc' Ad,' 4EPA), then,'this
General Certification is not valid until a'Categorical Ekclusion, the Final'Envieonmental ;
Assessment, or Final Environmental Impact Statement,is published,by the lead agency=1,15A_ i ;
22. This,Certif cation does not:relieve the"appllcant;ofihe responsibility?to "obtain all,other
required Federal, State; orlocal approvals before proceed ingEwith the project, including
those required byx but not;lirr`ited,to Sediment and Erosion.Contcol, Non -Discharge, Water • .j
Suppiy'Watershed; and Trout Buffer regulations,.
2 The applicant and.their authorized agents shall.conduct all activities in a manner consistent .
With, State wafer ;quality standards (including anyrequirerrients resufting from compliance
With §303(d) ofthe CIean,Water Act), end iny_oiherappmpr'iate requirem6hts of -State and
•Federal Law. If DWR determines that such standards or laws are riot tieing'met, including
faiiure,to sustarm•a:designated or achieved use, or that State or Federal law is being violated,,
or that furftier, conditions are necessary to assure compliance, then.DWR may,revok'e ar j
' modify a•written'authorizatiori associated.with thins General Water QualityCertifrcation.
415A NCAC 02K.0507{d)]

-
Bogue Banks 50-year Master Beach Nourishment Plan
DWR# 20180944
Individual Certification IWQC004169
Page 8 of 9
24. Carteret County shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with State
water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State and
Federal law. [35A NCAC 02B .0200] If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that
State or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification. Before modifying the
Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Greg Rudolph and Carteret County and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0503 and
provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0504. Any new
or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Greg Rudolph and Carteret County in writing,
shall be provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404
Permit for the project.
25. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this certification in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall
provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or
maintenance of this project with a copy of this Certification. A copy of this Certification,
including all conditions, shall be available at the project site during the construction and
maintenance of this project. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2)]
26. Upon completion of all permitted impacts in Project #1 and after completion of each
subsequent modification as approved, the applicant shall be required to return a certificate
of completion (available on the DWR website https:Hedocs.deg.nc.gov/Forms/Certificate-
of-Completion). [15A NCAC 02H .0502(f)]
27. If the property or project is sold or transferred, the new Permittee shall be given a copy of
this Certification and is responsible for complying with all conditions. Any new owner of the
property or project must notify the Division and may be required to request the
Certification be issued in their name. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
28. This Certification neither grants nor affirms any property right, license, or privilege in any
waters, sand or dredged material, or any right of use in any waters, sand or dredged
material. This Certification does not authorize any person to interfere with the riparian
rights, littoral rights, water use rights, sand rights or dredged material rights of any other
person and this Certification does not create any prescriptive right or any right of priority
regarding any usage of water, sandor dredged material. This Certification shall not be
interposed as a defense in any action respecting the determination of riparian or littoral
rights or other rights to water, sand or dredged material use. No consumptive user is
deemed by virtue of this Certification to possess any prescriptive or other right of priority

BogOe eanks,,SO-year (Uster BeacKftudsfime6f,'Plan
I bWR1i26i9694
Individual C , ertffitOkqn. 0004169
Page 9 of 9
with retp6cttb,.'any-other consumptive user regardless oftheqyantity ofthewitlidtawalor
thd.date omwhich the withdrawat was initjate rexppnded,
29..T,histcertification;gra6tstpdrmission to the director,an. authorized ,representative ,of the
Direct6r,.oi DEO.,staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to entet theproperty.
durin&norrnaf 4usilhgss hours.
This,approval to proceed with your proposed'impacts or-t&condud imp;kts.to Waters as.
depicted in.your application shall'expire'upon expiration 'cif th4..404 OrCAMA Permit. The,
conditions in effect on the date of issuance shall,rerfiaiiv-in effectforthe fife of the project,
regardless of'thieexpiration 'dateiof this -Certification.
�
Non-compliance with orviolation,of the.conditions herein set forth ',may ,result in. revopaijon,of
this Certiflcatioh and'may atso result in criminal alno/or civil penalties.
This. tbe,,31rtAay, of August, 2019,
7S
IV
e N 1! �6 r - 4 Karen . i gim
401 & Buffer�erlmitting.Branch
KAH/pdw
4169

NC Division of Coastal Management
Cashier's Official Receipt
Received From: Yif A
Permit No.:
Applicant's Name:
Project Address:
6365 A BCD
Dater 20
14-15 a
Check No.:
County:
Please retain receipt for your records as proof of payment for permit issued.
Signature of Agent or Applicant: //may
Signature of Field Representative:. L�Le ` A
Date -
Date: TI

Coats, Heather
From: Scott, Georgette
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 9:22 AM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
All these go to Dan. I don't have any comments..
Georgette Scott
State Stormwater Program Supervisor
Department of Environmental Quality
Office [phone]
Fax [phone]
Georgette. Scott(7ancdenr. gov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
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.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:54 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hi everyone,
Just checking in on the status of your comments for this project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
[e-mail]
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405

r
or . \,
Nothing Compares..
z'
K`C-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Simpson, Shaun
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <heidi.cox([e-mail]>; Staples, Shane
<[e-mail]>; Jenkins, Shannon <[e-mail]>; Walton, Tim
<[e-mail]>; Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hello All,
Thanks for your attention to the attached Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan permit application. Due to the
size of the application, we're sending this out electronically. Please see the link referenced below (also on the attached
cover sheet) to view and download the entire file. The Field Investigative Report is also attached. Before returning your
comments to Heather Coats, please add your name/dept. in the "TO" line on the cover sheet. You can also let Heather
know if you would like to receive hard copies of any of the linked information or if you have any questions regarding the
project.
Download all associated files
Thank you,
Shaun
Shaun Simpson
Permit Support & Customer Service
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC28405
Phone: [phone]
Shaun.Simason raj ncdenr.aov
fc. -- WolhW1compares-
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coats, Heather 1
From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Heather:
The download for the files did not work. However, beach nourishment that occurs seaward of the last line of stable
vegetation falls outside the jurisdiction of the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. The CAMA Major triggers a State
Stormwater review, but the lack of impervious surface creation basically means that Stormwater will review it and grant
a permit exception.
Thanks...
dan.sams
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources — Land Quality Section
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215
[e-mail]
(Nothing Compares...._
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:54 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hi everyone,
Just checking in on the status of your comments for this project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator

i
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
0- '.
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats(cbncdenr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
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.
From: Simpson, Shaun
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane
<[e-mail]>; Jenkins, Shannon <[e-mail]>; Walton, Tim
<[e-mail]>; Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hello All,
Thanks for your attention to the attached Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan permit application. Due to the
size of the application, we're sending this out electronically. Please see the link referenced below (also on the attached
cover sheet) to view and download the entire file. The Field Investigative Report is also attached. Before returning your
comments to Heather Coats, please add your name/dept. in the "TO" line on the cover sheet. You can also let Heather
know if you would like to receive hard copies of any of the linked information or if you have any questions regarding the
project.
Download all associated files
Thank you,
Shaun
Shaun Simpson
Permit Support & Customer Service
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC28405
Phone: [phone]
Shoun.simnson @ ncdenr. aov
Ac----"Io Nrn Comaa�.

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 26, 2018
To.
JF A'-i-0- pwcIot?�eTy Om'cE.
ROYCOOPER
MICHAEL S. REGAN
BRAXTON DAVIS
From: Heather Coats, Beach & Inlet Ma ent
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
Coordinator
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather coatsaa ncdenr
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33) gov
Subject: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County: Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated files
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 20, 201& If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
Z**ditional comments may be attached**
Th.-I
agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED I,
DATED
EYfiEt}
s DCM WILMINGTON, NC
rate of North Carolma a n ,,W QIW,y I Coaztal Management
127 Cardinal Dave E dmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 JUL 0 2 2018

Received: 07/02/2018 ID
ROY
State Historic Preservation Office COOPER
c".
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Coastal Management BRAXTON DAVIS
ENVIRONMENTAL OUAUIV iMm'wr
ER 10-0774
June 26, 2018
Due -- 7! 18/ 18
To: Renee Gledhill -Early
Dept. of Cultural Resources (y (� yG5/C p�
Archives 8. History A- J
7-(? -jf
From Heather Coats, Beach 3 inlet Management Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., INC 28405 heather.coats(&ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier04-96-33)
Subject: CAMA /Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County: Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated files
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return i
form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 20, 2018. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
"Additional comments may be attached"
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED JW^�tJCSI" DATED
Smm of �onh CervlirN FR11.n.M1QW9y I Cos"%Jmii Rent R
1-'?CN lDav Eu. Wfimll,L NC 2U05 9197%RRECEIVED
IS E C
JUL 0 3 2618
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

, L/
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
June 26, 2018
J U JUN 2 7 2gll �'
Shellfish SenitaGon c 4e;.eationaLl We ter auaG:y
To: I�_�
ROY COOPER
Gaur.,
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrcl�
BRAXTON DAVIS
Ulxrmr
From:
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(ftiodenr.gov
Fax: [phone] ( : "�!4?O)
Subject: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County: Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated files
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return th/s
form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 20, 2018. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
"Additional comments may be attached"
cAV This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED 1�1r V� —�'r` DATED _71`511� ;Z&npj;
RECEIVED !� �L 0 3 2018
Stab aflJanh CxoEm Emvonmeotal QualityCoattai Management
127 Owdinal iAi" EM.. Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215
JUL 13 2018 MP SECTION

:§ftki-E-N,I-; W-
June6,20j8
I
TQ! Hdethbt Costs.
Beach and ll,; Inlet anagement-Goordinatbr,
From:
Ajidrew!Halnes-
Environ entokp p vi,.
togrewsur.or 8, S
through:
ghanp6a Jenkins, Chief
gfiallfth Sanitatio'n-A Recreational Water'Quality
,SPWECT:-
CAMAIQREDQE 4 FILL Permit Application Rpvl'ew
.A0,01(taint"
C.art6rbfCountY,
PrOje4ct Lo-cat-ionc
Rogue :CbU,rtto Tar Landing Bogue Bank&
Rroposed Project: 50Year Comprehensive Beach Nourishment Plan froft Bogue Inlet
season: lf*any ,Iaffdplacement [6.tb.occur-priot.toNoveMberl-51:or-after'Marctt
31st,, ifisi requested that our-offica.be nollfiadli-nmediait I ely ' bylheapplicant anWor
the dredging contractor:so thatappr6priate pubknotiftatlon-can occur..
StareUNorth CuoUa-f-DWIsiandmarine FISFeam
B2

'�®
Coats, Heather
From: Staley, Mark K
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Cc: Harris, David B; DeWit, Benjamin J; Blankenship, Andrew; Goodwin, Jeremy A
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Heather,
I have looked over the Major Permit Report and do not have any comments to provide from the Roadside Environmental
Unit. Let us know if you have questions for REU concerning the nourishment project and/or the report. Thanks.
Mark Staley, CPESC, CPSWQ
Soil & Water Operations Engineer
Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 2948 office
[e-mail]
Transportation Building
1557 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
TAIL.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Harris, David B
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 5:16 PM
To: DeWit, Benjamin 1 <[e-mail]>; Blankenship, Andrew <[e-mail]>; Goodwin, Jeremy A
<[e-mail]>; Staley, Mark K <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Fyi
David Harris, PE
Roadside Environmental Unit
-------- Original message --------
From: "Coats, Heather" <heather.coatsgncdenr.aov>
Date: 7/25/18 5:10 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Harris, David B" <davidharrisancdot.gov>

Subject: FW: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hi David,
Just to let you know, the previous link to the project expired and the consultant had to create a new link. If you haven't
already downloaded it, you should be able to access the application from the share site link below.
Download all associated files .
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments or if I can help with anything.
Thanks,
Heather
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:54 PM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <[e-mail]>; Cox, Heidi <heidi.cox6Dncdenr.gov>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Harris, David B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Major Permit Field Report
Hi everyone,
Just checking in on the status of your comments for this project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project. Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather.coats(a).ncde nr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
/"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.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: August 17, 2018
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for Carteret County: Bogue Banks
50-year Master Beach Nourishment Plan, Carteret County.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the permit
application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site includes the area from
Bogue Inlet in Emerald Isle to Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach. Our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended,
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant is proposing a 50-year comprehensive beach management plan to address nourishment
needs from Bogue Inlet to Fort Macon. The overall project length is 23 miles. Sites identified as borrow
sites for the project area include the Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), the ebb channel of
Bogue Inlet, and other nearshore and upland sites identified and preliminarily evaluated for beach
compatibility. Vibracore samples have been obtained in potential borrow areas and the applicant has
acknowledged that additional sampling will be required from some sites as time passes. Anticipated
construction methodologies include pipeline and hopper dredges with the option of truck haul for upland
sources. No archaeological sites were found within the borrow source areas. Areas important to marine
resources were removed from consideration. The native beach sand was characterized using data
previously collected from other projects. Fines were calculated at less than 1%, sand 98.68%, and
combined granular and gravel material less than 1.32%. The waters of Bogue Inlet are classified SA-
ORW and the waters of Beaufort Inlet are classified SA by the Environmental Management Commission.
The NCWRC has been involved in the evaluation of this project throughout its development. We
appreciate the concept of beach management where a long-term plan is investigated and planned so the
best protection of wildlife resources can be implemented. The concept and success of a 50-year plan is
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 2
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
AUG 2 0 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

one that depends on the ability to review and make modifications based on past events, current conditions
of the shore, borrow sites, and resources, state and federal regulations, best management practices, and
other events that may not have affected project planning at this time. We encourage the applicant as well
as all agencies involved to keep aware of the project and its progress, allowing opportunities for
communication, consultation, and necessary modifications. We would not support this length of an active
permit if measures were not included that allowed means to protect wildlife resources as time passes.
These requests and project changes would be done to protect wildlife resources as appropriate.
Numerous important wildlife species are found in this area of Carteret County. Piping plover (Charadrius
melodus melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) and Kemp's
Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea),
loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles as well as several other important,
but not listed, species can be found. The applicant states that a May 1 — November 15 moratorium would
be observed to protect nesting sea turtles. We would like to note, that depending on the method of dredge,
additional measures may need to be taken to minimize take. The waters in this area remain warm enough
that sea turtles may be present prior to the start of nesting season. If hopper dredges are determined to be
used during the month of April, protective measures, such as trawling ahead of the dredge, may be
requested to prevent the take of sea turtles. This would be considered during the applicant's presentation
of the upcoming nourishment event that includes their methodology, schedule, and ongoing resource data
collection. The ability to request this is important, as was mentioned earlier, due to the length of the active
permit and the changes that may occur to sea turtle populations.
The ocean front beaches along the linear reach of the shore are highly developed and generally do not
support extensive shorebird nesting opportunities. However, the areas near Bogue Inlet and Fort Macon
are bare sand habitats with minimal development. These dynamic inlet areas provide nesting and forage
opportunities for several important shorebird species. During the Bogue Inlet realignment, as well as other
nourishment activities, an April 1 —November 15 moratorium was observed to protect the shorebirds and
sea turtles. The NCWRC requests the month of April be included within the moratorium as a permit
condition for these undeveloped areas near the inlets. Fresh material can be a benefit for species, but
surveys may need to be conducted prior to activities, depending on the time of year the nourishment
activities start. Nourishment activities should be scheduled to occur in these areas earlier in the project
implementation, equipment removed or repositioned, and then left unaltered as nourishment activities
continued in May along the remaining project area. We would welcome any consultation during this
process, including pre -construction meetings, pipeline alignment consultations, and survey reviews.
The NCWRC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application and looks
forward to continued communications as the project develops. If you need further assistance or additional
information, please contact me at [phone] or at maria.dunn aDncwildlife.org

ate,,,
IrL:i�
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Heather Coats, Beach and Inlet Management Coordinator
FROM:
Shane Staples, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT:
Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
DATE:
7/28/18
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed
the subject permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The applicant has
proposed a long-term beach and inlet management plan for the Bogue Banks region of North Carolina
which encompasses the area from Bogue Inlet east to the Beaufort Inlet. The plan includes beach
renourishment events expect to be need at 3, 6, and 9-year intervals starting in 2019 using sand from
offshore sources, inlet sources, and upland sources. In addition, the plan includes relocation of Bogue
Inlet channel should it migrate outside of the "safe box" to the location permitted in 2005. USACE
management of the Morehead City Harbor Channel and Bogue Inlet AIW W crossing that include beach
placement of dredged material is included as a part of the master beach nourishment plan.
DM fisheries staff have reviewed the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements that were created
for the development of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan. The final plan as proposed has incorporated
comments specifically the timing restrictions to reduce impacts to fish and benthic forage species in the
project area for dredging and beach placement into the plan. The stated construction widow is stated to be
from November 16 to April 30 of any given year. While this does leave out the beginning month of the
requested fisheries in -water work moratorium that begins on April 11 it does encompass the majority of
the time of highest biological productivity. For this reason, DCM fisheries will have no objections to the
project as proposed.
Contact Shane Staples at [phone] or shane.star)les(@,ncdenr.gov with further questions or
concerns.
State offlbrthC &m LPavi =Wtatgi ak MaaddMwas mmt.
:,, ...-. � ... �„ W2�ingUinO�Fk!1�9'Ia Wa3Rfd�[bff,ScN§eeMaa:�:tY3sRttig[�I;.Ndeta'�8i'dlfna27889

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 26, 2018
To:
ROY COOPER
G'w'Wor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
ierremry
BRAXTON DAVIS
r�tre� v r
From:
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. Coats(dncdenr.gov
Fax [phone]
Subject: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review
Applicant: Carteret County., Bogue Banks 50-yr Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Location: from Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road, in Carteret County
Proposed Project: a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet
in Emerald Island to the beginning for Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach
Download all associated files
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
at the address above by July 20, 2018. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate in-depth comments
with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: ✓ This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
"'Additional comments may be attached"
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
Fh-
SIGNED ZDATED %
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmertal Quality I Coastal Mnnegemeot
t27 Cardinal Drive Ext, Wihnington, NC 28405 919 7%7215
JUL 2 6 2013
r KTA I 181 fl? Let .. N 01

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
ACTION ID SAW-2009-00293
PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), all conditions of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management CAMA Permit *** dated ***Au ** 2018, and the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources 401 Water Quality Certification *** dated Au t ** 2018, are incorporated
by reference as part of the Department of the Army permit, and attached for your convenience.
All of the following Special Conditions run with each project event unless revoked and/or
modified during the review time of the individual event. NOTE: Additional conditions will
likely be added to individual events to cover specific aspects of those events.
Work Limits
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the attached
plans, which are a part of this permit, and specified in the March 4, 2016 BBMBNP. Any
modification to these plans must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) prior to implementation.
2. Prior to initiating any project shoreline protection activities specified in the BBMBNP, a
notification request must be submitted to the USACE office for prior approval. This
notification must provide a full and complete project event description, including but limited
to, justification/need for the project and how it correlates with the targeted 25-year Level of
Protection, construction footprints, construction methods and timeframes, borrow source(s),
dredging dimensions, beach placement amounts and profiles, and exact reach location(s). A
cumulative summary of all events completed to the date of submittal under the BBMBNP
must be included in the notification to keep a historic record over the 50-year period. The
summary must provide a list of all past events that includes the following: Start/end
timeframes, placement footprints, dredging footprints, and volume amounts.
Any work constructed under authorization of this permit shall be restricted to November 16-
Apri130 of any year during the life of this authorization. No work will occur outside this
time period. All activity, including mobilization efforts, is restricted from the beach and inlet
shorelines prior to November 16. Upon completion of work, all equipment, including
pipelines, must be removed by April 30.
4. Dredge work associated with a planned Bogue Inlet ebb tide channel relocation event must
be conducted with a hydraulic cutterhead dredge plant and shall be restricted to the boundary
of the designated "safe box". At no time will dredging occur outside this boundary.
Relocation events will be restricted to once every 10 to 15 years, resulting in a maximum of
five (5) events over the 50-year authorization period..
5. Dredging activities authorized by this permit shall not in any way interfere with those
operations of the USACE Civil Works dredging and.navigation projects.
6. If, at anytime, the Bogue Banks 50-year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Federal Project is

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: :Aepartmentof the. Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
funded and the permittee chooses to participate in this project, the permittee will notify the
USACE.Wilmington Regulatory of their participation in the federal project. Consideration
of this participation will be included in future evaluation of events under the BBMBNP.
The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall
provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance
of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions,
shall be available at the project site during the implementation and construction of each
project event.
8. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavating, dredging, mechanized land -clearing, or filling activities shall take place at any
time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This
permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of dredged material
excavated or material within waters of the United States outside of the permitted fill sites.
This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this management
plan.
9. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavation, dredging or fill shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of
this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within
waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
10. Prior to the use of borrow site Area Y75-80, additional geotechnical surveys (and other data
collection) must be conducted in, and within 1,500 linear feet of, the boundary of Y75/80 to
determine the presence of hardbottom habitat for ensuring that dredging activity and pipeline
placement is not within the 1,500-foot buffer. Results of the survey(s) and data collection
must be provided to USACE, NC Division of Coastal Management, and NMFS HCD for
verification.
11. Dredging depth cuts for offshore and inlet operations will be limited to the following:
a) ODMDS: Maximum dredge cut will be 21 feet and an undisturbed 2-foot buffer between
the original underlying ocean floor and the dredge cut will apply to all'dredging cuts. No cut
will exceed below -52 feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth).
b) Area Y: Dredge.cuts for Area Y-90/120 range from ON feet below original ocean floor,
leaving an undisturbed minimum 2-foot buffer of sandy substrate. No cut will exceed below
feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth). Dredge cuts for Area Y80/75
range from / 11 feet below original ocean floor, leaving an undisturbed minimum 2-foot
buffer of sandy substrate. No cut will exceed below'"' feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-
foot overdredge depth).
-c).Bogue.Inlet:.Dredgingrdepth of any realignment channel will not exceed -18 feet
NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth).

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
,,SUBJECT: Department of the Army. Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
12. For the AIWW Disposal Island borrow sites, the following must be met:
a) Use of Corps -owned disposal islands requires consent documents, which may impose
additional duties or fees. Please contact Todd Horton, Navigation Branch, [phone], to
coordinate efforts for the use of the AIWW disposal islands.
b) No wetlands or waters shall be impacted during the use of any identified disposal islands
for borrow source, including the construction of the discharge/outfall pipe.
c) Any dike improvement designs must be provided to the Corps for approval prior to
conducting the work.
d) Subject to approval by the Navigation Branch, the placement of any discharge pipe shall
be extended to deeper water sufficient to avoid shellfish and SAV habitat areas.
e) The discharge pipe must be installed in a manner to prevent a hazard to navigation in
accordance with Navigation Branch instruction and U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
13. For the use of any Upland Sand Mine Sources, additional sediment analysis must be
completed and submitted to the USACE and NC Division of Coastal Management to verify
that the material is beach compatible. The data must include, but not limited to, silt/clay
content, grain size, and color.
14. All material used for the beach nourishment must be compatible and clean and free of any
pollutants except in trace quantities.
Project Maintenance
15. The contractors name, phone number, and address, including any inspector's contact name
and phone number must be provided to the Wilmington District prior to initiating any work.
16. A pre -construction meeting must be held with the USACE prior to conducting the work to
ensure that there is a mutual understanding of all terms and conditions contained within this
Department of the Army permit. Participants may include, but are not limited to,
representatives from BOEM, USFWS, NC Division of Coastal Management and NC
Division of Water Quality.
17. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Resources at (919) 733-
5083, Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and
Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed.

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
18. The permittee shall ensure that an inspector is present during all beach disposal activities and
immediately report to the USACE in the event any incompatible material is placed on the
beach. During operations, material placed on the beach shall be inspected daily to ensure
compatibility. Sediment analysis must be submitted to the USACE every third day (or on a
Monday and Thursday schedule) to verify the material's compatibility. All analysis must
include, but not limited to, the location of the sample station, shell percentage, silt/clay
content, grain size, and color. If during the sampling process non -beach compatible material
is or has been placed on the beach,all work shall stop immediately and the USACE notified
by the permittee and/or its contractor to determine the appropriate plan of action.
19. Dredging surveys, for both offshore and inlet work, must be provided to our office twice a
week. These survey maps must include the location and width and depth of the area that has
been dredged. Upon completion of all dredging operations, a complete survey map showing
the final volume of material dredged and the dredged footprint must be submitted to the
USACE within 2 weeks upon completion of any dredging operations channel relocation.
20. For planned offshore dredging, a 1,500-foot buffer from all hardbottom areas must be
maintained with the placement of pipeline(s) in order to further protect hardbottom areas.
Pipeline locations must be located via Global Positioning Survey (GPS) and the GPS
bearings must be mapped and provided to our office once placement is completed, or no later
than one week after pipelines are in place.
21. As -built surveys of the beach must be provided to the USACE as they are being conducted.
Final surveys must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of each nourishment event.
22. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to
prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the
permit area. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A
Article 4).
23. Monitoring protocols for turbidity shall be implemented so as not to exceed the
turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) as described in 15A
NCAC 028.0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be used to
meet this standard. The monitoring protocols must be provided to the USACE,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office for review 30 days prior to project
commencement.
24. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration
before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time
and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
25. The permittee shall provide written notification of project completion within one (1) week
upon completion of the work authorized by this permit.

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
26. This Department of the Army permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,_ State
or local authorizations required by law.
27. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require
the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if,
in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the USACE, to remove, relocate, or alter the
structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No
claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal, relocation, or
alteration.
28. The authorized project must not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all
-navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent
the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized
work for any reason other than safety.
29. The permittee will comply with all U.S. Coast Guard regulations for dredging operations.
The permittee will contact Mr. Scott McAloon, U.S. Coast Guard, District 5 Waterways at
[phone] at least 30 days prior to construction. Contact with the U.S. Coast Guard
will initiate the Local Notice for Mariners procedures to ensure all safety precautions for aids
to navigation are implemented. The permittee shall also notify the Wilmington District
Engineer that coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard has been commenced, and provide
updates as necessary.
30. The permittee shall install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized
facilities. For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Safety Office at [phone].
31. hi issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or
unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future Federal
activities initiated on behalf of the general public.
c. Damages to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the authorized
activity.
d. Design and construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this
permit.
32. The permittee shall notify NOAA/NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE Chief Source Data Unit
N CS261, 1315 E West HWY- RM 7316, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282 at least two weeks
prior to beginning work and upon completion of work. Upson completion of work, the
permittee shall complete the attached form, titled eHniVPub% Nohce`Go o ti n

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Itenortrsrnrcuctt . The form shall be submitted to the USACE, Regulatory Division and to
NOAA/National Ocean Service.
Threatened and Endangered Species
33. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) August 28, 2017 North Carolina Statewide
Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) contains mandatory Reasonable and Prudent
Measures and Terms and Conditions that are associated with "incidental take" for beach
placement activities. Your authorization under this Corps permit is conditional upon your
compliance with all the mandatory reasonable and prudent measures and terms and
conditions see Appendix *** associated with incidental take of the SPBO, which terms and
conditions are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to comply with these SPBO
reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions, where a take of the listed species
occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance
with your Corps permit. The USFWS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance
with the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of its SPBO, and with the
Endangered Species Act. The entire SPBO can be accessed at
https://www.fws.gov/raleighlpdfs/sl)bo.l)df .
In the event an incidental take occurs during construction, all work must cease immediately
and contact must be made to the USACE, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, at (910) 251-
4811 or [e-mail] for consultation to determine the appropriate action.
34. The permittee must comply with all the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) and Terms
and Conditions (T&C) specified in the NMFS Protective Resource Division' (PRD) August
L* 2018 Biological Opinion (BO) (see Appendixes. Any deviations from the RPM and/or
T&C must have prior approval from the BOEM, USACE and NMFS PRD. For dredging
activities occurring within the ODMDS borrow site beyond the 3-nautical mile limit, BOEM
will be the lead agency in all coordination efforts for the implementation of the BO. In the
case of an incident take during construction, all work must cease immediately and contact
must be made to BOEM, Ms. Deena Hansen- Office of Environmental Programs at (703)
787-1653, or [e-mail], for further coordination with NMFS PRD. For
dredging operations within the 3-nautical mile limit and/or Bogue Inlet, USACE will be the
lead agency in all coordination efforts for the implementation of the BO. In the case of an
incidental take during construction, all work must cease immediately and contact must be
made to the USACE, Wilmington Regulatory, at [phone] or
[e-mail] for further coordination with NMFS PRD.
35. For dredging events within the 3-nautical mile limit, excluding work in Bogue Inlet, the
USACE will determine each project's eligibility, through coordination with NMFS PRD, to
be covered by the 1997 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO). If use of the
SARBO is determined appropriate, the permittee must adhere to the terms and conditions of
the 1997 SARBO to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with
"incidental take", also specified in the SARBO (attached Appendix M. Failure to comply
with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the 1997 SARBO, where a

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and result in non-
compliance with this DA permit.
36. Dredging operations involving hopper dredgeplants must follow the protocols outlined in the
Ho er Ihed e Condifions disclosed in Appendix ***
37. The permittee shall implement all necessary precautions and measures so that any activity
will not kill, injure, capture, pursue, harass, or otherwise harm any protected federally listed
species (such as sea turtles, whales, manatee, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, piping plover,
and red knot). While accomplishing the authorized work, if the permittee discovers or
observes a dead or injured listed endangered or threatened species, the USACE will be
immediately notified so that required coordination can be initiated with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
38. For Bogue Inlet channel relocation events, the additional measures must be followed:
a) Dredging in Bogue Inlet shall not include shoals or other areas above the Mean Low Low
Water (MLLW).
b) The permittee must identify and map the habitat types within the realignment footprint to
verify that shoals or other areas above the MLLW are not within the dredging footprint. This
mapping must be submitted to USACE for confirmation.
c) Pipeline Placement should avoid shorebird foraging, resting, and nesting habitat on the
inlet shoulders and the west end of Emerald isle, to the maximum extent practicable. A
distance of 100 feet or more from nesting shorebirds or shorebirds exhibiting breeding
behavior (courtship, territoriality) should be marked in the field to assist in avoidance of
these areas. Marking may include post and string and/or flagging. Any materials used for
marking should be maintained until at least August 31, after which time the materials should
be removed from the bench.
39. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the
applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee euidelines.pdf.
40. The permittee understands and agrees that, even where it is in full compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit and other required authorizations, incidental take of sea turtles
or other endangered species by the permittee may require suspension of the permit by the
Corps of Engineers. The amount of incidental take that will trigger suspension, and the need
for any such suspension, shall be determined at the time in the sole discretion of the Corps of
Engineers and/or BOEM, whoever is the lead agency during the project event. The permittee
understands and agrees on behalf of itself, its agents, contractors, and other representatives,
that no claim, legal action in equity or for damages, adjustment, or other entitlement against
the Corps of Engineers shall arise as a result of such suspension or related action.
7

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Werms and Conditions (as described in the NMFS Concurrence Letter dated ***, 2018
the need to avoid collisions with sea turtles. All construction
Lion barriers snailbe made of material in. wtucn a sea turtle cannot become
erly secured, and be tegularlymonitored to avoid protected species entrapn
not block sea turtle entry to or exit from designated critical habitat without
;went from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources D
times while in the construction area and while in water depths where
;sel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vese
i sea turtle is seen within 100 yards of the active daily constiuction/dredging o
;sel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure its l
ese'precautions shall include cessation, of operation of any moving equipment
feet of a sea turtle. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment shall'
mediately if a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen within a 50-ft radius of t]
unment. Activities may not resume until the protected species has denarted th(
,ollision with and/or injury to,a sea turtle or smalltooth sawf
:diately to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected
5312) and the local authorized sea turtle strandine/rescue on

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application;
Cultural Resources
47. If submerged cultural resources are encountered during the operation, work in the
area shall cease immediately. For dredging operations within the 3-nautical mile
limit, the USACE Wilmington District, Regulatory Division must be immediately
notified so that coordination can be initiated with the Underwater Archeology Unit
(UAU) of the Department of Cultural Resources. In emergency situations, the
permittee should immediately contact Mr. Nathan Henry at (910-458-9042), Fort
Fisher, so that a full assessment of the artifacts can be made. For dredging activities
occurring beyond the 3-nautical mile limit, within the ODMDS borrow site, BOEM
will be the lead agency and must be immediately notified for the coordination efforts
to take place.
Enforcement
48. Violations of these permit conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, Attn: Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, mickey.t.sugena,usace.army.mil,
[phone] within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
49. A representative of the USACE, Regulatory Division will periodically and randomly inspect
the work for compliance with these conditions. Deviations from the permitted activities and
permit conditions may result in cessation of work until the problem is resolved to the
satisfaction of the USACE. No claim, legal action in equity or for damages, adjustment, or
other entitlement shall be asserted against the United States on account of any such required
cessation or related action, by the permittee, its agents, contractors, or other representatives.
50.
Miscellaneous
51. Monitoring protocols for turbidity shall be implemented so as not to exceed the
turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) as described in 15A
NCAC 028.0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be used to
meet this standard. The monitoring protocols must be provided to the USACE,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office for review 30 days prior to project
commencement.
52. All reports and written notifications required by these permit conditions shall be sent
to the USACE c/o the following POC and address: Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office, Attn: Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, or mickev.t.sua n,usace.army.mil,
[phone].
0

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
53. All measures and obligations, not previously described above, outlined in Section 6.0
of the February 2018 Final EIS must be fulfilled accordingly.
54. To the extent that any permit attachments and plans conflict with the permit special
conditions, the permit special conditions shall prevail.
10

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the, Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Appendix *
Appendix *
USFWS BO
NMFS BO
11

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Appendix *
12

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
HOPPER DREDGE CONDITIONS
Endangered Species Protection:
a1sKrcuct3l. Hopper dredging is being approved under the South Atlantic Regional_
ologicalp (RBO) the ERDC web site at the following linl
>://el.erde. sace.army.niil/seaturtles/ efs-bo cfi l.JREGcuclal The National Marine Fisherie
vice (NMFS) has directed that the RBO issued to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sen
formal consultation for the proposed project. The RBO includes an Incidental Take[_
tement (ITS) issued to the Corps for its civil and military hopper dredging projects. Und
RBOATS, incidental takes are authorized on a Fiscal Year (FY) (October 1 - September
is to be metered out by the Division Commander, South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army C
°ngineers for the southeastern United States for Corps civil and military projects. Thd
puttee is hereby advised to avoid any incidental take in that such take may trigger th
sation of hopper dredging for the remainder of that FY. The Pemuttee understands an
ees that, even where it is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the RBO/I'I
idental take by the Permittee may require suspension of the permit by the Corps of Engir
amount of incidental take that will trigger suspension, and the need for any such susper
.11 be determined at the time in the sole discretion of the Corps of Engineers. The Permit
ierstands and agrees on behalf of itself, its agents, contractors, and other representatives,_
claim, legal action in equity or for damages, adjustment, or other entitlement against
'ores permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species. In order to leg
i species, you shallhave separate authorization under the ESA (e.g., an ESA Sect:
,'or a BO under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take" provisions with which you
y). The enclosed NMFS South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO) co
dory terms and conditions to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that
ated with "incidental take" that is also specified in the BO. Your authorization unc
permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms an
ions associated with incidental take of SARBO, which terms and conditions
orated by reference in this permit. Failure -to comply with the terms and condition
ated with incidental take of the SARBO, where a take of the listed species: occurs,
tote an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute noncompliance with your E
t. The NMFS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms,,
b. Dredging operations shall cease immediately upon the first incidental take, and
thereafter as directed by the Corps, until the District Engineer, or his designee, notifies the
Pennittee to resume dredging. The Permittee_shall immediately notify the U.S Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, ro ect Mana'Qethat an incidental take has occurred. The Sea
Turtle Mortality Report, attached to this permit, will be filled out by the Observer immediately
(within 6 hours) and e-mailed in df format to [e-mail] and Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Pro'ect Manage . The permittee shall contact the National
13

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Dredging Quality Management (DQM) program (http://dgm.usace.anny.mil/) to ensure that
project information is loaded and data is being appropriately transferred prior to project
commencement.
#. Pre -Dredging Submittals: (1) No dredging shall be performed by a hopper dredge without the
inclusion of a rigid sea turtle deflector device. Within 15 days of the anticipated start date, the
Permittee shall electronically submit drawings showin the ro osed device and its attachment to
the Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, ra'eCt Mana e . These drawings shall
include the approach angle for any and all depths to be dredged during the dredging. (2) The
Permittee shall electronically, submit detailed drawings showing the proposed draghead grating
system(s) and draghead(s), and documentation that supports grate sizing (such as dredge pump
manufacturer's recommended maximum particle size dimension(s), etc.). (3) The permittee
shall electronically submit an operational plan to achieve protection of sea turtles during the
hopper dredging operation.
A copy of the approved drawings and calculations shall be available on the vessel during the
dredging. No dredging work shall be allowed to commence until approval of the turtle deflector
device has been granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. SamD1
#. Pre -Dredging Inspection: A pre -dredging inspection of the hopper dredge shall be performed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in accordance with the protocol
entitled "COE SEA TURTLE INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR HOPPER DREDGES for Corps
projects or Corps/Army Permitted Project" located on the website listed in special conditio
pumber, ' a elow
#s'0—eyDredge�E `ni merit:" ceuc ` opper dredge dragheads shall be equipped with sea
turtle deflectors which are rigidly attached. Deflectors shall be solid with no openings in the
face. Such designs will be considered provided sufficient information is included indicating a
particular modification is effective in minimizing potential turtle takes. USACE technical staff
will coordinate with NOAA Fisheries on the effectiveness of this alternate design. No dredging
shall be performed by a hopper dredge without an installed turtle deflector device approved by
the Corps of Engineers. Sample Turtle Deflector Draghead Design Specifications are on the first
web site indicated in special condition number lbelow The permittee shall ensure that
drawings of the proposed sea turtle deflector device and the Hopper Dredge Deflector Device
Checklist form Attachment are complete and all required documentation submitted to the
Corps, at least 30 days prior to initiating the authorized work. The permittee shall not commence
hopper dredging until approval of the sea turtle deflector device has been granted by the Corps.
A copy of the approved drawings, calculations and singed Hopper Dredging Deflector Device
Checklist form hall be available on the vessel during dredging operations.
a. Deflector Design:
(1) The leading V-shaped portion of the deflector shall have an included angle of less
than 90 degrees. Internal reinforcement shall be installed in the deflector to prevent structural
14

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
failure of the device. The leading edge of the deflector shall be designed to have a plowing
effect of at least 6" depth when the drag head is being operated. Appropriate instrumentation or
indicator shall be used and kept in proper calibration to insure the critical "approach angle".
(Information Only Note: The design "approach angle" or the angle of lower drag head pipe
relative to the average sediment plane is very important to the proper operation of a deflector. If
the lower drag head pipe angle in actual dredging conditions vanes tremendously from the
design angle of approach used in the development of the deflector, the 6" plowing effect does not
occur. Therefore, every effort should be made to insure this design "approach angle" is
maintained with the lower drag pipe.)
(2) If adjustable depth deflectors are installed, they shall be rigidly attached to the drag
head using either a hinged aft attachment point or an aft trunnion attachment point in association
with an adjustable pin front attachment point or cable front attachment point with a stop set to
obtain the 6" plowing effect. This arrangement allows fine-tuning the 6" plowing effect for
varying depths. After the deflector is properly adjusted there shall be NO openings between the
deflector and the drag head that are more than 4" by 4".
b. In -flow Baskets and overflow screening:
(1) The Permittee shall ensure that baskets or screening are installed over the hopper
inflow(s) with no greater than 4" x 4" openings. The method selected shall depend on the
construction of the dredge used and shall be approved by the District Engineer prior to
commencement of dredging. The screening shall provide 100% screening of the hopper
inflow(s). The screens and/or baskets shall remain in place throughout the performance of the
work. The turtle deflector device and inflow screens shall be maintained in operational condition
for the entire dredging operation.
(2) The Permittee shall install and maintain floodlights suitable for illumination of the
baskets or screening to allow the observer to safely monitor the hopper baskets or screening to
allow the observer to safely monitor the hopper basket(s) during non -daylight hours or other
periods of poor visibility. Safe access shall be provided to the inflow baskets or screens to allow
the observer to inspect for turtles, turtle parts, or damage.
(3) The Permittee shall implement 100% overflow screening if inflow screening is not
practicable and if prior approval has been granted by the Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
c. Draghead grating:
(1) Draghead grating may be used to prevent over -sized objects (relative to respective
pump and distribution system designs) from reaching and becoming lodged or damaging, the
dredge pump and/or slurry distribution system. The Permittee may not use a draghead grating
system that would prevent turtle remains from entering the hopper inflow screening. Detailed
drawings showing the proposed draghead grating system(s). and draghead(s), and documentation
that supports grate sizing (such as dredge pump manufacturer's recommended maximum particle
size dimension(s), etc.) shall be submitted. Exceptions for smaller draghead screens will be
15

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
considered as necessary (e.g., in areas containing ordnance or excessive debris likely to clog or .
damage the pumps) with supporting justifications. No dredging shall begin until the District has
approved all grating and screening.
d. Hopper Dredge Operation:
(1) The Permittee shall operate the hopper dredge to minimize the possibility of taking
sea turtles and to comply with the requirements stated in the Incidental Take Statement provided
by the NMFS in their RBO.
(2) The turtle deflector device and inflow screens shall be maintained in operational
condition for the entire dredging operation.
ough to prime the pumps, and then the drag heads must be placed firmly on the bottom.
ting the drag heads from the bottom, suction through the drag heads shall be allowed just
ough to clear the lines, and then must cease. Pumping water through, the dragheads shall
file maneuvering or during travel to/from the;, disposal area. If the required, dredging sect
,ludes compacted fine sands or stiff clays, a properly configured arrangement of teeth me
hance dredge efficiency, which reduces total dredging hours, and "turtle takes." The ope
a drag head with teeth must be monitored for each dredged section to insure that excessi,
iterial is not forced into the suction line. When excess high -density material enters the st
ie, suction velocities drop to extremely low levels causing conditions for plugging of the
cfion pipe. Dredge operators should configure and operate their equipment to eliminate
x-level suction velocities. Pipe plugging in the past was easily corrected, when low such
locities occurred, by raising the drag head off the bottom until the suction velocities incrt
an appropriate level. Pipe plugging cannot be corrected by raising the drag head off the[
ttom. Arrangements of teeth and/or the reconfiguration of teeth should be made during t
(4) The Permittee shall not raise the drag head off the bottom to increase suction. The
primary adjustment for providing additional mixing water to the suction line should be through
water ports. To insure that suction velocities do not drop below appropriate levels, the Dredging
Inspector for the Permittee shall monitor production meters throughout the job and adjust
primarily the number and opening sizes of water ports. Water port openings on top of the drag
head or on raised standpipes above the drag head shall be screened before they are utilized on the
dredging project. If a dredge section includes sandy shoals on one end of tract line and mud
sediments on the other end of the tract line, the equipment shall be adjusted to eliminate drag
head pick-ups to clear the suction line.
(5) The drag head shall be buried a minimum of 6 inches in the sediment at all times.
Although the over depth prism is not the required dredging prism, the Permittee shall achieve the
required prism by removing the material from the allowable over depth prism.
(6) During turning operations the pumps must either be shut off or reduced in speed to the
point where no suction velocity or vacuum exists.
i[M

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
#. Recording charts for Hopper Dredge(s): The recording system shall be capable of capturing
data at variable intervals but with a frequency of not less than every 60 seconds. All data shall
be time correlated to a 24-hour clock and the recording system shall include a method of daily
evaluation of the data collected. This data shall be made available at the request of the issuing
District.
#. The National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program:
Lager ient (DQM) Program. DQM is the USACE's next generationautomated dredginj
storing system and analysis tools for the modern USACE dredging manager: The miss.
slational DQM Program is to provide the USACE dredging manager with a nationallyL
dardized low cost remote monitoring and documentation system. This system provides
?s with timely data access„multiple reportingformats, full technical support, including'
Ige certifications,,data. quality control; database management, and support' for the DQM
sting system. On board the dredge, sensors continually monitor dredge activities, open
efficiency. Information from these, sensors is routed to the National DQM Support Cer
processing, storage and publishing. The DQM system must have been certified by the[
inter Research'and.-Development Center (EEDC) within the last year and comply with
it specifications for hopper dredges. Questions regarding certification should be ad e
DQM support center at 877-840-8024. Additional information including the curren
sired hopper dredge specifications at DQM is available a
#. (Atlantic Only) Sea Turtle Non -Capture Trawl Sweeping
In order to minimize or reduce taking of turtles during dredging, non -capture trawling is
required. This type of trawling is designed to use non -capture type trawling equipment to sweep
in the proximity of the dredging operations in order to stimulate sea turtles to move out of the
dredge path. No sea turtles will be captured using this trawling technique. Non -capture trawl
sweeping shall be performed 48 hours prior to initiating dredging and shall continue throughout
dredging operations. Conduct non -capture trawl sweeping operations in the vicinity of dredge
operations, but maintain a safe distance from the dredge. Trawl equipment used (e.g. trawling
nets) and trawl sweeping operations shall be conducted such that no sea turtles or other marine
organism by -catch are captured: As much as possible, non -capture trawl sweeping shall be
conducted to maximize the amount of time during each 24-hour trawl day that the trawl
equipment (e.g. trawling nets) sweeps the bottom sediment in the vicinity of the dredging
operation (i.e. maximize the bottom time with the trawling equipment). Such trawling in the
vicinity of the dredge shall be conducted continuously, stopping after every 4 to 6 hours to check
the condition of the trawl equipment and assure that no turtles have been captured.
a. Non -capture Trawl Sweeping Period:
17

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-110293/ Carteret County) -
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Non -capture trawl sweeping shall be conducted as described below:
(1) A day of non -capture trawl sweeping shall be defined as 24 hours of continuous
trawling.
(2) Non -capture trawl sweeping may be conducted as 24-hours of trawling as a
continuous trawl; however, two separate crews shall be available on board to work two 12-hour
shifts.
b. Turtle Handling and Endangered Species Permits:
No sea turtles are to be intentionally captured during non -capture trawl sweeping operations. No
endangered species permits to handle sea turtles are required for non -capture trawl sweeping.
Should a sea turtle become entangled in the trawling, nets; the nearest marine facility will be
notified for arrangements to be made to transfer the animal as needed.
c. Reporting:
A daily log shall be kept for each non -capture trawl sweeping operations. The non -capture trawl
sweeping log shall be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, r "ec
onager o :ceraddres at the completion of the project. Data to be included with this log daily
will include:
(1) GIS coordinate of trawl locations at the start and end of each sweep
(2) Times recorded for each trawl sweep duration;
(3) Description of dredge proximity during each sweep;
(4) General notes as appropriate (e.g. condition of equipment at the end of each sweep,
snags occurring during each sweep, incidental debris, etc.).
(5) Water Quality and Physical Measurements: Water temperature measurements shall be
taken at the water surface each day using a laboratory thermometer. Weather conditions shall be
recorded from visual observations and instruments on the trawler. Weather conditions, air
temperature, wind velocity and direction, sea state -wave height, and precipitation shall be
recorded on the Sea Turtle Trawling Report on the web site indicated in _pe:Z61 conditio
pumber,;lGY'belov. High and low tides shall be recorded.
d. Non -Capture Trawl Sweeping Equipment:
1. To reduce the chances of sea turtles becoming entangled and caught in the net
webbing during non -capture trawl sweeping, the Contractor shall use standard flat -style shrimp
trawling nets. Nets shall have one to two-inch webbing holes, the webbing should be made of
nylon material (preferably dipped.)
2. The bag end of these nets shall be completely cut out so that the nets remaining on
the rigging are approximately 30 to 50-feet long. The nets shall be long enough to provide a
IF]

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
trailing length of net in the water to "stimulate turtles" to move but not be long enough to be able
to twist when: 1) being pulled in the water; 2).being pulled up and onto the deck; 3) the vessel is
stationary; or 4) the trawl vessel turns while trawling. This net length may be shorter or longer
depending on the specific configurations of the trawler and its rigging, but shall be set up to
specifically prevent the twisting of the net. The nets shall be installed and adjusted such that
organisms are not being collected (turtles and other by -catch).
3. The bag end of the nets shall be cut away to create a large open end on the nets.
The webbing shall be monitored so that tears and rips do not occur in the remaining webbing that
might entangle and capture organisms (particularly turtles).
4: To ensure that the lead line and mouth of the trawl nets maintain contact with the
seafloor as best as possible, the lead line of each net shall be rigged with weights, mud rollers,
tickler chains and/or trawling cookies (as appropriate for the environmental conditions and
sediment type).
# Endangered Species Observers: During dredging operations, observers approved by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — Fisheries (NOAA-Fisheries) sea turtles,
sturgeon (shormose and Atlantic) and whales shall be aboard to monitor for the presence of the
species. Observer coverage shall be 100 percent (24hr/day) and shall be conducted year round.
During transit to and from the disposal area, the observer shall monitor from the bridge during
daylight hours for the presence of endangered species, especially the Northern right whale,
during the period December through March. During dredging operations, while dragheads are
submerged, the observer shall continuously monitor the inflow and/or overflow screening for
turtles and/or turtle parts and sturgeon (Shortnose and Atlantic) and/or sturgeon (shortnose and
Atlantic) parts. Upon completion of each load cycle, dragheads should be monitored as the
draghead is lifted from the sea surface and is placed on the saddle in order to assure that sea
turtles that may be impinged within draghead are not lost and un-accounted for. Observers shall
physically inspect dragheads and inflow and overflow screening/boxes for threatened and
endangered species take. Other abiotic and biotic debris found in the screens during their
examination for sea turtle or sturgeon (shortnose and Atlantic) parts shall be recorded and then
disposed of so as not to impede the functioning of the screens during the next load cycle.
a. Monitoring Reports: The results of the monitoring shall be recorded on the appropriate
observation sheets. There is a sheet for each load, a daily summary sheet, and a weekly summary
sheet. In addition, there will be a post dredging summary sheet. Observations sheets shall be
completed regardless of whether any takes of sturgeon (Shortnose or Atlantic), whales, or sea
19

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009700293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
turtles occur. In the event of any sea turtle or sturgeon (Atlantic or Shortnose) take by the
dredge, appropriate incident reporting forms shall be completed. In the event an incidental sea
turtle, whales, manatee, sturgeon (Shortnose or Atlantic) take occurs by a dredge, the permittee
must stop all dredging operations and contact the Wilmington District for consultation to
determine the appropriate action, including the immediate implementation of sea turtle
conservation measures that must be taken. The Permittee shall immediately noti Wilmin on
District, Regulatory Division, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, Attn: Pro ectrak V i!merfE'
mralt 'c're'oPssand,Phorta.lm that an incidental take has occurred. Additionally, all
specimens shall be photographed with a digital camera. These photographs shall be attached to
respective reports for documentation. Dredging of subsequent loads shall not commence until all
appropriate reports are completed from the previous dredging load to ensure completeness and
thoroughness of documentation associated with the incidental take Reports shall be submitted to
the Corps within 24-hours of the take. Copies of the forms shall be legible. Observer forms may
be accessed on the web site indicated in pecial( on lition.number i'YXbeloww
c. The Permittee shall provide a digital camera, with an image resolution capability of at
least 300 dpi, in order to photographically report all incidental takes, without regard to species,
during dredging operations. Immediately following the incidental take of any threatened or
endangered species, images shall be provided, via email, CD or DVD to the Contracting
Officer's Representative in a .JPG or .TIF format and shall accompany incidental take forms.
The nature of findings shall be fully described in the incidental take forms including references
to photographs.
#. Manatee, Sea Turtle, Sturgeon, and Whale Sighting Reports
Any take concerning a manatee, sea turtle, sturgeon (shortnose or Atlantic), or whale (Atlantic
only); or sighting of any injured or incapacitated manatees, sea turtles, or whales shall be
reported immediately to the Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Distric i'ro'ec Ivlcina' e',.
A copy of the incidental take report shall be provided within 24 hours of the incident. The
Permittee shall also immediately report any collision with and/or injury to a manatee to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If a sea turtle is taken by the dredge (live or dead), the
Permittee shall email a PDF version of the incidental take report to NOAA-Fisheries Southeast
Region at the following email address within 24 hours of the take: [e-mail]
and to Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, & L_. ana e°:.
#. Disposition of Sea Turtles or Turtle Parts
a. Turtles taken by hopper dredge
20

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
(1) Dead turtles - Upon removal of sea turtle and/or parts from the draghead or
screening, observers shall take photographs as to sufficiently document major characteristics of
the turtle or turtle parts including but not limited to dorsal, ventral, anterior, and posterior views.
For all photographs taken, a backdrop shall be prepared to document the dredge name, observer
company name, contract title, time, date, species, load number, location of dredging, and specific
location taken (draghead, screening, etc.). Carcass/turtle parts shall also be scanned for flipper
and Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags. Any identified tags shall be recorded on the "Sea
Turtle Incidental Take Form" that is included in the "Endan eyed Species Observer Program
Forms" located on the web site indicated in special condition number • tbelo.. Turtle parts
which cannot be positively identified to species, on board the dredge or barge(s) shall be
preserved by the observer(s) for later identification. A tissue sample shall be collected from any
lethally taken sea turtle and submitted under the process stated in the "Protocol for Collecting
Tissue Samples from Turtles for Genetic Analysis" found in the CONSTRUCTION FORMS
AND DETAILS below. All genetic samples collected shall be submitted to NMFS within 30-
days.of collection and verification of submittal to NMFS shall be provided to the Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Pro`ectMana e . After all data collection is complete, the sea
turtle parts shall be placed in plastic bags, labeled as to the time, date, and dredged reach of
collection, kept frozen and transported to the Sea Turtle Hospital, Surf City, North Carolina. If
no local facility is capable of receiving the sea turtle/parts, they shall be marked (spray paint
works well), weighted down and disposed of in accordance with the direction of the Army Corps
of Engineers, Wilmington District, Pro'ect Mana e .
(2) Live Turtles - Observer(s) shall measure, weigh, scan for PIT tags, tag (Iconnel
flipper and PIT tags (if PIT tag not located during scan, and only if observer is qualified to tag
using PIT tags)), and photograph any live turtle(s) incidentally taken by the dredge. Observer(s)
(or their authorized re resentative shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, ro'ect Mana a and eresa Russel , Environmental Resources Branch, to
transport, as soon as possible, the live turtle(s) taken by the dredge to an approved rehabilitation
facility in the project area.
#. Report Submission:
The Permittee shall maintain a log detailing all incidents, including sightings, collisions with,
injuries, or killing of manatees, sea turtles, sturgeon (Shormose or Atlantic), or whales occurring
during the contract en'od. The data shall be recorded on forms available on the website as
indicated in vecial condition number tbelo. All data in original form shall be forwarded
directly to the Wilmington District within 10 days of collection. Following project completion, a
report summarizing the above incidents and sightings shall be submitted to
Regulatory, Division
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District,
21

CESAW-RG-L (Application: SAW-2009-00293/ Carteret County)
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Above -Numbered Permit Application
Environmental Resources Branch
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina, 28403
National Marine Fisheries Service
Protected Species Management Branch
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida33701
Ms. Maria Dunn
NCWRC/Habitat Conservation Program
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dr. Matthew Godfrey
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1507 Ann Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
Reporting Forms:
(List of forms required under this permit include: Sea Turtle/Pre and Post -Hopper Dredging
Project Checklist, Endangered Species Observer Program Forms, Sea Turtle Tagging and
Relocation Report, and Sea Turtle Trawling Report.)
22

a
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 18, 2018
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW-2009-00293
Mr. Fritz Rohde
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Dear Mr. Rohde:
" a h= RECE D
JAN 2 2 2018
DCM- MHD CITY
Please reference the proposal by Carteret County to pursue a Department of the
Army authorization to implement the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan,
which is a 50-year beach management plan for approximately 18 miles of oceanfront
shoreline along Bogue Banks and for the ebb tide channel of Bogue Inlet. The project
site is located within the town limits of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine
Knoll Shores, and within the Bogue Inlet Complex, along Bogue Banks Island, in
Carteret County, North Carolina.
In evaluating the project, activities associated with the plan may adversely affect
EFH; consequently, the enclosed December 2017 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Assessment was prepared in order to summarize the potential effects of the management
plan to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) trust resources pursuant to the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The proposed 50-year management plan has identified specific amount and
placement needs, borrow sites, construction methods, and frequencies of single events
(please note Table 2.1 in the EFH Assessment for the proposed sand placement
activities). The proposed borrow sites for beach fill are located offshore within the 3-
nautical mile (run) limit of the oceanfront shoreline and beyond the 3-nm limit, which
triggers the regulatory permitting authority for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Due to the complexity
of the project and the overlapping Regulatory authorities between the Corps and BOEM,
this request to initiate consultation is being conducted jointly by our two agencies. The
Corps and BOEM have an established agreement for the roles of responsibilities

w
ok
-2-
concerning the EFH consultation. These roles will be further delineated pending project
authorization. To assist NMFS's EFH evaluation, Table 1 below describes the various
scenarios and the defined lead agency for each single dredging and beach placement
event.
Table 1. Lead Agency for specific activities within the Action Area of the proposed project.
LEAD AGENCY
ACTIVITY
BOEM
Dredging outside of 3-nm limit (i.e., use of
ODMDS borrow site)
CORPS
Dredging inside of 3-nm limit (i.e., use of Old
ODMDS & Area Y borrow sites)
CORPS I
Dredging within Bogue Inlet
CORPS
Placement of Dredge Material along the
Oceanfront
In order to comply with EFH regulations (50 CFR Section 600.920) and the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Section 305[b][4][B]),
our agencies request that you review and provide any additional recommendations and
comments on the findings made in the December 2017 EFH Assessment for the County's
proposed project, and/or provide a written statement that further consultation is not
required, within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
For ease of coordination, your agency may direct any questions regarding this
consultation request to the Corps Wilmington District Office. If you have any questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mickey Sugg in the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office at (910) 2514811, or by e-mail mickev.t.sugg(@usace.armv.mil.
Sincerely,
Eric Reusch, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Geo W' Chief
Branch of Environmental Coordination
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

-3-
Copy Furnished (w/CD only):
Mr. Pace Wilber, Branch Chief
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. Greg Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Post Office Box 4297
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Mr. Johnny Martin
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls ofNeuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Roy Brownlow
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Greg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Copies Furnished (w/o enclosures):
Mr. Frank Rush, Manager
Town of Emerald Isle
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle North Carolina 28594
Mr. Brian Kramer, Manager
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Sh., North Carolina 28512
Mr. David Walker, Manager
Town of Atlantic Beach
Post Office Box 10,
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Ms. Ronda Lambert, Town Clerk
Town of Indian Beach
Post Office Box 306
Salter Path North Carolina 28575
Mr. Tommy Bums, Manager
Carteret County
Courthouse Square
Beaufort North Carolina 28516
Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief
Wetlands Section- Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

me
Ms. Dawn York and Mr. Rahlff Ingle
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 N. Front St., Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ms. Deena Hansen
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Environmental Programs
45600 Woodland Road
Sterling, Virginia 20166

C ARTERET COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
AFFIDAVIT OF P? TBLICATION
Before (he undersigned •, notary public of said County and State, duly commis-
sioned, qualified, and-wtht�rized by law [o administer oaths, personally appeared
Judy F. Allred who being
first duly sworn; deposes and says that he (she) is Clerk
(Owner, partner, publisher or other officer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
of THE C ARTFRET Pi BLISHING CO., INC., engaged in the publication of a
newspaper known as CARTERET COUNTY NEWS -TIMES, published, issued,
wA entered as second class mail in the Town of ;Morehead City, in said County
and State; that he (she) is authorized to n ake this affidavit and sworn statement;
,hat the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached here-
to was published in CARTE:RET COUNTY NEWS -TIMES on the following
date, G6/29/2018 _,-
nd that the,z�d new,percr .n which such notice, paper, document, or legal adver-
t: Pment wa- ;rah;, .r. nJ wa , at the time of each and every such publication, a news-
paHtr meeting:.:; of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
Cleneral Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the mean-
int. of Sxtion 1-507 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This 29th day of June, 2018
( ig amre of etson making affidavit)
S . om and subscribed to be., re me, this:
t of June.::018
-:ary Public
B 2,:
April 25, 019
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MA10Rv
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives
public notice as required by NCGS 113A-119(b) that the
following application was submitted for a developmrm
permit in an Area of Environmental Concern as designated
under the CAMA: On June 6, 2016 the County of Carteret
proposed a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment
plan from Bogus Inlet at Emerald Isle to the beginn7,g of
Fort Macon, in Atlantic Beach. A copy of the applim tidn can
be examined or copied at the office of Heather Coa.� N.C.
Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC
28405, [phone] during normal business hour:.
Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Div-uion of
Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead
City, NC 28557-3421, prior to July 20, 2018 will be
considered in making the permit declsion. Later coon•ents
will be accepted and considered up to the time of penoit
decision. Project modification may occur based on review
and comment by the public and state and federal agencies.
Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be
provided upon written request.
Ju29
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
AUG 0 F )018
13110955
13582497

v
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
September 12, 2017
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2009-00293
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
This letter serves to request U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
concurrence on the effects determination for species and Critical Habitat, subject to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 under your purview, located within the Action
Area of the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan (BBMBNP) project for the
approximate 25-mile oceanfront of Bogue Banks barrier island in Carteret County, North
Carolina. Specifically, Carteret County, via an interlocal agreement with all island
municipalities, is proposing to implement a 50-year shoreline protection and inlet
management program along the beaches of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, Pine
Knoll Shores, and if needed, Atlantic Beach. The plan is to manage Bogue Banks
oceanfront shoreline at a 25-year level of protection and to maintain the ebb tide channel
of Bogue Inlet within a designated "safe box", which is projected to initiate a dredging
event every 10-15 years.
In evaluating the project, the enclosed August 2017 BBMBNP's Biological
Assessment (BA) was prepared in order to summarize the potential effects on the
federally listed species and critical habitat pursuant to ESA. Based on our review, and it
coordination with Ms. Kathy Matthews of your office, the proposed project will result in
the effects determination for the following federally listed species and Critical Habitat in
Table 1 (Note. This table also includes species and Critical Habitat under purview of
National Marine Fisheries Service):
SEP

Table 1. Summary of the effects determination for each federally listed species and critical habitats
within, or potentially within, the Permit or Action Area of the proposed project. Note: MANLAA =
May affect, not likely to adversely affect, MALAA= May affect, likely to adversely affect, NE= No
Effect.
NMFS Managed Species
Species/Critical Habitat
Listing
Determination
North Atlantic right whale
Endangered
MANLAA
(Eubolaena glacialis)
Leatherback sea turtle (marine)
Endangered
MALAA
(Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead sea turtle (marine) (Northwest Atlantic DPS)
Threatened
MALAA
(Caretta caretta)
Green sea turtle (marine) (North Atlantic DPS)
Endangered
MALAA
(Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill sea turtle (marine)
Endangered
MANLAA
(Eretmochelys imbricate)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (marine)
Endangered
MALAA
(Lepidochelys kempii)
Shortnose sturgeon
Endangered
MANLAA
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Atlantic sturgeon (Carolina DPS)
Endangered
MALAA
(Acipenser oxyrinchus)
Loggerhead Marine Critical Habitat
MANLAA
North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat
NE
USFWS Managed Species
West Indian manatee
Endangered
MANLAA
(Trichechus manatus)
Piping plover
Threatened
MALAA
(Charadrius melodus)
Red knot
Threatened
MALAA
(Colidris canutus rufa)
Leatherback sea turtle (nesting)
Endangered
MALAA
(Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead sea turtle (nesting) (Northwest Atlantic DPS)
Threatened
MALAA
(Loretta caretta)
Green sea turtle (nesting) (North Atlantic DPS)
Endangered
MALAA
(Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill sea turtle (nesting)
Endangered
MALAA
(Eretmochelys imbricate)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (nesting)
Endangered
MALAA
(Lepidochelys kempii)
Seabeach amaranth
Threatened
MALAA
(Amaranthus pumilus)
Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat
MALAA
Loggerhead Terrestrial Critical Habitat
SEP 1 J 2011
OCM- Nfliir) CITY

This proposed 50-year management plan has identified specific amount and
placement needs, borrow sites, construction methods, and frequencies of single events
(please note Table 2.1 in the BA for the proposed sand placement activities). The
proposed borrow sites for beach fill are located offshore within the 3-nautical mile (nm)
limit of the oceanfront shoreline and beyond the 3-nm limit, which triggers the regulatory
permitting authority for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Corps and BOEM have an established
agreement for the roles of responsibilities concerning the ESA and Section 7
consultation. These roles will be further delineated pending project authorization. For
the purposes of Section 7 consultation with your agency, the Corps is the identified lead
agency for all activities occurring within the Action Area under your purview. Table 2
below describes the various scenarios, defines the lead agency, and discloses the potential
coverages for each single dredging and beach placement event.
Table 2. Lead Agency and potential coverage for specific activities within the Action Area of the
nrnnnsed nrnieef_
LEAD AGENCY
ACTIVITY
Potential Coverage
Dredging outside of 3-nm limit (i.e.,
Pending NMFS
BOEM
use of ODMDS borrow site)
Determination*
1997 SARBO and
Dredging inside of 3-nm limit (i.e.,
7(a)(2)(d) letter for
use of Old ODMDS & Area Y borrow
Sturgeon or Pending
CORPS
sites)
NMFS Determination*
Pending NMFS & USFWS
CORPS
Dredging within Bogue Inlet
Determination*
Placement of Dredge Material along
Pending USFWS
CORPS
the Oceanfront
Determination*
*Pending is based on final conclusion of consultation and whether Biological Opinion Is issued or the agency
addresses concerns informally via conservation measures.
By copy of this letter, the Corps request the initiation of formal consultation,
pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.14; and additionally request your concurrence within 30 days,
pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.120), on the findings made in the August 2017 Biological
Assessment for the County's proposed project.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
Mickey Sugg in the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at [phone], or by e-mail
mickey.t.suggA,usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
Eric' Reusch, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office hR F c F. NEU
Enclosure
HP 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

ft
BCF via electronically:
CESAW-RG-L/Sugg
CESAW-RG-L/Hair
CESAW-RG-L/Crumbley
CESAW-RG-L/Reusch
CESAW-RG/McLendon
CESAW-PM-C/Casten
CESAW-ECP-PE/Owens
CESAW-ECP-PE/Gasch
Copies furnished (w/o enclosure):
Mr. Greg Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Post Office Box 4297
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Mr. Johnny Martin
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Ms. Dawn York and Mr. Rahlff Ingle
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 N. Front St., Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Frank Rush, Manager
Town of Emerald Isle
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle North Carolina 28594
Mr. Brian Kramer, Manager
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Shores North Carolina 28512
Mr. David Walker, Manager
Town of Atlantic Beach
Post Office Box 10,
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Ms. Ronda Lambert, Town Clerk
Town of Indian Beach
Post Office Box 306
Salter Path North Carolina 28575
Mr. Tommy Burns, Manager
Carteret County
Courthouse Square
Beaufort North Carolina 28516
Ms. Kay Davy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
Protective Resource Division
8000 N. Ocean Drive
Suite 229
Dania Beach, FL 33004
Mr. Doug Huggett
NCDEQ/DCM
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Matt Slagel
NCDEQ/DCM
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
'RECEIVED
SFP 15 2017
OCM- AHD CITY

Mr. Roy Brownlow
NCDEQ/DCM
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. Deena Hansen
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Environmental Programs
45600 Woodland Road
Sterling, Virginia 20166
RECEIVED
SEP 15 2017
OCA4- MHD CITY

l- W
Coats, Heather
From: Wojoski, Paul A
Sent Tuesday, October 9, 2018 3:57 PM
To: Martin, Johnny, [e-mail]; York, Dawn; Bowers, Todd; Coats,
Heather, Mairs; Robb L; Mickey Sugg; Huggett, Doug; Morrison, Sam; York, Dawn; Rahlff
Ingle
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Bogue Banks Master Nourishment Plan and Project 1 - 401
Certification
Hi Johnny —
I apologize I haven't responded to this, I had completely forgot about it and my colleague Robb Mairs just brought it to
my attention again this morning. To answer:
1. Item 7 is a statutory water quality condition that is enforceable through our water quality standards section. See
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21). This means it's an enforceable standard, irrespective of whether it's a condition in the
permit or not. The standard is satisfied as lone as the BMPs for the proiect are in full compliance and
functionine. It also allows for the natural levels to be higher —that is if the natural swash zone is 50 NTU (for
example) then the standard dictates that it is not increased above 50 NTU. Regarding sampling locations for
standard compliance, 15A NCAC 02B .0204 details that it is routine to collect samples outside of mixing zones.
2: Item 14 refers to the SA (commercial shellfish) water classifications in and around the project area. Yes, the SA
area is exclusively on the sound side and inlets and exclude the beachfront. The project owners would still be
responsible if there were some kind of spill (hydrocarbon, fuel, etc.) or migration of sediments that caused a
shellfish closure on the soundside of the project area.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Thank you,
Paul
Paul Wojoski
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office `Please note new phone number"
Paul. WoioskiCa)ncdenr. pov
512 N. Salisbury Street (Archdale Building), Suite 942-F, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
—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.

From: Martin, Johnny <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 6:54 PM
To: Wojoski, Paul A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; York, Dawn
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>;
Mairs, Robb L<[e-mail]>; Mickey Sugg <[e-mail]>, Huggett, Doug
<[e-mail]>; Morrison, Sam <[e-mail]>, York, Dawn
<[e-mail]>; Rahlff Ingle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Bogue Banks Master Nourishment Plan and Project 1-401 Certification
Paul,
Just wanted to clarify a couple items......
Item 7) — We are assuming that the 25 NTU requirement is once the discharge has entered the ocean and would be
more of an average value. While we will have best management practices included in the specifications as far as dike
lengths to encourage settling, it may be that sometimes the plume will temporarily exceed the 25 NTU value. The
natural swash zone itself would likely be higher than the 25 NTU as well. Is our understanding correct? We just don't
want to end up with an unusually long settlement dike that will really raise the construction cost of the project if
possible. '
Item 14) — We are assuming that this is confined to soundside shellfishing waters. Just want to confirm. Our placement
areas for the project are all oceanfront with the small exception that a training dike may be needed (not likely) for the
Bogue Inlet relocation projects as was done back in 2005.
Thanks again for clarifying the above items and we look forward to hearing from you!
Best Regards,
Johnny Martin, PE
Coastal/Hydraulic Engineer
moffatt & nlchol
4700 Falls of Neuse Rd, Ste 300 1 Raleigh, NC 27609
T 919.781.4626 1 C 919.538.6033
Creative People, Practical Solutions. 11
Connect with us: Website I Facebook I Linkedln I Twitter
From: Wojoski, Paul A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 9:39 AM

To:grudoiph@carteretc(juntVnc.gov Martin, Johnny <[e-mail]>; York, Dawn
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>;
Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Mickey Sugg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bogue Banks Master Nourishment Plan and Project 1- 401 Certification
Please see the attached 401 Certification for the Bogue Banks Master Nourishment Plan and Project 1. Please contact
me with any questions.
Thank you,
Paul
Paul Wojoski
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office **Please note new phone number. **
Paul. Woioskia-ncdenr.gov
512.N. Salisbury Street (Archdale Building), Suite 942-F, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699=1617
is 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.

Coats, Heather
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 1:43 PM
To: 'Vanderbeke, Nicole'
Subject: RE: [External] Post -Florence Phase I template revisions
Sorry for the slow response. I was out last week, but thank you for providing these. And yes- in the future, let's please
coordinate any increases in project dimensions prior to construction!
Thanks again and (hope you're doing well!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 .office
heather.coats(a)ncdenr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Vanderbeke, Nicole [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 12:26 PM
To: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Post -Florence Phase I template revisions
Heather,
For your records, please find attached some cross�sections for Reach 1 in Emerald Isle where we changed the dune
height during construction to better tie in with the primarydune. We raised the dune height to +14 ft NAVD88 between
Sta 427+00 and Sta 447+00. We apologize for not coordinating this with DCM during the construction process. Let us
know if there is anything else you need. Thanks!
Regards,
Nicole VanderBeke, PE
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
June 12, 2018
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
skww
protection office
o rotectt h et; eac In. corn
Re: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan - Project #1
Event Notification Letter
Dear Mr. Sugg (Mickey),
Carteret County is in the process of obtaining federal and state permits to allow
Implementation of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) as a non-federal shoreline
protection and inlet management project over a 50-year period of time during which
nourishment events will be initiated based on minimum sand volumes required to maintain
protection from a 25-year storm event as well as federally -declared storm events which
cause damage and erosion to the beach.
As determined during the development and Implementation of the MBNP, the Carteret
County Shore Protection Office would provide notice in advance of an anticipated
renourishment event. This letter serves as notification of the first project implemented
under the MBNP, also described herein as Bogue Banks MBNP - Project #1. Moffatt &
Nichol, as the authorized agent for the County, has developed the subsequent
documentation provided in this letter request which details the dredging volume, dredging
depth, placement reaches and sediment compatibility.
The Bogue Banks MBNP - Project #1 will take place during 16 November 2018
through 30 April 2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along
9.5 miles of shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores at
an average fill density of 30 cy/ft. Beach compatible sediment will be dredged from
portions of the Current and Old ODMDS.
We appreciate your review of these materials and proceeding as efficiently as
possible. Please contact me at 252-222-5835 or Johnny Martin at 919-781-4626 with any
questions.
Respectfully,
G eg"rudi" Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. corn

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN
PROJECT #1 EVENT NOTIFICATION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 is anticipated to take place during
winter 2018/2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along 9.5 miles of
shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores. This is an average
fell density of 30 cy/ft however it is expected that the fell density will vary between 25 cy/ft and 50
cy/ft. This correlates to a berm width ranging from 35 ft to 85 ft with an average of approximately
55 ft. Figure 1-1 shows the planned placement locations and volumes. Approximately 1,974,740
cy of beach compatible material will be dredged from portions of the Current and Old ODMDS as
presented in Figure 1-1. Permit drawings are provided in Attachment A.
CARTERET COUNTY
iiil+'i16e6
o%iie 6e6: ieee n6lii
i j66B 6Qpepe6696ie _�'a� „aun a..nni Pkn. Knd�sno,.c
s P Tnn.eemNea le
lai ce^ Race1 .,.n.n 6c.cF iT amM. 111MOCY
eocuc L.P 0 MN.. 161.8 cY..
Wpn'.VA- Y ONSLOW BAY
eaisww
P.a
mEr
PobnX.l
Bnro.
M.a
Cumin
ODND9
P of 1 x s
Figure 1-1: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1 (Winter
2018/2019)
Reach 1 and Reach 2 represent a continuous section of fell starting just west of Transect 35 at 2901
Pointe West Drive in Emerald Isle and ending just east of Transect 52 at 1401 Salter Path Road in
Salter Path. Reach 3 and Reach 4 represent a continuous section of fill starting just west of
Transect 55 at 199 Hoffman Beach Road in Salter Path and ending just east of Transect 76 at 119
Salter Path Road in Pine Knoll Shores.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

The borrow area covers approximately 773 acres, with 218 acres located in the Current ODMDS
in Federal waters and 555 acres located in the Old ODDMS in State waters. It is anticipated that
if the dredging is confined to the portion of the borrow area located in the Current ODMDS, the
average cut depth will be approximately 5-7 ft based on a maximum dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft allowable overdredge. If the dredging expands into the Old ODMDS, it is
anticipated that the average cut depth will between 2-3 ft due to the larger area to dredge within.
It should be noted that while the Old ODMDS contains large mounds of material comprising
approximately 15 ft of compatible cut material, a majority of this material will not be necessary to
meet the potential dredge requirement of 1,974,740 cy and therefore it is expected that only 2-3
feet would be dredged from the top.
It should be noted that this initial project is essentially the "Year 6" nourishment, as presented in
the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, rather than "Year 3". As time has progressed during the
formulation and permitting of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, a need has developed to start
the project with "Year 6".
The 2017 annual monitoring analysis indicated that there were several transects that were
approaching the minimum volume trigger for the 25-year level of protection. Figure 1-2 presents
the volume above -12 ft NAVD88 for each transect based on the 2017 monitoring data in
comparison to the volumes required for the 25 year and 50-year levels of protection. As can be
seen, there are transects located in Emerald Isle East, Indian Beach/Salter Path, and Pine Knoll
Shores that are all approaching the 25-year level of protection. Given that it has been 5 years since
the previous nourishment project was completed (post -Irene, 2013), Carteret County and the
Towns have chosen to be proactive in moving forward with the next project to avoid consequences
from any storms that may impact the area in the next few years as the beach approaches the
minimum volume for protection.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

1017 Volume Almn-13 R NRVM
--
I
mn:.a
Figure 1-2: 2017 Monitoring Volume Analysis
2.0 METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 to be performed in Winter
2018/2019 will use a hopper dredge to obtain material from the Current and Old ODMDS where
it will then be transported to an offshore temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the
project site. The hopper dredge will then connect to the pipeline and pump the material from the
hopper to the beach where the sand is spread mechanically by bulldozers. As mentioned
previously, this is the same type of dredging placement operation used during Phase 1 and most of
Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment projects completed in winter of 2001-2002 and
2002-2003 (respectively) as well as the Post-Ophelia (2007) and Post -Irene (2013) projects.
3.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 to be performed in Winter
2018/2019 will have the option of dredging material from the Current and Old ODMDS. Figure
3-1 shows the locition of the potential borrow areas within the Current and Old ODMDS. A
substantial portion of the potential borrow area in the Current ODMDS was also used in 2013 for
the Post -Irene nourishment project.
RECEIVED
JUN 152018 3
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Legend - Elevation (n NAVD88)
-56.53--56.00
143.99 - 42.00
-55.99--5400
'-4199-4000
5399--52.00
-3999--30,00
'.�-51 99 - -50.00
37,99 - -36.00
.=4999- 46.00
13599--34,00
=47.99--46.00
-33.90--32.00
�=4599--44.00
1 -31 99 - -30.00
0 2.000 4 000 6,000
m Feet ..
I
I 411 /
1
I
4 '
I
51
54
IT
OLD
Approximately
ODMDS
9.226,667 cy
m
M.W
O
Above -62 It NAVD88
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O
O
O O
s sr oss
4
aw + oa] f
+ +
o]]
}
msa m;•
{ +
•o}
f+
O
00a
@ <]
oar
OW on
oar
ow a,i
+
♦ + +
+
+ +
R is,
QR
46
J „ SM
Approximately
2,711,727 cy
Above -52fl NAVD88
i
l 1
1
52
63 R 0
nilnll 1 1
\ •4e 52
52 \\\\ \ 531 F1R2.5s
1 ` / G"1• �\\l 111 1111(li
� CURRENT
�L nnunc
Figure 3-1: Potential Borrow Areas Within the Current and Old ODMDS
Based on analysis of the native beach sediment data from 64 samples (16 transects) investigated
by CSE in 2001, a median grain size of 0.3 mm was selected as the best representation of the native
beach. The native beach characteristics and fill requirements established for the project are
presented in Table 3-1.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
91
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-1: Native Beach Characteristics and Rule Parameters
Characteristic
2001 Native
NCAC
Requirements
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Fines (<#230)
Reported: 0%, Assumed: <I%
<1%+5%
_<6%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
Reported at 98.68%
-
-
Granular (># I0 & 04)
Reported combined at 1.32%,
Assumed 0.7% each
0.7% + 5%
< 6%
Gravel (>#4)
0,7% + 5%
<_ 6%
Calcium Carbonate
Reported at 15-20%
20% + 15%
< 35%
In addition, Moffatt & Nichol conducted a field investigation on May 24, 2018 to estimate the total
number of sediments and shell material greater than or equal to three inches in diameter, observable
on the surface of the beach between mean low water and the frontal dune toe, in a 50,000 square
foot area. Investigations were performed in two locations, one in Atlantic Beach between
Transects 78 and 80 and one in Emerald Isle between Transects 29 and 30. The Atlantic Beach
investigation area has never been nourished and the Emerald Isle investigation area has only been
nourished once. Results of the investigation found 138 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Atlantic Beach and 211 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Emerald Isle.
Vibracores within the borrow area were analyzed with respect to parameters as presented in Table
3-1 to determine the quantity and depth to which beach compatible material exists within the
borrow area. Table 3-2 presents the sediment characteristics of the vibracores within the potential
borrow areas. Based on analysis of these vibracores, it is estimated that beach compatible material
exists down to an elevation of —52 ft NAVD88. Thus, plans will specify a dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft of allowable overdredge. Volume calculations indicate 2,711,727 cy of
material exists above —52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the Current ODMDS
and 9,225,657 cy of material exists above -52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the
Old ODMDS (see Figure 3-1). Therefore, the total volume available from the potential borrow
areas is 11,937,384 cy. While 1,519,030 cy is the expected placement volume, the anticipated
dredge volume could reach 1,974,740 cy due to losses typically incurred between what is dredged
and what is placed (up to 30%).
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-2: Sediment Characteristics of Potential Borrow Area
Vibncore
Sample Inlervtl Elw
pl(ft NN/DN)
pINTGonulrtmatrlce
U8C
ComPoelUon (wl%)
a. ow. (w%)
OwcrlpiWe 91tli4tk4
G]wM
GfwW�
Swtl
W290
Mew (mq
Sftl M (ph9
Orywk
CwOalets
-38.2
J3.2
1.18%
1.N%
91.36%
O.82A1
0z
0.0
SW
ON
0.12
010
43.2
48.2
46.2
-0.2
0.2
0.18%
1.87%
1.00%
91%
98.5]%
0.29%
0.25%
ON
0.25
0.0
OM
SW
SP
ON
ON
0.13
0.10
-0.2
J7.9
-50.2
-39.6
0.74%
2.]0%
2.56%
4.61%
95.52%
9206%
0.18%
0,0%
On
0.34
1.01
1.N
SW
SW
0.60
On
0.14
0.16
011 f
-39A
J2.8
J A
J].6
0.43%
0.0]%
1.
ON%
0.98%
96.83%
0.2]%
0.25%
ON
0.28
IV
0.89
SW
SP
O.W
O.W
0,14
0.11
47.6
46.6
-aa
-51.6
1.w%
4.5996
1A6%
BAt%
98A7%
88.14%
0.12%
0.m%
I On
0.46
1.09
1.5B
SW
SW
0.60
0."
0.14
0.23
-61.8
-55a
1.32%
S.N%
95.0%
0.21%
0.32
1.15
SW
0.90
OA4
012
-66.B
50.8
0.N%
1O9%
68.36%
30.21%
0.20
0.99
SM
3.10
0.18
60.8
5.6
O.W%
1.89%
87.0%
1048%
ON
1.12
SW-w
1.70
0.w
-47.3
5.3
O.N%
1.N%
98.28%
028%
on
On
SW
OW
0.12
013
-53.3
4 .3
O.N%
1,81%
88.22%
9.73%
0.0
1.01
SW-w
1.W
0.1E
-56.3
-58.3
021%
0.26%
35.69%
84.04%
0,18
on
CL
4.W
0.11
-44A
-50.1
1M
i.n%
96.46%
0.0%
on
1.10
SW
ow
0.12
018
-50.1
-%.1
0.21%
2.W%
".am
0.28%
on
1.02
SW
O.W
0.13
-56.1
-MI
Oa9%
1.]0%
79.59%
18.82%
O.W
1.05
SM
2.W
On
-38A
J A
0.00%
O.N%
9924%
O W%
025
0.88
SW
OM
0.11
-42.1
48.1
1.89%
1.16%
97.13%
O.W%
029
IV
SW
OW
0.14
01e
7I8.1
-53.1
1.83%
1.20%
08.9]%
0.12%
032
1.10
SW
0.70
0.13
-53.1
-55.4
O.W%
028%
99.23%
0.49%
024
on
SP
0.70
0.10
-36.4
41.4
2.55%
3.35%
wam
0.12%
035
1.29
Sw
ON
0.18
020
-41.4
46.4
I n%
223%
0.]]%
O.M
0.31
1.18
SW
ON
0.21
48.4
-50.3
2.31%
2.38%
94.92%
0.39%
O.W
1.21
SW
0.50
0.09
-37
42
0.38%
1.64%
97.12%
O.n%
0.W
0.92
SW
ON
0.16
021
42
J]
1.n%
3.11%
94.88%
0.45%
0.38
1.N
SW
O.W
0.12
J]
SZ
1.65%
1.]8%
96.42%
0.16%
0,31
1.08
SW
090
0.12
-V.7
-37.7
2.14%
2.62%
9521%
0.13%
ON
1.20
SW
0.50
0.16
-3].]
427
2.12%
2.95%
94.19%
0.14%
0.31
118
SW
0.40
0.12
02
42.7
41.7
IN%
1,21%
96.84%
0.3]%
on
1.W
SW
0.40
0.12
-4].]
1 3 J
1.06%
2.87%
95.87%
010%
ON
f M
SW
ON
0.15
-4].8
d .8
1.88%
3.W%
94.51%
0.11%
O.N
1.25
SW
0.W
0.13
-518
S).8
O.N%
0.80%
91a0%
T.B2%
0A9
0.70
SPSM
1.W
0.0
023
-5].0
$2.8
011%
1.02%
81.83%
18.N%
0.2]
1.W
SM
1.20
ON
a.0
55
9A3%
18.02%
85.43%
BAP%
081
1.W
SW-SM
1.W
On
49.3
-54.2
4.78%
3.50%
06.91%
Cal%
ON
1.SB
Sw-SM
1.W
0.13
024
-N.2
.66A
0.32%
0.8]%
98.61%
0.20%
ON
ON
SP
ON
0.10
56.1
J2
43.2
J8
1.86%
0.90%
6.13%
2.86%
TIM
0..88%
18.0%
0.38%
ON
on
1.0
1.10
SM
SW
2.W
ON
0.33
0.14
J8
-:M
2.05%
1.91%
96.21%
0.w%
On
1.21
SW
ON
0.18
025
-N
.59.9
1.il M
195%
0.23%
OAM
On
1.17
Sw
ON
0.19
-59.8
51.5
O.W%
1.0]%
W.30%
6.0%
0.18
0.80
SP-SM
1.60
0.10
45.7
.507
5.01%
4.41%
90.21%
0.3]%
0.36
1.82
SW
ON
0.13
028
-W.]
.55
09]%
1.3]%
97A5%
0.21%
0.W
0.97
SW
0.40
0.12
-56
43.6
.595
47.6
035%
056%
3.75%
2.97%
75.53%
W.2]%
20.3]%
020%
On
0.40
1.35
1.06
w
SW
tw
0.w
0.11
0.17
41.6
41.6
Dam
2.02%
96.95%
0.35%
0.w
1.W
SW
0.w
0.12
02]
-51.6
-56.5
0.16%
1.35%
98.08%
0.41%
on
0.88
BW
0.0
0.12
-56.5
S A
0."
3.15%
83.]3%
11M
0.21
1.15
SM
1.W
0.w
-42.7
48.7
0.5016
1.82
9].]0%
90916
On
ON
SW
0.60
0.13
- 028
48.7
-54.3
OAt%
tn%
97.90%
0,16%
O.W
0.96
SW
O.W
0.13
-64.3
1 -55.8
0.36%
1.87%
74.98%
22.80%
On
1.13
w
1.70
GA4
f
ON
49.1
52.8
56.3
50.1
-52.5
-55.3
-00.1
-65
0.15%
2.15%
O.W%
280%
1.22%
4.31%
0.0%
359%
98.57%
m.0]%
1 93.2]39
]]]0%
OW%
5AM
8.i0%
15.I3%
on
0.2]
0.44
0.33
ON
1.4
O.N
1m
SW
SW
Sw
SM
O.W
1.w
1.W
L
0.12
0.22
0.0
O.N
RECEIVED
6
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

4.0 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION AND PLAN VIEWS
Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-4 present typical cross-section and plan views for the area to be
nourished during the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1, which will
extend from Transect 35 in Emerald Isle Central to Transect 76 in Pine Knoll Shores, with a small
break from Transect 53 — 55 in Indian Beach/Salter Path. These typical cross section and plan
views were developed for the permit process based on the newest March 2018 survey data. Slight
adjustments within the permit guidelines might be made prior to construction based on pre -
construction surveys. While the average fill density for the project is approximately 30 cy/ft, this
value will vary at each transect across the reaches based on the existing conditions. However, it
is expected that the fill density will remain between 25 cy/ft and 50 cy/ft throughout the project.
Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 present the site plan and typical cross sections for the proposed borrow
area located in the Current and Old ODMDS.
Bogue Banks Transect 39
22
18
14
_
12
30
8
ffi 6
a 4
Q 2
Berm El =+6.0 NAVD88
Berm Width=57ft
Fill Density = 38 cy/ft
2
Y
W 4
6
8
10
12
14
-16
18
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 6W 7W 800 SIN 1,000 1,100 1,20D 1,300 1,400 1,500
Distance Offshore Itq
—March 2018 —Template
Figure 4-1: Reach 1 and 2 Typical Cross Section
RECEIVED
7
JUN 1 5 20;g
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Bogue Banks Transect 62
20
16
14
12
10..
VLA
6
_
g 4
2
Berm EI =+6.0 NAVD88
- Berm Width = 51 k
FIII Den51ry=36 ry/k
0
$££§
! 2
r. -a
6
10
..
-12
14
16
18
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 70D a00 900 1,000 1,10D 1,200 1,300 L400 1.500
Distance OMthan (k)
—March 2018 —Template
Figure 4-2: Reach 3 and 4 Typical Cross Section
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

0
0
C�
T
C
i
C
Z
m
z
o
Z
.r
N'
a
m
<
m
v
Z
0
i= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- --- --------,
------- u v,----------- ._.------------------------ r =
`0-
11�NLAa:
- r ` _
_ _- - -�
tO
m
W-----_.-
~ _
-----------_- ---- ---------
C®ra"aY-- emYOMrt
N1 L ` vIMYM
IlJ LNLW
I J
iJE YW�—YLV YAW ... L1 —�W JY- 41A
VI
1
.1 Yew
WI-ISIM —mow �_.TM�..•—N�-.—IMI
--IIOOMDM
r.
WIC-'^ © IM ------ IMF- IM �W
Wes. ���... W—• `NOCa®4Lw"�
ar____
I��...�
y
-
�IlpMWNlRMOEE
__--__—___—I_—___---
U
Wf
I ..
-_
I
a
3
i - -
� : •nwl,leocuN
I
P CllR CMTERETCWNTV,
sI1EaA/.ED /[R
CMIFAETCOUNTV, NORM CMOIJW
,9E[)"W
SVFEI
B UE MN" M"S B CM
NOURISHMENT PLAN - PROJECT 1
RENOURISHMENT PLAN - SHEET 5 0137
oA NN: xAw Mlf^
_
j- �"'�-"
61
R"1EPA/IfO BY YO CxCL
41I[: WYAIE
El
Figure 4-3: Reach 1 and 2 Typical Plan View

D
n
Z
0
z
m
01
N
C
o
m
z
�°
a
Z
n
_
-----------------
�
••x�rac r -�'— �-
� nm y I rPVO1ic � ar.mwx
-
T _
-----
I�
- ---
ZrRaov;oYw
- —
-
1
�..
a
�
Z�
I-NpI®NR -
_yw...r...——..—Yu�.—un—._—Yl LLM—._—W—...—yw—...— ,.,—.,—.—.,--..--..---—...1W
- -
�wYYomYYv
�
T.
-
T--
---
----e ------
<
I<
-�
------------
M3FCr nnc: CMTERETCOVNTY,
GBFYApeO FPY: C1RiERET COUNT', NORTH CIROLINR
9YF/i/Re.
uses
BOOUEHM PC - RWEC
NOIIRI9HMENT PLFN-PROJECTI
RENOURaHMENT PLAN -SHEET 23 of 3Y
25
oarw: ruwwfYn
_� _ m��:
61
PMPAffO BY. YORAT�l YCMCL
nA ]£: YAYAI�
,_,u
Figure 4-4: Reach 3 and 4 Typical Plan View
10

MCRFIffAD CITY
IIARIXIROMiDB '
TAOxmmmw. AX
(%%%IIXNATF. TAISIF:
IVIM
NORTHING
EABRNO
A
336P51 m
2BB Mff
B
�m
2&BTJ M
D
& 7Q,1)
2®t0
E
&90)82.W
2&92 %W
IF.(f.ND VOTE9
1tA PRDPOBED BORRDYi AiEA CONTROL POINT t. BRTNnAEIPoCALCONIOIIRS BROWN BA5E00N
BY
2011 Nfi1YG0lE LOCATpN MJLTIBIIAI BURN:YBPETiORAEf)
parr OEODNVI IN=&
rE AnAdIN IF WTA& WAM )
z
RAIIE, NR IM (FEET).
In r vs CANiB1ETCW , mmu+[o vav: CARTEREf COUNTT, NORTH CgROIIIW .9�El nne s6T
BODII mm WB BEACH
IgUMIMENTPIAN-PROJECTI BORRON RHEA Sn PLAN b
MALL' IMYY�pp 6
R®Anm er. ugEAn�No�n MTc uAV A1F 61
Figure 4-5: Borrow Area Site Plan
11

v
0
C_
r
z
G)
-i
0
z
z
0
SECTION A -A
_Is
WTANCE WEST TO FART (FEET)
SECTION B-B
0 a
m..................... m�4
F i>OMM6M6 t 2
.. ....._.... ......i.. ..... .....__.. m
m m
0 amv moo m +m mm om Imo m vm lam
019TANCE WEST TO EAST (BEET)
SECTION C-C
4
emrxcmMaE
�
m _..............-.....:.................... ..__...._..__..............._................ .......... ...... ..................
. m
m _ m
a Iam 1IDa mm gym] ImC maa 6N IOID
DISTANCE WEST
T TO EA4T (FEET)
NOTE
tt EXCAVATIONDEPTHXOPPEfl DREIXiE
WAL MBE 2J R:ET PEfl PASS PwNCOMPIETE CUTS).
R CT RR CMTERET CWNTY, MASiNf➢AN£B FP9: GRTEAET COUNTY. NORTH GROLING 9.FEl R" 9EF/
B UE BANNS TER EACH
NWRISXMEM mAN-PflOJECBTI � BORROW AREA TYPICAL SECTIONSIF
61
f1b<PAMD BM YOR1iY6 Np0. DA I£' WYIDIO 81
Figure 4-6: Borrow Area Typical Cross Sections
12

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321-
43471, to address the environmental effects of proposed shore protection activities on the barrier
island of Bogue Banks in Carteret County, North Carolina. The Wilmington District, United States
Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating a request from Carteret County (Applicant) for Department
of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act to implement a comprehensive, long-term beach and inlet management
plan for the protection of 25 miles of shoreline on Bogue Banks. Concurrently, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy and Management is evaluating a request from the Applicant for authorization
pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) [43 (USC) 1337(k)(2)] to use outer
continental shelf sand resources as a component of the proposed action. A Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major permit application was submitted 7 June 2018 to the NC
Division of Coastal Management.
6.0 MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN STATUS
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project # 1 is the first project to be performed
under the 50-Year Master Beach Nourishment Plan and is estimated to use 1,519,030 cy of the
22.6 Mcy allotted for background erosion. As discussed in the Final Master Beach Nourishment
Plan (2014), the proposed nourishment volumes approximate the need for background erosion only
and will be used for overall long-term planning and budgeting purposes (Table 6-1, Figures 6-1
and 6-2). It is expected that named storm losses will be handled separately through FEMA
reimbursement projects. Reference should be made to Table 1-3 in the Final Master Beach
Nourishment Plan for the initial volume needs and cycle of nourishment events.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018 13
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 6-1: Renourishment Intervals and Preliminary Projects Based on
Management Reach Approaches*
Year
Management Reach
Nourishment
Volume (cy)
Proposed
Nourishment
Project (Yr)
2019
686,067
3
2022
1,839,351
6
2025
967,920
9
2028
1,839,351
6
2031
686,067
3
2034
2,121,204
6,9
2037
686,067
3
2040
1,839,351
6
2043
967,920
9
2046
1,839,351
6
2049
686,067
3
2052
2,121,204
6,9
2055
686,067
3
2058
1,839,351
6
2061
967,920
9
2064
1,839,351
6
*Reference Table 1-3 in the 2014 Bogue Banks MBNP for projected volume needs and
nourishment cycles of the managed reaches.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2013 14
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

v
c�
z
G7
0
Z
z
0
µv - -� r
is Pm mild
Otea _
--,------------- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emerald Isk i Eme m Ism i MMian Beach
' C.atra i Eat 1 Salter Path Pins KnollgSlrorw ,
� B"ue Bunks Beach Nourishment Projects MBNP Prol.ct k1
2018 - 2068
Figure 6-1: History of Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan Projects
E
15

l �vs
CARTERET COUNTY
a' ^ i o Isla bed
L-- c;,) �ge47q nerd
�J tW eon
7 SApe q.N¢al Einar l2s
� a 112 Ida
0�111
Inaesr�th� iso-59)
Gentlel E l3�All)
36) /
Reach 2
Indian Beach
Reach Isle 49.52
emerald transect51es
Transecla 35A6 1.0 281 cY
3.0 rnllea 1662
472.544 0
WS,T70 FY 494,036 cy
pea K-1 Shcras Atlantic— Beach
(59-76) (77-102)
Reach 3 Rea h 4
Mdisn geechl Pine Kn59-78
o11 Shores
Salter Path Transects-
la 55.58 q.5 miles
Trsnsec 1.0 ties 711,499 01
ties cY
ONSLOW BAY
Legend A
— Year 3 Nounshmem
— Year 6 Nounshment
— Year 9 Nourishment
0 0.5 1 2 3
m Mlles
Figure 6-2: Overlay of MBNP — Project #1 with Proposed Future Nourishment Intervals
RECEIVED
JUN 15�nI3
DCM WILMINGiTPN, NC

MASTER BEACH
NOURISHMENT PLAN
CAMA PERMIT DOCUMENTATION
1. NCDCM MP-1 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT & BBMBNP PROJECT #1)
2. NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT)
3. NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(BBMBNP PROJECT #1)
4. PERMIT NARRATIVE
(see electronic copy for appendices)
5. AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
6. AEC HAZARD NOT] ACM W�L n N�GGON, NC
^' 0 .,

NCDCM MP-1 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT & BBMBNP
PROJECT #1)

I= MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Carteret County
Project Name (if applicable)
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Applicant 1: First Name
Greg
MI
rudi
Last Name
Rudolph
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an addtonal pago(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
4297
City
Emerald Isle
State
NC
ZIP
28594
Country
USA
Phone No.
252 - 222 - 5835 ext.
FAX No.
252 - 222 - 5826
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Moffatt & Nichol
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Johnny
Martin
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Dawn
York
Mailing Address
PO Box
city
State
4700 Falls of Neuse, Suite 300
Raleigh
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27609
919-781-4626 ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
918 781 4869
Street Address (d different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail], [e-mail]
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 .. 1.888.4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5) APPLICATION for -
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Carteret
Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road
NC 58
city
Subdivision Name
Emerald Isle, Indian Beach,
State
Zip
Salter Path, Pine Knoll
NC
-
Shores, Atlantic Beach
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
I I,
a. In which NC Over basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
White Oak
Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest majorwater body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade []Unknown
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
I. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes []No
work falls within.
Town of Emerald Isle, Town of Indian Beach, Village of Salter
Path, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Atlantic Beach
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
121,702 ft (50 yr project); 50,030 ft (BBMBNP Project #1)
121,702 ft x 398 ft = 48,437,395 sq. ft. (50 yr project)
50,030 ft x 310 ft = 15,509,300 sq. ft. (BBMBNP Project
#1)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A,
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-10' to +6' NAVD88 (approx. 4.9' above MHW)
NNHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Primary and secondary dune vegetation
I. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Dune walkovers
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Developed - residential
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
N/A
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
❑Yes []No NNA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes NNo
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. NYes ❑No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
Mid -Atlantic Technology
Corporation (Wes Hall)
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Assessment is included in the
FEIS
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District ordoes it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? []Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
All wastewater treatment is by on -site systems
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Each municipality has its own water supply system utilizing deep groundwater wells
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
No impervious area - all stormwater infiltrates on the beach
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use?
❑Commercial ®PublictGovemment
❑Pdvate/Communily
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
See attached project narrative
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
See attached project narrative
d. List all development activities you propose.
Excavation and filling by Hopper Dredge, Pipeline, and Truck Haul: Beach Nourishment
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both?
Maintenance of Existing Project
I. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project?
48,437,395 sq. ft. (50 yr project);
15,509,300 sq. ft. (BBMBNP Project
#1) ®Sq.FI or ❑Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area
[_]Yes ®No [_-]NA
that the public has established use of?
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
h. Uescnbe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters o
Dredge slurry discharge of approximately 75% water and 25% sand
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Formi continues on back>
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package,to be complete. Items (a) — (t) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to propedy prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name NIA- All towns have easements for beach fill projects Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA Permit # 124-01, # 181-06, # 86-12
USACE Permit # 200000362, # 198000291
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Welland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5)
Date
Print Name Greg Rudolph
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
252-808-2808 :: 1.888-411COAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT)

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
l
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Avg:
1,012,252 ft
Length
Range:
674,835 ft-
2,024,504 ft
(over 50 yrs)
Avg: 319 ft
Width
Range: 288 ft
- 398 ft (over
50 yrs)
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
-2' NAVD
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
+6' NAVD $
Depth
Below
1.
EXCAVATION
❑This section not applicable
a.
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
b.
Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
51.6 Mcy (BBMBNP 50 Year Project)
c.
(i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
d.
High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
None
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
-
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
_
OWL ®None
� I
I_
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
2.
DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
❑This section not applicable
a.
Location of disposal area.
b.
Dimensions of disposal area.
-
Ocean shoreline - Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach,
Average: 1,012,252 ft long x 319 ft wide; Range: 674,835 It
Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach
- 2,024,504 ft long x 288 ft - 398 ft wide (over 50 years)
c.
(i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
d.
(i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
--.
(it) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
(ii) If yes, where?
Along entire length as needed for maintenance
e.
(i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
f.
(i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
- -,
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
j 252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: wvnvmccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form ®CM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB _
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
Average: 3,277 acres; Range: 2,649 acres - 7,669 acres (over
50 years)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION El This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: Average: 1,012,252 ft: Rance: 674,835 ft - 2,024,504 ft
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other. beach (over 50 years)
Nourishment Width: Average: 319 ft: Rance: 288 ft - 398 ft (over 50 Years)
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 260' d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 339'
e. Type of stabilization material:
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _
Breakwater/Sill Other Average: 142,727,557 sgft:
Range: 115.396.749 soft - 334,043.219 soft (over 50 years)
i. Source of fill material.
Morehead City Harbor ODMDS (Old and Current), Area Y, Area Z,
Bogue Inlet Channel, Morehead City Outer Harbor, AIW W
Disposal Areas, and Upland sand Mines
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erasion during preceding 12
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES []This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ®Yes ❑No El NA b. (1) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water Average:
34.320.410 cv: Range: 32.448.766 cv - 37.020.087 cv (over 50
ears
(iii) Dimensions of fill area Average: 1,012,252 ft long x 319 ft
wide: Range: 674,835 ft - 2,024,504 ft Iona x 288 ft - 398 ft wide
(over 50 years)
(iv) Purpose of fill
Shoreline protection
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (St3), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
15. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
see attached project narrative Hopper Dredge or Pipeline Dredge
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
[]Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No []NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
252-808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12126/06

Form ®CM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
4/6/2018
Date
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Name
Greg Rudolph
Applicant Name
Applicant Signature
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmananement.net revised: 12/26/06

NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(BBMBNP PROJECT #1)

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Grain
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
50,030 ft .
Width
310 It
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
-2' NAVD
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
+6' NAVD &
Depth
Below
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
1,974,740 cy from Current or Old ODMDS (BBMBNP Project #1)
c. (1) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area.
Oceanfront shoreline - Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian
Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(n) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
❑This section not applicable
b. Type of material to be excavated.
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None
El This section not applicable
b. Dimensions of disposal area.
50,030 ft long x 310 ft wide; Avg Berm Width = 56 ft (35 ft -
85 it)
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Along entire length as needed for maintenance
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(h) If yes, how much water area is affected?
128.5 acres below MHW; 41.9 acres below MLW
252-808-2808 :: 1-8884RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form ®CM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ❑This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: 50,030 ft
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other: Beach
Nourishment
c. Average distance walerward of NHW or NWL: existing to
proposed MHW: Avg = 99 ft'
e. Type of stabilization material:
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _
Breakwater/Sill Other 5,597,460 sq. ft. below MHW:
1,825,164 so. ft. below MLW
i. Source of fill material.
Current and Old Morehead City Harbor ODMDS (see attached
project narrative)
Width: 310 ft
d. Maximum distance walenvard of NHW or NWL: existing to
propsed MHW: Max = 123 ft
f. (1) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion. and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES El This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CM.
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 889,900 cv
below MHW: 240.400 cv below MLW
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 50,030 ft long x 310 ft wide
(iv) Purpose of fill
Shoreline protection
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
see attached project narrative
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
What type of construction equip
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hopper Dredge
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
5/25/201 B
Project Name
'Date
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
252-808.2808 :: 1.888.411COAST n w .nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
Greg Rudolph
Applicant Name
Applicant Signature
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 12126/06

PERMIT NARRATIVE
(see electronic copy for appendices)

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Carteret County, the Carteret County Beach Commission, and the Shore Protection Office (SPO)
-- seek to provide long-term, sustaining management of Bogue Banks beaches. In 2001, by state
legislation, the Carteret County Beach Commission was established, and a room occupancy tax
(ROT) for funding beach nourishment and related functions was put in place mainly as a
response to the hurricanes of the 1990's (Bertha, Fran and Floyd) and subsequent storms.
Carteret County intends to maintain Bogue Banks beaches via implementation of this proposed
! Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) with guidance from the SPO and oversight by the
Beach Commission.
Carteret County is specifically seeking federal and state permits to allow implementation of this
MBNP as a non-federal shoreline protection and inlet management project over a multi-decadal
period to preserve Bogue Banks' tax base, infrastructure, and tourist -oriented economy. An
inter -local agreement was developed and executed by each municipality on Bogue Banks
creating an effective and efficient approach for a long -tern and sustainable implementation of
this MBNP.
_ The proposed program incorporates actions within multiple oceanfront municipalities to nourish
recipient beaches, via use of multiple sand sources, over a multi-decadal timeline with revolving
nourishment -project events. This MBNP identifies engineering design elements including: sand
volumes required to yield the desired level of protection throughout Bogue Banks; sand volume
triggers to initiate nourishment events; sand borrow source locations, volumes, quality, and
viability; the expected capacity of the recipient beaches for nourishment; and the projected
timing of nourishment events. A primary MBNP goal is to offset natural and anthropogenic
erosion effects by optimizing use of existing high quality borrow sources to nourish prioritized
recipient beaches to provide a spatially -equivalent level of protection to upland property along
Bogue Banks.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 Project Purpose
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) project purpose is:
to establish a regional plan to facilitate authorization and implementation of shoreline
nourishment/maintenance events on Bogue Banks including management of Bogue
Inlet;
• to provide long-term shoreline stabilization on Bogue Banks to:

provide an equivalent level of storm protection to upland property along Bogue
Banks and the associated local, state, and federal tax bases;
to provide long-term protection to Bogue Banks tourism industry, State and local
infrastructure, and oceanfront or inlet adjacent structures
maintain natural resources and associated recreational uses while avoiding and
minimizing adverse environmental impacts to the extent feasible;
• to consolidate community resources to financially and logistically manage beaches on
Bogue Banks and manage Bogue Inlet in an effective manner by reducing/eliminating
the time and need for individual authorizations.
2.2 Project Need
After pronounced hurricane activity in the 1990's (Hurricanes Bertha, Fran, and Floyd), Carteret
County leadership began to take formal steps to address erosion concerns along the —25-mile
long island of Bogue Banks. Figure 2-1 shows some of the damage from these hurricanes.
Figure 2-1: 1990's Hurricane Damage
In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted a Reconnaissance Study
relative to Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) for Bogue Banks, but none of the analyzed
coastal storm damage reduction plans were found to be economically feasible at that time
(USACE, 2013). A USACE Feasibility Study was authorized by congressional resolution in 1998
and a Feasibility Study Agreement was executed in February 2001 after which federal funding
became available; the Feasibility Study culminated in the August 2013 report - "Integrated
Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement" for the USACE CSDR project for
Bogue Banks. Congressional authorization and federal funding for this project are unlikely and
2

remain uncertain due to lack of financial support by the present and prior administrations relative
to the Shore Protection Program for ultimate implementation of the project.
In 1994, a USACE Section III Study was requested by Pine Knoll Shores to determine if
damages to the beach can be directly attributable to the Federal Navigation Project (SPO
website). In 2001, the USACE completed a Section III Study that addressed the impacts of
dredging Morehead City Harbor upon the beaches of Bogue Banks. The study found no direct
evidence that the harbor project has had a negative impact on any of the shorelines in the
vicinity, including Pine Knoll Shores. However, the report suggested that alternative sand
management practices in conjunction with harbor maintenance may be beneficial with regard to
long-term stability of the shoreline (USACE, 2001).
However, with the advent of the hurricanes in the 1990's, County and Town leaders determined
that action was needed. Occupancy tax legislation was developed to create a beach nourishment
reserve fund and a County -wide Beach Commission was formed to manage the funds and make
decisions regarding engineering intervention (i.e. nourishment) along Bogue Banks.
Consultants were retained by the Beach Commission to develop and implement the previous
locally -funded Bogue Banks Restoration Project which placed material, in three phases, along
Bogue Banks: Phase I) Indian Beach/Salter Path and Pine Knoll Shores (1.73 Mcy, 2002), Phase
II) Emerald Isle Central and Emerald Isle East (1.87 Mcy, 2003), and Phase III) Emerald Isle
West (0.69 Mcy, 2005) (see Figure 2-2).
In 2003, the USACE completed a Section 933 study investigating the beneficial placement of
beach fill to be obtained by maintenance dredging of the Morehead City Harbor navigation
project and by recycling previously dredged material from the adjacent Brandt Island confined
disposal area (USACE, 2013). Phase I of the Section 933 project (2004) placed approximately
700,000 cy of material in Indian Beach/Salter Path while Phase II (2007) placed approximately
508,000 cy of material in Pine Knoll Shores (see Figure 2-2).
In 2004 and 2007, two FEMA-funded restoration efforts were undertaken due to storm damage
from Hurricanes Isabel and Ophelia, respectively. These efforts resulted in the placement of
about 1.4 Mcy of sand along Bogue Banks. Most recently, in 2013, a post -Irene restoration
project, partially funded by FEMA, was constructed, placing approximately 965,000 cy of sand
along Bogue Banks (see Figure 2-2).
In 2010, the USACE completed a "Dredged Material Management Plan" for the Morehead City
Harbor navigation project. The base plan includes periodic placement of material on Fort
Macon, Atlantic Beach, and west through Pine Knoll Shores atregular intervals to ameliorate the
losses of material that would normally have been provided through natural sand bypassing
currently interrupted by the navigation project" (USACE, 2010). This plan resulted in a 3 year
nourishment cycle placing sand on Atlantic Beach and Fort Macon in 2011, 2014, and 2017.
Since 1978 roughly 14 million cubic yards of sand have been placed upon the beaches of Bogue
Banks — as illustrated in Figure 2-2 - at a total cost of about $124 million. While the Corps of
Engineers' Dredged Material Management Plan and Interim Operation Plan for the Morehead
3

City Harbor Federal Navigation Project hold some promise for eastern Bogue Banks, long-term
beach nourishment for the entire island is needed to provide for pro -active management of
County beaches.
_ ________________________.
BWa. < Eme.tla ltl. Em.r.Id 1.Y i fl Idl.Y - ONI. Re ; YYU E0eM E4en.
nI.l Wefl Gnbtl Eaf ft. PM
- s'�wYY.".ti's'..6i�9. uivatl wad. ��ar,riui�tiwa��y�
15,0BB.Y»
3D.DDon'
s9DaeN <y
]],000q
3W,03]q
� H900ry
198190 cy
50.000 ry
996,999<Y I,ZI6,S
i,esznery
— --�— e99,zezry
793A82U 9S ]5,a,"
399,i1Oq 319,113q �-J3,39J<Y 3188,W9q 1a,393ry
951,600w 315,221<y
2,971,t9] <
_ f;lJ9,BODq
f,19f,ffbry
=,Msry
2,390.O , 590,329ry
IL9.93Bry
522,SIBq SE5,W]ry
@1.090w 150AWq
..IEm9Dn,wwN.ooDl
Bs5.q<[mI,rt vN lll
,m�
Rogue Banks Beach Nourishment Projects
„nan.unfN.b..W"P�lY.mnt
nNn9,N..nnar McNm,pa.emuIMrnm.1
M.MnCNu..aMl .. Dlgmal
2017
Blmtnhna Out
APo
.fMMa
NN.a..n9w..ba.w roDr
-
��•
• mfo.um.9.w�mn-wwn
� vo.e1,.�. ano
Figure 2-2: Beach Nourishment Project Completed Since 1978 Along Bogue Banks
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MBNP and preferred alternative of Beach Nourishment with Non-structural Inlet
Management include the following elements:
• Renourishment events are expected to be required at 3, 6, and 9-year intervals starting in
2019 - based upon average background erosion rates. Actual renourishment events will
be dependent upon actual erosion, and available funding — including FEMA funding in
response to future storms for which the timing and severity cannot be reasonably
predicted.
• Sand from offshore sources (I" priority), inlet sources (2"d priority) and upland sources
(31 priority) is proposed to be excavated and placed on the beach. These primary sand
sources are sufficient to maintain the design beach at a 25-year LoP with advance fill
varying from 25 to 50 cubic yards per foot — depending upon actual future erosion rates
and available funding.
• Sand obtained from the USACE maintenance dredging of the Morehead City Harbor
Channel and Bogue Inlet AIWW "crossings" is proposed to be used as part of the
4

primary sand sources; maintenance dredging is proposed to be performed by the USACE
under their permit authority, but USACE dredging and beach -fill placement are assumed
to continue and are an integral part of the MBNP.
If the main channel at Bogue Inlet migrates outside the "safe box", the main channel is
proposed to be relocated by the Applicant, Carteret County, to the location constructed in
2005 with the excavated material used to nourish the beach as part of the primary sand
sources.
3.1 Project Volume Need
3.1.1 Background Erosion
A statistical analysis using historical monitoring data to calculate annual volume change (1999 —
2012) showed an overall annual background erosion loss along Bogue Banks (without Fort
Macon) of roughly 452,200 cy with a 50-yr nourishment need of approximately 22.6 Mcy just to
keep up with historical erosion patterns. The volume analysis indicated that renourishment
intervals, based on background erosion rates, in multiples of 3 years (i.e. every 3, 6, or 9 years
depending on the reach) would be required to maintain a 25-year level of protection along Bogue
Banks. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 present the preliminary proposed projects over the next 50
years. Please note that the nourishment volume approximates the need for background erosion
only.
Table 3-1: Renourishment Intervals and Preliminary Projects Based on Detailed
Subreach and Management Reach Approaches
Year
Detailed Subreach
Nourishment
Volume (cy)
Management Reach
Nourishment
Volume c)
Nourishment
Protect (Yr)
2019
640,332
686,067
3
2022
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2025
1,163,781
967,920
9
2028
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2031
640,332
686,067
3
2034
2,209,467
2,121,204
6,9
2037
640,332
686,067
3
2040
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2043
1,163,781
967,920
9
2046
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2049
640,332
686,067
3
2052
2,209,467
2,121,204
6,9
2055
640,332
686,067
3
2058
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2061
1,163,781
967,920
9
2064
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
TOTAL
21,228,045
21,612,609

CARTERET COUNTY
' '• i ..... ee SM.O34CY
, gIAS§'�i� •ii i MrAiy
- ^a aR g�S Yl `epyWle (MK�3Mre5 .•� PIYMkyM� "_~
p S�i.i✓xA y A ^e a l.� INan y�N l5B-fll (/1.1M) - n �e\da Eed l
' ••ee• �M'aMGenMI Em \p Jal
«�i.• d 6melaliy.]yl
'o, FP" �11.h1
ONSLOW BAY
Legend �.
r� vear 3 Nourishment
�• Vear B Nourenment
F� Vear9 Nounhrnenl
y ys i x 3
r_—�FNMs
Figure3-1: Management Reach Nourishment Plan
3.1.2 Storm Erosion
To estimate storm losses, a similar statistical analysis to the background erosion was performed
but the overall dataset was restricted to the three years which covered Hurricanes Isabel, Ophelia,
and Irene to estimate potential hurricane storm losses. Based on the results, it is expected that
the losses experienced for a given storm may range between 1.4 — 1.7 Mcy. Given that storms
have occurred approximately once every three years, the storm need over 50 years may range
between 22.4 — 27.2 Mcy.
3.1.3 Sea Level Rise
Based on USACE guidance for intermediate sea level change of +1.01 ft over the next 50 years,
it was determined that the additional volume required to raise the dune and berm elevations
roughly 1 foot to maintain the 25-year level of protection is approximately 1.8 Mcy.
3.1.4 Total Erosion
Based on the overall sediment need comprised of background erosion (22.6 Mcy),
anticipated storm erosion (22.4 — 27.2 Mcy), and moderate sea level rise (1.8 Mcy), Carteret
County is requesting permission to place 46.8 to 51.6 Mcy of material on the beach over the
next 50 years. As mentioned previously, a combination of borrow sources which include
offshore sources (Old and Current ODMDS, Area Y, and Area Z), inlets (Bogue Inlet Channel
and Morehead City Outer Harbor), and upland sources (sand mines and AIWW disposal areas)
would be used to meet this need (see Section 5.0 for sediment analysis).

3.2 Project Dimensions
Several template scenarios were developed to estimate potential project lengths and footprints
(bottom areas) for permitting purposes. Project templates equating to 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75
cy/ft fill densities were developed to produce a range of project lengths and footprints that may
be encountered over the 50-year timeframe for both background erosion and storm related
projects. Fill volumes from Table 3-1 were used to develop the range of project lengths and
footprints for projects related to background erosion losses. As mentioned previously, historical
storm erosion has proven to be approximately 1.4 Mcy — 1.7 Mcy per event with events
occurring approximately every 3 years. Therefore, 1.7 Mcy every 3 years was used to develop
the range of project lengths and footprints for projects related to storm erosion losses. To
incorporate sea level rise in, which was estimated to be 1.8 Mcy over 50 years, that volume was
split evenly between background and storm erosion over the course of 50 years, adding
approximately 56,250 cy to each potential project. Using these volumes, the length of project
was determined for each fill density as well as the size of the project footprint, or bottom area.
The various templates produced a range of project length and bottom area values to describe the
size of potential future projects.
At the request of permitting authorities, minimum and maximum project lengths and bottom
areas were identified for any 6-year or 10-year period as well as the minimum and maximum for
the full 50-year project authorization. In addition, ranges were identified separately for
background erosion and storm erosion to maintain consistency with the EIS. It should be noted
that renourishment placement locations will be repeated over the 50-year project authorization
(i.e. sand placed in the same location more than once). Therefore, the total renourishment length
and bottom area sizes may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly
larger area of impact than what the projects might cover.
The following sections present summary tables of the 6-year, 10-year, and 50-year ranges for
project length and bottom area. Tables containing the full analysis for those ranges identified
above are presented in Appendix A (Supporting Tables). Typical plan view and cross section
views are presented in Appendix B (Plan & Cross Section View) for renourishment events
containing a fill density of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft.
3.2.1 6 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-2, Table 3-3, and Table 3-4 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over any 6 year time period
-- for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background + storm),
respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during any 6-year period, which may include 2 projects
stemming from background erosion and 2 projects stemming from storm events, certain locations
may be nourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and bottom area sizes
may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger area of influence
than what will be impacted.
7

Table 3-2: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
6YEAR NOURISHMENT LENGTH AND BOTTOM ARM
RANGES- BACKGROUND EROSION ONLY
Total Nourishment
Volume
25
Wit Fill
Density
SOW/fLFlll
Density
TSW/tt
Fill
Density
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Minor
Background
Sealevel
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Bottom
Nourishment
Area
Area
gamer
Nourishment
Area
Area
Bottom
Nourishment
Rise
Nourishment
Length
Above
Below
Length
Above
Below
Length
Above
Below
Max
Volume(W)
(W)
IWI
(MI)
MHW
MHW
mod
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(awes)
(acres)
(acres)
lacres)
lacres)
(ames)
iacresl
(oats)
(acres)
MIN
2,525,418
112,500
2,637,918
2010
298
400
698
10.0
216
171
386
6.7
183
138
321
MAX
2,807,271
112,500
2,919,TJ1
22.1
330
442
JJ2
11.1
239
189
428
1.4
20
153
356
Table 3-3: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
6
YEAR NOURISHMENTLENGTH AND BOTTOM
AREA RANGES -STORM EROSIONONU/
Total Noudshment
Volume
25
/ft FBI
Density
50
/N Fill
Density
75W/tt
FIll
Deasily
Bottam
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Storm
Sea Level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Minor
Nourishment
Rise
Nourishment
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Max
Volume (W)
(W)
(W)
(mil
MHW
MHW
Area
Imi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(mi)
MXW
MHW
Area
lacres
(acres)
)oats)
apes
)oats)
a244s
a184s
(acres)
MIN
3,400,000
112,5W
3,512,500
26.6
397
532
929
13.3
28]
22]s
SU
8.9
428
MAX
3,400,000
312,500
3,512,500
26.6
39]
532
929
13.3
28]
227
514
8.9
244
184
428
Table 3-4: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background &
Storm Erosion
6YEAR NOURISHMENT
LENGTH AND BOTTOM AREA RANGES
-TOTALEROSION BACKGROUND+STORM
Total Nourishment Volume
Be,/ft
Fill
Density
SOW/ft
Fill
Density
75W/ft
Fill
Density
Background t
Bottom
BottomI
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Minor
Storm
Sea level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Bottom
Nourishment
Area
Area
Bottom
Nourishment
Area
Area
Bottom
Rise
Nourishment
length
Above
Below
Length
Ahove
Below
length
Above
Below
Max
Nourishment
(W)
lWl
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
'mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
Volume lWl
laaesl
(oats)
(acres)
laaesl
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
lacres
MIN
5,W5,418
225,000
6,150,418
46.6
695
932
1,62]
23.3
503
396
901
I5.5
427
322
]49
MAX
6.20.271
225,000
6,432,271
48]
727
9J5
1,JOL
24.4
526
416
S42
16.2
44J
337
784
Based on Table 3-2, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are 6.7 miles and 321 acres (based on 75 cy/ft
fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are
22.1 miles and 772 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 6-year period would be in the range of 10.0 — 11.1 miles and 171 — 189 acres (based on a
50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-3, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for any 6 year time period are 8.9 miles and 428 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill
density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are
26.6 miles and 929 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 6-year period would be in the range of 13.3 miles and 514 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
Table 3-4 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for any
6-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 15.5 miles and 749 acres
(based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area are 48.7
miles and 1,701 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will

likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
would be in the range of 23.2 — 24.4 miles and 901 — 942 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
3.2.2 10 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-5, Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over any 10 year time period
for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background + storm),
respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during any 10-year period, which may include 3 projects
stemming from background erosion and 3 projects stemming from storm events, certain locations
may be renourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and bottom area
incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger area of influence than
what will be impacted.
Table 3-5: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
WYEAR
NOURISHMENT LENGTH AND BOTTOM AREA
RANGES- BACKGROUND EROSION ONLY
Total Nourishment Volume
25
W/ft Fill
Density
SO
W/ft Fill
OeI
JS
/ft Fill
Densi
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
B
Bottom
B
Bariground
Sea level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Nourishment
Area
Minor
Nourishment
Rise
Nourishment
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
Blength
Above
B
Max
Volume(w)
(W)
IW)
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(MI)
MM
(mp
MHW
lacresl
lacresl
(acres)
acres,
l)
(acres)
la
MIN
3,493,338
168,750
3,662,098
2J.]
414
555
90
13.9
299
9.2
254
MAX
4,95,622
168,J50
4,815,3J2
36.5
544
J30
1,2➢3
18.2
394
12.2
335
2121
Table 3-6: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
WYEAR NOURISHMENTLENGTH AND BOTTOM ARM RANGES- STORM EROSION ONLY
Total Nourishment Volume
2SW/ft
FIIIDensity
SO
WIN Fill
Mostly
1 75ry/N
FIII
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
TOW(
Bottom
Storm
Sea Level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Min or
Nourishment
Pise
Nourishment
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
thbove
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
MaX
Volume(W)
(W)
(W)
(MI)
MHWMHWArea
MHW
MHW
Area
(mil
MHW
AA..
times)
(acres)
pores)
acres
lacres)
(acres)
(acres)
MIN
5,100000
168,J50
5,268,J50
39.9
595
J98
1,393
20.0
43
341
Jl2
13.3
366
MAX
S,lW,=
168,T50
5,268,]50
39.9
595
]98
1,393
20.0
431
341
nl
13.3
T66
Table 3-7: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background &
Storm Erosion
WYEAR NOURISHMENTLENGTH
AND BOTTOM AREA RANGES
-TOTAL EROSION (BACKGROUND .STORM
Total Nourishment Volume
B
W/ft Fill
Density
SOW/NFIIIDens[ty
]SW/tt
FIII
Density
Background+
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bono.L(acres)
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Minor
Storm
Sea level
Rise
Total
Nourishment
Nourishment
Length
Area
Above
Area
Below
Bottom
Nourishment
Length.
Area
Above
Bottom
Nourishment
Length
Area
Above
Area
Below
Bottom
Max
Nourishment
IWI
(W1
Imi)
MHW
Mm
Area
(mil
MHW
Area
(mil
MHW
MHW
Area
VolumelM
(acres)
(acres)
(awes)
[acres)
(acres)
lacres)
(acres)
lacres)
MIN
8,593,338
33J,500
8,930,838
27
1,009
1,353
2,362
33.8
AO
1,308
22.6
6216]
1,088MAX
9,746,622
33J,500
11,9W,122
]6.4
2131
1,528
2,66]
38.2
824
1,477
25.5
701
528
1,228
Based on Table 3-5, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for any 10 year time period are 9.2 miles and 446 acres (based on 75 cy/ft
fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 10 year time period
are 36.5 miles and 1,273 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density

will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom
area for any 10-year period would be in the range of 13.9 — 18.2 miles and 536 - 705 acres (based
on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-6, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for any 10 year time period are 13.3 miles and 642 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill
density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 10 year time period are
39.9 miles and 1,393 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 10-year period would be in the range of 20.0 miles and 772 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
Table 3-7 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for any
10-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 22.6 miles and 1,088
acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area are
76.4 miles and 2,667 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
would be in the range of 33.8 — 38.2 miles and 1,308 — 1,477 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
3.2.3 50 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-8, Table 3-9, and Table 3-10 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over the entire 50 year time
period for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background +
storm), respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during the entire 50-year period, which may include 16
projects stemming from background erosion and 16 projects stemming from storm events,
certain locations may be nourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and
bottom area sizes may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger
area of influence than what will be impacted.
Table 3-8: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
SO YEAR
NOURISHMENT LENGTH AND BOTTOM AREA
RANGES- BACRGROU NO EROSION ONLY
Total Nourishment
Volume
nw/k
Fill
Density
SO
WIN Fill
Density
75
/k Fill
Densl
Bottom
Bonom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Background
Sea Level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Time
Nourishment
Rise
Nourishment
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
Below
Brnom
Volume(,]
(N)
(W)
(ml)
MM
MHW
Area
(mi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(mi
MHW
MHW
Area
I..,)
(saes)
(acres)
)acres)
(acres)
acres
lases)
(aaesl
(acres)
(aces)
SOyr
21,612,609
SDI,=
22,5U,609
170.6
2,543
3,411
6,954
85.3
1,800
1,45]
3,29]
6fi.9
1,964
3,1I8
;]43
10

Table 3-9: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
SOYEAR NOURISHMENT LENGTH AND BOTTOM AREA RANGES -STORM EROSION ONLY
Total Nourishment Volume
25W/H
Fill
Density
SOW/tt
Fill
Density
75,/tt
Fill
Density
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
ToGI
ammm
Bottom
Total
Storm
Sea Level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Nourishment
Area
Area
Time
Nourishment
Rise
Nourishment
length
Above
Below
Bottom
length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Volume(tY)
Its)
Iw)
(MI)
MHW
MHW
Area
(mil
MMW
MMW
Area
Imll
MHW
MNW
Nea
Iacres)
(acres)
Iacres)
acres)
Jams)laves)
aver)
(acres)
)acres)
50 r
27,200,000
900,0D)
1 28,300,000
212.9
3,114
1 4,SB
'7,431
106A
2,29)
1,819
4,116
]3.0
1,952
1,4]3
3p23
Table 3-10: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background &
Storm Erosion
WYEAR NOURISHMENTLENGTHAND
BOTTOM AREA RANGES. TOTAL EROSION (BA[NGROUNO.STORM)
Total Nourishment
Volume
nl/O
Fill
Density
50ry/Ft
Fill
Density
]5ry/it
Fill
Density
Badrground♦
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Tow
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Time
Storm
Sea level
Rise
TOW
Nourishment
Nourishment
Area
Above
Area
Below
Donem
Nourishment
length
Area
Ahove
Area
Below
Bottom
Nourishment
Length
Area
Above
Area
Below
Bottom
Nourishment
W
(w)
(MI)
MNW
MHW
Area
(mi)
MHW
MMW
Area
(tall
MHW
MHW
Am.
Volume (wl
Iacres)
(amesl
(ayes)
(aves)
avesi
Iaces)
(acres)
(aver)
(acres)
SOyr
48,812,609
1,800,000
50,612,609
W1.4
5,117
1 7,669
1 13.385
191.]
I4,136
3,21]
],413
12].8
3, S1]
2,M9
6,166
Based on Table 3-8, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for the entire 50 year time period are 56.9 miles and 2,743 acres (based
on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for the entire 50
year time period are 170.6 miles and 5,954 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected
that the fill density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project
length and bottom area for the entire 50-year period would be in the range of 85.3 miles and
3,297 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-9, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for the entire 50 year time period are 71.0 miles and 3,423 acres (based on 75
cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for the entire 50 year
time period are 212.9 miles and 7,431 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that
the fill density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project
length and bottom area for the entire 50-year period would be in the range of 106.4 miles and
4,116 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Table 3-10 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for the
entire 50-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 127.8 miles and
6,166 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom
area are 383.4 miles and 13,385 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill
density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and
bottom area would be in the range of 191.7 miles and 7,413 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
3.3 Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1
The initial project under the Master Beach Nourishment Plan is set to take place during winter
2018/2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along 9.5 miles of
shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores. This is an average
fill density of 30 cy/ft. Figure 3-2 shows the planned placement locations and volumes. Material
for the project will be dredged from portions of the Current and Old ODMDS as presented in
11

Figure 3-2. Permit drawings for the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1
are presented in Appendix B.
CARTERET COUNTY
t4i�li
t}ti Ys};:}16i-}tii itiF$tiii}ii7ltitiiit}ii:i BEn urDBr
,III INLET
a=yiySiit SSSSt9t}iSit i}t$iit}}iii}SYt .�\e\
peic�� ae>'K4 p Old
Mdun Be.cFl pine Kml! 5916 ODMOS
Belle Pa! Sac
_iii , 555B T^�5�m"e
y yy} 0.N' IN l�e�p 'Oae i11409 cY
,(q4;t ETetYM 35.M
U1fi0.11fi cY ._—
B000P`- 10o.K1e
MIEr 1.0 T11ee PMl11UGI
471.544 nY BBnar
Fepew,lpyYY
Wy"A
l��u"
ONSLO W BAY
0 051 2 J
M1HYe
Figure 3-2: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1 (Winter
2018/2019)
It should be noted that this initial project is essentially the "Year 6" nourishment, as presented in
the Master Beach Nourishment Plan (see Figure 3-1), rather than "Year 3". As time has
progressed during the formulation and permitting of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, a need
has developed to start the project with "Year 6".
4.0 METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The proposed fill will be reclaimed by a variety of methods depending on the borrow source
location with respect to the oceanfront shoreline: 1) ocean-going, trailing suction hopper
dredge(s) placing from offshore pump -out stations along the recipient beach, 2) pipeline dredges
placing material from adjacent inlet or AIWW sites along the recipient beach, or 3) truck haul
from upland sand mines. Only the profile above high water is controllable in beach nourishment
construction; intertidal and underwater portions of the profile will be subject to natural
adjustment by waves. The fill will be placed no higher than +611 NAVD (the natural elevation of
the berm).
Work will progress in sections within the borrow area and along the beach. Fill placement along
the beach will typically progress at a rate of 400-700 linear feet per day for dredged material.
Construction activities will involve movement of heavy equipment and pipe along —1 mile
12

reaches over a period of 1-2 weeks. Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment will
j be shifted to a new section and the process repeated. As soon as practicable, sections will be
graded and dressed to final slopes. Other than at temporary equipment staging areas, residents
and visitors along the project area will not experience significant disruption to recreational
activities except within the immediate construction area. Existing public access to the beach will
remain open during construction. Offshore pump -out stations and appurtenances would not
affect commercial or recreational boating.
Land -based equipment will be brought to the site over public roads and will enter the beach at
existing permanent beach accesses identified on the permit drawings. Existing dunes and
vegetation on the beach will be avoided and preserved; however, any alteration of dune
vegetation/topography necessary for equipment access will be repaired to pre -project conditions.
Daily equipment staging will be on the constructed beach seaward of the dune line. Construction
contracts will provide for proper storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, and hydraulic fluids
(etc.) necessary for operation in accordance with state and federal regulations.
4.1 Equipment- Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge
_ Hopper dredges will dredge material from the designated ocean borrow area. Hopper dredges
typically require —25 ft minimum operational depth and are efficient for excavating shallow cuts
on the order of —2-5 ft. During excavation and loading, the sand/water slurry drains overboard
via scuppers, leaving coarser material in the hopper. When loaded, the dredge travels to a
temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the project site. The hopper dredge connects to
the pipeline and pumps the material from the hopper to the beach where the sand is spread
mechanically by bulldozers. This is the same type of dredging placement operation used during
Phase I and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment projects completed in
winter of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively) as well as the Post-Ophelia and Post -Irene
projects.
4.2 Equipment —Pipeline Dredge
Pipeline dredges will dredge material from a designated nearby borrow area, likely Bogue Inlet
or adjacent waterway. A pipeline dredge sucks dredged material through one end, the intake
pipe, and then pushes it out the discharge pipeline directly into the disposal site. The discharge
line for pipeline dredges is usually floated on top of the water until it reaches land where it is
then run to the disposal site. Material pumped from the pipeline dredge onto the beach is spread
mechanically by bulldozers.
4.3 Equipment —Truck Haul
If upland sand mines are used as a borrow source, dump trucks are used to transport material
from the sand mine to the recipient beach where it is dumped and then mechanically spread by
bulldozers.
4.4 Construction Schedule
Construction will take place within the environmental window stated in the FEIS (November 16
through April 30).
13

4.5 Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1
The initial project to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 (see Section 3.3) will use a hopper
dredge to obtain material from the Current and Old ODMDS where it will then be transported to
an offshore temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the project site. The hopper dredge
will then connect to the pipeline and pump the material from the hopper to the beach where the
sand is spread mechanically by bulldozers. As mentioned previously, this is the same type of
dredging placement operation used during Phase 1 and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks
beach nourishment projects completed in winter of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively) as
well as the Post-Ophelia and Post -Irene projects.
5.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
The following sections summarize the data collection and analysis performed as part of the
Master Beach Nourishment Plan. The full sediment analysis report is provided in Appendix C
(Sediment Analysis).
5.1 Native Beach Sediment Data
Before the series of nourishment projects which took place along Bogue Banks in the 2000's,
native beach data was collected by the USACE as well as CSE. These data indicate a native
grain size ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm. For this report, a median grain size of 0.3 mm is
selected as the best representation of the native beach based upon the 64 samples analyzed by
CSE in 2001. Table 5-1 summarizes the available native beach data. More detail on these
studies can been seen in Appendix C.
Table 5-1: Available Native Beach Data
Date
Source
Mean Grain Size (nun)
Coverage
1976
USACE
0.17
Atlantic Beach 4 Uunsects)
1999
CSE
0.3
Bogue Banks 6 transects; 20,000 ft apart)
2001
USACE
0.19
Bogue Inlet Area
2001
USACE
0.19
West Emerald Isle
2001
USACE
0.2
East Emerald Isle
2001
USACE
0.2
Indian Beach
2001
1 USACE
1 0.19
Pine Knoll Shores
2001
USACE
0.19
Atlantic Beach
2001
USACE
0.22
Fort Macon
2001
CSE
0.3
Indian BeacIJSa@er Path & Pine Knoll Shores (16 transects)
The material in the proposed borrow areas must meet the characteristics prescribed by North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) "Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects" (15A
NCAC 07H .0312) resulting in the parameters listed in Table 5-2.
14

Table 5-2: Native Beach Characteristics and Rule Parameters
Characteristic
2001 Native
NCAC
Requirements
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Fines(<#230)
Reported: 0%, Assumed: <1%
<1%+5%
<_6%
Sand (>#230 & <#I0)
Reported at 98.68%
-
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
Reported combined at 1.32%,
Assumed 0.7% each
0.7%+ 5%
<6%
Gravel (>#4)
0.7% + 5%
< 6%
Calcium Carbonate
Reported at 15-20%
20%+ 15%
<35%
In addition, Moffatt & Nichol conducted a field investigation on May 24, 2018 to estimate the
total number of sediments and shell material greater than or equal to three inches in diameter,
observable on the surface of the beach between mean low water and the frontal dune toe, in a
50,000 square foot area. Investigations were performed two locations, one in Atlantic Beach
between Transects 78 and 80 and one in Emerald Isle between Transects 29 and 30. The Atlantic
Beach investigation area has never been nourished and the Emerald Isle investigation area has
only been nourished once. Results of the investigation found 138 pieces of shell material greater
than or equal to three inches in diameter at Atlantic Beach and 211 pieces of shell material
greater than or equal to three inches in diameter at Emerald Isle. Appendix C contains the details
and documentation of the field investigation.
5.2 Potential Sources for the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
In 2012, Alpine and Coastal Tech conducted a geotechnical investigation of the main potential
offshore borrow areas near Bogue Banks to identify beach -compatible sand resources for the
long-term beach nourishment needs of Carteret County. The sites investigated were the Old
Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) located directly offshore of Beaufort Inlet, the
Current ODMDS just south of the Old ODMDS, Area Y and Z directly offshore of Emerald Isle,
and the main ebb channel of Bogue Inlet, as shown in Figure 5-1. The 2012 investigation
consisted of 164 twenty -foot vibracores extracted in the Old ODMDS, Current ODMDS, Area Y,
and Area Z. There were an additional 5 ten -foot vibracores extracted in Bogue Inlet by Alpine
Ocean Seismic Survey. Analysis of vibracores collected in 2002 by the USACE in the Morehead
City Outer Harbor was also conducted to ensure compatibility and verify the quantity of any
material available for placement as a result of the USACE Morehead City Harbor Dredged
Material Management Plan (DMMP). The results of the sand search investigation are
summarized for each site in the following sections while a detailed report can be found in
Appendix C. In addition, research was conducted to estimate potential sediment quantities in
upland sediment sources (sand mines) and AIWW disposal areas.
15

I
aea Y.� - i ..~...
�•NeaZ �r - !
- ! Gurtenl0DMD5
. - a x'•. • x
am j
Legend "
Abrae w PotenDYl Burfaw MOH
o MeY I Junent ODMDS . , e •�
• MaZ J5ACEM Y
• ODMDS CHIC OOMDS - 4 t- ,''•), B,
• Bopuo Inlet
Figure 5-1: Potential Borrow Areas and 2012 Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.3 Old ODMDS
This site is located directly north of the Current ODMDS in State waters. The Old ODMDS was
split into two sections; designated Old ODMDS I and Old ODMDS 2, to maximize the potential
borrow area volume as shown in Figure 5-2.
16

Old ODMDS '
aic
032 033 .m Oil
R'r
OR
46
8
M
4s 50
Legend
Sand Quality
Q OldODMDS2
• Good
Nav,gat*o Ch ,,n l
C Moderam
Geodynamics 2009+2011 bathy
• Poor
Value
O Current ODMDS
Mlgh :.31
Old ODMDS
. 0 N 2,400
�OldODMDSI
MLCM:-56.5
Figure 5-2: Old ODMDS Site and Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.3.1 Old ODMDS I
Old ODMDS 1 borrow area is location on the boarder of Current ODMDS. This area consists of
fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand with a mean grain size of 0.30 millimeters (mm) and an
overfill factor of 1.30. This area is estimated to contain 13.1 Million cubic yards (Mcy) of beach
compatible sand. The characteristics of this material are compliant with the parameters defined
by the NCAC as shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Old ODMDS 1 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Old ODMDS 1
Fines(<#230)
<_ 6%
0.53%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
96.00%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
< 6%
2.14%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
1.33%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
13.55%
17

5.3.2 Old ODMDS 2
Old ODMDS 2 borrow area is similar to Old ODMDS 1 with a slightly larger mean grain size of
0.32 mm and an overfill factor of 1.25. This area is estimated to contain 1.1 Mcy of beach
compatible sand that meet the NCAC criteria as listed in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Old ODMDS 2 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Old ODMDS 2
Fines (<#230)
<6%
0.20%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.30%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
< 6%
2.49%
Gravel(>#4)
< 6%
1.01%
Calcium Carbonate
<35%
13.57%
5.4 Current ODMDS
The Current ODMDS is located south of the Old ODMDS just outside of the 3-mile
jurisdictional line in Federal waters. This area was divided into eight potential borrow areas
consisting of one large mound and seven smaller disposal mounds. The seven small disposal
mounds were then grouped according to the level of confidence in the granularmetric data.
5.4.1 Current ODMDS 1
Current ODMDS 1 is an extension of the large mound located in Old ODMDS 1 as shown below
in Figure 5-3; therefore, they have very similar sediment properties. The mean grain size is 0.30
mm and has an overfill factor of 1.25 and meets all the NCAC compatibility requirements as
listed in Table 5-5. This site contains approximately 3.27 Mcy of beach compatible material.
This number has been adjusted from that presented in Appendix C (4.23 Mcy) by subtracting out
the Hurricane Irene renourishment amount which was dredged from this borrow area.
18

Figure 5-3: Current ODMDS 1 Site and Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Table 5-5: Current ODMDS 1 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Current
ODMDS 1
Fines(<#230)
<6%
0.52%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.06%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
2.06%
Gravel (>#4)
<6%
1.36%
Calcium Carbonate
< 35%
13.29%
5.4.2 Higher Confidence Mounds
The higher confidence mounds include mounds where at least one vibracore penetrates the
thickest portion of the mound. This allows for more accurate representation of the stratigraphy
to be defined. The higher confidence mounds include Mounds 0-15, 0-192, 0-48, 014, and 0-
47, as shown in Figure 5-4.
HE

Figure 54: Higher Confidence Mound Sites and Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Mound 0-15
Mound 0-15 is located west of Current ODMDS 1 and has vibracore 0-15 passing directly
through the thickest section of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained,
moderately sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.24 mm, which is smaller than the
native mean grain size. This results in a larger overfill factor of 1.60 and Mound 0-15 being
assigned a "B" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-6;
therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible
material in this mound is approximately 356,000 cubic yards (cy).
Table 5-6: Mound 0-15 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-15
Fines(<#230)
<6%
0.07%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
".23%
Granular (># 10 & 44)
<6%
0.54%
Gravel (>#4)
<6%
0.16%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
10.10%
20

Mound 0-192
Mound 0-192 is located southwest of Current ODMDS 1 and has vibracore 0-192 and 0-41
passing through this mound; with 0-192 passing through the thickest section of the mound. This
potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain
size of 0.36 mm, which is coarser than the previous mound. This results in a smaller overfill
factor of 1.25 and Mound 0-192 assigned an "A" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC are
met, as shown in Table 5-7; therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total
amount of beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 785,270 cy.
Table 5-7: Mound 0-192 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-192
Fines(<#230)
<6%
0.13%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
93.07%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<6%
3.43%
Gravel (>#4)
< 6%
3.37%
Calcium Carbonate
<35%
19.59%
Mound 0-48
Mound 0-48 is located southwest of Current ODMDS 1 and has vibracore 0-48 passing through
the middle of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, moderately sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.2 mm, which is significantly finer than the native
sediment. This results in a larger overfill factor of 2.25 and Mound 0-48 assigned a "C"
ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-8; therefore, the
material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible material in this
mound is approximately 468,740 cy.
Table 5-8: Mound 0-48 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-48
Fines(<#230)
<6%
5.91%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
92.83%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
<6%
1.11%
Gravel (>44)
< 6%
0.15%
Calcium Carbonate
_<35%
7.76%
Mound 0-14/0-47
Mound 0-14/0-47 is located west of Mound 0-48 and has vibracore 0-14, 0-47, and 0-38
passing through the mound. This mound was split because it was assigned two different cut
depths to maximize beach quality material being removed. Even though this area was split, the
sediment properties were analyzed and recorded as one site. This potential borrow area consists
of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.38 mm, which is coarser
21

than the native sediment. This results in a smaller overfill factor of 1.20 and Mound 0-14/0-47
assigned an "A" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-9;
therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible
material in this mound is approximately 566,028 cy.
Table 5-9: Mound 0-14/0-47 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound
0-14 / 0-47
Fines(<#230)
<6%
0.23%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
93.43%
Granular (>#10 & <94)
< 6%
4.71%
Gravel(>#4)
< 6%
1.63%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
19.80%
5.4.3 Lower Confidence Mounds
The lower confidence mounds include mounds where the vibracore is located along the edge and
none that penetrate the thickest portion of the mound. This prevents an accurate representation
of the stratigraphy to be defined. The lower confidence mounds include Mounds 0-35 and 0-46,
which are shown in Figure 5-5. Coastal Tech recommends that these mounds be sampled with
additional vibracores in the thickest portion of the mounds to confirm the sediment characteristic
inferred from the existing cores.
22
i;

Figure 5-5: Lower Confidence Mound Sites and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Mound 0-35
Mound 0-35 is located south of Current ODMDS 1 and shares data from vibracore 0-35 which
was used in the analysis of Current ODMDS 1. Vibracore 0-43 passes through the southern
edge of this mound. These vibracores were weighted equally when the mound composite was
created. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand. An
overfill factor of 1.3 was calculated and Mound 0-35 was assigned a `B" ranking due to the lack
of sampling in the middle of the area. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in
Table 5-10 below; therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of
beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 499,500 cy.
Table 5-10: Mound 0-35 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-35
Fines (0230)
< 6%
0.31%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.08%
Granular (># 10 & 04)
< 6%
2.65%
Gravel(>#4)
<_ 6%
0.%%
Calcium Carbonate
< 35%
15.20%
23

Mound 0-46
Mound 0-46 is located southwest of Current ODMDS 1 and only has vibracore 0-46 passing
through the edge of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.4 mm, which is coarser than the native sediment. An
overfill factor of 1.25 was calculated and Mound 0-46 was assigned a `B" ranking due to the
lack of sampling in the middle of the area. All parameters defined by NCAC were met except
for Granular, as shown in Table 5-11. It is believed that, upon further sampling in the center of
the area, the percent granular may fall within the guidelines defined. The total amount of
potential beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 493,564 cy.
Table 5-11: Mound 0-46 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-35
Fines (<#230)
< 6%
0.37%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
90.60%
Granular (>#10 & 04)
< 6%
6.27%
Gravel (>#4)
< 6%
2.76%
Calcium Carbonate
< 35%
18.17%
5.4.4 Contingency Mounds
The remaining mounds in the Current ODMDS lack a vibracore within the boundary of the
mound, as shown in Figure 5-6. Conceptual cut depths were assumed from the surrounding
vibracores and potential volumes were calculated. These mounds do not have sediment
characteristics defined. The potential volumes these mounds contain are shown in Table 5-12
with a total volume of approximately 320,000 cy.
24

�! 1 i 4S
049 050 051 052 r V2 ' I
• • • • Ifj
52 053 05 055 056 57 058 059 060 I
1 R1'4" 52l I
52 Legend
2012 Vibracores Q �ontirgenoy Mounds
\ Sand Quality Geodynamics 2011 bathymetry
\ • Good NAVD88 Ft
�\ \ • Moderate . High: -31.0
• Poor
/ EMCurrentODMOS Low:-56.5 N 2,0DC
OOId ODMDS r9@[
Figure 5-6: Contingency Mound Sites and Vibracores
Table 5-12: Contingency Mound Volumes (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Mound
Cut Elevation NAVD88
Volume (cy)
0-16
-50 ft
95,326
0-39
-52 ft
94.352
0-37/0-38
-51 ft
71.233
0-32
-50 ft
58,543
Total
319,454
5.5 Area Y
Area Y is located seaward of Emerald Isle within State waters in which 55 vibracores were
collected. Vibracores were initially taken on a 1,000-foot by 1,000-foot grid; however, a
significant amount of fines were found in the surficial layer. The spacing was then increased to a
2,000-foot grid spacing, and two areas were identified as potential sites as shown in Figure 5-7.
25

b - Z ova v1Ya c.ISn
0
1�SVey I
Q g 41
ri 4• -•'3' �� q �/
o 6
�o p0 ce Y Y
hart 1154 11 D,p O ♦sWP �,., ..-}0 ;>1 9 v1 n
_ rias • [�
' (ip11i➢•.. 24 Y6 Y 3 • Ytn Y
.i't Y135 • • • %
h / n i •
/ \26 IP Yr1 Y.d Yloi M
/ • • vim •
\` � J -MIS II�II� '� 7 . YM
2 \ OC� •' a ail i�aa • '181 Vi`r,4� Y107 !no .3
z171 •
��"w '• Zin ZIN • r
rx • •
w1sim a ZZWTr j �YM420 M wg Yen zs •q n•.•�•
n
MN 0 Mot 45 -�
MISSAA •
m ` • zzw i° • \� is,
Legend
Obstn
• 2012 wbraoor" Geodynamics 2011 Bathy ., Fish He
Y120 mound NAVD88 Ft 47 (out h nh
p Ys0 Abuts w High: -31.0
0 4,000. N
Low: -as.s 3g
Figure 5-7: Area Y Site and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.5.1 Vibracores Y-80/Y--75
Vibracores Y-80 and Y-75 are 2000 feet apart and, due to the hardbottom buffer to the east, no
vibracores were taken on that side. The vibracores taken to the west of Y-80 and Y-75 are not
beach compatible. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, moderately well sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.23 mm, which is finer than the native sediment. All
parameters defined by NCAC were met as shown below in Table 5-13. Although the parameters
are met, the area should be considered a low priority with a "C" ranking due to insufficient
vibracores to designate a reliable borrow area and poor quality of sediment. The potential
volume is estimated at 1.08 Mcy; however, the rectangular area defined is purely conceptual and
not based on the vibracores.
26

Table 5-13: Vibracores Y-80 & Y-75 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal
Tech,2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracores
Y-80 / Y-75
Fines(<#230)
< 6%
2.37%
Sand (>#230 & 410)
-
97.55%
Granular (>#10 & 44)
5 6%
0.08%
Gravel (>#4)
< 6%
0.00%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
1.85%
5.5.2 Vibracores Y-I201Y--90
Vibracores Y-120 and Y-90 are 1000 feet apart and are located along a ridge; however, the
sediment color is dark in color. This potential borrow area also exceeds the requirement set by
NCAC for Gravel as shown in Table 5-14; therefore, would not be considered beach compatible.
The total amount of material in this mound is approximately 379,675 cy.
Table 5-14: Vibracores Y-120 & Y-90 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal
Tech,2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracores
Y-120 / Y-90
Fines(<#230)
< 6%
2.04%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
86.60%
Granular (>#10 & 44)
<6%
3.43%
Gravel (>44)
<6%
7.93%
Calcium Carbonate
<35%
1.50%
5.6 Area Z
Area Z consisted of forty-three vibracores that were taken southeast of Bogue Inlet in efforts to
locate the White Oak River channel, shown in Figure 5-8. Vibracore Z-174 was the only sample
showed a possibility of having beach compatible material; however, it exceeded the Gravel
requirement as shown in Table 5-15.
27

troin5 24
710N LINE �a h
4M1seeA
note A) �s 26 is 7i
... vO 12 rns
' I• 2l,s 23N •
nes 5 2 GG z314 • z3s • :0 Z1 4
Y • • z,v,
Zin:a •
�•_� z, • z3a
nW
Zia i f�g 41
\ 128 34 z� • z� • �>e i /
_ \ zn° zsn • �+
n. zl o . • z0 n
S z3" •
Zr z 40 4
zm 17 �ea�,a3 •
• �soi-,a
_ 45 46 45
�\ Y,A, \
FIY4s `
G 4 \47 L 1"
Legentl
a 48 4s a
• 2012 Vibrewros 0 N 4 00 V45
J
Figure 5-8: Area Z Site and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Table 5-15: Vibracore Z-174 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracore Z-174
Fines(<#230)
<_ 6%
1.34%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
84.57%
Granular (># l0 & <#4)
< 6%
2.28%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
11.81%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
11.10%
5.7 Bogue Inlet Channel
Five vibracores were collected within the authorized dimensions of the 2005 Bogue Inlet
relocation project as shown in Figure 5-9. The Bogue Inlet ebb and flood shoals are fed by the
surrounding beaches based on sediment transport analysis. The mean grain size of material from
vibracores is 0.33 mm with an overfill factor of 1.15. The sediment met all NCAC compatibility
requirements as listed in Table 5-16. This site contains approximately 850,000 cy to 1 Mcy of
beach compatible material.
28

F.
►L1', ? r t
C
G
Ouo�
15 . 2012 Abraoores
Authorized Dredge Channel
22 —.-. Geodynamics 2009 Bathy
\ S NAVD88 Ft
93 \ 9 0 �w9n:iso Q
�• \ LM: 47.a jV
1 � �r
Figure 5-9: Bogue Inlet Channel Site, Vibracores, and Authorized Channel Location
(Coastal Tech, 2013)
Table 5-16: Bogue Inlet Channel Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracore Z-174
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
0.15%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
96.61%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
< 6%
2.40%
Gravel(>#4)
< 6%
0.84%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
14.96%
5.8 Morehead City Outer Harbor
The Outer Harbor consists of the Cutoff and Range A out to Station 110+00 as shown in Figure
5-10. Since this is a federal navigation project, the requirements for beach compatibility only
limit the silt content to less than 10%. The characteristics of the sediment in this area meet that
requirement and are listed below in Table 5-17. The USACE Morehead City Harbor draft
29

Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) estimates that the Outer Harbor is shoaling at a
rate of 1.2 Mcy per year (2012). Depending on the final DMMP, there could be between
228,000-635,000 cy of sand available for beach placement annually. A mid -range amount of
400,000 cy/yr is assumed to be available from this source.
IS -AND
` `
•
• a
F 55tt (Day
F G (Night,
•
• • •
lFl 2.5s 31M
I
_ Marsh ±
j F12.5s •
x •
IC01 i� J�MAR
- .
CG�.-mote
17
13 1tG�
r pRr
gaRh4�'t
15 i
34 r^jp, J23
G'11
FIR4s 1-
• ��'
20..
FIG2.5s
WC ..1
is 1
13 11
R'-12'
1'R 2.5s
•
Priv 66
9
M • 3`I
22 ''
• • 22 1B1 ; 2
19 13 Y 21
7 4 •
1 '
22 96
F( G
4s 33
• •
t �9.4: 3.1
�,-
�'�1'
50 • /
44 27 37
• 3
40
r
33 (f
I{ Bfil
46
Or
The prof t de
Legend
3 00 Rr
ling epth
• USACE 2002 Vlbracores
�� 43 OR
,\
Navigation Channel
46
section
41
Cutott "
Range A 48 ,
Range B o 219oo G FI ` °� M / \ 50
Range C Wowltw
I I
Figure 5-10: Morehead City Channel Vibracore and Reach Locations (Coastal Tech,
2013)
30

Table 5-17: Morehead City Outer Harbor Characteristics and NCAC Parameters
(Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Morehead City
Outer Harbor
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
<1%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
Not Reported
Granular (># 10 & <44)
< 6%
Not Reported
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
6.40%
Calcium Carbonate
:5 35%
15.70%
5.9 Upland Sources and AIWW Disposal Areas
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has a database of permitted active and inactive
upland mines. From this database, a list of active sand and gravel mines within 30 miles of
Bogue Banks (estimated to be feasible from a trucking cost perspective), which included mines
in the surrounding counties of Craven, Jones, and Onslow, was generated. Based on a
description of the material from various mine owners, a list of potential upland sources was
compiled containing approximately 1,380,700 cy of material. However, if the need arises,
further testing would have to be completed to verify the compatibility based on the current state
rules for beach compatibility.
The USACE performs maintenance dredging for navigation along the AIWW and disposes the
sand in specific disposal areas. A visual inspection of aerial photography for each disposal area
was performed and areas that were in proximity to a previous vibracore location were examined
first. If the sand described by the vibracore and associated geotechnical report met the beach
compatibility standards, it was determined to be a viable site. It is important to note that most of
these areas have not had a sediment analysis performed; therefore, it cannot be confirmed that
the sand meets the compatibility criteria. A sand thickness was assumed for each area of 5 feet
and volumes were then calculated based on this assumption and the area of the disposal island
found from ArcGIS. If 90% of the available sand is placed, the total volume available from the
dredge disposal areas is approximately 1,288,800 cy.
Given the limited amount of sand in the upland sources and AIWW disposal areas compared to
the total 50-yr need, these sources should be considered for the overall project but solely for
possible use for small "hotspot" projects in the future, as needed, because they do not meet the
50-yr need.
5.10 Summary of Sediment Data — Total Available Volume
The total volume available when the upland sources, AIWW disposal areas, and the offshore
sources (Old ODMDS, Current ODMDS, and Area Y) are combined is presented in Table 5-18.
The total non-renewable volume available from these sources is 25,123,057 cy. The overall
sediment need for Bogue Banks over the 50 year planning horizon based on the
analytical/empirical analysis is between 45.0 and 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy for moderate sea
level change). Therefore, the volume of the combined upland, AIWW, and offshore sources will
not be enough to meet the 50 year need by itself.
31

Table 5-18: Summary of Non -Renewable Potential Borrow Areas
Area
Total Volume c
Upland Sand Mines
1,380,700
AIWW Disposal Areas
1,288,800
Offshore Sources
22,453,557
TOTAL
25,123,057
In addition to the upland, AIW W, and offshore borrow sources, Bogue and Beaufort Inlets could
also provide material on a cyclical basis as they regularly shoal and must be dredged by the
USACE for navigation purposes. These renewable borrow areas could potentially provide
approximately 25,130,000 cy over 50 years, as shown in Table 5-19, which, by itself, is not
enough to cover the 50 year need of between 45.0 and 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy for moderate
sea level change).
Table 5-19: Volume of Renewable Potential Borrow Areas (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Area
Section
Volume
Dredging
50 yr
Frequency
Total
MHC Outer
Cutoff+RangeA
400,000cy
1 years
20,000,000
Harbor
to STA 110
(assumed)
Inlet Relocation
850,000 cy
10 years
4,250,000
Bogue Inlet
AIW W Crossing
44,000 cy
2.5 years
880,000
Totals:
25,130,000
However, if all mentioned sources are incorporated (upland, AIWW, offshore, and inlets)
approximately 50,253,057 cy of material would be available and would meet the 50-year
sediment need of 45 Mey to 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy with moderate sea level change).
The total volume available when the renewable and non-renewable sources are combined is
tabulated in Table 5-20.
Table 5-20: Total Volume Available
Source
50-Yr Total Volume (cy)
Renewable
25,130,0000
Non -Renewable
25,123,057
TOTAL
50,253,057
5.11 Bogue Banks Master beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1
The initial project to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 will have the option of dredging
material from the Current and Old ODMDS. Figure 5-1 I shows the location of the potential
borrow areas within the Current and Old ODMDS. A large portion of the potential borrow area
in the Current ODMDS was also used in 2013 for the Post -Irene nourishment project.
32

Legend - Elevation (ft NAVD88)
-56.53--56.00=43.98--42,00
-55 99 - -54 00 = 41 99 - 40 00
OLD
-5399_-52000-3999--�00
Approximately
ODMDS
4
-51.99--50.00®-37.99--38.00
8,226,857 Cy
Above -52ft NAVD88
:0
O
0
O
0
R"6x
M49,99--48.00-35.99--34.00
Q R
=47,99 - 45.00 .33 99--32.00
,
�45.99-44.00-31.99--30.00
O
OP
46
,..
O
O O
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 c
m Feet
49
�9
o
o
c
; �M
5 �,
I
Pootentiaal
-
Borrow
21h3
Approximately
`l�l I
4 I i
77
`�ii� e O
p
C"
p
2,711,727 cy
AAbove -52 ft NAVD88
�
I
O
51 I 50
a o
o
I
5
1
Q
52
52 l f
\t`\\\,I 531
FlR2.5s
54
52
9
,. 5
i
\\\�����
i
\- l
Ge1e
11i{ 111 IIII�II
I CURRENT
o
`5�
Q \��`��I
15 61
ODMDS
Figure 5-11: Potential Borrow Areas Within the Current and Old ODMDS
Table 5-21 presents the sediment characteristics of the vibracores within the potential borrow
areas. Based on analysis of these vibracores, it is estimated that beach compatible material exists
down to an elevation of —52 ft NAVD88. Thus, plans will specify a dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft of allowable overdredge. Volume calculations indicate roughly 2,711,727 cy
of material exists above —52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the Current
ODMDS and 9,225,657 cy of material exists above -52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area
within the Old ODMDS (see Figure 5-11). Therefore, the total volume available from the
potential borrow areas is 11,937,384 cy. While 1,519,030 cy is the expected placement volume,
the anticipated dredge volume could reach 1,974,740 cy due to losses typically incurred between
what is dredged and what is placed (approximately 30%).
33

Table 5-21: Sediment Characteristics of Potential Borrow Area
NOncon
8empb Inbrvel Ebv
N, NNDNI
9INT Onnulermetrlec
U80
Compotlllon (M%)
Sam DN44 (M%)
D... Oplave &M.M.
GmN
Gmltler
SVM
g2J0
Mem fmq
Se wn.fpul
Ory4nk
Ce2Mefs
_
-M 2
4.1.2
1.18%
1 S4%
97.3e16
OAM
0,27
ON
Sw
ON
0.12
10
432
48.2
022%
IBM
97 am,
O29%
028
ON
SW
ON
013
482
-02
0.18%
100%
N.5]%
025%
ON
0.82
SP
ON
0,10
-53.2
-58.2
0.74%
255%
N.52%
0.18%
0,33
101
SW
OBO
014
�376
-398
270%
461%
N.N%
010%
0.34
1.35
SW
070
0.18
O11
-338
JIB
043%
3.92%
N.SM
027%
On
1.0]
SW
a.SO
0.14
J2.8
47.8
0.0]%
ON%
as
0.26%
O.N
ON
SP
ON
0.14
J7.6
-we
1.93%
1,48%
NA]%
0.12%
an
1M
SW
ON
OA4
-"a
-516
459%
8,41%
N.]4%
0.26%
045
159
SW
070
023
Ott
-518
a
1,32%
324%
9523%
021%
0.32
1.15
SW
ON
0.14
-550
-N8
ON%
108%
68.36%
]021%
0.20
ON
BM
3.10
0.16
we
SIz
0.02%
189%
870%
100%
a
1.12
SW-9M
1,70
a.30
473
-03
008%
1M%
913,28%
0.28%
aN
ON
sw
ON
0.12
013
-53.3
-58.3
024%
181%
N22%
973%
on
1.01
MW
1.30
0.1e
-56.3
-5&3
001%
0.25%
3569%
64.04%
0.18
on
DL
430
Oil
44.1
-50A
1.20%
1.7M
N48%
0.53%
0.28
1,10
SW
0.N
0,12
010
.50A
-56.1
0,21%
2.53%
N.9]%
029%
0.28
1.02
SW
060
0.13
56 1
42.1
a 09%
1 ]0%
79 N%
1 MOM
0.20
1 05
SM
2.m
an
-N.1
42.1
a00%
088%
N24%
0.0819
0.25
ON
SW
ON
0.11
421
J8.1
ism
1.18%
97.13%
0.00%
ON
107
SW
ON
014
019
"9.1
-53.1
10%
I'M
96.97%
0.12%
0.32
1.10
SW
O.m
013
-63.1
-NA
000%
028%
99.23%
0.49%
0.24
0.]3
W
0.70
0.10
.41.4
2..N%
33.5%
9398%
OAM
035
1...29
SW
ON
U.S
020
-41.4
-45A
128%
2,23%
9577%
0.7m
0.31
1,16
SW
ON
021
�118.4
-501
2.31%
2%
94.%
0.%
0.SO
121
SW
ON
ON
42
035%
154%
977M
0.2%
0.30
0.9
sw
ON
016
J]
1.M
311%
NN%
046%
aSO
124
SW
ON
0.12
32
18%
176%
N4%
0.15%
0,31
1m
SW
0.70
0,12
3
C]J
214%
25%
95.21%
0.13%
0.3
1.20
SW
ON
016
-427
2AM
2,95%
N.M%
0.14%
031
118
SW
040
012
J]]
1.58%
121%
NN%
037%
02
103
6W
ON
0.12
-52.7
10616
25M
Seem
0.40%
0.34
1.N
SW
0.50
015
-47 8
-0.8
I
3.5016
94.51%
0.11%
ON
IN
sw
ON
0.13
023
53.a
-57.8
0.00%
0.80%
9130%
].S2%
OAS
am
SP-SM
Lm
ON
-578
-02.8
071%
102%
$183%
18N%
027
1.N
SM
in
0.24
-62.8
-65
9,13%
16.0%
6543%
942%
0,81
1.SO
SW -BM
Tm
0.53
-49.3
-54.2
478%
3.50%
N.91%
481%
0.24
159
SWS
1.0
0.13
024
-64.2
-N.1
0.32%
OB]%
N61%
am
On
ON
SP
ON
0.10
-S8.1
453.2
185%
013%
7339%
1e83%
O.N
163
SM
230
0.33
42
-46
0.90%
28616
9588%
Om%
an
1.10
SW
0SO
014
-46
-u
2.05%
191%
021%
083%
0.0
1.21
SW
O.m
0.18
025
-54
-59.8
1.]9%
2N%
9523%
0.12%
On
1.1]
SW
aSO
0.19
-59.9
-81.5
0.00%
1 Am
9280%
a m%
0.18
0.80
W-SM
I W
0.10
-457
-N]
501%
Mt%
90.21%
0.3]%
O.N
162
SW
0.N
0.13
026
-507
-55
0.8]%
1.3m
97 N%
021%
am
0.97
SW
0.40
0.12
55
-50.5
0.3596
3.75%
7553%
208]%
023
1.33
SM
I
0.11
-436
476
O.N%
29M
98.2]%
0.20%
0.40
106
SW
ON
0.17
02]
476
-61.5
087%
2.02%
NN%
ON%
032
1.00
SW
ON
0.12
-516
-5&5
OAS%
1.35%
NN%
041%
ON
0as
SW
aSO
0.12
-56.5
-N.4
040%
3.16%
N.]3%
12.]2%
0,21
1.15
SM
IN
Om
42.7
J8.]
0.59%
162%
9].]0%
O.N%
ON
ON
SW
ON
0.13
028
48J
.54.3
041%
1M
927`014
0.15%
ON
0,95
8W
0.N
013
-54.3
55.6
0,35%
1.am
]4.N%
"80%
027
113
SM
1JO
014
.49.1
1.%
NS%
ON%
029
.
ON
SW
.
050
0.12M26
5
-553
..
.
215%
4.31%
N07%
54]%
027
1A
150
.55.3
601
.601
65
0m%
280%
0.03%
3.99%
N2]%
n]e%
JO%
15
14
0b
166
100a
210
ON
3
34

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Pursuant to the NC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the environmental effects of
implementing the Bogue Banks MBNP have been evaluated in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Final EIS (FEIS) was distributed to state agencies through the NC State
Clearinghouse on March 8`h, 2018. This section presents a summary of the projected
environmental effects as described in the FEIS.
6.1 Marine Benthic Communities
6.1.1 Softbottom
Offshore borrow site dredging events at the ODMDS and/or Area Y would disturb
approximately 35 to 240 acres of soft bottom habitat every three years. Direct and indirect
effects on softbottom benthic communities within the dredging footprints would include short-
term direct impacts on benthic invertebrates via excavation and short-term indirect impacts on
demersal fishes via temporary reductions in the benthic prey base. Benthic recovery would
begin immediately upon the cessation of dredging operations; and it is anticipated that relatively
shallow dredge cuts, the mounded nature of the sand deposits at the ODMDS, and avoidance of
peak benthic infaunal recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid dredge cut infilling
and benthic community recovery.
Sand placement within the subtidal portions of the beach fill footprints would result in the burial
and temporary loss of the associated soft bottom benthic invertebrate infauna and epifauna.
Benthic recovery would begin immediately upon the cessation of placement operations; and it is
anticipated that the use of beach compatible material and avoidance of peak invertebrate
recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid benthic community recovery. Losses of
1 benthic invertebrate prey may affect the foraging activities of demersal surf zone fishes;
- however, recruitment of opportunistic benthic taxa to the disturbed areas would provide
substantial prey resources within a relatively short period of time, and the distribution of
alternative soft bottom habitats within the overall project area is expansive.
6.1.2 Hardbottom
As described in the FEIS, comprehensive remote sensing and ground-truthing surveys indicate
that hardbottom features are absent from the nearshore ocean zone along Bogue Banks (shore to
2,500 feet). Therefore, sand placement would not be expected to have any adverse effects on
hardbottom habitats. Remote sensing surveys of the offshore borrow sites conducted by Hall
(2008, 2011) found no hardbottoms within 500 in of the former and current ODMDS offshore
borrow sites. The surveys identified a series of low relief hardbottom features to the east and
south of the Area Y 90/120 and Y-75/80 borrow sites. The Area Y 90/120 borrow site is
separated from the nearest identified hardbottom feature by a distance of-1,000 in. The Y-75/80
borrow site is separated from the nearest identified hardbottom feature by a distance of at least
500 m; however, the survey area did not include the northernmost portion of the Y-75/80 borrow
site. The line of identified hardbottoms appears to be trending northeast and away from the
northern portion of Y-75/80; however, additional geotechnical investigations will be conducted
prior to any use of the Y-75/80 borrow site to verify that no hardbottom features are present
within 500-m of the proposed dredging footprint. These investigations would also be used to
35

determine specific pipeline placement corridors for the conveyance of dredge material from the
Area Y borrow sites to the beach. Based on these considerations, offshore borrow site dredging
operations are not expected to have any adverse effects on hardbottom habitat.
6.2 Ocean Water Quality
Offshore borrow site dredging would involve the extraction of beach -compatible sand with a
very small fine sediment fraction, thus indicating that the effects of dredging -induced sediment
suspension on marine water quality and pelagic communities would be short-term and localized.
Increases in suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity attributable to sand placement
would also be expected in the surf zone along the management reaches. However, as described
in the FEIS, the results of water quality monitoring during nourishment operations along Bogue
Banks and other southeastern NC beaches indicate that turbidity increases are typically confined
to the surf zone in the immediate vicinity of the slurry discharge point. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that the beach -compatible composition of the material and the use of temporary dikes
and spreaders to contain the discharged sand slurry would reduce the extent of sediment
suspension. Therefore, it is anticipated that sediment suspension effects attributable to sand
placement would be short-term and localized.
6.3 Ocean Beach and Dune Communities
6.3.1 Intertidal Beach
Beach construction activities may disrupt shorebird foraging activities and/or prevent shorebirds
from using otherwise suitable intertidal beach foraging habitats. However, the effects of
disturbance would be short-term and localized to the vicinity of the active construction zone.
Sand placement on top of the existing intertidal beach substrate would eliminate the majority of
the intertidal benthic invertebrate infauna through direct burial. However, it is expected that the
use of compatible sediments in accordance with State Sediment Criteria and avoidance of peak
benthic infaunal recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid benthic community
recovery. As described in the FEIS, most benthic recovery studies have reported rapid recovery
within one year of the initial impact when highly compatible beach fill sediments were used and
larval recruitment periods were avoided. Direct impacts on intertidal benthic communities may
affect shorebirds and demersal surf zone fishes by temporarily reducing the availability of
benthic infaunal prey. However, it is anticipated that relatively rapid benthic infaunal
recruitment would provide substantial prey resources along the disturbed reaches within a
relatively short period of time, and substantial undisturbed intertidal beach foraging habitat
would be available within the action area during benthic recovery periods. Therefore, it is
expected that the impacts of sand placement on intertidal beach communities would be short
term and localized.
6.3.2 Dry Beach and Dune Communities
Dry beach (berm) and dune construction would involve the use of bulldozers and other heavy
machinery to redistribute and grade the placed material according to design profile
specifications. Construction activities would directly impact ghost crabs and dune vegetation
through burial and/or mechanical disturbance. However, it is anticipated that the replanting of
constructed dunes with native species would facilitate dune stabilization and plant community
recovery. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the use of compatible beach fill and avoidance of

peak recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid ghost crab recovery. As described in
the FEIS, post -nourishment monitoring studies have reported relatively minor and short-term
effects on ghost crab populations when highly compatible beach fill sediments were used and
peak recruitment periods were avoided. Beach construction activities; including heavy
equipment operations, generator use, night-time lighting, and other related activities; may disrupt
shorebird activities and/or prevent shorebirds from using otherwise suitable dry beach roosting
and loafing habitats. However, the effects of disturbance would be short-term and localized to
the vicinity of the active construction zone. Nourishment projects would avoid the sea turtle
nesting and hatching season through adherence to a 16 Nov-30 April sand placement
environmental window. Therefore, direct impacts on nesting females, nests, or hatchlings would
not be expected. Beach nourishment may indirectly affect sea turtles through physical
modification of dry beach nesting habitat. Measures employed to minimize adverse effects on
nesting habitat would include the use of compatible sediments, escarpment monitoring, and
sediment compaction monitoring. It is expected that these measures would minimize the extent
and duration of any habitat -modification effects on sea turtles.
6.4 Inlet and Estuarine Communities
6.4.1 Water Quality
Bogue Inlet realignment dredging would be conducted by cutterhead dredges. As described in
the FEIS, sediment suspension by cutterhead dredges is typically confined to the near bottom
water column and is typically short term and localized when the dredged material is composed of
relatively clean sand with a minimal fine silt/clay fraction. Analyses of vibracore samples from
the proposed ebb channel realignment footprint have characterized the sediments as highly
compatible sand with a very small fine sediment fraction of less than two percent. Therefore, it
is anticipated that sediment suspension effects attributable to inlet realignment dredging would
be short-term and localized.
6.4.2 Estuarine Subtidal Softbottom
Bogue Inlet ebb channel realignments would directly impact —35 acres of estuarine soft bottom
habitat within the new channel excavation footprint. Dredging would remove the majority of the
associated soft bottom benthic infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates; resulting in an initial sharp
decline in community abundance, diversity, and biomass within the new channel footprint. The
removal of benthic invertebrate prey may temporarily affect the foraging activities of predatory
demersal fishes. However, as described in the FEIS, studies of benthic community recovery in
dredged navigation channels along the southeastern coast have reported rapid recovery within six
months. Rapid recovery has been attributed to recolonization via slumping of adjacent
undisturbed sediments into the dredged channel and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods. The project construction window. (16 Nov-30 April) would avoid peak
benthic invertebrate recruitment periods; and therefore, it is anticipated that impacts on estuarine
soft bottom communities would be short term and localized.
6.4.3 Intertidal Flats and Shoals
Bogue Inlet ebb channel realignment dredging may directly impact mid -inlet intertidal shoals
within the new channel excavation footprint, depending on the configuration of shoals at the time
of realignment events. Any intertidal shoals that are present within the new channel footprint at
37

the time of realignment events would be excavated and converted to subtidal soft bottom habitat.
Any direct losses of intertidal habitat and associated benthic invertebrates may temporarily
reduce foraging opportunities for shorebirds and demersal fishes. However, it is expected that
losses would be offset by new intertidal habitat formation via dredged material placement along
the Bogue Banks inlet shoulder, natural shoaling of the old channel, and subsequent expansion of
the Bogue Banks sand spit.
Realignments of the ebb channel would modify patterns of flow and initiate a period of sediment
redistribution and habitat reconfiguration within the inlet complex. During the adjustment
period, the distribution and areal extent of intertidal flats and shoals within the inlet complex
would be expected to fluctuate in response to sediment redistribution and related conversions
between supratidal, intertidal, and subtidal habitats. The post -realignment habitat
reconfiguration process would produce corresponding changes in the distribution and
composition of intertidal benthic communities. However, habitat fluctuations would be
consistent with the dynamic nature of inlet habitats and the habitat changes associated with
natural ebb channel repositioning events that occur periodically in Bogue Inlet. Based on the
opportunistic nature of the dominant benthic taxa and gradual pace of the inlet reconfiguration
process, it is expected that benthic community adjustments would generally occur with only
minor, short-term reductions in community levels of abundance, diversity, and biomass.
6.4.4 Larval Transport
Cutterhead dredging in Bogue Inlet would entrain the planktonic eggs and larvae of estuarine
dependent fishes and invertebrates that occur in the vicinity of the dredge pipe suction field.
However, as described in the FEIS, modeling studies of larval entrainment in Beaufort Inlet
indicate that dredge entrainment rates are extremely low regardless of inlet larval concentrations
and the distribution of larvae within the water column. Therefore, infrequent cutterhead
dredging in Bogue Inlet every 10 to 15 years would not be expected to have any measurable
effect on estuarine -dependent fish and invertebrate populations.
6.4.5 Shellfish, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Tidal Marsh
Shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and tidal marshes are generally restricted to
waters inland of the Bogue Inlet channel realignment footprint. As described in the FEIS,
NCDMF benthic habitat maps, SAV maps developed by NOAA and NCDMF, and coastal
wetland maps developed by the NCDCM do not show any shell bottom, SAV, or tidal marsh
habitats within the proposed channel. Therefore, direct impacts on shellfish, SAV, and tidal
marsh habitats would not be expected. Fine sediments suspended by the dredging process may
be transported inland and redeposited in areas containing shellfish beds and/or SAV; however,
based on the composition of the dredged material (sand with minimal fines), it is expected that
any sediment suspension and redeposition effects would be minor.
6.5 Cultural Resources
Remote sensing surveys did not identify any potential archaeological resources in the vicinity of
the ODMDS or Area Y offshore borrow sites (Hall 2011). Ebb channel relocations would
realign the channel to the previously dredged 2005 channel footprint; which prior surveys
indicate does not contain cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not be expected to
38

have any adverse effects on cultural resources. The full archeological report can be found in
Appendix D (Archaeological Remote Sensing).
6.6 Avoidance and Minimization
All beach placement activities under the Master Beach Nourishment Plan will be covered under
the USFWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion per consultations. The following are
measures that would be implemented to reduce the impacts of the project:
6.6.1 Environmental Windows
All sand placement, dredging, and associated construction activities would adhere to a 16
November to 30 April environmental window.
6.6.2 Sediment Compatibility
All material placed on the beach and in associated dune systems would consist of beach
compatible sand that meets NC Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects (15A NCAC 07H
.0312). Monitoring of fill material at the pipeline outfall would be conducted throughout sand
placement operations.
6.6.3 Construction Methods
Sand Placement
• Construction equipment would access the beach via existing public access corridors to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Temporary storage areas for construction equipment would be located off the beach to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Construction staging areas and pipeline routes would be located so as to avoid piping
plover critical habitat and other high -value shorebird/waterbird inlet complex habitats to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Operations would avoid disturbing dunes to the maximum extent practicable. Any
unavoidable dune alterations would be coordinated with NCDCM, and the disturbed
areas would be restored to their original grade and position relative to the surveyed
normal high water line. Once restored to grade, any impacted dunes would be replanted
with native dune grass species during the optimal planting season.
• Pipelines would be equipped with spreaders to reduce effluent discharge velocities during
sand -slurry placement. Temporary longitudinal sand dikes would be used to contain and
direct the horizontal flow of the discharged sand -slurry along the beach. These measures
would maximize sediment retention within the designated placement area, thereby
minimizing potential surf zone turbidity effects.
• Sand delivery pipelines would be routinely inspected for pressurized leaks, and any leaks
that are found would be immediately repaired.
39

Dredging
All hopper dredges would be equipped with rigid draghead deflectors, thereby
minimizing the risk of sea turtle and sturgeon entrainment. Dredging contracts would
include specifications for the proper installation and operation of rigid dragheads to
ensure effective mitigation of the entrainment risk.
To reduce the risk of sea turtle entrainment, relocation trawling would be initiated at the
onset of each hopper dredging project as determined through Section 7 consultations with
NMFS.
Prior to the initiation of each dredging project, proposed pump -out station anchor point
locations and sand delivery pipeline routes would be evaluated by the awarded Contractor
for the presence of hardbottom habitats and cultural resources. Based on the survey
results, proposed anchor points and pipeline routes would be adjusted by the Contractor
to avoid any hardbottom sites in accordance with NC CAMA regulations (500-m buffer).
Similarly, anchor points and pipeline routes would be adjusted to avoid any cultural
resource sites based on coordination with the SHPO.
Dredging contractors would be required to maintain spill control plans and waste
management plans for all dredging fleet equipment.
6.6.4 Monitoring
Sediment Compaction
Immediately after construction and to the maximum extent practicable prior to I May, the limits
of construction areas would be evaluated for sediment compaction in coordination with the
USFWS and NCWRC. If it is determined that tilling is required for sea turtle nesting habitat
suitability, the construction areas would be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activity shall
be completed prior to 1 May to the maximum extent practicable. Any tilling activities that are
required after 1 May would be coordinated with the USFWS or NCWRC. A summary of
compaction monitoring efforts and tilling actions taken would be submitted to the USACE and
the USFWS.
Escarpments
Immediately after construction and to the maximum extent practicable prior to 1 May, surveys
for escarpments would be conducted within the limits of construction areas. Identified
escarpments that that may interfere with sea turtle nesting (>18 inches in height and > 100 It in
length) would be leveled to the natural beach profile. If it is determined that escarpment leveling
is required after 1 May, leveling activities would be coordinated with the USFWS or NCWRC.
An annual summary of escarpment surveys and leveling actions taken would be submitted to the
USACE and USFWS.
40

7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY ZONING AND CAMA
LAND USE PLAN
The beach nourishment project is consistent with the approved CAMA Land Use Plans for
Carteret County and the Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores,
and Atlantic Beach. The project property is within the planning jurisdiction of Carteret County
and the Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach
and is classified "Developed" by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE NC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The Division of Coastal Management has determined prior to the application that review of this
project under SEPA is not be required.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality in Wilmington will be provided a full copy of the
NCDCM permit application describing the scope of the project and requesting a 401 Water
Quality Certification.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
Perpetual beach nourishment easements are in place for the oceanfront in Emerald Isle, Indian
Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach. The easements were acquired in
2001 and 2002 as part of the financed beach nourishment projects that were completed in the
spring of 2002 for the Towns. The perpetual easements are for any part of private property that
visibly appears to be a part of the ocean beach strand and is covered with little or no vegetation,
is seaward of the last line of stable vegetation, is within the frontal sand dune, or is seaward of
the erosion escarpment. The easement allows all work necessary to nourish the beach.
However, the Towns cannot damage permanent improvements in the easement area but must
work with property owners to remove and replace permanent improvements in the easement area
that obstruct nourishment.
41

10.0
Coastal Tech. 2013 (March). Carteret County North Carolina Sand Search Investigation: Draft
Final Geotechnical Report. Coastal Tech, Melbourne, FL.
Dial Cordy and Associates. 2018 (March). Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bogue Banks
Master Beach Nourishment Plan. EIS for NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management; submitted by Carteret County, NC; prepared by
Dial Cordy and Associates, Wilmington, NC.
Mid -Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. 2011 (September). An
Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore
Borrow Areas Q2, Yl, and ODMDS, Carteret County, NC. Mid -Atlantic Technology and
Environmental Research, Inc., Castle Hayne, NC
Moffatt & Nichol. 2014 (February). Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan. Moffatt &
Nichol, Raleigh, NC.
42

AGENT AUTHORIZATION
LETTER

April 11, 2018
Shore Protection Office, Carteret County
POB 4297
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
NC Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Regional Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
TEL:[phone]
FAX:[phone]
TEL:[phone]
FAX:[phone]
RE: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan, Carteret County
Authorized Agent Agreement
To Whom it May Concern:
This is to inform you that Moffatt and Nichol is the Authorized Agent for the above -referenced
project. Moffatt and Nichol is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant on matters related to
the CAMA Major permit and related federal permits.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Rudi Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager, Carteret County

OCEAN HAZARD AEC NOTICE
Project is in an: / Ocean Erodible Area High Hazard Flood Area '� Inlet Hazard Area
Property Owner: C fl-te T- -te L T- C' uU r l
Property Address: (DCCpNf:yeon)T ACHeS- Neon 006VEE IOLE3'-tO eLt- FVZT-ifvtGT
Date Lot Was Platted: N/A
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
special risks and conditions associated with development in this
area, which is subject to natural hazards such as storms, erosion
and currents. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
require that you receive an AEC Hazard Notice and
acknowledge that notice in writing before a permit for
development can be issued.
The Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
setbacks and dune alterations are designed to minimize, but not
eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting permits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development. Permits issued in the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened
by changes in shoreline configuration. The structure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within two (2) years of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
subsidence.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual long-term
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your property is
located is n-t 4 Meet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
SO feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
114 -1 R feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach nourishment
and relocation of threatened structures. Hard erosion control
structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties
and breakwaters are prohibited. Temporary sand bags may be
authorized under certain conditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the space below. Without
the proper signature, the application will not be complete.
XIL—
Property Owner Signature Date
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sudden and massive storms and
erosion. Permits issued for development in this area expire on
December 31 of the third year following the year in which the
permit was issued. Shortly before work begins on the project
site, the Local Permit Officer must be contacted to determine the
vegetation line and setback distance at your site. If the property
has seen little change since the time of permit issuance, and the
proposed development can still meet the setback requirement,
the LPO will inform you that you may begin work. Substantial
progress on the project must be made within 60 days of this
setback determination, or the setback must be remeasured. Also,
the occurrence of a major shoreline change as the result of a
storm within the 60-day period will necessitate remeasurement
of the setback. It is important that you check with the LPO
before the permit expires for official approval to continue the
work after the permit has expired. Generally, if foundation
pilings have been placed and substantial progress is continuing,
permit renewal can be authorized. It is unlawful to continue
work after permit expiration.
For more information, contact:
H tA-rH r� C O/E-rS
LoeaJ-RerrniR6Hieer Perm Aeaomr c�ozo;N�r�
I Z'7 CabtoiNwl_ DRIve Bxnc-.1,5roN
Address
W ISM Ityf^TON, N6, 2840S
Lasatlty
I Tp --7307-
Phone Number
Revised May 2010

BEFORE YOU BUILD
Setting Back for Safety: A Guide to Wise Development Along the Oceanfront
When you build along the oceanfront, you take a calculated risk.
Natural forces of water and wind collide with tons of force, even
on calm days.
Man-made structures cannot be guaranteed to survive the force
of a hurricane. Long-term erosion (or barrier island migration)
may take from two to ten feet of the beach each year, and,
sooner or later, will threaten oceanfront structures. These are the
facts of life for oceanfront property owners.
The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) has adopted rules for
building along the oceanfront. The rules are intended to avoid an
unreasonable risk to life and property, and to limit public and
private losses from storm and long-term erosion. These rules
lessen but do not eliminate the element of risk in oceanfront
development.
As you consider building along the oceanfront, the CRC wants
you to understand the rules and the risks. With this knowledge,
you can make a more informed decision about where and how to
build in the coastal area.
The Rules
When you build along the oceanfront, coastal management rules
require that the structure be sited to fit safely into the beach
environment.
Structures along the oceanfront, less than 5,000 square feet in
size, must be behind the frontal dune, landward of the crest of
the primary dune, and set back from the first line of stable
natural vegetation a distance equal to 30 times the annual
erosion rate (a minimum of 60 feet). The setback calculation
increases as the size of the structure increases [15A NCAC
7H.0306(a)(2)]. For example: A structure between 5,000 and
10,000 square feet would require a setback from the first line of
stable, natural vegetation to a distance equal to 60 times the
annual erosion rate (a minimum of 120 feet). The graduated
setback continues to increase through structure sizes greater than
100,000 square feet.
The Reasons
The beachfront is an ever -changing landform. The beach and
the dunes are natural "shock absorbers," taking the beating of the
wind and waves and protecting the inland areas. By
incorporating building setbacks,into the regulations, you have a
good chance of enjoying the full life of the structure. At first, it
seems very inviting to build your dream house as close to the
beach as possible, but in five years you could find the dream has
become a nightmare as high tides and storm tides threaten your
investment.
The Exception
The Coastal Resources Commission recognized that these rules,
initially passed in June 1979, might prove a hardship for some
property owners. Therefore, they established an exception for
lots that cannot meet the setback requirement. The exception
allows buildings in front of the current setback, if the following
conditions apply:
1) the lot must have been platted as of June 1, 1979, and is
not capable of being enlarged by combining with
adjoining land under the same ownership;
2) development must be constructed as far back on the
property as possible and in no case less than 60 feet
landward of the vegetation he;
3) no development can take place on the frontal dune;
4) special construction standards on piling depth and
square footage must be met; and
5) all other CAMA, state and local regulations must be
met.
The exception is not available in the Inlet Hazard Area.
To determine eligibility for the exception the Local Permit
Officer will make these measurements and observations:
_ required setback from vegetation line
exception setback (maximum feasible)
_ rear property line setback
max, allowable square footage on lowest floor
PRE.tERMIT STRUCTURE; INADEQUATE SETBACK
PERMITTED PRF STORM BEACH PROFILE
STRUCTURE;
ADEQUATE POSGSTORM BEACHPROFILE
SETBACK ` ONE YEAR AFTER STORMBEACH REBUILDING
ti
After the storm, the house on the dune will begone. The other house has a much better chance of survival.

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A -
■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ❑ Agent
so that we can return the card to you. ❑Addressee
1 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by tt d Name) C. Date of Delivery
or on the front if space permits_
1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address dsferent torn item 17 ❑ Yes
ktnmwoc�s aach if YES, enter delivery address below: ❑No
�5"12 1�immocl�s eeacn
3.
❑PAorty Mal Express®
0Adult gType
❑ Adult Sgnmure
: Registered Ml
❑AduR Signature flaYicteO Delivery
fied Mwe
:1 Reglsterad Mail Resbi�ed
very
9590 9402 3513 7275 7777 27
D C
❑ Cerefsd MN Re WOW bell
❑ for
❑ Called. oewery
D Cg4ot W Dellmy naaeloted Delivery
'
17 a1VrWae CardUmat ..
call car* e
2. Article Number Mransler from serviGC W"O
Mao
D �"1ed"`r ate° DB1Ne"
Restrcted Dervery
]18 0360 00�2 �052 5874
PS Form ddl1, JUlyyyy3U1b PSN7530-02-D�
Domestic Return Receipt
RECEIVED
JUN 1 52018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

2%
AL t
Epe -,x.No. ai0
?275
A 77,77 27��
United States
Postal Service
tfame�-eddjkqs, and
F= It this box -
I

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
foV' - Macon s-VM QAgK
11�03 Emi TV+ M. n` fryl an 1 C &aGV) n
II I'IIHI IIII 'I I II I II � I I I I I �'�III (I �I II II�
9590 9402 3513 7275 7777 34
118 0360 0002 0052 5867
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
A, 6lgnrta
Z
X ❑ Agent
/
(_ ❑ Addressee
Z
B. R ei ed by (Printed Name) Date of Delivery
W O
C^
i ~
ry
D. Is delivery address different from Rem 17 ❑ Yes
W Z
t—
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
C
z
0
3. Service Type ❑ Prlodty Mall Egxeeeli
❑ Mutt Slgrr Nnl ❑ Ragiewred Mal-
❑ Mult SignaNre ResMded Delivery ❑ Registered Mail Resbicted
❑ Cerdfietl Made Delivery
❑ Cerdned Mal Restricted Dellvary ❑ Re. Receipt for
❑ Cgraot an Delivery MarcinafWise
O Coned on Delivery Restricted D.1i ❑ Si9namr, Connmadon
❑ araiued Mail ❑ Slgrialure Cmfirrt wion
❑ MYId Mail Rise acted Delivery Restricted Cauvery
(0Mr SSael -
Domestic Return Receipt

A
USPS7RACIWG# it a PUst-C.lase tdail � -� ��
"U�ge & Fees Paid:
II1I 1�u II`
IIII III I
I�. ;II��uIIU�I�II I!I�Iullll UII,SI! '. ,.�, � ,. Penult tJo. G10
959U 94-2 3513.7275 7777 3.4._,
United SWISS • SenderPtease pn i Y'' Ur name `.geld >21P++4°'In'this box
Postal Service • --
i
AS` - F1411S P1F NPuv gcltc
, j
;-,
E;�, t)4,J))j1�111/1'1�1�u)iU,l,),h)ifr3llllaljl)1)�F/}jr�'ij,ijj: -y _
R
R

ROY COOPER
Governor
NORTH CAROLINA.
EnrtronMWUW Qttadty
MICHAEL S. REGAN
se«amrr
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Mrwtor November 16, 2018
Mr. Johnny Martin
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls of the Neuse Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Martin:
This is with reference to your Project No. I- Post -Florence Renourishment Event
Notification submittal for State Permit No. 91-18, acting as agent for Carteret County. The
permit was issued on September 4, 2018 and expires on December 31, 2021. The action
proposed in your submittal is to dredge 945,500 cubic yards of beach compatible material
from the ODMDS and deposit the material entirely within revised Reaches 1-3, and a total
distance of 27, 275 linear feet of shoreline.
In reviewing the information provided, the Division of Coastal Management has determined
that the proposed action is consistent with existing State rules and regulations and is in
keeping with the original purpose and intent of the permit. This Letter of Authorization
serves as approval of the activities described in your revised project narrative and plans
received October 24, 2018. All permit conditions remain in effect.
Please note this authorization does not authorize any work not expressly described above,
nor does it eliminate the need to obtain any other additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required. By copy of this letter we are also
notifying the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers of our action. If you have any questions
concerning the above or if I can be of any other assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
COa-PIE4
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
cc: MHC Files Rudi Rudolph, Carteret County
Mickey Sugg, USACE Karen Higgins, DWR
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Office 1127 CartiretDrive Extension I Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
910.796.7215

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN
PROJECT #1— POST-FLORENCE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT (PHASE 1)
EVENT NOTIFICATION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The first project to be completed as part of the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
(BBMNP) is the Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase 1. It is anticipated to take place
during winter 2018/2019. Current plans call for 945,500 cy of material to be placed along 27,275
linear feet of shoreline in three reaches in Emerald Isle East and Indian Beach. This is an average
fill density of 35 cy/ft however it is expected that the fill density will vary between 25 cy/ft and 45
cy/ft. This correlates to a dune width of 25 feet wide, and berm width ranging from 44 ft to 60 ft
with an average width of approximately 50 ft. Figure 1-1 shows the planned placement locations.
Approximately 945,500 cy of beach compatible material will be dredged from portions of the
Current and Old ODMDS. Permit drawings are provided in Attachment A.
Reach 1 represents a continuous beach placement section contained within Emerald Isle East and
includes approximately 617,100 cubic yards over 16,375 linear ft of beach (Station 335+00 to
498+75). While Reach 2 includes placement of 328,400 cubic yards over 10,900 linear ft of
oceanfront shoreline within Indian Beach (Station 498+75 to 559+75 and Station 671+00'to
719+00). A gap between Reach 2 and Reach 3 exists due to State ownership of land in this area.
The borrow area covers approximately 773 acres, with 218 acres located in the Current ODMDS
in Federal waters and 555 acres located in the Old ODDMS in State waters. It is anticipated that
if the dredging is confined to the portion of the borrow area located in the Current ODMDS, the
average cut depth will be approximately 5-7 ft based on a maximum dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft allowable overdredge. If the dredging expands into the Old ODMDS, it is
anticipated that the average cut depth will be between 2-3 ft due to the larger area to dredge within.
It should be noted that while the Old ODMDS contains large mounds of material comprising
approximately 15 ft of compatible cut material, a majority of this material will not be necessary to
meet the potential dredge requirement of 945,500 cy and therefore it is expected that only 2-3 feet
would be dredged from the top.
It should be noted that this initial project had been planned as the "Year 6" nourishment, as
presented in the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, rather than "Year 3". As time has progressed
during the formulation and permitting of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, a need has
developed to start the project with "Year 6". In addition, with the passage of Hurricane Florence
(September 2018), a nourishment project is necessary to mitigate for extensive erosion which
consisted of 945,500 cy along this project reach and approximately 3.2 million cy total along the
engineered beach sections of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach/Salter Path and Pine Knoll Shores.
RECEIVED
OCT 24 M8
MP SECTION WIRO

q^� P ••noon wLHn � %r ``�• _
_ ATLANTIr OCEAN r
" �, _ µme. Dear®� °u,a'aunr: m,m, a".e°A"OAeww. •N ••_ _
�+ncimaH�i.s�r�".naian Ao.aeAe �. rrmµz.n r++e gems
#` 1yC���'"•"�� 11
�• a nOULL nOLHU ~ YM a" ae
Y �ppay�pp^^yY yim V µAV
a� II»f0.1101T�„HI WG"i 3ilHV�V>:4,,. 6�t1Y� � Y
ATLANTIC OCLAH A,
em. a
Figure 1-1: BBMBNP — Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase 1 (Winter 2018/2019)
RECEIVED 2
L ' f 24 LA
MP SECTIOKJ WIRO

The 2017 annual monitoring analysis indicated that there were several transects that were
approaching the minimum volume trigger for the 25-year level of protection. Figure 1-2 presents
the volume above -12 ft NAVD88 for each transect based on the 2017 monitoring data in
comparison to the volumes required for the 25 year and 50-year levels of protection. As can be
seen, there are transects located in Emerald Isle East, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores that are
all approaching the 25-year level of protection and these areas have even gotten closer to these
triggers after Hurricane Florence. At this time, Pine Knoll Shores may be beneficially receiving
sand from the next scheduled USACE Morehead City Harbor dredging event and therefore have
chosen to not participate in Project #1 at this time. Given that it has been 5 years since the previous
nourishment project was completed (post -Irene, 2013), Carteret County and the Towns have
chosen to be proactive in moving forward to avoid further erosion and mitigate for damage
associated with Hurricane Florence. Based on the outcome of potential FEMA reimbursements,
another project will likely be planned for next winter (Winter 2019/2020) which could consist of
another 2.4 — 3.2 Million cy.
W17 Volume Above-12 It NAVDN
loom
em""
Indian
Find
Aflan�
Central
ulter
Z.
(77-102)
a ....... 6 3 F F R F R: a 5 C® V C S 6&
Trio.¢.
Figure 1-2: 2017 Monitoring Volume Analysis
2.0 METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The Post -Florence Renourishment Project —Phase 1 to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 will use
a hopper dredge to obtain material from the Current and Old ODMDS where it will then be
transported to an offshore temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the project site. The
hopper dredge will then connect to the pipeline and pump the material from the hopper to the beach
where the sand is spread mechanically by bulldozers. As mentioned previously, this is the same
RECEIVED
3
OCT 24 7Ut8
MP SECTION WIRO

type of dredging placement operation used during Phase 1 and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks
beach nourishment projects completed in winter of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively) as
well as the Post-Ophelia (2007) and Post -Irene (2013) projects.
3.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
The Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase 1 to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 will
have the option of dredging material from the Current and Old ODMDS. Figure 3-1. shows the
location of the potential borrow areas within the Current and Old ODMDS. A substantial portion
of the potential borrow area in the Current ODMDS was also used in 2013 for the Post -Irene
nourishment project.
Legend - Elevation (ft NAVD88) 37
-56.53 - -56.00 ,etj, 43.99 - 42,00 51
-55.99-Z4.00=41.99-40.90 OLD S Alf
.53.99--5200=-39.99--3a.00 Approximately ODMDS
-51.99--50.00 Q-3799--3e0D 8,226,867 Cy I '31 4
�49.99-J8.00-35.99--3r 00 Above-S2 ft NAVD88 v O - R"S
�47.99-46.00-33.99--32.00 QR
�45,99--44.00-31.99 - .30.00 St o am o 11 Gm
o y 46
0 2.000 4.000 6,000
1 48 f` p, o o S M
/ SS P�tential am O Approximately
4 i .,50 ,� Borrow( p� ao 2,711,727 cy
Above .62 ft NAVD88
' bo F eD
O O O
51 I 5
t p
52 1
,1tll�tll t I
53 R'4e 52
�' 03�
FIR 2.5s i
52
54 h �.� ���A�
I � �4 �•, ��\ / Oer ,�wtut uuiu
CURRENT\\ �l o `� / qGA
�`t\ltti t$
Figure 3-1: Potential Borrow Areas Within the Current and Old ODMDS
Based on analysis of the native beach sediment data from 64 samples (16 transects) investigated
by CSE in 2001, a median grain size of 0.3 mm was selected as the best representation of the native
beach. The native beach characteristics and fill requirements established for the project are
presented in Table 3-1.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 20,8 4
MP SECTION WIRO

Table 3-1: Native Beach Characteristics and Rule Parameters
Characteristic
2001 Native
NCAC
Requirements
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Fines (<#230)
Reported: 0%, Assumed: <1%
<1%+5%
_<6%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
Reported at 98.68%
-
-
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
Reported combined at 1.32%,
Assumed 0.7% each
0.7%+ 5%
< 6%
Gravel (>#4)
0.7%+ 5%
< 6%
Calcium Carbonate
Reported at 15-20%
20%+ 15%
1 <35%
In addition, Moffatt & Nichol conducted a field investigation on May 24, 2018 to estimate the total
number of sediments and shell material greater than or equal to three inches in diameter, observable
on the surface of the beach between mean low water and the frontal dune toe, in a 50,000 square
foot area. Investigations were performed in two locations, one in Atlantic Beach between
Transects 78 and 80 and one in Emerald Isle between Transects 29 and 30. The Atlantic Beach
investigation area has never been nourished and the Emerald Isle investigation area has only been
nourished once. Results of the investigation found 138 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Atlantic Beach and 211 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Emerald Isle.
Vibracores within the borrow area were analyzed with respect to parameters as presented in Table
3-1 to determine the quantity and depth to which beach compatible material exists within the
borrow area. Table 3-2 presents the sediment characteristics of the vibracores within the potential
borrow areas. Based on analysis of these vibracores, it is estimated that beach compatible material
exists down to an elevation of-52 ft NAVD88. Thus, plans will specify a dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft of allowable overdredge. Volume calculations indicate 2,711,727 cy of
material exists above —52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the Current ODMDS
and 9,225,657 cy of material exists above -52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the
Old ODMDS (see Figure 3-1). Therefore, the total volume available from the potential borrow
areas is 11,937,384 cy. While 1,519,030 cy is the expected placement volume, the anticipated
dredge volume could reach 1,974,740 cy due to losses typically incurred between what is dredged
and what is placed (up to 30%).
RECEIVED
OCT 24 Z018
MP SECTION WIRO

Table 3-2: Sediment Characteristics of Potential Borrow Area
Vm,alm.
sample Ofl, WOle NA113I3) Elm,
PINT WmWenmeiu
MW
C6mposrtmn lvnsei
Sam Chase W%)
Om8N mv9 StNbtka
Grovel
G)auW n
Srd
tl230
Nen Oml
SM. dv.iWNf
Ogarvc
Cm9onale
%2
40.2
1.16%
1.L%
97.n%
0.12%
am
0.99
SW
0.0
0.12
432
J0.2
02219
1.07%
9162%
0.29%
026
ON
M
0.00
0.13
010
Jag
61.2
0.18%
1.00%
W.ST%
0.25%
a."
0.W
SP
00
0.10
532
-58.2
0.74%
2.36%
955214
0,18%
0.33
1.01
SW
OW
0.14
-376
-39.8
210%
4.61%
920%
0.63%
0.31
1.35
SW
OJO
0.16
-396
42.8
OA3%
IM
95.98%
027%
On
10)
SW
0.60
0.14
Ott
-326
J).a
097%
a"%
9883%
am%
026
0.0
1 W
0.0
0.14
e7.6
-52.6
193%
1.48%
NAM
0.12%
on
LOB
SW
0.80
0.14
06
-51.0
ASB%
6.41%
00.74%
0.26%
0.45
1.0
SW
0.70
0.23
-s19
-u.e
1.32%
334%
.23%
os%
1 a.32
1,15
M
9ONa.0
012
-556
l0.6
031%
1.09%
08.30%
3021%
On
099
SM
3.10
0.18
60.6
m.6
am%
1.Im
57e3%
1016%
on
1.12
SW -BM
1.70
on
395
0.0%
1.m
90.26%
O20%
On
0.66
SW
O.W
0.12
355
0.24%
1.81%
UM,16
on%
On
1.01
SWSM
IN
0.16
30.3
0.01%
O-m
Wm
8101%
0.18
0.]0
CL
A30
OAl
b0.1
1M'l,
1.n%
NAM
OW%
0.28
1.10
SW
090
0.12
018
P-47
-W.1
0.21%
253%
W.w%
029%
on
In
SW
O0
0.13
4i.t
0.09%
12Ut9
A.5016
1882%
0.20
1M
SM
2.00
0.23
J2.1
O.m
068%
9921%
008%
0.25
a.."
SW
0.0
0.11
'IBA
1.89%
1.16%
9).13%
00%
0.29
10]
8W
0.0
0.14
019
-53.1
1.63%
128%
96.9]x
0.12%
am
1.10
SW
0.]0
0,13
-SSA
0.0%
0.28%
9923%
OA9x
0.24
on
11P
0.70
0.10
36A
41.4
2.n%
3.35%
9398%
0.12%
am
1."
SW
0.60
OA8
020
-ate
-NA
1.25%
2.221%
95]]%
0.72%
0.31
1.16
9W
ON
021
-46.4
-W.3
2.31%
2.m
01.92%
0.39%
ON
1.21
SW
0.60
0.09
-37
42
0.36%
164%
2).)2%
0.28%
0.0
On
SW
0.00
OA6
021
-42
J]
t.n%
3.11%
91.6611,
0.15%
on
124
8W
0.60
OA2
-O
.52
L06%
lima
NAM
0.16%
0.31
1.00
SW
0.70
OA2
-J27
-3).]
2.11%
2.52%
9521%
0.13%
0.31
1.20
SW
0.60
0.16
-3]]
♦2J
2.12%
2.95%
94.79%
0.14%
0.31
1.15
SW
0.0
0,12
O22
J2.1
J).)
1.58%
121%
9 ue,
0.3]%
0211
1.03
8W
O10
0.12
MmEq
J).]
47.0
-n
32J
-53.8
-5).0
106%
1.0%
ON%
2.57%
am
0.0%
"AM,
".51%
91.30%
OA0%0%
0.11%
).02%
O.A
on
0.19
1.02
125
OID
SW
SW
8"m
0.50
00
tOO
0.15
013
0.06
023
S].6
-029
0.71%
1.02%
81.0.3%
16.84%
On
1.08
SM
1 A
0.21
42.0
-05
9,13%
15,02%
NAM
9.1239
0.81
100
SW.9M
1B0
0.W
49.3
.54,2
AIM
3.50%
8691%
4.81%
On
1."
S m
150
0.13
12,1
542
-50.1
0.30%
087%
98,61%
0.20%
ON
0.05
SP
ON
0.10
-561
43.2
195X
6.13%
]3.69%
1543%
On
1.63
SM
290
am
-42
JB
0.1m
2.68%
95.88%
am%
On
1.10
SW
0.50
0.14
48
-Sl
2.0%
1.91%
%21%
083%
an
1.21
SW
ON
OAS
02
-54
3.9
1.79%
2.60%
9523%
0.12%
On
1.17
SW
0.0
0.19
-59.9
461.5
0.00%
1.07%
W.0%
6,63%
0.1a
0.0
SP-SM
1.0
0.10
457
40.7
5.01%
4.41%
W21%
0.37%
On
1.62
SW
0.60
0.13
026
-50.]
.55
097%
1.37%
WAS%
021%
0.30
0.97
SW
0.0
0.12
amomd
-55
43.0
17.8
41.6
-56.5
13.5
479
41.8
38.5
410A
am%
0.36%
0.67%
0.16%
0.0%
3.75%
2.91%
202%
1.35%
3.15%
75.53%
WiM
Wm
9899%
83.73%
20.3]%
0.20%
I on%
023
0.0
0.W
In
1.00
100
SM
SW
SW
SW
SM
LW
ON
O.0
0.0
1.0
0.11
0.17
0.12
0.12
on
0A1%
12176
a"
021
0.88
1.15
427
J8.7
0.60%
1.82%
9].)016
0.09%
0.25
an
SW
0.50
0.13
028
48 ]
-519
0.41%
1.n%
2).)0%
0.16%
0.0
095
SW
0.50
O.1J
is 3
-55.8
Om,
197%
7196%
22.00%
027
1.13
SM
1.70
0,14
-49.1
329
0.16%
122%
W15M
am%
on
0.00
SW
O50
0.12
53.6
- .3
2,15%
e.31%
Wall%
5.47%
027
144
SW
1.50
022
OJB
-SSJ
1 d0.1
OW%
00.%
0327%
6.]0%
014
3
SW
ON
60
%3%
1.B
M
I
230
Oil
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 H18
MP SECTION `NIRO

4.0 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION AND PLAN VIEWS
Figures 4-1 through 4-4 present typical cross-section and plan views for the area to be nourished
during the Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase 1, which will extend from just east of
Transect 34 in Emerald Isle Central to just west of Transect 58 in Indian Beach, with a small break
from Transect 53 — 55 in Indian Beach. These typical cross section and plan views were developed
for the specifications based on September 2018 post -storm survey data. Slight adjustments within
the permit guidelines might be made prior to construction based on pre -construction surveys.
While the average fill density for the project is approximately 35 cy/ft, this value will vary at each
transect across the reaches based on the existing conditions. However, it is expected that the fill
density will remain between 25 cy/ft and 50 cy/ft throughout the project. Figure 4-5 present the
site plan for the proposed borrow area located in the Current and Old ODMDS.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2U 8
MP SECTION WIRO
7

t
%1 awu� xwv 9rrH. v LL .awtixa rvAu� xcnuv
� .
c
sfl°eb
r
1 1 1!
I t
➢i
�1
Ij
e �
-��aon`oiaarn.°e
!
4 naauc
M
as wEs�•
?
I
Wrc-
1
ag
rv�c'n`�u •o
-
1
y'
aQ..n
� i
d
Figure 4-1: Beach Nourishment Typical Cross Section RECEIVED
or' 24 "t018 s
MP SECTION WIRO

......
Fo*
I
I
°sg
I
6
I
.. I — 1
a'iA14-
94'!I
eni-acaF
1
- f
si
4f__
—J
f
-------
q
I
I
®4
:fit K,6ea m: wnw¢m'uan[w[s q,,.MY
ftn 0.s w0.Y[N:Oi Kqp
�
tlr ,.o '
Figurc 4-2: Reach 1 -Typical Plan View
RECEIVED
0r 1 2 4 L018
MP SECTION WIRO

S
fit � i-,,�_ �al�,'m-''� �'��;-'��i�`„fi,.�,� r e� x •';..��-�1:-.��.. �E'��i���l',��`�.`"�'
�
-
I
-
dl
�rucu�m.
b I
s
I
yi
41 ii% 9 un dL 1 a: �. t •
I
ara
.ate
y
.nrrcem -
LCK9R.ti M4 R.G-]IMP>�tG.manNw. iMQ .. •.
i
to
IL
h (1
EEZ
! ¢! e
•� I
0 4.1 1
Figure 4-3: Reach 1 and 2 -Typical Plan View RECEIVE
OCT 24 2018
to
MP SECTION WIRO

ci Tm.aa 011
-------------
--------------
------------
ry
I
i
1 i
--L t—a�'--:��+r.wiLY��--b-1.�_ y �___5.�- v_�s� __-m+m dm •vmr n+ln �ays_
�- -W---
V.
. sammmo-n mu ca..w wsmma
Figure 4-4: Reach 3 - Typical Plan View RECEIVED
OCi 24 2018
MP SECTION WIRO

-------------------------�
r
I
I
I i
K.yK,M[
ffi
x. son ar. x.o u (neM1
uorc ou,urre ,n. �ixnssv
in —I rt.
- m. 156i 1r T. im —I
Figure 4-5: Borrow Area Site Plan RECEIVED
CCT 2 4 2018
MP SECTION WIRO

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321-
4347], to address the environmental effects of proposed shore protection activities on the barrier
island of Bogue Banks in Carteret County, North Carolina. The Wilmington District, United States
Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating a request from Carteret County (Applicant) for Department
of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act to implement a comprehensive, long-term beach and inlet management
plan for the protection of 25 miles of shoreline on Bogue Banks. Concurrently, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy and Management is evaluating a request from the Applicant for authorization
pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) [43 (USC) 1337(k)(2)] to use outer
continental shelf sand resources as a component of the proposed action. . A Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major permit application was submitted 7 June 2018 to the NC
Division of Coastal Management.
6.0 MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN STATUS
The Post Florence Renourishment. Project — Phase I is the first project to be performed under the
50-Year Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan (BBMNP) and is estimated to use 945,500
cy of the 22.6 Mcy allotted for background erosion. As discussed in the Final Master Beach
Nourishment Plan (2014), the proposed nourishment volumes approximate the need for storm
erosion only and will be used for overall long-term planning and budgeting purposes (Table 6-1,
Figures 6-1 -and 6-2). Reference should be made to Table 1-3 in the Final Master Beach
Nourishment Plan for the initial volume needs and cycle of nourishment events.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2018
MP SECTION WIRO
13

Table 6-1: Renourishment Intervals and Preliminary Projects Based on
Management Reach Approaches*
Year
Management Reach
Nourishment
Volume (cy)
Proposed
Nourishment
Project (Yr)
2019
686,067
3
2022
1,839,351
6
2025
967,920
9
2028
1,839,351
6
2031
686,067
3
2034
2,121,204
6,9
2037
686,067
3
2040
1,839,351
6
2043
967,920
9
2046
1,839,351
6
2o49
686,067
3
2052
2,121,204
6,9
2055
686,067
3
2058
1,839,351 r
6
2061
967,920
9
2064
1,839,351
6
*Reference Table 1-3 in the 2014 Bogue Banks MBNP for projected volume needs and
nourishment cycles of the managed reaches.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2018
MP SECTION WIRO
14

�__
___-____________,___
_
M___ ;___�`___ ;________
EnanldMN ' EnrrNd Iola 1 Enaenid tale : atllm Beach1 Mae Knd Loons
Atlantic _,,✓I l
Inlet
Inlet
Vbd ; 1 8~Pam -
Beam R
=�' i
Oeean
-
1
"is'as'+�a+-F'r'�as u'i�r�aar raaaruaui.iiL �u:ar:e ua.uaiJ`-i+ai �i n«w
.1�
I Fan 1.
.
i.i �.. aaa
•wiiu�i. r��..J-IYton
_ aaw 'r
at a
w
rw'a"'
x
n
ii
617.100ry 166,700ry 161,7�q
a
r
t
1
a� Bogue Banks Bench Nourishment Projects MBNP Project pl
2018 - 2068 RECEIVED
Figure 6-1: History of Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan Projects
OCT 2 4 .
MP SECTION VVIi q

$3S;W]
- Rq a �J le esaes.ueue 4 ..JJ
pp e$;j'a f L;It vi ��- Zs� s-ss
7 *st; 606.716 cY M4.636'Y
l : p R y �.Ji 1 1 y75.s62 Pin° n .�Sb� Adenas 02 ch
n s Me* 95 Ic Wdier, cW
path
1st 232 ° save,(48-661
e _ Eay
*847 cY Em°fOld Isle
p' o vet (31A81
+^ i • • ep° q t Emera 26 1Rea h ]
269 U% ) Indian
Bcb2 eat(' 2 dPh
R55-58
e°a\'.»1 ch
Re° T
aoh. Transects
Indio T49 1` mile°
Emerald Isle
p 9
, . ,4ra see TB1 700 cY
m
seCt934
Trans
3.T io `V
1.1
t86., e0 cy
fill, ;
ONSLOW BAY
Legend I 4�,
�--� Year 3 Nourishment
- - Year 6 Nourishment
�--� Year 9 Nourishment
0 0.5 I 2 3
m Miles
Figure 6-2: Overlay of Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase 1 with Proposed Future Nourishment Intervals
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2018
MP SECTION WIRO
16

k JJIAio'n:'
'IM
g,A PEPARTMENT-Q�,T"91W '_ . �Y
- .9"N GTON01 ST R 10 Tj CORPS 00. 'Ekijjkt�ks
69 DARUNGTON AVENUEI
WWNG!TON[, NORTH OWLIMA:2840-3-1341
November 8; 2q18
Carteret 04ua
A-!M-. Mn .Greg -Rudbl I vjl, Carteret ;fCounty :Shore--Fjrot Offiqe
Emerald islet North Carolina:295914
Tear lvlr']�tizdol'jifi
2018:
AIIny (DA)'.perinit Issu roje
ON
Tlictp g9jecIt
F-meraldNe-Indian ip b
Beach, andiSatter,P,atl Carteret C&mty, Nbrith Cafolfila.
i cation.
ofthe 'November can he, qpfh6 py On A-'Q
rli-ked giijaptto'Secti 4 ofthe C -xAC(444
jegmWate
Section lO qfthe Rivers and-Natbors Act-p vIded adherencc-to all new, modifi4land
40ca*ori6Eai c6iditrons.. i!6�d4iiodi caftonjs ite tot-lfdPfAi�fed-up'-c-on-u4n-'g,
-rojec event;- VM-not:eapgCL,able_to,ady SUbSCqUdjt0VCCtg The
eXpiration,datefor,
fhls permifinOdifioationJs D-
1 1 New special Conditions
other foluees AAIl-WidRzqdIX boupdaes
of tke OTS1Y1T3S borrovrsovrce and dredging depths No occur outside
will'beconfined .tothe-depth&s dJ4
Special Condition-(Lll,,Iof'lhe:origindNbvember,- 82018 Department of-tha-Axiny-authorizations.
�'e , acement activities *jIB&c -onfindd to thelbddioaanA'amduftts
c. BOEMwilfhD the,lead federal agency,for a11.S&&tiun7 (Endangere&Spcelies);
and Section 106 (aulfival fad&ccs),, 000xdinatialiassocrated-with an dredgin-
g activitzes an
transport Ofmatorial.brhopper drodgiestQ the- boosterpurops. US, Deena Hansen„ B0EMIQfficG
ME
11

-2t�
offtv' o=afttal ftgr4mmabq thq- or tepWja 0 ),7-;7 -_pQirt qpn*� and egm , I f M 11 1 $�
y&tbirthedeadAderal
pge-ic roll ,-jqpTfEOdanpred:S -06,. (bulturali iE§d&i i - esib "--610-li, L-y qq pe�ied). ind Sectionl
eke
egulaYory
assadated wifile bead, -p- i ald, elm-d a-iad txVlt!er,s-Or,&ftft., above t6w w4wv W
"C 1-0
13� -d 3
Almy GZs of
AEprescribed uiEte biovember,k2018 authofizaficn-and
enclosed for: yourconvcnbcnce, reraam-VaUdi,"an maremaftwer,.4cdffl L O-nditi&i-(1,6)
,apre-cons uc. on-med igm s -t 'tha '� --- ----- ct ti tih---.il-tWhb -p r-d.-
on . gmerm , &-contractor , o
auatYtgns
If 'Y''Guhave, "erhm- -a,s%, "Aff any)�� Ong Of6— 46 F!
e
chra MA-t6m.
17ja Cory an&&SOP
r; Nf§.. � peena Hansen:
NCDAQ/IPWR,, MsaKraremBiggins,
, -DEQ W�T&-FAiiXWOjb'
NC
NCI�IaQ/.l�C1vT„Ms, Feather Cats

=1,
. i'lluggplItt,
Dana Betjiea,
NffAA/NAffS',---b&.,.Fritz R6hd&
NOA Tft-fa-�'Mc'a-Mlo'od
i4� I Mal Mari I sli I )U

DIEPAWrMrNT i11:1141 ,ARMY,
WILMINGTON DI$TRICT, CORPS QF ENGINEERS
R DAPUNGTON AVEN.Qi:
.WI'LMINC>iON; NOiiTFi CAROLINA28�l03�1343�
NOVADmbex &t W'fg
Regulafory; D1glsion
A.ohon,IQ Itta�,. S't1�-2tlQ9�EIti293
Ali: xYT.
Finerald_Islc L�oxtlt Caroluaa,2$594
DearW Ru�olgS;
Cazteret County; Nor W Cainlizia .Ma
lioirow axea.for perigllp nouxislimeut
�4IndianBeach; and ErueraIdUe,
A69 e
We.
change in the authorized work is necessary,, you should
Dips.skowmg ihe,proposed:ch'anges. �tou may nofun
�orps;ziotifies youfliatyour;pei'mithas'iigeitxuodifxed.
closed is a,Department. of
Waters cf the -VA! d States,
4, o£theClean-WaterA.ct; to
Banks barrier islAnd ;
ihdi se:ofan offshord.
e-pinoxhol1 ShoreS,.$altcr
Ha'
of
Carefully read your trerr ttt„ The general, and special condrtlons are auporlant: Your faituret4
complyvrith'these conditionsxould4esult in a violation ofFederal law. 'Certain significant
G>nditioriss>•egiire'.tliat
w You;must completetonstiuction I efore_i7erembe 11, 2d68,
b. You must notify, this office in advance ds:to whemyou intend to -commences and
complete work.
Q Xbu aaust allpw xepxesentatsves from taus ofkco to aaal q p4iOOic:visits; tQ. your worksite
wok- cessary to assure complianee:withpexm plan�and conditions.;
d, ,Pleaso xefereiice the appioved jiirisdiatibii l':deteriniiiahon (enclosed) for fhe suliject

'Ybu-sho-W& ad&ws all,quw&ns re&i&hg ties d4kcaiad& t&w-mckWsii9",
g-
.Wltiii , -. on, Regniatoiy 69. Mbiih AWWW!
afgeplitine 0
ng*m jAIIA6 =-,q ft
Eucfasuresi
Di V-wrtment ofthe'AMly-poftift
.AppendixA�-D
,VN'ef, go=,, eDiita'Unit
�Ocean-,- Service
i vW
Qqp*?4fnished with SpecuWmdii ons
anti Plans:,
gash and? jTffllifa*kp
'Pp?st-CfficeMox 337,26
Rat6�lhia 006-3726
RshonalvInri�^Fisltet7es Service
10I.Tivers,ildand,Road,
'Vqtr4nds apl-Map'negul 04 R
-Regulatory Seat,
U s PnCirovmeritai Agetriay lFbrsyth,8j, SW:
Regdatory-Divisibn
D�m 9f"coastd"WnagpMent
40b ConmeowAvenve
Mprehead'Qlty -Wn#,,,28557.
Me.', Pace Wfftci
'N4tloxW,MW*w-F aded.
Z 16bnsonZW
-19, Vort-
QhAd*Qr4 SQA:0xQKQ,b,4 994V—

ACTION ID SAW-2009-00293
PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
In accordance.with 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), all conditions of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management CAMA Permit #91-18 dated September 4, 2018, and the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources 401 Water Quality Certification # 20180944, dated August 31, 2018, are
incorporated by reference as part of the Department of the Army permit, and attached for your
convenience. Additionally, all of the stipulations set forth in the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) Lease Agreement, when it becomes finalized, will be incorporated by
reference as part of the DA permit.
All of the following Special Conditions run with each project event unless revoked and/or
modified during the review time of the individual event. NOTE: Additional conditions will
likely be added to individual events to cover specific aspects of those events.
Work Limits
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the attached
plans, which are a part of this permit, and specified in the March 4, 2016 BBMBNP. Any
modification to these plans must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) prior to implementation.
2. Prior to initiating any project shoreline protection activities specified in the BBMBNP, a
notification request must be submitted to the USACE office for prior approval. This
notification must provide a full and complete project event description, including but limited
to, justification/need for the project and how it correlates with the targeted 25-year Level of
Protection, construction footprints, construction methods and timeframes, borrow source(s),
dredging dimensions, beach placement amounts and profiles, and exact reach location(s).
Additionally, a cumulative summary of all events completed to the date of submittal under
the BBMBNP must be included in the notification to keep a historic record over the 50-year
period. The summary must provide a list of all past events that includes the following:
Start/end timeframes, borrow source, placement footprints/locations, dredging footprints, and
volume amounts.
3. Any work constructed under authorization of this permit shall be restricted to November 16-
April 30 of any year during the life of this authorization. No work will occur outside this
time period.. All activity, including mobilization efforts, is restricted from the beach and inlet
shorelines prior to November 16. Upon completion of work, all equipment, including
pipelines, must be removed by April 30.
4. Dredge work associated with a planned Bogue Inlet ebb tide channel relocation event must
be conducted with a hydraulic cutterhead dredge plant and shall be restricted to the boundary
of the designated "safe box". At no time will dredging occur outside this boundary.
Relocation events will be restricted to once every 10 to 15 years, resulting in a maximum of
five (5) events over the 50-year authorization period.

-2-
5. Dredging activities authorized by this permit shall not in any way interfere with those
operations of the USACE Civil Works dredging and navigation projects.
6. If, at any time, the Bogue Banks 50-year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Federal Project is
funded and the permittee chooses to participate in this project, the permittee will notify the
USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office of their participation in the federal project.
Consideration of this participation will be included in future evaluation of events under the
BBMBNP.
7. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall
provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance
of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions,
shall be available at the project site during the implementation and construction of each
project event.
8. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavating, dredging, mechanized land -clearing, or filling activities shall take place at any
time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This
permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of dredged material
excavated or material within waters of the United States outside of the permitted fill sites.
This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this management
plan.
9. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavation, dredging or fill shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of
this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within
waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
10. Prior to the use of borrow site Area Y75-80, additional geotechnical surveys (and other data
collection work) must be conducted in, and within 1,500 linear feet of, the boundary of
Y75/80 to determine the presence of hardbottom habitat for ensuring that dredging activity
and pipeline placement is not within the 1,500-foot buffer. Results of the survey(s) and data
collection must be provided to USACE, NC Division of Coastal Management, and National
Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division (NMFS HCD) for verification.
Borrow Site Area Y75-80 shall not be used until approved by the Corps.
11. Dredging depth cuts for offshore and inlet operations will be limited to the following:
a) ODMDS: Maximum dredge cut will be 21 feet and an undisturbed 2-foot buffer between
the original underlying ocean floor and the dredge cut will apply to all dredging cuts. No cut,
will exceed a depth of -52 feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth).
b) Area Y: Dredge cuts for Area Y-90/120 range from 10-11 feet below original ocean floor,
leaving an undisturbed minimum 2-foot buffer of sandy substrate. No cut will exceed a

-3-
depth of -62 feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth). Dredge cuts for Area
Y75/80 range from 7-13 feet below original ocean floor, leaving an undisturbed minimum 2-
foot buffer of sandy substrate. No cut will exceed a depth of -56 feet NAVD88 (which
includes a 2-foot overdredge depth).
c) Boeue Inlet: Dredging depth of any realignment channel will not exceed a depth of -18
feet NAVD88 (which includes a 2-foot overdredge depth).
12. For the AIWW Disposal Island borrow sites, the following must be met:
a) Use of the disposal islands may require approval and consent documents from the
USACE, which may impose additional duties or fees. Please contact Todd Horton, USACE,
Navigation Branch, [phone], to coordinate efforts for the use of the AIWW disposal
islands.
b) No wetlands or waters shall be impacted during the use of any identified disposal islands
for borrow source, including the construction of the discharge/outfall pipe.
c) Any dike improvement designs must be provided to the USACE for approval prior to
conducting the work.
d) Subject to approval by the Navigation Branch, the placement of any discharge pipe shall
be extended to deeper water sufficient to avoid shellfish and SAV habitat areas.
e) The discharge pipe must be installed in a manner to prevent a hazard to navigation in
accordance with Navigation Branch instruction and U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
13. Prior to the use of any Upland Sand Mine Sources, additional sediment analysis must be
completed and submitted to the USACE and NC Division of Coastal Management to verify
that the material is beach compatible. The data must include, but not limited to, silt/clay
content, grain size, and color. Upland Sand Mine Sources shall not be used until approved
by the USACE.
14. All material used for the beach nourishment must be compatible and clean and free of any
pollutants except in trace quantities.
Project Maintenance
15. The contractor's name, phone number, and address, including any inspector's contact name
and phone number must be provided to the Wilmington District prior to initiating any work.
16. A pre -construction meeting must be held with the USACE prior to conducting the work to
ensure that there is a mutual understanding of all terns and conditions contained within this
Departmentofthe Army permit. Participants may include, but are not limited to,
representatives from BOEM, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC
Division of Coastal Management and NC Division of Water Quality.

-4-
17. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Resources at (919) 733-
5083, Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and
Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed.
18. The permittee shall ensure that an inspector is present during all beach disposal activities and
immediately report to the USACE in the event any incompatible material is placed on the
beach. During operations, material placed on the beach shall be inspected daily to ensure
compatibility. On the third day of the week, a visual assessment of the material will be
conducted, and the results of that assessment will be submitted to the USACE the same day.
On the seventh day of the week, a detailed sediment analysis must be submitted to the
USACE to further verify the material's compatibility. This analysis must include, but not
limited to, the location of the sample station, shell percentage, silt/clay content, grain size,
and color. If during the sampling process non -beach compatible material is or has been
placed on the beach, all work shall stop immediately and the USACE notified by the
permittee and/or its contractor to determine the appropriate plan of action.
19. Dredging track plots, for both offshore and inlet work, must be provided to our office twice a
week to ensure work is conducted within the approved dredging limits. These track plot maps
must include the location and depth of the area that has been dredged. Within 2 weeks upon
completion of all dredging operations, a complete As -built survey map showing the final
volume of material dredged and the dredged footprint must be submitted to the USACE. For
inlet channel projects, a Global Positioning Survey (GPS) survey map showing the new
channel boundary depicted within the "safe box" limits must also be provided to the USACE.
20. For planned offshore dredging, all pipeline placements must be located in a manner to avoid
hardbottom areas. Pipeline locations must be located via GPS and the GPS bearings must be
mapped and provided to our office once placement is completed, or no later than one week
after pipelines are in place.
21. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to
prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the
permit area. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A
Article 4).
22. Monitoring protocols for turbidity shall be implemented so as not to exceed the
turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) as described in 15A
NCAC 02138.0200. Appropriate' sediment and erosion control practices must be used
to meet this standard. The monitoring protocols must be provided to the USACE,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office for review 30 days prior to project
commencement.

-5-
23. The Permittee shall monitor any in -water dredge. pipelines used during the
construction activities, in order to check for potential leaks, which may emanate from
the pipeline couplings. All dredge and fill activities shall cease if leaks are found.
Operations may resume upon appropriate repair of affected couplings, or other
equipment.
24. The Permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration
before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time
and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
25. The Permittee shall provide written notification of project completion within one (1) week
upon completion of the work authorized by this permit.
26. As -built surveys of the beach must be provided to the USACE as they are being conducted.
Final surveys must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of each nourishment event.
27. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require
the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if,
in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the USACE, to remove, relocate, or alter the
structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No
claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal, relocation, or
alteration.
28. The authorized project must not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all
navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent
the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized
work for any reason other than safety.
29. The Permittee shall comply with all U.S. Coast Guard regulations for dredging operations.
The Permittee shall contact Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District at [phone] or
CGDSWaterwaysQusca.mil at least 30 days prior to construction to request a notice in the
Local Notice to Mariners. The Permittee shall notify the Corps when this coordination with
the U.S. Coast Guard has commenced.
30. The permittee shall install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized
facilities. For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Safety Office at [phone].

Threatened and Endangered Species
31. The USFWS's August 28, 2017 North Carolina Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion
(SPBO) contains mandatory Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions
that are associated with "incidental take" for beach placement activities. Your authorization
under this Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all the mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions (see Appendix B) associated with
incidental take of the SPBO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in this
permit. Failure to comply with these SPBO reasonable and prudent measures and terms and
conditions, where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take,
and it would also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. The USFWS is the
appropriate authority to determine compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures and
terms and conditions of its SPBO, and with the Endangered Species Act. The entire SPBO
can be accessed at httos://www.fws.gov/raleigliJpdfs/sobo.ndf .
In the event an incidental take occurs during construction on the beach (or above the Mean
Low Water), all work must cease immediately and contact must be made to the USACE,
Attn. Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, at [phone] or
mickey.t.sugggusace.armv.mil for further coordination with USFWS to determine the
appropriate action.
32. The National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division's (NMFS PRD)
October 23, 2018 Biological Opinion (BO) contains mandatory Reasonable and Prudent
Measures and Terms and Conditions that are associated with "incidental take" for hopper
dredging and relocation trawling activities (see Appendix B). Your authorization under this
Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all the mandatory reasonable and
prudent measures and terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the BO
(Section 10, 11, & 12 of the. BO), along with the Best Management Practices and
Minimization Measures specified in Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the BO, which terms and
conditions are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to comply with these BO
reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions, where a take of the listed species
occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance
with your USACE permit. The NMFS PRD is the appropriate authority to determine
compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of its BO,
and with the Endangered Species Act. This BO supersedes any potential use of the 1997
South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion. The Incidental Take Statement covers the
following maximum lethal and non -lethal takes over the 50-year project life:
Incidental Take Statement over the 50-year life of the Project:
Species
O served ksl
a ed on-
e a take
Green sea turtle (NA and SA
3
0
DPSs combined)
(all hopper dredging)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
4
0

-7-
(all hopper dredging)
Loggerhead sea turtle (NWA
24
(23 hopper dredging, 1
30
(all relocation
DPS)
relocation trawl)
trawling)
Atlantic sturgeon (All 5 DPSs
11
847
(all relocation
combined)
(all hopper dredging)
trawling)
For dredging activities occurring within the ODMDS borrow site beyond the 3-nautical mile
limit, BOEM will be the lead agency in all coordination efforts for the implementation of the
BO and/or incidental take occurrences. In the case of an incidental take during construction,
contact must be made immediately to BOEM, Attn. Ms. Deena Hansen- Office of
Environmental Programs at [phone], or deena.hansenaboem.eov , for further
coordination with NMFS PRD to determine the need for additional action. The USACE
should be contacted as well for the purpose of situation awareness. For dredging operations
within the 3-nautical mile limit, USACE will be the lead agency in all coordination efforts
for the implementation of the BO and/or incidental take occurrence. In the case of an
incidental take during construction, contact must be made immediately to the USACE, Attn.
Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, at [phone] or
mickey.t.su,[e-mail] for further coordination with NMFS PRD to determine the
need for additional action. The BOEM should be contacted as well for the purpose of
situation awareness. The lead agency and point of contact for the BOEM and the USACE
will be further verified during our review of each single event.
33. Dredging operations involving hopper dredge plants must follow the protocols outlined in the
Hopper Dredge Conditions disclosed in Appendix C.
34. In order to minimize potential impacts to federally -listed sea turtle species, all in -water lines
(rope, chain, and cable, including the lines to secure pipeline buoys) must be stiff, taut, and
non -looping. Examples of such lines are heavy metal chains or heavy cables that do not
readily loop and tangle. Flexible in -water lines, such as nylon rope or any lines that could
loop or tangle, will be enclosed in a plastic or rubber sleeve/tube to add rigidity and prevent
the line from looping and tangling. In all instances, no excess line is allowed in the water.
35. All vessels greater than 65 ft will comply with the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule
(50 CFR 224.105; compliance guide can be located in Appendix 1 of the October 23, 2018
BO. Between November 1 and April 30, all dredge and attendant vessels greater than 65 ft
will slow to 10 knots (kt) (or minimum safe speed) when a North Atlantic right whale is
spotted within 15 nmi of the activity or transportation route within 24 hours, and one of the
following conditions is present: poor visibility (e.g., fog, precipitation), Beaufort Sea State
>3, or at night. By law, all vessels operators shall maintain a 500-yd buffer between the
vessel and any North Atlantic right whale (as required by Federal Regulation 50 CFR
224.103 (c)).

-8-
36. The permittee shall implement all necessary precautions and measures so that any activity
will not kill, injure, capture, pursue, harass, or otherwise harm any protected federally listed
species (such as sea turtles, whales, manatee, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, piping plover,
and red knot). While accomplishing the authorized work, if the permittee discovers or
observes a dead or injured listed endangered or threatened species, the USACE and the
BOEM will be immediately notified so that required coordination can be initiated with the
USFWS and/or NMFS PRD.
37. For Bogue Inlet channel relocation events, additional measures must be followed:
a) Dredging in Bogue Inlet shall not include shoals or other areas above the Mean Low Low
Water (MLLW).
b) The permittee must identify and map the habitat types within the realignment footprint to
verify that shoals or other areas above the MLLW are not within the dredging footprint. This
mapping must be submitted to USACE for confirmation.prior to dredging.
c) Pipeline Placement shall avoid shorebird foraging, resting, and nesting habitat on the inlet
shoulders and the west end of Emerald isle, to the maximum extent practicable. A distance
of 100 feet or more from nesting shorebirds or shorebirds exhibiting breeding behavior
(courtship, territoriality) shall be marked in the field to assist in avoidance of these areas.
Marking may include post and string and/or flagging. Any materials used for marking shall
be maintained until at least August 31, after which time the materials shall be removed from
the beach.
38. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the
applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
hLtp://www.fws.gov/ne-es/mammal/manatee euidelines.pdf.
39. The permittee understands and agrees that, even where it is in full compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit and other required authorizations, incidental take of sea turtles
or other endangered species by the permittee may require suspension of the permit by the
Corps of Engineers. The amount of incidental take that will trigger suspension, and the need
.for any such suspension, shall be determined at the time in the sole discretion of the USACE
and/or BOEM, whoever is the lead agency during the project event. The permittee
understands and agrees on behalf of itself, its agents, contractors, and other representatives,
that no claim, legal action in equity or for damages, adjustment, or other entitlement against
the USACE shall arise as a result. of such suspension or related action.
Cultural Resources
40. If submerged cultural resources are encountered during the operation, work in the
area shall cease immediately. For dredging operations within the 3-nautical mile
limit, the USACE Wilmington District, Regulatory Division must be immediately
notified so that coordination can be initiated with the Underwater Archeology Unit

0
(UAU) of the Department of Cultural Resources. In emergency situations, the
permittee should immediately contact Mr. Nathan Henry at (910-458-9042), Fort
Fisher, so that a full assessment of the artifacts can be made. For dredging activities
occurring beyond the 3-nautical mile limit, within the ODMDS borrow site, BOEM
will be the lead agency and must be immediately notified for the coordination efforts
to take place.
Enforcement
41. Violations of these permit conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, Attn: Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, mickey.t.sugg_ausace.army.mil,
[phone] within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
42. A representative of the USACE, Regulatory Division will periodically and randomly inspect
the work for compliance with these conditions. Deviations from the permitted activities and
permit conditions may result in cessation of work until the problem is resolved to the
satisfaction of the USACE. No claim, legal action in equity or for damages, adjustment, or
other entitlement shall be asserted against the United States on account of any such required
cessation or related action, by the permittee, its agents, contractors, or other representatives.
Miscellaneous
43. All reports and written notifications required by these permit conditions shall be sent
to the USACE c/o the following POC and address: Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office, Attn: Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, or mickey.t.suQeausace.army.mil,
[phone].
44. All measures and obligations, not previously described above, outlined in Section 6.0
of the February 2018 Final EIS must be fulfilled accordingly.
45. To the extent that any permit attachments and plans conflict with the permit special
conditions, the permit special conditions shall prevail.

i+iQR'FHrCpItQt,ItfA
Novemher6,.2&9
DWR h 201801444
Car[ereC.Gpunfy,
Gair_teret l*ialaty
AFT WvMt". Gteg,Rndwoh
PQ M 4297
Enteraid [§IE�t+I28594, " ;*
stibfi . AApr4val AfRevisedProiect;81fob tt't Roue units 5()-y_ r-rylastec Beactr
Npyristltnent,,l5lar!
K15AO:E �f�an IR..:IVo �A1�=,2tlQ9-Q4�93
ipear. Mr, Ru4Riph7
...__
0
n'vCt64'er 25,2018; tfWDlvis(alt 6f Watee Resources (Q�insion) received -your request via the
Division f;� al Matiagenienf.ta iW-0 ,the ap'praved Ptajecttfel of the hague Hanks SEt-year
NCaster g64 wdii si irient Plan d'ueYo ifi pactrf(f T,WHurricane Ptorence Zhe 4i)1,Cerfificat rin•
(�ILtiC#004189� lei tiie 50 y"r Ma#ei Beach Nagrishmenp igmwasissued on AUgust 31,1018
and Widded autha`r'izatwn for; Prefer(#( ,.
Prdje#
akzrtg ?,275 pQEarfeet "greliile ip,three reaches in troeraid Isle Eric and tndiao Beachwith
anaverage fill de-p4ityvf 55 o4,01, yardsper iaot (ranking from>Z5 and 45 cubldjraf, s pdetd6f)
aiDdie 2S'°dune avkdth and arr z��terage,54' bear! wiiitEf (ren1irg fEorh' 44 fe`et to 60'feet).TFiere
txQre nq chartgEs proposed to the I£orraw''area or other aigrtitii ant changes to,the placement
area;ar'vaiume..
th,e Dtvision:hereby'approves the revi§ed-Pfoject tt L plan as detaUed'in P<olect.g � p1gSi-
,ebi aEeReitddrishmentPtoi&t(PhaseIlEvenfNotifiratioasubmitted enOctober25,2011
Ail tegWfd0 ient9 tdentifiedinthd conditions afthe 4ff1 Water(luality. €erEif%eation.
(WQC#W416%. are A -11 able tothe_revised Project tt T plan and.remainan place.:
RECEIVED
NOV 0 8 4018
:--
...�
North Division of Water Resources
MP SECTION WIRO
512 NdK,t0; lishuryStieet 1161 r Mail SeN(ge Center J ftale]6,' North Caroiino.2769'3-1617
9197Q7.,"00r

PW4ebwoAw*d-.;
videq-Rew
fa#Mdua rer� an �wve ass
q,,u-14kvf%J5
swee4
%grg"'Higgip-0im V-Wor
401! &WNr fle mO r& I 1 (4.
iadd Ma bowi, , s�,- -if Obo pi joy

lit —
Coats, Heather
From:
Dunn, Maria T.
Sent:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 9:18 AM
To:
Coats, Heather
Subject:
RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
SAW-2009-00293,SER-2017-18882
Heather,
I have reviewed the modification to the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment plan to adjust for changes due to
Hurricane Florence and have no objections as long as all permit conditions are upheld.
If there is anything else, please let me know.
Maria
Maria T. Dunn
Coastal Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Sq. Mall
Washington, NC 27889
office: 252-948-3916
fax: [phone]
www.ncwildlife.org
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane <[e-mail]>; Wojoski, Paul A
<[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source) Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan SAW-2009-00293, SER-
2017-18882
Good morning,
Please see the revised Project #1 plans for the Bogue Banks project. Changes include dune construction (dune width:
25', el. 12' NAVD 88) and an adjusted berm width ranging from 44'-60' (maintaining a 6' elevation) with an average
placement volume of 35cy/ft to address erosion from Hurricane Florence. There is no change to the borrow area and no
other significant changes to the placement area or volume. The revised placement volume is now proposed at 945,500
cy along 27,275' of shoreline (-5.2 miles). Pine Knoll Shores (Reach 4) has been eliminated from the current project.
Please review the attached submittal and let me know if you have any questions or concerns as soon as possible.
Thanks in advance,
Heather

Coats, Heather
From:
Staples, Shane
Sent:
Friday, November 9, 2018 12,40 PM
To:.
Coats, Heather
Subject:
Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
SAW-2009-00293,SER-2017-18882
Heather,
I thought I had sent you comments on this already but I searched my e-mail and it appears i never sent it. I am
not at the office now but I did not have any additional comments for the modifications to the Plan.
Shane
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 8:59:09 AM
To: Dunn, Maria T.; Staples, Shane
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]. RE: [Non-DoD Source] Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan SAW-2009-00293, SER-
2017-18882
Hi folks,
Just checking back in on the status of your comments for this project. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns asap.
Thanks!
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North -Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats(a)ncdenr.aov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
4� �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.

From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane <[e-mail]>; Wojoski, Paul A
<[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan SAW-2009-00293, SER-
2017-18882
Good morning,
Please see the revised Project #1 plans for the Bogue Banks project. Changes include dune construction (dune width:
25', el. 12' NAVD 88) and an adjusted berm width ranging from 44'-60" (maintaining a 6' elevation) with an average
placement volume of 35cy/ft to address erosion from Hurricane Florence. There is no change to the borrow area and no
other significant changes to the placement area or volume. The revised placement volume is now proposed at 945,500
cy along 27,275' of shoreline (-5.2 miles). Pine Knoll Shores (Reach 4) has been eliminated from the current project.
Please review the attached submittal and let me know if you have any questions or concerns as soon as possible.
Thanks in advance,
Heather
Heather Coats
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
heather. coats(a ncdenr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
c 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.
From: York, Dawn
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:33 PM
To:'Hansen, Deena' <[e-mail]>; Sugg, Mickey T SAW <MickevT [e-mail]>
Cc: Martin, Johnny <[e-mail]>; Rahlff Ingle <[e-mail]>; Coats, Heather
<[e-mail]>; Reusch, Eric G CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Eric.G.Reusch usace.armv.mil>; Brandt,
Leighann<[e-mail]>;'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Gregory Rudolph
<grudolph@carteretcountvnc gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan SAW-2009-00293, SER-
2017-18882

US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: November 14, 2018
Corps Action ID: SAW-2009-00293
Release of the Record of Decision for Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment
Plan
All interested parties are hereby advised that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Wilmington District Regulatory Division has completed its National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review process, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) analysis, and Public
Interest review for Carteret County's proposal to implement a long-term management plan
within Waters of the United States, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to provide shoreline protection along the approximately 25-
mile Bogue Banks barrier island, Carteret County, North Carolina. Management components
include the use of an offshore borrow area for periodic nourishment along approximately 18
miles of Pine Knoll Shores, Salter Path, Indian Beach, and Emerald Isle, with potential
supplemental nourishment along approximately 5 miles of Atlantic Beach if needed and to
conduct maintenance of Bogue Inlet ebb tide channel within a "safe box" zone to protect the inlet
shoreline of Emerald Isle.
The District Engineer has received a request from Carteret County to authorize the
implementation of Alternative 4 (Nourishment and Non -Structural Bogue Inlet Management or
the Applicant's Preferred Alternative), as described in Section 2 of the Record of Decision and in
Section 3.3.4 of Final Environmental Impact Statement dated February 2018.
The Record of Decision to authorize the work is posted on the USACE, Wilmington District
website at https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ugutatory-Permit-Program/Maior-
Projects/
The Department of the Army permit for this project has been issued; therefore the USACE is not
requesting comments on the Record of Decision.
RECEIVED
NOV 16 2018
DCM WILMiNGTON, NC

4
0
Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fart: [phone]
[e-mail]
rkretW_dy
%%.SX0r4Y
protection office
orotectthat:eacn, corn
To: Mickey Sugg, USACE - Wilmington District and Heather Coats, NCDCM
From: Greg "rudi" Rudolph
Date: May 9, 2019
Re: Bogue Banks MBNP - Post -Florence Phase I - Permit Modification Request
No. 2 to Use Mechanical Means for Dune Planting through May 31, 2019
Dear Mickey and Heather,
Carteret County would like to request a permit modification to Permit No. SAW-
2018-01358 and State Permit No. 91-18, to allow for the use of mechanical means for dune
planting along the recently nourished reaches in Emerald Isle and Indian Beach through May
31, 2019, as agreed upon during an agency site meeting, May 8, 2019.
Dune planting equipment, as described in the attached Operations Plan, will consist
of pickup truck(s), a tractor pulling a 1,000-gallon water wagon and a mechanical
transplanter. All heavy equipment and ancillary equipment Including hoses will be stored off
the beach during evening hours and will only be used during daylight hours after sea turtle
monitors clear the area for nesting evidence or false crawls. As discussed in the agency site
meeting, the transit of all equipment from the access points to the active planting area will
be in the "wet sand" (below Mean High Water Line) portion of the beach berm, only the
tractor and mechanical transplanter will access the dune crest once they reach the active
planting area.
The County is committed to the conservation measures included in the attached
Operations Plan and listed below, that will serve to avoid and minimize affects to sea turtle
nesting. These conservation measures are consistent with recent discussions with US Fish
and Wildlife Services and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (May 8, 2019).
Conditions:
1. Dune planting using equipment or hand planting will begin daily at 8 am or after
sea turtle patrol has confirmed nesting/false crawls within the designated work
area. Daily texts or phone calls will be made between volunteers, NCWRC and
Coastal Transplants.
2. Designated work area map will be provided to sea turtle volunteers a day before
to review and will be marked physically by a stake on the beach.
3. Once an area of beach is completed with planting, all equipment will be
prohibited from that area. Weekly progress maps will be provided to the
agencies.
4. A buffer distance of 50 feet will be applied and marked at all nests and false
crawls identified within the work area in which no heavy equipment can be used.
5. A buffer distance of 20 feet will be applied and marked at all nests and false
crawls identified within the work area in which no hand planting can be
completed.
6. Heavy equipment, including the tractor pulling a 1,000-gallon water wagon, and
pickup truck will be confined to the wet sand area on the beach.
RECEIVED
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 . Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594Y 0 9 2019
www. protect the beach. com
MP SECTION WIRO

n - f
2
7. Heavy equipment, including a tractor with transplanter, will only be used on the
crest of the dune. The slopes of the dune will be hand planted.
8. No heavy equipment will be used on the beach after May 31, 2019. A pickup
truck and small water tank can be used from June 1, 2019 until dune planting
completion.
9. A water plan will be submitted to the agencies for work that is anticipated to be
completed after June 1, 2019 to demonstrate sources of water for dune plants.
As agreed verbally by US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resources
Commission during the May 8, 2019 agency site meeting, dune planting with heavy
equipment proceeded on May 8, 2019.
We look forward to discussing this permit modification request with you further and
answering any questions or concerns you may have. Please don't hesitate to call me (252-
222-5835) or Dawn York (910-218-7087).
Respectfully,
Greg rudi" Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. protect the beach. com

• -,
Dune Planting Operational Plan
Post -Florence Renourishment Project— Phase I, Emerald Isle & Indian Beach
Coastal Transplants Inc.
May 9, 2019 Rev 1
Planting Project Schedule:
The completion schedule for the dune planting was originally projected as a June 30, 2019
completion date with no weather factors involved. The extended schedule of the dredging and
sand placement through the last week of April 2019; has pushed the planting schedule slightly
into summer to allow newly pumped beach sands to wash free of salts prior to planting starting.
This requires a fair amount of rain to wash the newly placed material to reduce the amount of
natural sea salts in the material when pumped ashore using ocean water.
Coastal Transplants anticipate 6-day work weeks with Sunday as the standard day off. This is
subject to 2 or more weather days lost for weather per week. If weather occurs, then Sundays will
be added to the work schedule.
The daily hours of operation conform to start with the permitted turtle monitor clearance of the
beach and specific work footprint locations for the day. The turtle survey generally finishes at a
set time daily (typically by 7:30 am) depending on the locale and local volunteers, and we
normally set our first point of entry on the beach 30 minutes after patrols are completed. 8 am is
generally a practical time to show up and expect turtle coordination and communication to be
complete. The day generally lasts 8 to 10 hours, but equipment and personnel are always off the
beach before dusk.
Operational Plan
Equipment:
I - Hand Planting Operations (See pictures- Appendix A)
Tractor- John Deere 5085 or equivalent
Wagon- 1000-gallon nurse tank with pump
Hoses- Typical 5/8" garden hoses
Pipe- % inch pipe with water valve
Ka
II - Mechanical Planting Operations (See pictures- Appendix B)
Tractor- John Deere 5085 or equivalent with mounted water tank
Planter- Mechanical Transplanter 580 (2 row machine)
Typical Daily Routine of Operations:
Once the all clear is given from turtle patrol we enter the beach with the equipment
planned to be used for the while day of work. The tractor drives as close to; or in wet
sand, by the water, until we reach the planting site (footprint) for the day. Typical
driving speed is less than 5 MPH for public safety. A company 4x4 truck or ATV travels
in front of the tractor approximately 100-200 feet ahead of the work vehicles, to shuffle
tourists and property from the path of the tractor, and to look for hazards, such as holes
dug by tourist, possible false crawl turtle tracks, escarpments, etc.
Once adjacent to the work area, the upper dune is accessed using the shortest possible
lateral distance to the dune, so as to limit creating ruts in soft sand or damaging the slope
of the dune face. Once on the dune with the mechanical transplanter or other hand

planning equipment, all equipment will stay on the dune until operations are finished for
the day. The equipment will then be moved off the beach in the afternoon following the
same procedure as entry, and exit at the closest access to the work. All equipment will be
stored off beach during periods of weather or non -planting (night).
If hand planting, the tractor and water wagon will arrive and traverse the beach, as
discussed above, but at the work area, will stop within 20 feet of the toe of the dune, or
wherever tourist and tents allow, but always greater than 20 feet. The watering hoses are
then able to be utilized 100 feet to the front of tractor, and 100 feet to the rear of wagon,
so basically planting is able to cover this 200-foot area, where water can be supplied
during planting. This 200 foot watering step set continues until complete with a planting
footprint. Once complete in that area then the tractor pulls forward another 200 foot and
the process starts again. If the water tank runs out of water the tractor and wagon exit the
beach, as it entered, and re -fills and returns the same as previous ingress and egress. At
the end of the day the tractor and water wagon, as well as all other planting equipment are
stored off beach at night.
Mechanical Transplanter operational items:
The transplanter is pulled by the tractor, same as the water tank, down the beach and
mechanically places a plant (via planting fingers- See pictures) at a calibrated spacing as
the tractor moves forward. The plant fingers are driven by a rubber flotation tire that
rolls on the sand surface and a chain drives the disk to which plant fingers are attached.
These fingers release the plants at a depth of 8 inches and a shoe pushes the soil back
around the plant and closes the hole. The planter has been modified to drop the fertilizer
and water, required at each plant location, at the same time as the plant drops. The tractor
is capable of pulling 2 individual planter units at a time and they are spaced on a `tool
bar' for the spacing requirements of the job. In this case the Reach 43 and #2 plant
spacing has been setup for 21 inches.
The number of passes required to finish each section will vary from location to location,
depending on the depth of the dune. The planter can only be used on flat surface sand, so
a typical planter placement sets of will consist of 6, 12, 18, 24, or 30 rows based on the
width of the upper dune from existing veg to frontal slope. Most places for this project
will be 18 to 24 rows.
The speed of the tractor when pulling the transplanter and actively planting is 1.5 to 2
MPH. Most people can out walk the operation.
The tractor will access the dune crest by direct line, same as stated above in hand
planting, so no damage to the dune is done. If the dune is steep, we may angle up slope
to be sure no rutting or damage is done. If needed, rubber mats can also be used to gain
traction without damage to the dune face in order to access the upper dune. These mats
are temporary and are immediately removed once the equipment is topside of the dune.
The tractor and transplanter will transverse the beach one round trip per day. The tractor
and water barrel will transverse on average three round trips per day to support the higher
volume of planting when using the transplanter.
The typical number of plant set moves in a day would be 2 if used without the
mechanical planter and 5 if used in conjunction or after use of the mechanical planter.

The mechanical transplanter should allow the projected work to be completed
approximately 3-4 weeks earlier. This is dependent on how much handwork will be left
after the planter and how much time will be spent working around any marked turtle
nests.
Conservation Measures
1.) No entry onto beach is allowed prior to 8 am. This gives Turtle patrol time to
complete rounds and report and flag any located nest. If no calls are received, or if
the calls indicate nest out side of the planting areas then access to the beach and
crews proceed to the worksite. A work truck proceeds in front of the tractor to check
for nest/crawls and clear tourist and property from the tractor path. Prior to dune
access work crews will walk the entire length of the planned planting worksite to
look for any sign of turtles that may not have been reported.
2.) Daily worksites will be indicated with plants from previous days work on one side
and a PVC stick painted red on the other side of the area to be planted for the next
day. This stake will be located at the top of the dune crest. Turtle monitors will thus
know where we will be working the next day and focus on potential turtle activity in
that area.
3.) The phone number for the on -site leader has been provided as:
Eric Salas: 956-266-7413.
Alternate- Steve Mercer: 910-431-9814.
4.) In the event of a nest or crawl, the GLDD Quality Control Manager has also asked
that they be notified, so as to properly inform up the chain of notifications for the
project.
a. John Nelson 319-850-2284
b. Mario Martinez 806-292-5637
5.) The tractor and water tank will be run in wet sand whenever possible. The only time
that would not happen is when it has to be moved at dead high tide. Due to tourist
populations this is almost never done. We can work around those extreme tide
periods by refilling prior to tides or waiting to enter beach until a waning tide.
6.) When possible, trips to and from the beach access points will be eliminated by
accessing water sources directly on the beach. This eliminates trips, beach tracking,
and also speeds up the work. This generally requires utility, municipal, and private
homeowner cooperation.
7.) Tire pressures in all equipment are run at the lowest possible setting to reduce PSI
without damaging tires. This not only reduces compaction but also increases traction
for all equipment.
8.) The mechanical transplanter will (can only) be used in the area above the 12 foot
dune crest. Only relatively flat beach can be planted using this method. The

remaining areas of the dune slope and tie against the existing dune vegetation line
must be hand planted.
9.) Prior to work every day the work crew will walk the entire area to be planted that day
to look for turtle nest. During the planting operation the tractor driver will look for
turtle crawl signs as proceeding forward with the planter.
10.)No planting work will be performed within 20 LF of any marked turtle nest. If the
local permit holder deems that hand planting may be performed closer than 20 LF we
will coordinate directly under the local permit holder directive for each specific nest.
fi.CtTiOMMI fUMMM
Typical Tractor and Transplanter for planting operations:

77-
,liht
,3w,

Typical Mechanical Planter Rows
mm —
s
ri L

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Skollre
Oft
protection office
orotecttFebeacn. co'r
To: Mickey Sugg, USACE — Wilmington District and Heather Coats, NCDCM
From: Greg "rudi" Rudolph
Date: May 6, 2019
Re: Bogue Banks MBNP — Post -Florence Phase I - Permit Modification Request
No. 2 to Use Mechanical Means for Dune Planting through June 30, 2019
Dear Mickey and Heather,
Carteret County would like to request a permit modification to Permit No. SAW-
2018-01358 and State Permit No. 91-18, to allow for the use of mechanical means for dune
planting along the recently nourished reaches in Emerald Isle and Indian Beach from May 6
to August 31, 2019.
Dune planting equipment, as described in the attached Operations Plan, will consist
of a tractor pulling a water wagon and a mechanical transplanter. Equipment and ancillary
equipment Including hoses will be stored off the beach during evening hours and will only be
used during daylight hours to access the dune face after sea turtle monitors clear the area
for nesting evidence or false crawls.
The County Is committed to the conservation measures Included in the attached
operations Plan that will serve to avoid and minimize affects to sea turtle nesting. These
conservation measures are consistent with recent discussions with US Fish and Wildlife
Services and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Coordination with state and federal
resource agencies is very important to the success of this project and we will ensure all staff
are available as needed.
We look forward to discussing this permit modification request with you further and
answering any questions or concerns you may have. Please don't hesitate to call me (252-
222-5835) or Dawn York (910-218-7087).
Respectfully,
Greg rudi" Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. protect the beach. corn

Dune Planting Operational Plan
Post -Florence Renourishment Project — Phase I, Emerald Isle & Indian Beach
Coastal Transplants Inc.
May I, 2019 Rev 0
Planting Proiect Schedule:
The completion schedule for the dune planting was originally projected as a June 30, 2019 completion date
with no weather factors involved. The extended schedule of the dredging and sand placement through the
last week of April 2019; has pushed the planting schedule slightly into summer to allow newly pumped
beach sands to wash free of salts prior to planting starting. This requires a fair amount of rain to wash the
newly placed material to reduce the amount of natural sea salts in the material when pumped ashore using
ocean water.
We anticipate 6-day work weeks with Sunday as the standard day off. This is subject to 2 or more weather
days lost for weather per week. If weather occurs then Sundays will be added to the work schedule.
The daily hours of operation conform to start with the permitted turtle monitor clearance of the beach and
specific work footprint locations for the day. The turtle survey generally finishes at'a set time daily
depending on the locale and local volunteers, and we normally set our first point of entry on the beach 30
minutes after patrols are completed. 8 am is generally a practical time to show up and expect turtle
coordination and communication to be complete. The day generally lasts 8 to 10 hours, but equipment and
personnel are always off the beach before dusk.
Onerational Plan
Equipment:
I - Hand Planting Operations (See Pictures- Appendix A)
Tractor- John Deere 5085 or equivalent
Wagon- 1000-gallon nurse tank with pump
Hoses- Typical 5/8" garden hoses
Pipe- 3/4 inch pipe with water valve
W9
II - Mechanical Planting. Operations (See Pictures- Appendix B)
Tractor- John Deere 5085 or equivalent with mounted water tank
Planter- Mechanical Transplanter 580 (2 row machine)
Typical Daily Routine of Operations:
Once the all clear is given from turtle patrol we enter the beach with the equipment planned to be
used for the while day of work. The tractor drives as close to; or in wet sand, by the water, until
we reach the planting site (footprint) for the day. Typical driving speed is less than 5 MPH for
public safety. A company 4x4 truck or ATV travels in front of the tractor approximately 100-200
feet ahead of the work vehicles, to shuffle tourists and property from the path of the tractor, and to
look for hazards, such as holes dug by tourist, possible false crawl turtle tracks, escarpments, etc.
Once adjacent to the work area, the upper dune is accessed using the shortest possible lateral
distance to the dune, so as to limit creating ruts in soft sand or damaging the slope of the dune
face. Once on the dune with the mechanical transplanter or other hand planning equipment, all
equipment will stay on the dune until operations are finished for the day. The equipment will then
be moved off the beach in the afternoon following the same procedure as entry, and exit at the
closest access to the work. All equipment will be stored off beach during periods of weather or
non -planting (night).
If hand planting, the tractor and water wagon will arrive and traverse the beach, as discussed
above, but at the work area, will stop within 20 feet of the toe of the dune, or wherever tourist and
tents allow, but always greater than 20 feet. The watering hoses are then able to be utilized 100
feet to the front of tractor, and 100 feet to the rear of wagon, so basically planting is able to cover

this 200-foot area, where water can be supplied during planting. This 200 foot watering step set
continues until complete with a planting footprint. Once complete in that area then the tractor
pulls forward another 200 foot and the process starts again. If the water tank runs out of water the
tractor and wagon exit the beach, as it entered, and re -fills and returns the same as previous ingress
and egress. At the end of the day the tractor and water wagon, as well as all other planting
equipment are stored off beach at night.
Mechanical Transplanter operational items:
The transplanter is pulled by the tractor, same as the water tank, down the beach and mechanically
places a plant (via planting fingers- See pictures) at a calibrated spacing as the tractor moves
forward. The plant fingers are driven by a rubber flotation tire that rolls on the sand surface and a
chain drives the disk to which plant fingers are attached. These fingers release the plants at a depth
of 8 inches and a shoe pushes the soil back around the plant and closes the hole. The planter has
been modified to drop the fertilizer and water, required at each plant location, at the same time as
the plant drops. The tractor is capable of pulling 2 individual planter units at a time and they are
spaced on a `tool bar' for the spacing requirements of the job. In this case the Reach #3 and #2
plant spacing has been setup for 21 inches.
The number of passes required to finish each section will vary from location to location,
depending on the depth of the dune. The planter can only be used on flat surface sand, so a typical
planter placement sets of will consist of 6, 12, 18, 24, or 30 rows based on the width of the upper
dune from existing veg to frontal slope. Most places for this project will be 18 to 24 rows.
The speed of the tractor when pulling the transplanter and actively planting is 1.5 to 2 MPH. Most
people can out walk the operation.
The tractor will access the dune crest by direct line, same as stated above in hand planting, so no
damage to the dune is done. If the dune is steep, we may angle up slope to be sure no rutting or
damage is done. If needed, rubber mats can also be used to gain traction without damage to the
dune face in order to access the upper dune. These mats are temporary and are immediately
removed once the equipment is topside of the dune.
The tractor and transplanter will transverse the beach one round trip per day. The tractor and
water barrel will transverse on average three round trips per day to support the higher volume of
planting when using the transplanter.
The typical number of plant set moves in a day would be 2 if used without the mechanical planter
and 5 if used in conjunction or after use of the mechanical planter.
The mechanical transplanter should allow the projected work to be completed approximately 34
weeks earlier. This is dependent on how much handwork will be left after the planter and how
much time will be spent working around any marked turtle nests.
Conservation Measures
1.) No entry onto beach is allowed prior to 8 am. This gives Turtle patrol time to complete rounds
and report and flag any located nest. If no calls are received, or if the calls indicate nest out
side of the planting areas then access to the beach and crews proceed to the worksite. A work
truck proceeds in front of the tractor to check for nestlerawls and clear tourist and property
from the tractor path. Prior to dune access work crews will walk the entire length of the
planned planting worksite to look for any sign of turtles that may not have been reported.

2.) Daily worksites will be indicated with plants from previous days work on one side and a PVC
stick painted red on the other side of the area to be planted for the next day. This stake will be
located at the top of the dune crest. Turtle monitors will thus know where we will be working
the next day and focus on potential turtle activity in that area.
3.) The phone number for the on -site leader has been provided as:
Eric Salas: 956-266-7413.
Alternate- Steve Mercer: 910-431-9814.
4.) In the event of a nest or crawl, the GLDD Quality Control Manager has also asked that they
be notified, so as to properly inform up the chain of notifications for the project.
a. John Nelson 319-850-2284
b. Mario Martinez 806-292-5637
5.) The tractor and water tank will be run in wet sand whenever possible. The only time that
would not happen is when it has to be moved at dead high tide. Due to tourist populations
this is almost never done. We can work around those extreme tide periods by refilling prior to
tides or waiting to enter beach until a waning tide.
6.) When possible, trips to and from the beach access points will be eliminated by accessing
water sources directly on the beach. This eliminates trips, beach tracking, and also speeds up
the work. This generally requires utility, municipal, and private homeowner cooperation.
7.) Tire pressures in all equipment are run at the lowest possible setting to reduce PSI without
damaging tires. This not only reduces compaction but also increases traction for all
equipment.
8.) The mechanical transplanter will (can only) be used in the area above the 12 foot dune crest.
Only relatively flat beach can be planted using this method. The remaining areas of the dune
slope and tie against the existing dune vegetation line must be hand planted.
9.) Prior to work every day the work crew will walk the entire area to be planted that day to look
for turtle nest. During the planting operation the tractor driver will look for turtle crawl signs
as proceeding forward with the planter.
10.) No planting work will be performed within 20 LF of any marked turtle nest. If the local
permit holder deems that hand planting may be performed closer than 20 LF we will
coordinate directly under the local permit holder directive for each specific nest.

9
yk dOp

<»
� 2� .<�
� � � 2 d \�
� � .»?\�'\�� �
� . Z < : *� *g\�
w� � � t
v:. y � : .
`\\ ?z . � ?`�
� : � � . ..� � � �<� ©,
»®\.%\.d z .
3� � , .: a�< y\�
. . ;>� w ?s�� °�� � � � <� :

Typical Transplanter Behind Tractor
Typical Mechanical Planter Rows

TRANSMITTAL OF SHOP DRAWINGS, EQUIPMENT DATA, MATERIAL SAMPLES, OR MANUFACTURER'S
- CERTIFICATESOFCOMPLIANCE
DATE
4/9/2019
TRANSMITTAL NO.
02662-9
SECTION I - REQUEST:FOR APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS (This section will be initiated by the contractor)
TO '! '.. FROM: O- _ NEWTRANSMrrTAL .,
Moffatt & Niehol Engineers . Great Lakes Dredge & DOCK Company; LLC 2122 CONTRACT N0. RESUBMnTAL OF TRANSMITTAL
4700 Fall Bf'Neuse Road, Suite 300 York Road 10312
Raleigh NC127609 Oak Brook, IL 60523
PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION: THISTRANSMITTAL IS FOR
SPECIFICATION SEC. — POST-FLORENCE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT- PHASE1 CARTERET COUNTY,
INFORMATION' 0 APPROVAL BY CE
02882 BedClifill _ NORTH CAROLINA ' • -
'
DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL ITEM
SUBMITTAL TYPE
SPECIFICATION
PARAGRAPH NO.
VARIATIONMOFFATT&NICHOL
REVIEW
CODE
Detailed Sediment Analysis 551+00 to 554+00
TEST REPORTS
1.3
N
.
REMARKS: •
As requested, Post -placement Beach Fill Sample Lab Results for representative pumped material within Stations
550+00 - 554+00. Samples were collected every 1001t for Stations 5514-00, 552+00, 553+00 and 554+00. One more
- sample was also collected at station 553+00 from the Dune; representing Dune pre-existing material.Ad
I mrufy that the above submitted Moms hero been renewed In detail and are coned ens
in the strict conformence with the con"ct drawings end spoclBcailons euapt as
omerw;I.. Mated y aemrb)AG US .
DlterM,W LW+to=fue,llaYnPedflea
,,I a=�a,unsnlzm,Dei,�]rmwuvcmea
PIdII Salina w,,mw.,amoadaeW,nar:
Dale:3019L1➢904]]MB il'Oe
`NAME AND SIG TUREOF CONTRACTOR

i
Schnabel
ENGINEERING
TRANSMITTAL
104 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 420
West Columbia, SC 29169
T/ 803-796-6240
F/ 803-796-6250
TO: Adrian Salinas: AsalinasCdgldd.com DATE: 4/8119
Chris Pomfret: CPomfretcDgldd.com
Mike Huebsch: MHuebsch(cDoidd.com
Matt Ferrell: [e-mail].
COMPANY: Great Lakes Dredging & Dock, LLC SUBJECT: W912HP-18-R-0002 Lab Results
ADDRESS: 2122 York Rd PROJECT Post -Florence Renourishment
Oak Brook, IL 60523 NAME/NO:: Emerald Isle, NC
SchnabeLProject No. 19C19011.00
FROM: Stephen Hahn CC:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 418/19 5 Lab results
® AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ FOR YOUR USE
COMMENTS:
Attached, please find our lab results for:
Sta. 551+00
Sta. 552+00
Sta. 553+00
Sta. 553+00 EL. 12 - Dune Pre-existing material
Sta. 554+00
SIGNED:
Stephen Hahn — Project Manager
SENT VIA: ❑ .,.First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service ® Email 0 Other

Appendix
Summary
Of Laboratory Tests
Project Number:: beet 1 of 1
19C19011.00
Sample
Depthft
Boring
Sample
Description of Soil
a
•E
•E
c
m
m
E
Remaiks -
No.
Type
Specimen
_ S
J
J
Z'
C 2
yqy
a
go
? C
a
Elevation
l2
'y
'N
rr a
a N
e
v a
-
8
z�
'._-Pi
a
a
aze
vi
0.0
Poody Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
_
Sta. 551+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1 %]
1.9
NP
NP
NP
0.9
1.1
4.0
0.0
Poody Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
- _
Sta: 552+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 2%]
2.5
NP
NP
NP
1.1
6.6
6.0
0.0
Poody Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
-
Sta. 553+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 3%]
1.7
NP
NP
NP
2.4
1.0
5.0
- 12.0
Poody Graded Sand (SP), light brown
Dune Pre-existing material
Sta. 553+00
Bag
(10YR6/3) [EsOmated shell content < 21 %]
2.0
NP
NP
NP
20.1
0.0
6.0
a
0.0
Poody Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
- - '
Sta. 554+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 2%] ,
2.6
NP
NP
NP
1.1
0.3
4.0
-
i
E
u
n
u
Notes:
1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.
in accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based
on testing indicated
#
f 2. Soil
classifications
are general
E and visual classification.
3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -indicates no test performed.
}i
project: Post-Flofence Renoufishment Project
m
g 4. ASTM Methods: Natural Moisture D2216, Atterberg D4318, Gradation D6913, Carbonate Content D4373.
--
o
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

° Yd
,•41,
v
Q

411

�.
Y� t �R.
uW
° n �.
� �� Y 9r
��.
. r ' ^'A

HYDROMETER
z
Z
w
U
W
a
11■■IINI11�1■■YIIYIIYYI■IYIIIIIY■IIINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
:11■■IIIIIII■■ni:111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII.�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' i®■■iiiiiii■■■iiiiiii■■ °��i■■iiiiiii■■iiiiiii■■
1!■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' II■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII�1■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIi1■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII►�■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■Illllli►i■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII\■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII��IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
r 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�41111111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
I
coarse fine
co arse medium . fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
I PL
I PI ITestMethod
•
Sta. 553+00 12.2 ft
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), light brown (10YR613) (Estimated
_
_
_
Atterberg
.
shell content 4 21%]
ASTM D431
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
ASTM D6913
37.5
0.713
0.339
0.197
20.1
79.9
0.0
0
w
5 Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/8
3/4
1
1.5
% Finer
00.0
00.0
00.8
24.1
57.2
68.2
73.9
75.2
79.9
84.2
85.5
85.5
100.0
sted Dale
Reviewed by
Calc by
415119
SRH
DLH
4 e
GRADATION CURVE
"y
I b
Project:
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC
��kk
Contract:
19D19011.00

�
r, (*(fi�n ?"Y.lw 1. 4xp vr'T. * '. .b
y. S ♦f. yXd
� .�•�<�_?
.. .
M
r
�: .,
s. 41 � a� � ��' �a..� {8 . �% t +�
9YJ `"r^ ..
_ . k 5
e '
r1 :y�ept { �
.
a ✓
•
5
i'Ur y
d�F' Y
•"�
.k�
�.
,n's-is ??��,,�".� �JF J.� � ,�..,'�:: ♦
_
s rven �} �,�y
° ram;
� " r�
.yy. it. .fit ugh :. e,/ g�,. '�
�~°
; � ti f.
•
; rr fi¢ r .
T./,
`
A�1 �,� J♦
..
fir..
-
�
.r; ViL ',J '�
J
i.
ay -.
pia;
.r .✓.�" �.a
°
tiR
a t � as a �
r � h
�� J`•' _
r. { � r
JA
.. r
i
i T
5
.. _. ,Rc. a.y _ J x � �
tf.:- �. '< �♦� -
- ry
.. �:
q _ r . x e - of .

0.s.
01 I
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Specimen
- Sample Description
LL
I PL
PI
Test Method
Poorty Graded Sand (SP), gray (Sy5111) [Estimated shell
NP
NP
NP
- Atterberg
*I
Sta. 553+00
0.0 It
content a 3/u]
ASTM D4318
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
I %Clay
e
ASTM D6913
9.5
0.27-
0.196
0.157
2.4
96.6
1.0
0
uJ
w
g
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
101)
50
30
16
1 10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
01.0
01.0.
06.1
69.7
89.7
93.4
95.1
95.7
97.6
1 100.0
3 Tested By
Tested Date
Reviewed by
Cale by
.MDE
4/3/19
SRH
MDE
r _
GRADATION CURVE
Project:
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
;' a •'.'
�>
Emerald Isle, SC
r
.
=t �°
Carteret Co., NC
Contract: 19C19011.00
ti

� � 1,,. , ,., 1
1 �u , I!©t
+�;`^
z
4
d
„
i
•
r v
.� M..
g� ' y
� a
..
^
..
F .
a.
i. r
q. .' -� #..
�
...
�
� tl. 5
�
4x
e �
♦.
�
� n
v
5 ( h i4
{X �vr1.;.r �
fu ..
-
-
.fi
.� -
p f �..J
' • Wp•
X < r �
e i a
.
��
•
Fl
i�'.I') 1
-
,„� �
,, a,,. _r
��
�y .. F b � t' r -
'
�..
_
3.. n "X sE.�°
M
..
t
. c
x
- -
�'
� '
-
..
.
s''
�
F,'
..
nK P
�F
t �., a
.(
�
•.
^
rd
•
�x°.x
a
F ' 1 �
.' t� f

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
01
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
SILT OR CLAY
I
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
I PL I
PI ITestMethod
•
Sta. 552+00
0.0 ft
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (6Y611) [Estimated shell
NP
NP
NP
Afterberg
content <2/]
ASTM D4318
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
L %Clay
a
ASTM D6913
9.5
0.167
0.104
0.079
1.1
92.3
6.6
0
u
ui
5
a
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
01.1
06.6
56.2
81.4
90.8
94.6
95.6
98.0
98.9
100.0
Tested By Tested Date I Reviewed by Calc by
MDE 4/3/19 SRH MD
E
GRADATION CURVE
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

0
a
'
4
�
Sta. 551+00 - Berm pumped material

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
Icoarse I medium I fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
I PL
I PI
Test Method
•
Sta. 551+00 0.0 ft
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (SYS11) [Estimated shell
content < 1 /,]
NP
NP
NP
Atterberg
ASTM D4318
Test Method -
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
7 ASTM D6913
9.6
. 0.36
0.218
0.16
0.9
98.0
1.1
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
1 200
1 100
1 50
1 30 .
16
10
1 8
4
3/81,
0/6Finer -
01.1
01.1
05.7
51.0
85.1
94.7
96.4
98.0
99.1
100.0
sted By Tested Date
MDE 1 4/3/19
Calc by
GRADATION CURVE
Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

COBBLES
GRAVEL
SILT OR CLAY
coarsefine
coarse medamND fine
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/8"
%Finer
00.3
00.3
04.6
62.1
87.1
94.0
96.7
97.3
98.9
100.0
11■■IINIIIIIY■IYIIYI�i�1111YII111YYIIIN1111■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IINIi11■■IIIIIII■i�IIIIlI1■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■III�l11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' 11�■IIIIIII®IIIIIII■■1111111�■IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII►\■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' 11■■IIIIIII®IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■■IIIIIII■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■Illllle■■IIIIIII■I�IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■i■II�IIII■■IIIIIII■■
MMM
man
'DON-CURVE
Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC
•r��
u
a

TRANSMITTAL OF SHOP DRAWINGS, EQUIPMENT DATA, MATERIAL SAMPLES, OR MANUFACTURER'S
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE
DATE
4/5/2019
TRANSMITTAL NO.
02882-10
SECTION I - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS (This section will be initiated by the contractor)
TO:
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
4700 Fall of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609
FROM:
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC 2122
York Road
Oak Brook, IL 60523
CONTRACT NO.
10312
NEW TRANSMrrrAL
❑ RESUBMIRAL OF TRANSMITTAL
SPECIFICATION SEC. NO.
02882 Beachflll
PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION:
POST-FLORENCE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT - PHASE 1 CARTERET COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA -
THIS TRANSMITTAL IS FOR:
O INFORMATION ❑ APPROVAL BY CE
DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL ITEM
SUBMITTAL TYPE
-SPECIFICATION
PARAGRAPH NO.
VARIATION
MOFFATT & NICHOL REVIEW
CODE
Detailed Sediment Analysis 603+00, 684+00, 684+50
TEST REPORTS
1.3
N
REMARKS:
Post -placement Beach Fill Sample Lab Results for Station 503+00 and as requested, two more representative samples
q P P
were collected for Station 684+00.
I certify that the above submitted Items have been reviewed in detail and are correct and
Imes ise sconformance with the contract drawings and specifications except as
otherwise stated. 09�uM.�9anraames.u..
Adrian Salina? oa:cnaarunaun.xaoetakw ored99a
odc =�-awin snl:m: r„9mK.mwlro cnoua
5 emafF-asal I,us@9Wdwm i=as
Oatc 1a19.6L511a:45r15-06'dY
NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR

Schnabel
E N G I N E'E. R I N G
TRANSMITTAL
104 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 420
West Columbia, SC 29169
T/ 803-796-6240
F/ 803-796-6250
TO: Adrian Salinas: Asalinas(rDgldd.com DATE: 4/8/19
Chris Pomfret: CPomfretcDgldd.com
Mike Huebsch: MHuebsch(cDgldd.com
Matt Ferrell: [e-mail]
COMPANY:' Great Lakes Dredging & Dock; LLC SUBJECT:. W912HP-18-R-0002 Lab Results
ADDRESS: 2122 York Rd PROJECT Post -Florence Renourishment
Oak Brook, IL 60523 NAME/NO.: Emerald Isle, NC
Schnabel Project No. 19C19011.00
FROM: Stephen Hahn CC:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 4/4/19 3 Lab results
® AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ FOR YOUR USE
COMMENTS:
Attached, please find our lab results for:
Sta. 503+00 Range 60
Sta. 684+00 Range 110
Sta. 684+50 Range 90
SIGNED:
Stephen Hahn — Project Manager
SENT VIA: ❑ First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service ® Email ❑ Other

'Appendix
Summa Of Laboratory Tests
7
Sheet 1 of 1
Number: 19C19011.00
Project
Sample
Depth
X
Boring
ft
Sample
Description of Sall
o
.E
•E
0
c
a
m
m
E
Remarks
No.
Type
Specimen
a
J
y,
c m
c W
m
Viz
Elevation
N «
ow
N
N
Ca
o
a"'
c
v'O
ft
Z2
•.-1
a
a
ez
az
DU
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand ISO), gray (5Y511)
Range 60
Sta. 503+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1%]
2.3
NP
NP
NP
0.0
2.2
4.0
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y511)
Range 110
Sta. 684+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content <1%]
0.9
NO
.NP
NP
0.1
1.4
6.0
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y511)
Range 90
Sta. 684+50
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1%]
0.8
NP
NP
NP
0.5
0.7
5.0
Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.
ASTM D2487(as
based
on testing
Indicatedand
2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with applicable),
WWWZ�
visual classification.�3.
Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; — indicates no test performed.0`
Project: Post -Florence Renourlshment Project
4. ASTM Methods: Natural Moisture D2216, Atterberg D4318, Gradation D6913, Carbonate Content D4373.
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I. U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
11■■IIIIIIIY■YIIYIIYYYIlliiillYl■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIII►�1■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Ililll�i■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�lIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■L11111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIdL111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
111
AND
SILT,OR CLAY
coa se fine
coarse medSme
tin
Sta. 503+00
Test Method
ASTM D6913
0.0 It Poorly Graded t<Sand
nd(SP), gray (6Y511)[Estimated
shell cWoo D60 D30 D10
4.76 0.239 0.177 0.123
Percent Finer
LL I PL I PI I Test Method
NP NP NIP Atterberg
ASTM D431
%Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
0.0 97.8 2.2
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
1 4
3/8"
% Finer
02.2
02.2
13.2
82.9
98.0
99.5
99.8
99.8
1 100.0
1 100.0
Tested By Tested. Date I Reviewed by
MDE 412I19 - SRH
Calc by
MDE
GRADATION CURVE
Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC
Contract: 19C 19011.00

1 1 11 11
.1
11■�■IINIIIIY■YIIVIIYYYIi�iiillY■IIINI111■■IIIIIII■■
.,11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIl111■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Illlllii■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■!IIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■!IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■\il!!111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine
coarse I medium I fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
PL
I PI
ITestMethod
•
Ste. 684+00
0.0 tt
Poorly ra �� Sand (SP), gray (5Y5N) [Estimated shell
NP
NP
NP
Atterberg
contentASTM
D4318
m Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
I %Clay
e
ASTM D6913
9.5
0.26
0.192
1 0.156
0.1
98.5
1.4
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16,
% Finer
01.4
01.4
06.1
73.9
98.6
99.6
99.7
99.7
99.9
100.0
Date Reviewed by Cale by
9 SRH MDE
GRADATION CURVE
Post -Florence Rencurishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

1,
:' 11■■IINIIIIY�I�IIYIIYIIrililiiillY■IIINI111■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■i11�1111�■IIIIIi1■■IIIIIII��II�IIII�■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' 11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IINIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■l�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■\`il'�111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium I fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
PL
PI
Test Method
•
Sta. 684+50
0.0 ft
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y511) [Estimated shell
NP
NP
NP
Atterberg
content<1%1
ASTM D4318
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
Q ASTM D6913
19
0.266
0.194
0.157
1 0.5
98.8 1
0.7
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
1 8
1 4
3/8"
3/4"
% Finer
00.5
00.7
05.6
71.5
97.9
99.3
99.4
1 99.4
1 99.5
99.7
1 100.0
Tested
MDE 4/2/19 SRH
MDE
GRADATION CURVE
Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

TRANSMITTAL OF SHOP DRAWINGS, EQUIPMENT DATA, MATERIAL SAMPLES, OR MANUFACTURER'S
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE
DATE
4/9/2019
TRANSMITTAL NO.
02882-9
SECTION I - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS (This section will be initiated by the contractor)
TO: • .• I ... +'
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers ,
4700 Fall ofiNeuse'Road,"Suite 300
RaleighNC'27609 ; ` ' ;,:
FROM:
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC 2122
York Road
Oak Brook, IL 60523
CONTRACT NO.
10312
O NEWTRANSMITTAL
❑ RESUBMI TA OF TPANSMITTA
SPECIFICATION -SEC; NO.
02882 BeaChiflll, •_ _
PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION;
POST-FLORENCE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT- PHASE 7 CARTERET COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
THIS TRANSMITTAL IS FOR:
Q INFORMATION ❑APPROVAL BY CE
DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL ITEM
SUBMITTAL TYPE
SPECIFICATION
PARAGRAPH NO.
VARIA11ON
MOFFATT 6 NICHOL REVIEW
CODE
Detailed Sediment Analysis 551+00 to 554+00
TEST REPORTS
1.3
N
REMARKS: •
As requested, Post -placement Beach Fill Sample Lab Results for representative pumped material within Stations
Q P P P P P
550+00 - 554+00. Samples were collected eve 100ft for stations 551+00, 552+00, 553+00 and 554+00. One more
P every
sample was also collected at station 553+00 from the Dune representing Dune pre-existing material.
_
-
I certify that the above submitted Items have been reviewed In detail and are correct and
In anvi.he statedormanco with the contras drawings and specifications except as
oNerwise stated.
ei0nelbsl0"ea evnenan sdmu
onnano"sannaxa=e,.dtakmD,eeses
a I I na ,mar":;'<In'rnsl"""°"'nncanwl
Adrian Salina"emallm IinesO9lel m muz
WIe: 20190I. V9]1.ia4V00
NAME AND SIG ATUREOF CONTRACTOR

Schnabel
E N G I N E E R I N G
TRANSMITTAL
104 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 420
West Columbia, SC 29169
T/ 803-796-6240
F/ 803-796-6250
TO: Adrian Salinas: Asalinas(abgldd.com DATE: 4/8/19
Chris Pomfret: CPomfretna aldd.com
Mike Huebsch: MHuebsch(c gldd.com
Matt Ferrell: [e-mail]
COMPANY: Great Lakes Dredging & Dock, LLC SUBJECT: W912HP-18-R-0002 Lab Results
ADDRESS: 2122 York Rd PROJECT Post -Florence Renourishment
Oak Brook, IL 60523 NAME/NO.: Emerald Isle, NC
Schnabel Project No. 19C19011.00
FROM: Stephen Hahn CC:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
3b results
® AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ FOR YOUR USE
COMMENTS:
Attached, please find our lab results for:
Sta. 551+00
Sta. 552+00
Sta. 553+00
Sta. 553+00 EL. 12 - Dune Pre-existing material
Sta.554+00 -
SIGNED:
Stephen Hahn — Project Manager
SENT VIA: ❑ rr .First Class Mail 0 Overnight Service ® Email ❑ Other

Appendix
Summary
Of LaboratoryTests
Sheet 1 of 1
7
Project Number: 19C19011.00
Sample
-
Boring
No.,.
.
-
Depth
Sample
Type
_
Description of Soil
Specimen -
o
w
y
zz
.E
J
v
•�
n
.E
"
'h
Q.
X
c
°
'y
a
'm
c m
3'�
m V
zo
=
c con
h o
R N
azo
ES
w o
R y
oU
-
Remarks
Elevation
ft
-
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
-
Sta.551+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content<1%]
1.9
NP
NP
NP
0.9
1.1
4.0�
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
Sta:552+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content< 2%]
2.5
NP
NP
NP
1.1
6.6
6.0
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
-
Ste. 553+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content <3%]
1.7
NP
NP
NP
2.4
1.0
5.0
12.0 -
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), light brown
Dune Pre-existing material
Sta. 553+00
Bag
(10YR613) [Estimated shell content < 21 %]
2.0
NP
NP
NP
20.1
0.0
6.0
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
-
Sla. 554+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 20/61
2.6
NP
NP
NP
1.1
0.3
4.0
Notes: 1 Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.
2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based on testing indicated'
and visual classification.`!'�n['t1'
3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed.
_ 4. ASTM Methods: Natural Moisture D2216, Atterberg D4318, Gradation D6913,
Carbonate Content
D4373.
-
Project: Post -Florence Renourlshment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

i
Sta. 553+00 - Dune
Sta. 553+00 - Dune
material
Pre-existing
•- Y E [
c a .c,,.�F•...a..a..s a•i e P'�b �i� �
4 �
'�epx.+j f.w } ��
x
eY-.db Y^d.�.d
•
� Y # "i
_��� T' '
....yyam� _ 5Y♦
_�-
•4' ji .F.,T ,�. 'S Y pi. 0..a
t ��.tUgh��irY,h a �M1�i'P �`�'� ".ib 6.v`�*»-„� ��:rg�a��.f%e f*IZ t✓.tt f. `� + w 'v -,� -'
-
°_;♦° • x r - Yx is t * . ' � x, - + � '�'
" r ,� - a , •mod :� .* 4 i .. � � a "».,*

`
x r
,.
Y
JF CAS dA.
/ / 1
r
3 r,
+ f'�
' _. w .y.FJ.{-r� f t �,.�P 1 fro �•.a �� •�..
��?t C f
3••i�i f� , a•
4r•.>,*> n
F i
✓x�•. s^-s 9
1 •F _ e .'
`'t obi
_
t '�.�-J.
.r - C. :rt •� �
A•r ti'tll K
$ ^
'C' to fr
f �'
�. 1

U.S. SIEVEOPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
" 11■■IIIIII►lY■YIIYIIYY■IYIIIIIYWIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
:11■■IIIIIII■■di1111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
'' 11■■IIIIIII■e111111��■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■e
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' 11■WIIIIII�■WIIIIII�■■II tl�1�■II�III�■■IIIIIII■
11■■IIIIIII■elllllll■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■e1111111■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■elllllll■■IIIIIII■■Illllf 1■■IIIIIII■elllllll■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■elllllll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII��IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
r 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■l�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
rr r r- r r r rr
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
I
coarse fine
coarse I medium . fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
I PL
I PI
ITestMethod
Sta. 553+00 12.2 It
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), light brown (10YR613) [Estimated
_
_
Atterberg
shell content < 21%]
ASTM D431 B
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
ravel
%Silt
%Clay
_and
ASTM D6913
37.5
0.713
0.339
0.197
20.1
79.9
0.0
a
u
ui
5 Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
1 4
3/8
3/4
1
1.5
% Finer
00.0
00.0
00.8
24.1
57.2
68.2
73.9
75.2
1 79.9
84.2
85.5
85.5
100.0
5 Tested By
Tested Date
Reviewed by
Calc by
DLH
4/5119
SRH
DLH
--- -
GRADATION CURVE
m
5ch,11 a
Project:
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
NIL
Emerald Isle, SC
r
t�,El �NY�E
N
,_.
Carteret Co., NC
w
w — —r - — --
i >_ — _ =-'
Contract:
19C19011.00

o, v.
'tin
.1im I
pit: 1.3i ri
I,, .
Alt. y
v4
Ab,.
j-t
�27 4
J. N-
, Ist, ,
If
Alv
, 41
Nw
It
•s .�< ��,r i� e: ,�>. `a '�i ',' ��ff�u 't 1'1:7R,"`%~4 t -�F ,.1 j(� 1y ,
41

a
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
PL
PI
Test Method
•
Sta. 553+00
0.0 It
Poorly Graded Sand 1SPl, gray 15y511) [Estimated shell
NP
NP
NP
Atterberg
content<3%1
ASTM D4318
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
ASTM D6913
9.5
0.27
0.195
0.157
2.4
96.5
1.0
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/S1.
% Finer
01.0
01.0
06.1
69.7
89.7
93.4
95.1
95.7
97.6
100.0
Tested By Tested Date Reviewed by
MDE 4/3119 SRH
i
Calc b
MDE
GRADATION CURVE
Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC
Contract: 19 C 19 011.0 0

•t - 1 IMF
Yy r f
M J _
IQ
100
4 ^
�` yrl si :'/tt t t�•� �� wn . � � .'3S �t . � ,.,�0 i #`- 78.
t
i.:. j.'�' �♦ .. (�ZU�'we..y5 jw ��� �.JVF ,..f .Yii j' e. 4. v. ti� �i'�'J+<ti- � � �• t`�C t� � v i 1 .l .
' J L t, J .., gar � ♦ ,,.t. -`.r'� il' 1'� �• }. ", �i • � .
fr
a. i. f i:�:Y t��� �'t �' ,+�+inT���}aiaj,r•�+�`* 'K f ,' J "w.'.fp teA ''.t•e tJ� � �� '' ,�. -v. ..
�, �� � ,e••r AJ. r Y• y.�"v. j ...l.'-{w'r t i i't✓ �' � • rl i l . t - :- _
ti'}a� j sj,� � tii� i • '. t I` � � t {{� vi • n t "i V �t * e_ ', -
.rSf �`ti/3Y' a 7`t S }Y' t �Y i Y }� i fl �#+ .., �t � `�• r .r - � _
dl' �•.s i'z'�� j'.� b... rr ,. r�•••.m;FJ,J1 - Mj 1 F f. ��''1f��� �;.
,_ �� u;:��f+�t,r{:��- f j�','•j✓ rt'%'r.j+J✓j..' { ,eY)r, r, . �
t q "/ 1 "}+� ter . N •' y t, y■
y "
s { ♦ { yF [ }/�,��yy'�,f r ... 's t. • may( � a V r� � I �� I i • � .
tA ..Y IY, {rr`S4-F��II �f � ✓ �I f �' 1�"�I �_, �iiRt 1'j' 1 ,.-
ae rc s ,t �✓ a r`:
ell „ t lit
rt. .+�F . �✓ PF t'r r { lr � .r ate' 4 i; � •
ild
fee
jf i`�+• - ���. f if a •r' 4.' �/ f J•r t , �, v'.F J 1 e� �• , ,
i 1 ,�' r �. a• � � � .�, i � � r. 1 �'��„, ,dui � t � � �- �
—do, .tl, .N J. r' •.i: f.'Y Y! t L. !.

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
11■1■IIIIIIIY■YIIYI�iii�llllY��IIIYYIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■i�nl►t �11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
:11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII!■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII►\■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII\1■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■!!IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■��IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■��IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�11111111■■IIIIIII■■
" 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■III'1111■■IIIIIII■■
r 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
I SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine
I coarse I medium I fine
Sta. 552+00
Test Method
ASTM D6913
Sample Description LL PL PI Test Method
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y511) [Estimated shell Atterberg
0.0 It
content 52%] NP NP NP ASTM D4318
D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
9.5 0.167 0.104 0.079 1.1 92.3 6.6
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
- 4
3/8"
% Finer
01.1
06.6
56.2
81.4
90.8
94.6
95.6
98.0
98.9
100.0
3
g Tested By
Tested Date
Reviewed by
CI by
MDE
4/3/19
SRH
MI)E
GRADATION CURVE
m
Project:
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
F � r- F �` S
� + `-° � '"`'
Carteret Co., NC
w — =
N
Contract:
19C19011.00

Q
A� 4�
.� � y..Ft" h _ -.N v _ w rp t• � 'ti' '1➢' '6, r. r `+. c � r
.,.`�,`. '2 -. {F �"y. ». y t;'. r♦ ram' m ^' 4` tA� } �y.
•y a,,.+v `' ! tg��' k.:.,.M4' S r r �n -'". Ira 1P r,,, 'lie tr✓ +i� :.+
�•� 3�"`., .Sw1I ^t rC� � yR'Ev�..r`3+1}} �trry,_� �.t�<.y,��'. 1 w..: t,� "•-� �ei i,:� .�•..
Ar
5.
1
2
"rl! ad' - kyAt r,/+:r< Jj�T: M'i i�L-0L 1:.'d r a•ic air T!-xt+ArS '' fr•.r. ill r f . t .. r r f r.. .. ` i
� M1 �,`� � ! ytY..r'1}I !'r f t !`n ; r-. f. a r. •'r r r ri .5'. t . r a iI e
,�>� � ''.•'y'w 4r �e{IP ,y `'Y �; X t`.s tk ' .., r M„ _ ' � t • ; y ` ,,�}: .
I A �� 1 '.;.•' i f F .fit. ...
w ,� r 11 C• r r•t �, r � ,

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
RLU
11■rIIYIIIIY�IYIIYI�ii�411�YII111Y■IIIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■`,IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
. � 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIi�111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
:11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�' 11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII!■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIlO■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII�I■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII��■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII��IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IIYIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IIYIIII■■IIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■l�I11�111■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■\�►_III■■IIIIIII■■
I
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
I
ccarse fine
coarse I medium fine
Specimen
Sample Description
I LLJ
PL
I PI
Test Method
•
Sta. 551+00 0.0 ft
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (SYS11) [Estimated shell
content<1/o]
NP
NP
NP
Atterberg
ASTM D4318
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
ASTM D6913
9.5
1 0.36
0.218
0.16
0.9
98.0
1.1
0
w
A Percent Finer
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
01.1
01.1
05.7
51.0
85.1
94.7
96.4
98.0
99.1
100.0
Tested By Tested Date Reviewed by Calc by
MDE 4/3/19 SRH MDE
N
S, �r n
ti
Col
I eE flvt;rl`7t � 1�.kY�r Lam.- K,�I�''t'11
GRADATION CURVE
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC
19C19011.00

,+,y��y�,�, F �j •fit � _ '/: .. -,• -
y
y..•T. C�^�yS'��3�:Yw.ti T -1�.. Yv� Y • - 7 rr � '.
.`e1r1V Y
Y..* �' r ..R'I d 4,r^+5.. , .s ,n, n' +f`3. ag'yrt •' a _ + \ ` -Y -. }•; •,'
�yY r: \ 7 j4 f'r a. 4 � . -� � * . v, r atl:a- ,}ai •f
"`+Y 2� r'•'�J .. i 'p Y+f �� �tl✓a '19G _ � t r j 1 `- ''
st� .. % \ .. ' !, �I. '� .�IRr r , Y"►.'•�'� • tr! . !. 1 r fr.^v t . Y ..
.4 i 99
/
.Irr,r f�S�.^^�' Y1llri �! 1 / � ,v 1• � � r 3.
- 4 r�lr � J' .r. j / t `'I'- ✓ /SpyFr .7. w� 'Y� /{, r; .
lid/rX.' +`. - •i jM1". •Y I
7,
r-
I
y

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN
r r r r rr
" 11■■IIIIIIIY■YIIYI�i::111iYII111Y■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■`IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■III�,l11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
�,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII!■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIism
, II■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII�I■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine
lonarsel medium I fine
Sta. 554+00
Test Method
ASTM D6913
Sample Description
0.0 ft Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (SYS11) [Estimated shell
content < 20/61
D100 D60 D30 D10
9.5 0.293 0.204 0.16
Percent Finer
LL I PL PI I Test Method
NP NP NP Atterberg
ASTM D4318
%Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
1.1 98.6 0.3
Sieve Size
230
200
100
1 50-
30
1 16
10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
00.3
1 00.3
1 04.6
1 62.1
87.1
1 94.0
96.7
97.3
1 98.9
1 100.0
g Tested By
Tested Date
Reviewed by
Calc by
$ MDE
413/19
SRH
MDE
GRADATION CURVE
r
c
Project:
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
I
Carteret Co., NC
N
Contract: 19C19011.00

TRANSMITTAL OF SHOP DRAWINGS, EQUIPMENT DATA, MATERIAL SAMPLES, OR MANUFACTURER'S
DATE
TRANSMITTAL NO.
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE
4/5/2019
02882-10
SECTION I • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS (This section will be initiated by the contractor)
TO:
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
4700 Fall of Neuse Road, Suite 300
FROM:
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC 2122
York Road
CONTRACT NO.
10312
0 NEW TRANSMITTAL
RESUBMrTrAL OF TRANSMITTAL
❑
Raleigh, NC 27609
Oak Brook, IL 60523
SPECIFICATION SEC. NO. PROJECTTITLEAND LOCATION: THIS TRANSMITTAL
POST-FLORENCE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT - PHASE 1 CARTERET COUNTY,
02882 BeaChfill NORTH CAROLINA Q INFORMATION
IS FOR
❑ APPROVAL BY CE
DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL ITEM SUBMITTAL TYPE SPECIFICATION
PARAGRAPH NO,
VARIATION MOFFATTBNICHOLREWEW
CODE
Detailed Sediment Analysis 503+00, 684+00, 684+50
TEST REPORTS
1.3
N
REMARKS:
Post -placement Beach Fill Sam le Lab Results for Station 503+00 and as requested, two more representative samples
P P 9 P P
were collected for Station 684+00. _
I certify that the above submitted Items have been reviewed In detail and are comeet one
in the i.. s aced.confononce with Me contractdre"V end specifications except as
otherwise stated. oiymiyesnanyneaaesdw.
k ou dmnG Synemsaginee,/sce e&
Adrian Salina onm=Amia„saiuy-- reUsr.waaor.asea
e,ruJ=+ulim,6glEQaom ¢e5
/ Oa[¢:lm9.ei.e909:CSA5eG'W
NAME AND SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR

Schnabel
E N G I N E E R I N G
TRANSMITTAL
104 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 420
West Columbia, SC 29169
T/ 803-796-6240
F/ 803-796-6250
TO: Adrian Salinas: Asalinas(cDgldd.com DATE: 4/8/19
Chris Pomfret: CPomfret(a)gldd.com
Mike Huebsch: MHuebsch(cDgldd.com
Matt Ferrell: [e-mail]
COMPANY: Great Lakes Dredging & Dock; LLC SUBJECT: W912HP-18-R-0002 Lab Results
ADDRESS: 2122 York Rd PROJECT Post -Florence Renourishment
Oak Brook, IL 60523 NAME/NO.: Emerald Isle, NC
Schnabel Project No. 19C19011.00
FROM: Stephen Hahn CC:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 4/4/19 3 Lab results
® AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ FOR YOUR USE
COMMENTS:
Attached, please find our lab results for:
Sta. 503+00 Range 60
Sta. 684+00 Range 110
Sta. 684+50 Range 90
Stephen Hahn — Project Manager
SENT VIA: 0 First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service M Email ❑ Other

Appendix
Summary Of Laboratory Tests
Sheet 1 of 1
19C19011.00
Project Number:
Sample
Depth
x
Boring
ft
Sample
Description of Soil
V
.E
•E
v
c
m
m
m
E
Remarks
No.
Type
Specimen
m
J
m
c va
m
Elevation
w
a
m
o
3'o
o v
0 o
w
° c
V a
ft
3
N
.2
N
0Q.
a
2g
J
a
e z
a z
a C7
0.0
poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
Range 60
Sta. 503+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1%]
2.3
NP
NP
NP
0.0
2.2
4.0
0.0
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
Range 110
Sta. 684+00
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1 %]
0.9
NP
NP
NP
0.1
1.4
6.0
0.0
poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (5Y5/1)
Range 90
Ste. 684+50
Bag
[Estimated shell content < 1 %]
0.8
NP
NP
NP
0.5
0:7
5.0
!I
I
i
j
•
• Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.
indicated
Schna be l
2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based
on testing
and visual classification.
E N G71 N E E' Rrl N G
3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; — indicates no test performed.
_
.� '
Project: Post -Florence Renourlshment Project
4. ASTM Methods: Natural Moisture D2216, Atterberg D4318, Gradation D6913, Carbonate Content D4373.
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I
HYDROMETER
101
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Sta. 503+00
Test Method
ASTM D6913
Sample Description
0.0 ft Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (SY511) [Estimated
shell content < 1 %]
D160 D60 D30 D10
4.75 0.239 0.177 0.123
Percent Finer
LL PL PI Te
st Method
NP NP NP Atterberg
ASTM D4318
%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
0.0 97.8 1 2.2
Sieve Size
230
200
100
50
30
16
10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
02.2
02.2
13.2
82.9
98.0
99.5
99.8
99.8
100.0
100.0
5 Tested By Tested, Date Reviewed by Calc by
MDE 4/2/19 - SRH MDE
7A GRADATION CURVE
w �h Project: Post -Florence Renourishment Project
cnabLEmerald Isle, SC
E N G IN E. E R I NN Carteret Co., NC
- Contract: 19C19011.00

OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
11■1■IIIIIIIY■YIIYIIYII�Iiliiil1YY11111111■■IIIIIII■■
.11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
.' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Illlllii■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■
' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■!!IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■il�!111■■IIIIIII■■
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
I SILT OR CLAY
I
coarse I fine
I coarse I medium I fine
Specimen
Sample Description
LL
I PL
I PI
I Test Method
Sta. 684+00 0.0 k
Poorly Graded Sand (SP), gray (SYSl1) [Estimated shell
content<1^/61
NP
NP
NP
Akerberg
ASTM D431E
Test Method
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
I %Clay
ASTM D6913
9.5
0.26
0.192
0.156
0.1
98.5
1.4
Percent Finer
Sieve Size
1 230
200
100
1 50
30
16
1 10
8
4
3/8"
% Finer
01.4
01.4
06.1
73.9
98.6
99.6
99.7
99.7
99.9
100.0
Tested By Tested Dale Reviewed by Calc by
MDE 4/2/19 SRH MDE
IL742--_ Schnable. l Prc
E'NGIN'EERING
Col
GRADATION CURVE
Post -Florence Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle, SC
Carteret Co., NC'

11■rIIIIIIIY�I�IIII�IIrIlihilil1YY11111111■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIII 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
:,11■MINE ■■IIIIIII■■NOR ■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■UNION
■
,11■■IIIIIII■■ HIM
■■IIIIIII!■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■HIM III■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIMill ■■
,11■■IIIIIII0■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII111111IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IHIM ■Ell IIIII IIEll IIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIII III■Mill IIII II■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII ■■IIUNION
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■m1111111■■MINE
■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII 1111NE IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■1111111■■IIIIIII■1111111■■IIIIIII■■
11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
,11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■\`11A1111■IIIIIII■■
.r
•1 11
COBBLES
GRAVEL
Sieve Size

May 2018 JUN 152018 Page 1 of 16
DCM WI

30
25
20
15
r
1
r
0 10
>
z
a
5
c
0
a
0
w
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BBOSS REP June it — 1313011 CUT —BB011 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— BB011 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — 1313011 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
May 2018 JUN 15 2018 Page 2 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
0 10
zz
v 5
c
2
a 0
W
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-20
-200
May 2018
\
\\\
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB017 REP June 11
— BB017 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB017 CUT
— BB017 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB017 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
—First Row Of Structures
JUN 15 2018
Page 3 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
r
Z
a
5
c
0
m
\
a' 0
W
-5
\
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BB025 REP June 11 — BB025 CUT —BB025 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— BB025 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB025 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft —First Row Of Structures
KCIiCIVtU
May 2018 JUN 15 2018 Page 4 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON NC

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-20
-200
May 2018
r
r
Vrr
r� 1,
4
r
r
L-
-100 0 100 200 300 400 Soo 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB030 REP June 11
— BB030 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB030 CUT
— BB030 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB030 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 15 2018
Page 5 of 16
DCM WILMINr.Tnm

30
25
20
15
\
Is
\
\
0 10
�\
z
--
\
\
O
n
'm
\
0
W
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BB035 REP June 11 — BB035 CUT — BB035 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— BB035 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB035 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
May2018 JUN 152018 Page 6of16
QCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
r
r
r
1,
10
z
;
5
a
,
c
w 0
W
♦\
-5
-10
-15
_20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BB042 REP June 11 —BB042 CUT —BB042 Min Fill:25 cy/ft
— BB042 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB042 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
Kt:l:tlVkU
May 2018 JUN 15 2018 Page 7 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON- NC

30
25
20
15
0 10
5
b
e
o
�
�
i 0
w
W
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BB046 REP June 11 — BB046 CUT — BB046 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— BB046 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB046 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
May2018 JUN 15,'_0i8 Page 8of16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
R�z
15
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200
May 2018
�
q
tii
\
\
\
\
\
1
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB050 REP June 11
— BB050 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BBO50 CUT
— BB050 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— B8050 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
Page 9 of 16
DCM WIl 94IAIr:TnN hlf`

30
25
r�
15
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200
May 2018
A
NNI-
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----•BB058 REP June 11 — BB058 CUT
— BB058 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — B8058 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— B8058 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 15 2018
Page 10 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NO

30
25
20
15
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100
May 2018
r
r
r
r
i
r
t
r
r
. t
0 100 200
-----BB065 REP June 11
— BB065 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
— BB065 CUT
—88065 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— B8065 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
RECEIVED
JUN 15 Z018
Page 11 of 16
DCM WIL

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-2D
-200
May 2018
r, r,
ur
r
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB070 REP June 11
B8070 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB070 CUT
— BB070 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB070 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
J U N 15 118
Page 12 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
a 10
v 5
2
a� 0
W
-5
-10
-15 .
-20
-200
May 2018
r5
r�
r
r
r
:i
r
\
\
100 0 100 200
-----BB075 REP June 11
— BB075 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
— BB075 CUT
— BB075 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB075 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 15 2018
Page 13 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-2U
-200
May 2018
n
11
1 1
1 1
1
r/
1
1
1
1
1
1
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----•BB079 REP June 11
BB079 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB079 CUT
— BB079 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB079 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Raw Of Structures
r%CIVCr%
JUN 15 2018
Page 14 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
9 30
-5
-10
-155
-20
-200
r
,
n
� r
�I
N
1
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----- BB085 REP June 11 — BB085 CUT —BB085 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
BB085 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB085 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
- - DECEIVED
May2018 JUN 15 A
Page 15 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-20
-200
May 2018
n
r�
r r
n
n
r
r
r
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB100 REP lune11 — BB100 CUT
— BB100 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB100 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB100 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 1 5?018
Page 16 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

APPENDIX B
PLAN & CROSS SECTION VIEW
1. Typical Plan View — 50 Year Project
2. Typical Cross Section View — 50 Year Project
3. Permit Drawings — BBMBNP Project #1
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 7 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

1. Typical Plan View — 50 Year Project
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY

2. Typical Cross Section View — 50
Year Project
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY

30
25
20
15
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200
May 2018
h
• 1
I 1
j1
i 1
11
\
11
1
NI \ 1
1
1
\
\
\
\
\
`
\\
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB100 REP June 11
— BB100 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB100 CUT
— BB100 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB100 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 16 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

0
C
m
m
�
�
0
m
_
^�
m
n
o
30
25
20
15
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200
`�
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB006 REP June 11 — BB006 CUT
— BB006 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB006 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
—BB006 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
—First Row Of Structures
May 2018
JUN 0 7 M8
DCM WILMINGT17% Ivr
Page 1 of 16

30
25
20
15
1
i
10
1
�
z
5
1
0
d
lY
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
m ----• 138011 REP June 11 — BB011 CUT — BB011 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
m — 138011 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB011 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
m
v
May 2018
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 2 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
\
\
\
a00o 10
\
>
\\
z
r
v
5
a
G
\
O
�
0
a'
W
\\
-5
-10
-15
-2D
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
m-----BB017 REP June 11 — BB017 CUT — BB017 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
IT! —8B017 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB017 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft —First Row Of Structures
nrnrwrr�
P
May 2018
."W
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 3 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
z
\
a 5
c
0
io
0
\
a'
W
-5
-30
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
--- BB025 REP June 11 —BB025 CUT —BB025 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
m
CS — BB025 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB025 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
m
11
m Ktz ;tlVED
v
May2018 JUN 0 7 2018
Page 4 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON. NC

May2018 )Ulf 07�;J$ Page 5of16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

00
30
25
20
r
15
10
0
z
�
o
0
m'
W
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
m
-----BB035 REP June 11 —88035 CUT —BB035 Min Fill:25 cy/ft
m
— BB035 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB035 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
9i
May 2018
RECEIVED
JUN 0 7 ,018
OCM WILMINGTON, NC
Page 6 of 16

30
25
20
15
r
10
r
c
Z
5
a°
o
�
w 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet).,
----- BB042 REP June 11 — BB042 CUT —BB042 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
n— BBD42 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB042 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft —First Row Of Structures
m
May 2018
F1tt:tlVtU
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 7 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

B
30
25
20
15
r,
0 10
r,
'
z
\
a 5
c
C
\
\
>
\
0
a
W
-5
-10
.15
-20_
—
L
200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
�j ----- BB046 REP June 11 — BB046 CUT — B8046 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
m
BB046 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB046 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
W
N
0
00
C
m
M&Y2018
RGV CI VCLJ
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 8 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

v
0
v
_0
May 2018 JUN 0 7 2018 Page 9 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON. NC

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-20
-200
m
0
m
May 2018
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
v
♦
♦
♦
♦
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB058 REP June 11 — BB058 CUT
— BB058 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB058 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB058 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 0 7 2018
Page 10 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

W
25
Ym
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-2U
-200
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
\
\
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB065 REP June 11 — BB065 CUT
— BB065 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB065 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB065 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
May 2018
JUN 0 7 ^'8
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Page 11 of 16

W
30
25
20
15 '
-5 .
-10
_1f
-20
-200
May 2018
\
\
r
r
u�
u\
\
\
\
\
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB070 REP June 11
— BB070 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
— BB070 CUT
— BB070 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB070 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 072�18 Page 12of16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
-5
-10
-15
-2D
-200
A
mm
m
�h
i
\
\
\
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
-----BB075 REP June 11 — BB075 CUT
BB075 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB075 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
— BB075 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— First Row Of Structures
JUN 0 7 2C18
May 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Page 13 of 16

94
May 2018 Y 11` « 7 , , Page 14 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
-5 .
-10 .
-15 .
-20
-200
m
0
m
m
May 2018
n
r
r 5
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Distance Along Profile Seaward of Survey Origin (feet)
----• BB085 REP June 11 — BB085 CUT — BB085 Min Fill: 25 cy/ft
— BB085 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft — BB085 Max Fill: 75 cy/ft — First Row Of Structures
JUN07Page 15of16
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

30
25
20
15
i10
-5
-10
-15
-20
-200
h
• 1
1 1
i 1
1
1
j1
11
11
1
wl :�
1
1
1
1
_
,r1
-100 0 100 200 3
-----BB100 REP.lune 11
— BB100 Avg Fill: 50 cy/ft
JUN 0 7 , -:; Page 16 of 16
DCM WILMINGTON Nn

3. Permit Drawings — BBMBNP
Project #1
RECEIVED
JUL 13
DCM-MHD CITY

OCEAN HAZARD AEC NOTICE
Project is in an: Ocean Erodible Area High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
Property Owner: Cr:er C�un/TY
Property Address: -12 BeAao2T I WL-C-7
Date Lot Was Platted: NZA
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
special risks and conditions associated with development in this
area, which is subject to natural hazards such as storms, erosion
and currents. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
require that you receive an AEC Hazard Notice and
acknowledge that notice in writing before a permit for
development can be issued.
The Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
setbacks and dune alterations are designed to minimize, but not
eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting permits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development. Permits issued in the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened
by changes in shoreline configuration. The structure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within two (2) years of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
subsidence.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual long-term
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your property is
located is Q--J-t Jfeet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
SO feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
14 -1 R feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach nourishment
and relocation of threatened structures. Hard erosion control
structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties
and breakwaters are prohibited. Temporary sand bags may be
authorized under certain conditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the space below. Without
the proper signature, the application will not be complete.
Property Owner Signature Date
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sudden and massive storms and
erosion. Permits issued for development in this area expire on
December 31 of the third year following the year in which the
permit was issued. Shortly before work begins on the project
site, the Local Permit Officer must be contacted to determine the
vegetation line and setback distance at your site. If the property
has seen little change since the time of permit issuance, and the
proposed development can still meet the setback requirement,
the LPO will inform you that you may begin work. Substantial
progress on the project must be made within 60 days of this
setback determination, or the setback must be remeasured. Also,
the occurrence of a major shoreline change as the result of a
storm within the 60-day period will necessitate remeasurement
of the setback. It is important that you check with the LPO
before the permit expires for official approval to continue the
work after the permit has expired. Generally, if foundation
pilings have been placed and substantial progress is continuing,
permit renewal can be authorized. It is unlawful to continue
work after permit expiration.
For more information, contact.
I E L-:A-rtt F2 COP- -s
LoGal-�eer Dcnn Fuoaer-r c cR-o YjA"a
127 Cmvtoinlirt_ ORIvo ♦ XrVK-Sto(V
Address
NC 2840S
L•esatity
7q(o—`7302-
Phone Number
REC'MVEO
I)OM WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 9 9 2018
Revised May 2010

BEFORE YOU BUILD
Setting Back for Safety: A Guide to Wise Development Along the Oceanfront
When you build along the oceanfront, you take a calculated risk
Natural forces of water and wind collide with tons of force, even
on calm days. ,
Man-made-structare"annot be guaranteed to survive the force
of a hurricane. Long-term erosion (or barrier island migration)
may take from two to ten feet of the beach each year, and,
sooner or later, will threaten oceanfront structures. These are the
facts of life for oceanfont property owners.
The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) has adopted rules for
building along the oceanfront. The rules are intended to avoid an
unreasonable risk to life and property, and to limit public and
private losses from storm and long-term erosion. These rules
lessen but do not eliminate the element of risk in oceanfront
development.
As you consider building along the oceanfront, the CRC wants
you to understand the rules and the risks. With this knowledge,
you can make a more informed decision about where and how to
build in the coastal area.
The Rules
When you build.along the oceanfront, coastal management rules
require that the structure be sited to fit safely into the beach
environment.
Structures along the oceanfront, less than 5,000 square feet in
size, must be behind the frontal dune, landward of the crest of
the primary dune, and set back from the first line of stable
natural vegetation a distance equal to 30 times the annual
erosion rate (a minimum of 60 feet). The setback calculation
increases as the size of the structure increases [15A NCAC
7H.0306(a)(2)J. For example: A structure between 5,000 and
10,000 square feet would require a setback from the first line of
stable, natural vegetation to a distance equal to 60 times the
annual erosion rate (a minimum of 120 feet). The graduated
setback continues to increase through structure sizes greater than
100,000 square feet.
The Reasons
The beachfroat is an ever -changing landform. The beach and
the dunes are natural "shock absorbers," taking the beating of the
wind and waves and , protecting the inland areas. By
incorporating building setbacks,into the regulations; you have a
good chance of enjoying the full life of the structure. At first, it
seems very inviting to build your dream house as close to the
beach as possible, but in five years you could find the dream has
become a nightmare as high tides and storm tides threaten your
investment.
The Exception
The Coastal Resources Commission recognized that these rules,
initially passed in June 1979, might prove a hardship for some
property owners. Therefore, they established an exception for
lots that cannot meet the setback requirement. The exception
allows buildings in front of the current setback, if the following
conditions apply:
1) the lot must have been platted as of June 1, 1979, and is
not capable of being enlarged by combining with
adjoining land under the same ownership;
2) development must be constructed as far back on the
property as possible and in no case less than 60 feet
landward of the vegetation line;
3) no development can take place on the frontal dune;
4) special construction standards on piling depth and
square footage must be met; and
5) all other CAMA, state and local regulations must be
met.
The exception is not available in the Inlet Hazard Area.
To determine eligibility for the exception the Local Permit
Officer will make these measurements and observations:
required setback from vegetation line
v
exception setback (maximum feasible)
rear property line setback
max. allowable square footage on lowest floor
PRE -PERMIT STRUCTURE: INADEQUATE SETBACK
PERMITTED STRUCTURE, PAPoSTORM BEACH PROFILE
ADEQUATE POSTSTORM BEACH PROFILE
SETBACK
ONE YEAR AFTER STORMBEACH REBUILDING
After the storm, the house on the dune will be gone. The other house has a much better chance of survival.

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
fo?�- Macon Sot
�3 Mt fby+ MaLon IR
fftnl c aCLOV) rx 2`a5
IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIII I IIIIII II IIIIIIIII II II II III
9590 9402 3513 7275 7777 34
118 0360 0002 0052 5867
PS Forth 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
t Attach this card to the back of the Tailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
"OkmmocKs each s
�5'12 WAMOOCks Wn
WnSM M
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
9590 9402 3513 7275 7777 27
018 0360 0002 0052 5874
PS Form 061 1, July ZD1b PSN 753D-02-OM-9b59
COMPLETE THIS SECTION.
A. Sig�nattyre
Agent
❑
Addressee
B. R cei ed by fPdnted Neme) k1t. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter deliveryaddress below: ❑ No
I REEIVED
JUN 2 6. A
SBrvio09ypern vn�.nn,wrTS Pilerlt1aM611 Express®
Adult Signature
❑ Registered Mai]TM
Adult Signature ResMcted Delivery
❑ Registered Mall Restricted
Codified Mail®
Delivery
Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Collect on Delivery
Merchandise
Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
❑ Signature Confirmation'
Ireured Mal
❑ Signature Confirmation
Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
A. Signajure
B. / /1n / I ❑ Agent
r/ �'�_Z� : j (' A," -- ❑ Addressee
B. Received by "led Name) C. Data of Delivery
D. Is delivery address deferent from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, emeAEeE IVress E be ow. 0 No
JUN 2 6 2018
Servibelype—"nnv� l VDIPrldAVMtell
Express®
Adult Signature
❑ Registered Mail"
Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered Mail Restricted
Certified Mail®
Delivery
Certified Mal Restricted Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Collect on Delivery
Merchandise
Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
❑ Signature ConfirmatlonTM
Insured Mal
❑ Signature Confirmation
Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt

State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Canlinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

NC Division of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application Computer Sheet
AEC ro
F e Scheduled-1
CDAITS ✓ 3f>�S ✓ T
/yi K G
Applicant: r
Agent/Contractor: e o
Project Site County
Staff:
District: Wilmington
Project Name: Q�, 5 �� S
Rover File:
Initial date of applic tion submittal:
Date application "received as complete" in the Field office
Permit Authorization:
SITE DESCRIPTIOWPERMIT INFORMATION
rim
ORW: ❑Yes 4No I PNA: ❑Yes EgNo
Photos Taken: Yes ❑ No❑
Setback Required (riparian): ❑Yes No
Critical Habitat: Yes LJNo LjNot Sure
15 foot waiver obtained: Yes RNo
Hazard Notification Returned:
19Yes ❑No
SAV: []Yes ENNo Not Sure
Shell Bottom: ❑Yes ®No ❑ Not
Temporary Impacts: NYes No
Sure
Sandbags: 50Yes No Not Sure
Did the land use classification come
Mitigation Required (optional):
from county LUP: ❑Yes ❑No
❑Yes MNo
Moratorium Conditions:
Environmental Assessment Done:
Length of Shoreline:
RYes ❑No ❑NA
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
[2-1-702 FT
Shellfish Area Designation:
Project Description: (code)
Development Area: (code)
Open -or-05�p
L
SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4)
WETLANDSIMPACTED
❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional
❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.)
❑ (SS) Glasswort ( Salicornia sp.)
wetlands)
(CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense)
❑ (SA) Salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina
(SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina
alterniflora)
cynosuroides)
(DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis
❑ (SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus
El (TY) Cattail (Typha sp.)
spicata)
SO
El (JR) Black needlerush (Juncus
❑ (SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina
roemerianus)
patens)
APPLICATION FEE
El No fee required - $0.00
III(A) Private w/ D&F up to 1 acre; 3490
III(D) Priv. public or comm w/ D&F to 1
can be applied - $250
acre; 3490 can't be applied - $400
❑ Minor Modification to a CAMA Major
❑ Major Modification to a CAMA Major
21V Any development involving D&F of
permit - $100
permit - $250
more than 1 acre - $475
Permit Transfer - $100
0 III(B) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1
Express Permit - $2000
acre; 3490 can be applied - $400
Major development extension request -
ll. Public or commerciallno dredge
$100
and/or fill - $400
RECEIVED
❑ 1. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250
❑ III(C) Priv. public or comm w /D&F to 1
acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs
JUL 13 2018
DWQ agreement - $400
DCM-MHD CITY

Applicant:
Date:
Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of
measurement found in your Activities code sheet.
TYPE
REPLACE
Activity Name
Number
Choose
Choose
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
One
One
New W0W9
Replace
Maint❑
❑Y E;JN
'7
Qi /o?-
3ko
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet.
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
FINAL Sq. Ft.
TOTAL Feet
FINAL Feet
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
DISTURB TYPE
Disturbance total
disturbance..
Disturbance
disturbance.
Habitat Name
Choose One
includes any
Excludes any
total includes
Excludes any
anticipated
restoration
any anticipated
restoration and/or
restoration or
and/or temp
restoration or
temp impact
ternimpacts)
impact amount)
temp impacts)
amount
Fj C
Dredge ❑ Fill 61 Both ❑ Other ❑
( S! ,C 7 3&^1
i $SC73&0
V P
Dredge �i Fin ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
3 3 7( 6 ar v
3,-11e i C
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
919-733-2293 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: w .nccoastalmananement.net revised: 10112;08

Project Name: County: Check No & Amount:
DCM %
DWQ %
Development Type
Fee
(14300160143510009316256253)
(2430016024351000952341)
1. Private, non-commercial development
that does not involve the fitting or
excavation of any wetlands or open water
areas:
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
It. Public or commercial development that
does not involve the filling or excavation
f any wetlands or open water areas:
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
Iil. For development that involves the
filling andrbr excavation of up to t acre of
wetlands andlor open water areas.
determine if A,B, C. or D below applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial
development, if General Water Quality
Certification No. 4144 (See attached) can
be applied.
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
II(B). Public or commercial development.
if General Water Quality Certification No.
144 (See attached) can be applied:
$400
100% ($400)
0°l0 ($0)
Itl(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 41" (see attached)
could be applied.. but DCM staff
determined that additional review and
written DWQ concurrence is needed
cause of concerns related to: water
quality or aquatic life
$400
60% ($240)
40%6 ($160)
III(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 4144 (see attached)
cannot be applied.
$400
50% ($240)
40% ($160)
IV Development that involves the filling
ardlor excavator, of more than one acre
�"`
of wetlands andlor open water areas.
: f475
; 60% ($285)
40% ($190)

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 26,2018
[e-mail]
Carteret Times News
PO Box 1679
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Major Public Notice for: Carteret County: Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment
Hello Judy: Please publish the attached Notice in the Friday, June 29, 2018 issue.
ROY COOPER
Govemor
MICHAEL REGAN
Secmtay
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising.
Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of
Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, I can be reached at 910-
796-7226 or at [e-mail].
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me
at our Wilmington office.
cc:
Sincerely,
Zit v fK. Simpson
Shaun K. Simpson
Permitting Support & Customer Assistance
Heather Coats - WiRO
MHC files
Mickey Suggs - USACE
RECEIVED
State of North Caroline En
vironmental Quality men Coastal Managet JUL 13 20%
127 Cardinal Drive Ent., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215 DCM.MHD CITY

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by
NCGS 113A-119(b) that the following application was submitted for a development permit in an
Area of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On June 6, 2018 the County of
Carteret proposed a 50-year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from Bogue Inlet at
Emerald Isle to the beginning of Fort Macon, in Atlantic Beach. A copy of the application can
be examined or copied at the office of Heather Coats, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality,
Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910) 796-
7302 during normal business hours.
Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to July 20, 2018 will be considered
in making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time
of permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public
and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided
upon written request.
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management J U L 13 2 018
127 Cardinal Drive EA., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
DCM-MHD CITY

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
sftTem.,
Coastal Management BRAXTON C. D��S
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 26, 2018
Mr. Johnny Martin
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls of the Neuse, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Martin:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for
Carteret County, for State approval of the construction of the Bogue Banks Master Beach Renourishment Plan,
located on Bogue Banks, from Bogue Inlet to Fort Macon, in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, Pine
Knoll Shores and Atlantic Beach, Carteret County, and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. It was received as
complete on 6/7/18 and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a
decision is 8/21/18. An additional 75-day review period is provided by law when such time is necessary to
complete the review. If you have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you
should consider the review period extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of
an extended review. However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the 75th day.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from 6/7/18 you may request a meeting with the
Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a
meeting will be held within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the
applicant and project designer/consultant.
NCGS I I3A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed
development. Enclosed you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the
property of your proposed development. You should post copies of this notice at a conspicuous point along
the project area where it can be observed by the public. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete
application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the
appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in writing if
you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or comments from reviewing agencies.
Sincerely, �f
ather� �uocl
Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM
Mickey Sugg, COE
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph, Carteret County
Dawn York, Moffatt & Nichol
RECEIVED
state of North Carollm I Environmental QW ty l Coastal Management JUL 13 2018
WIhnington Office 1 127 Cardhtal Dive Emmion I Wilmington, NorthCarolhna 28405
9107967215 DCM-MHD CITY

c
= cn
C) N
n o
00
nou
We
NoTI(01*1?j
AMA PERMIT
^5.P P LLkmn�srve featc? R
Kfj MEMO A, f0WA
B e a c , ►n a ere dun
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH July 20, 2018
APPLICANT: FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
County of Carteret �1 NC Div_ of Coastal Management
Attn: Greg Rudolph 197 Cardinal nr Fxt nsion
PO Box 4297 witmingtnn, NC 28405
Emerald isle, NC 28594 Heather Coats, Beach 8 Inlet Mgmt. Coordinator
910-796-7302
Agent: Dawn York [phone] x30107

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: Carteret County/ Bogue Banks 50-year Master Beach Nourishment Plan
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project site is located on Bogue Banks, from Bogue Court to
Tar Landing Road, Carteret County.
Approximate State Plane Coordinates — X: 2572809 (start)/ 2690975 (end) Y: 330839 (starty 391695 (end)
Approx. Lat: 34°38'38.15"N/ 34°41'39.66"N Long: 77° 5'43.49"W/ 76°42'3.74"W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA / D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE
Dates of Site Visit — 6/4/18
Was Applicant Present — Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received—6/4/18 & 6/6/18 (complete)
Office — Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Carteret County- Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach
AEC(s) Involved: OH, IHA, PTA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — On -site treatment
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing — Commercial and Residential structures and accessways
Planned — 50-year comprehensive beach renourishment plan
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 0'-19.9'/year SBF: 2'/year
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
•: 1110 01 1111111111 11111111M• '
(A) Vegetated Wetlands (coastal)
(B) Other (Below MHW)
Up to 773 acres (1
128.5 acres (1" project)
project) & Unknown
—3,277 acres (50-year
over 50-yr project)total
(C) Other (Above MHW)
Possible future
—227.5 acres (I I project)
excavation assoc. with
—4,136 acres (50-year
upland borrow sites
total)
over the course of the
50-yr project.
(IT) Total Area Disturbed: —356 acres of beach fill (1" project); —7,413 acres of beach fill total (over 50-year
project)
(1) Primary Nursery Area: No
(J) Water Classification: SA Open: No
State of North Carolina I Envtronmernal Quality I Coastal Management
Wilmtngton Office 1127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wilmington. North Carolina 28405
RECEIVED
jUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
910 796 7215

Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Page Two
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a 50- year comprehensive beach nourishment plan from
Bogue Inlet at Emerald Isle to the beginning of Fort Macon in Atlantic Beach.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Bogue Banks is a barrier island located in Carteret County between Bogue Inlet to the west and Beaufort
inlet to the east. The island is predominantly southeast facing and is approximately 25 miles in length. It
is made up of 4 municipalities: Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Pine Knoll Shores and Atlantic Beach; the
incorporated community of Salter Path; and Fort Macon State Park at the east end of the island. It is
bordered by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW W) to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the south.
Bear Island/Hammocks Beach State Park is located to the west of Bogue Inlet. Shackleford Banks and
Cape Lookout National Seashore is located to the east of Beaufort Inlet. Both Bear Island and
Shackleford Banks are undeveloped barrier islands. The island is accessed via 2 bridges. The western
bridge leads into Emerald Isle via NC Highway 58, located off NC Highway 24 between Cedar Point and
Cape Carteret. The eastern bridge leads onto the island in Atlantic Beach and is accessed from NC
Highway 70 in Morehead City.
The project site extends from a point near Inlet Court adjacent to Bogue Inlet in Emerald Isle, east
through Atlantic Beach, stopping short of Fort Macon. The long-term erosion rate for the island
(including the inlet area) ranges from 0% 1 9.9'/year. The 100-year storm recession line for the island was
predicted to be 50'. The westernmost portion of Emerald Isle is located within the Inlet Hazard Area.
In the mid- to late-1990's, much of the island suffered damage from the 5 hurricanes that made landfall in
NC. As a result, 2001 legislation directed the creation of the 11-member Carteret County Beach
Commission to advise on beach renourishment strategies and expenditures of Carteret County's Room
Occupancy Tax, a portion of which is allotted specifically for the funding of beach nourishment projects
on Bogue Banks. Each of the four municipalities on the island are represented on the Commission. An
interlocal agreement to share the funds was also signed by four municipalities and the County in 2010.
This agreement further strengthened the municipal relationships and resource sharing that paved the way
for the development of this Bogue Banks Master Plan. Annual shoreline surveys have been performed on
the island since 1999, and monitoring of Bear Island and Shackleford Banks were also added to the
survey protocol in 2005 to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the regional dynamics. A Section
933 Study was completed in 2003 which led to the placement of approximately 700,000 cubic yards of
sand on Indian Beach/Salter Path, followed by approximately 508,000 cubic yards of sand placed on Pine
Knoll Shores in 2007. Two FEMA-funded projects placed 1.4 mcy of sand along Bogue Banks in 2004
and 2007, and a third project placed an additional 965,000 mcy of sand on Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll
Shores in 2013 in response to Hurricanes Isabel, Ophelia and Irene. Sand is also placed on Atlantic Beach
as part of the USACE's Morehead City Inner Harbor Maintenance Dredge Project and its associated
Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP), and on the area adjacent to Bogue Inlet by way of the
Bogue Inlet AIWW crossing maintenance disposal. (See Section 2 and Figure 2-2 in the narrative for a
more complete description of historical Bogue Banks sand placement projects). Please note that the
existing federal projects are assumed to continue and this project is intended to supplement rather than
replace those projects. Additionally, a USACE Feasibility Study for a Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
(CSDR) Project for Bogue Banks was approved in 1998 and a Feasibility Study Agreement was executed
RECEIVED
State of North Carolim I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Wilmington Office 1127 Cardtnal Drive Extensbn I W finington. North Carolina 28405 JUL 1 ,a Zola
910 796 7215
DCM-MHD CITY

Rogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Page Three
in 2001 which led to a 2013 report and authorization via the 2016 Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA); however, no funding has subsequently been appropriated or is anticipated at this time.
The applicant has identified several potential borrow sites to supply sand for the 50-year project. The
federal Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) is proposed to serve as the primary source of
sand, but the ebb channel of Rogue Inlet, and other nearshore and upland sites have been preliminarily
evaluated for suitability (see Section 5 of the narrative and Appendix C- the Sediment Analysis Report for
more details). The ODMDS is divided into "current" and `old" sections. The northeast corner of the
"current" and a portion of the "old" ODMDS have been identified as the borrow source for the initial
2018/2019 project. Current water depths in these sections of the ODMDS range from approximately -36'
to -50' NAVD 88. (See Sections 1.0 and 3.0 and Figures 3-1 & 4-5 in the Project # 1 Event Notification,
and Sheet 40 of 61 for more information on the fast project's proposed borrow site). Sediments collected
via Vibracore samples within these portions of the ODMDS were shown to have a Unified Soils
Classification System (USCS) designation of predominantly SW. Anticipated construction methodologies
to be used throughout the 50-year project would be pipeline and hopper dredges, with the option of truck
haul, in the case of upland borrow site use. While many of the potential borrow sites presented for later
projects do not adequately establish compatibility with the State's Technical Standards for Beach Fill
Projects (15A 07H .0312) in the Sediment Analysis Report (Appendix C), the applicant has
acknowledged additional sampling will be required for some of these sites in order to confirm
compatibility, as stated in Section 5.0 of the report. No potential archeological resources were identified
in the vicinity of the ODMDS by remote sensing surveys (see Appendix D- Archeological Remote
Sensing for more information). The current ODMDS and it appears a small portion of old ODMDS falls
outside the State's 3-mile jurisdiction limit and are therefore in federal waters, requiring coordination and
approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
The native beach was characterized using data previously collected due previous projects. Fines were
calculated at less than 1%, with sand comprising 98.68%, and granular and gravel material combined at
less than 1.32%. Calcium carbonate was reported at 15-20%. Clast counts of material greater than 3" in
size was evaluated at two 50,000 square foot sites: in Atlantic Beach between Transects 78 to 81, between
the Doubletree Hilton hotel to the Dunescape Villas; and in Emerald Isle between Transects 26 and 30
from Matt Drive to West Summer Place. One hundred and thirty-eight (138) shells greater than 3" in size
were found in the Atlantic Beach location and 211 clasts (both rock and shell >3" in size) were found in
Emerald Isle. These sites were chosen because they have received minimal to no sand from past
nourishment events and it is believed most accurately represent the native beach state.
The waters of Rogue and Beaufort Inlets fall within the White Oak River Basin, as classified by the NC
Division of Water Resources (DWR). The waters adjacent to Bogue Inlet are classified as SA-ORW and
the waters adjacent to Beaufort Inlet are classified as SA by the DWR. The NC Division of Marine
Fisheries has NOT designated any of the areas to be impacted as a Primary Nursery Area, and there are
no foreseen impacts to shellfish resources at this time.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing a 50-year beach nourishment master plan project for Rogue Banks. The project
area would extend from Inlet Court adjacent to Bogue Inlet in Emerald Isle to the beginning of Fort
Macon in Atlantic Beach. The overall proposed project length is approximately 23 miles (121,702 linear
feet) and a berm would be constructed to an elevation of +6' NAVD 88. The applicant has determined
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Wthnington Office 1 127 Cardtml Drive Extenston I Wilmington. North Caroltna 28405 JUL 13 2018
410 796 7215
DCM-MHD CITY

Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Page Four
projected sand needs for the life of the project based on statistical analysis of historical data, through
which historical background erosion and losses from storm events as calculated, as well as projecting
anticipated future losses from sea level rise. Table 3-1 in the narrative has been generated to define
projected volume requirements set out at 3, 6, and 9-year intervals. Tables 3-2 through 3-7 in the narrative
are also broken out into 6, 10 and 50-year nourishment projected minimum and maximum volumes at 25
cy/% 50cy/ft and 75 cy/ft fill densities. These latter tables are further broken into thresholds for cases of
background erosion, storm erosion, and then background and storm erosion combined (in all cases
inclusive of projected sea level rise). Appendix A provides additional detailed tables presenting potential
totals at 3-year intervals whereby combined event volumes, lengths and areas are also given on a "rolling"
basis (i.e. the last 2 events are added for the 6-year rolling totals, the last 3 events are included for the 10-
year totals and all projected event impacts are included for the 50-year total).
While projects are proposed to occur at 3-year intervals, the initial project is proposed in the fall/winter of
2018/2019. The initial project would extend 50,030 feet (9.5 miles) in length and would fill
approximately 310' in beach width. The project would extend from just west of Park Drive within the
town limits of Emerald Isle (a distance of approximately 3 miles), through Indian Beach and the
unincorporated area of Salter Path (a total of approximately 2 miles with a gap between sections), and
would include approximately 4.5 miles of beach in Pine Knoll Shores. The berm would extend to the +6'
NAVD 88 contour with a projected berm ranging from 35' to 85' in width and a 20:1 slope waterward of
the berm. Anticipated fill volumes for the initial project range from 23 to 45 cubic yards per linear foot.
As proposed, this project would pump an approximate gross volume of 1.974 million cubic yards of sand
(see Figure 3-2 in the narrative for individual community placement volumes). However, the applicant is
accounting for an estimated placement loss of approximately 23%, therefore the final net volume of
approximately 1.519 million cubic yards is anticipated to be placed on the beach. It is currently estimated
that 5,597,460 square feet would be filled below MHW (128.5 acres and 889,900 cubic yards). Of that
material, 1,825,164 square feet (41.9 acres) would also be located below MLW. Approximately 9,911,840
square feet of beach fill material would be placed above the MHW line. The applicant estimates
approximately 99' of fill would be placed waterward of the current MHW line on average, within a
maximum projected distance of 123' placed below MHW.
The applicant states that they propose to dredge the approximately 1.974 million cubic yards of material
from the ODMDS during the 2018/2019 project to a design depth of -50 NAVD88 with a proposed
allowable "overburden" of 2'. Approximately 218 acres lies within federal waters and the "Current"
ODMDS and approximately 555 acres fall within State waters and the "Old" ODMDS site. The material
would be dredged via a hopper dredge, transported to offshore temporary mooring, and then pumped by
submerged pipeline onto the beach.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The proposed dredging associated with the first 2018/2019 project would result in impacts to up to 773
acres of submerged bottom located in both state and federal waters. The first project would result in the
fill of approximately 128.5 acres of upper beach (above NHW) and would fill approximately 41.9 acres of
intertidal area and near -shore shallow bottom. The dredging and beach fill would result in temporary
increases in turbidity. The overall 50-year project is anticipated to result in the placement of up to 51.6
racy of material over the 23.5 miles project area and would fill approximately 7,412 acres of beach. Final
figures will be dependent on future conditions and are subject to change, but thresholds have been set
forth to limit impacts. Given the intent and nature of the comprehensive plan, it is anticipated that future
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management JUL 13 2018
Wilmington Office 1127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wilmington. North Carolina 28405
910 796 R75
DCM-MHD CITY

Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Page Five
modifications of the CAMA/Dredge & Fill permit will only be required if the thresholds are exceeded, or
if a significant deviation from the proposal or circumstances occur that necessitates a modification of
permit conditions. Instead, the permit would be conditioned to require notification of each future event
that will describe the next project, similar to the Project # 1 Event Notification included in the current
application package, submittal of any additional corresponding sediment compatibility analysis to
demonstrate compliance with the State's Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects. It is hoped that this
event notification process will also serve the permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Division of Water Resources. As such, any agency comments regarding the event notification
approval process are welcome. Temporary impacts to benthic and invertebrate infaunal communities can
be expected. The applicant is proposing to limit work between November 16 through April 30, thereby
minimizing long-term impacts to fauna. The applicant has committed to accessing the beach with heavy
equipment via existing public access condors and would locate temporary storage areas for construction
equipment off the beach to the maximum extent practicable. The narrative states the applicant also agrees
to abide by many of the other standard conditions as addressed in Section 6.6 of the Narrative (Avoidance
and Minimization).
Submitted by: Heather Coats Date: June 26, 2018 Office: Wilmington
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Wilmington Office 1127 Cardtnal Drive Extension I Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 JUL 13 2018
910 796 7215
DCM-MHD CITY

BOGUE
'TER BEAT
NOURISHMENT PLAN
CAMA PERMIT DOCUMENTATION
1. NCDCM MP-1 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT & BBMBNP PROJECT #1)
2. NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT)
3. NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(BBMBNP PROJECT #1)
4. PERMIT NARRATIVE
(with appendices)
5. AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
6. AEC HAZARD NOTICE
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

NCDCM MP-1 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT & BBMBNP
PROJECT #1)
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITPCM WILMINGTON, NC

OC11 NP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12r2706)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
72:Fimt
Project Name (if applicable)
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Name
MI
rudi
Last Name
Rudolph
Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
4297
City
Emerald Isle
State
NC
ZIP
28594
Country
USA
Phone No.
252-222-5835 ext.
FAX No.
252-222-5826
Street Address (d different hom above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
Business Name
Moffatt & Nichol
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Johnny
Martin
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Dawn
York
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
Stale
4700 Falls of Neuse, Suite 300
Raleigh
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27609
919 - 781 - 4626 ext.
e)d.
FAX No.
Contractor #
918 781 4869
Street Address (d different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail], [e-mail]
<Form continues oneIVED RECEIVED
1111 1. 3 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
252-308-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST ;: www.nccoastaimanagernent.net
DCM-MHD CITYpCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
County (can be multiple) Street Address
Slate Rd. #
Carteret Bogue Court to Tar Landing Road
NC 58
city
Subdivision Name
Emerald Isle, Indian Beach,
State
Zip
Salter Path, Pine Knoll
NC
-
Shores, Atlantic Beach
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (d many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
White Oak
Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes [--]No
work falls within.
Town of Emerald Isle, Town of Indian Beach, Village of Salter
Path, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Atlantic Beach
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
121,702 ft (50 yr project), 50,030 ft (BBMBNP Project #1)
121,702 ft x 398 ft = 48,437,395 sq. ft. (50 yr project)
50,030 ft x 310 ft = 15,509,300 sq. ft. (BBMBNP Project
#1)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A, I I
NWL (normal water level)
(Nmany lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-10' to +6' NAVD88 (approx. 4.9' above MHW)
®NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Primary and secondary dune vegetation
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Dune walkovers
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project she.
Developed - residential
In. How does local govemment zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
N/A
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, h applicable)
❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ONO
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ®Yes ONO ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
RECEIVED Mid -Atlantic Technology
Corporation es Hall
t'1Cliu v w
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.necoastalmanagem'0A.
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Assessment is included in the
FEIS
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a []Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? []Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
All wastewater treatment is by on -site systems
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Each municipality has its own water supply system utilizing deep groundwater wells
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
No impervious area - all stormwater infiltrates on the beach
a. Will the project be for commercial. public, or private use?
❑Commercial ®Public/Govemment
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
See attached project narrative
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
See attached project narrative
d. List all development activities you propose.
Excavation and filling by Hopper Dredge, Pipeline, and Truck Haul: Beach Nourishment
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both?
Maintenance of Existing Project
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project?
48,437,395 sq. ft. (50 yr project),
15,509,300 sq. ft. (BBMBNP Project
#1) ®Sq.Ft or [:]Acres
g. Will the proposed project
encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established
use of?
KhrihWtu
RECEIVED JUN 0 4 7-016
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.neeoastal
DCM-MHD CITY

RECEIVED
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5) APPLICATION for
JUL 13 2018 Major Development Permit
nqM-MHD CITY
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Dredge slurry discharge of approximately 75% water and 25% sand
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? []Yes ONO ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? [-]Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
6. Additilonallnfonnadon
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for application
package to be complete. Items (a) - (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A prof 1 narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name: Fort Macon State Park Phone
Adc! 2303 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Name Hammocks Beach State Park Phone No.
Address 1572 Hammocks Beach Road, Swansboro, NC 28584
N P'
Add
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, pernittee, and issuing dales.
CAMA Permit # 124-01, # 181-06, # 86-12
USACE Permit # 200000362, # 198000291
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization forth, if applicable.
I. Welland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
1 understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project. RECEIVEDI further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
252-808.2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .: www.nccoastalmanagementjNA 0
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Date 5/25/2018 Print Name Greg Rudolph_
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 Y018
WILMINGTON, NC
252-808.2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.necoastalmanagement.net

NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(50 YR PROJECT)
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 018
J)CM WILMINGTON. NC

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
(NLW or
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Avg:
1,012,252 ft
Length
Range:
674,835 ft -
2,024,504 ft
(over 50 yrs)
Avg: 319 It
Width
Range It
- 398 ft (aver
50 yrs)
Avg. Existing
NA
NAIM
-2' NAVD
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
+6' NAVD &
Depth
Below
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or
cubic yards.
51.6 Mcy (BBMBNP 50 Year Project)
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlandslmarsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (Wl If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL NNone
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
a. Location of disposal area.
Ocean shoreline - Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach,
Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes NNo ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlandstmarsh
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
material to be excavated.
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None
❑This section not
Dimensions of disposal area.
Average: 1,012,252 ft long x 319 It wide, Range: 674,835 ft
- 2,024,504 It long x 288 It - 398 ft wide (over 50 years)
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
NYes []No ❑NA
(it) If yes, where?
Along entire length as needed for maintenance �Q
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water? H
NYes []No❑NA 4 ef5 (j
Ci
(ii) If yes, how much water ariMSE&ED :( ''
v
252-808.2808 :: 1.88841111 :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
J
12/26/06 53
Q
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas.
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap
Nourishment
❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other: beach
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 260'
e. Type of stabilization material:
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap
Breakwater/Sill _ Other Averaae: 142,727,557 soft:
Ranae: 115.396.749 soft - 334,043,219 soft (over 50 Years)
i. Source of fill material.
Morehead City Harbor ODMDS (Old and Current), Area Y, Area Z,
Bogue Inlet Channel, Morehead City Outer Harbor, AIWW
Disposal Areas, and Upland sand Mines
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water Averaae:
34,320,410 cv: Ranae: 32.448,756 cv - 37.020.087 cv (over 50
years)
(iii) Dimensions of fill area Averaae: 1.012,252 ft Iona x 319 ft
wide: Ranae: 674,835 ft - 2,024,504 ft Iona x 288 It - 398 It wide
(over 50 years)
(iv) Purpose of fill
Shoreline protection
a. How wil excavated or till material be Kept on
controlled?
see attached project narrative
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Average: 3,277 acres; Range: 2,649 acres-Dem+MI NO CITY
50 years)
Width: Averaae: 319 ft: Ranae: 288 ft - 398 ft (over 50 years)
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 339'
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
In, Type of fill material.
Medium sand (see attached project narrative)
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hopper Dredge or Pipeline Dredge
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will betaken to avoid or minimize
environmental im RLDCEIVED
252-808-2808::1-8884RCOAST:: www.nccoastalmanagement. net JUN 0 4 2018 revised: 12/26/06
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
4/6/2018
Date
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
Project Name
Greg Rudolph
APPNaa
Ap nt Signature
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN p 4 2018 JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12i26i06

NCDCM MP-2 FORM
(BBMBNP PROJECT #1)
RECEIVED
RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2018 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM-MHD CITY

Form ll MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
50,030 ft
Width
310 ft
Avg. Existing
Depth
-2' NAVD
Final Project
+6' NAVD &
Depth
Below
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
1,974,740 cy from Current or Old ODMDS (BBMBNP Project #1)
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
a. Location of disposal area.
Oceanfront shoreline - Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian
Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes RNo ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL RNone
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
b. Type of material
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None
Dimensions of disposal area.
50,030 ft long x 310 It wide, Avg Berm Width = 56 ft (35 ft -
85 ft)
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
RYes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Along entire length as needed for maintenance
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
RYes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
128.5 acres below li 41.9 acres below MLW
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2018
252.808.2808 :: 1-888ORCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.netDCM_ DCM WILMI�jT oy
MHD CITY

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
(if datre wt is a wood groin, use;A — 6uctures)
a Type of shoreline stabilization.
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other. 8eacn
Nourishment
c. Average distance walerward of NHW or NWL: existing to
proposed MHW: Avg = 99 ft'
e. Type of stabilization material:
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap
Breakwater/Sill _ Other 5,697,460 sc. ft. below MHW:
1.825,164 sa. ft. below MLW
i. Source of fill material.
Current and Old Morehead City Harbor ODMDS (see attached
project narrative)
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 889.900 cv
below MHW: 240,400 cv below MLW
(Ili) Dimensions of fill area 50,030 ft Iona x 310 ft wide
(iv) Purpose of fill
Shoreline protection
a. How will excavated or fill material be Kept on
controlled?
see attached project narrative
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
[]Yes ENO ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
b. Length: 50,030 ft
Width: 310 ft
d. Maximum distance watenward of NHW or NWL: existing to
propsed MHW: Max = 123 ft
f. (t) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(if) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
medium sand (see attached project narrative)
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, prr
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(if) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
backhce, or hydraulic
Hopper Dredge
d. (i) Wit wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(if) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
252-808-2808:: 1-888-4RCOAST::w .nccoastalmnnsaoment.net JUL 13 2gig DCM WILMIWATANtA606
DCM.MHD CITY

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
Gr" Rudolph
ApplicantName _
F :.. , ... ,......
Ap nt Signature
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018
252-808-2808:: 1-888-4RCOA57:: w .nccoastalmagagement.net DCM WILMj"&r-@Pl?R'V'06

PERMIT NARRATIVE
(see electronic copy for appendices)
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 18, 2018
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW-2009-00293
Mr. Fritz Rohde
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Dear Mr. Rohde:
RECEIVED
JAN 2 2 2018
DCM- MHD CITY
Please reference the proposal by Carteret County to pursue a Department of the
Army authorization to implement the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan,
which is a 50-year beach management plan for approximately 18 miles of oceanfront
shoreline along Bogue Banks and for the ebb tide channel of Bogue Inlet. The project
site is located within the town limits of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine
Knoll Shores, and within the Bogue Inlet Complex, along Bogue Banks Island, in
Carteret County, North Carolina.
In evaluating the project, activities associated with the plan may adversely affect
EFH; consequently, the enclosed December 2017 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Assessment was prepared in order to summarize the potential effects of the management
plan to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) trust resources pursuant to the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The proposed 50-year management plan has identified specific amount and
placement needs, borrow sites, construction methods, and frequencies of single events
(please note Table 2.1 in the EFH Assessment for the proposed sand placement
activities). The proposed borrow sites for beach fill are located offshore within the 3-
nautical mile (run) limit of the oceanfront shoreline and beyond the 3-mn limit, which
triggers the regulatory permitting authority for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Due to the complexity
of the project and the overlapping Regulatory authorities between the Corps and BOEM,
this request to initiate consultation is being conducted jointly by our two agencies. The
Corps and BOEM have an established agreement for the roles of responsibilities

M
-2-
concerning the EFH consultation. These roles will be fiuther delineated pending project
authorization. To assist NMFS's EFH evaluation, Table 1 below describes the various
scenarios and the defined lead agency for each single dredging and beach placement
event.
Table 1. Lead A¢ency for specific activities within the Action Area of the proposed project.
LEAD AGENCY
ACTIVITY
BOEM
Dredging outside of 3-nm limit (i.e., use of
ODMDS borrow site)
CORPS
Dredging inside of 3-nm limit (i.e., use of Old
ODMDS & Area Y borrow sites)
CORPS
Dredging within Bogue Inlet
CORPS
Placement of Dredge Material along the
Oceanfront
In order to comply with EFH regulations (50 CFR Section 600.920) and the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Section 305[b][4][B]),
our agencies request that you review and provide any additional recommendations and
comments on the findings made in the December 2017 EFH Assessment for the County's
proposed project, and/or provide a written statement that finther consultation is not
required, within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
For ease of coordination, your agency may direct any questions regarding this
consultation request to the Corps Wilmington District Office. If you have any questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mickey Sugg in the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office at [phone], or by e-mail mickev.t.suggtn'7,usace.army.mil.
Sincerely,
gi-VL�-
Eric Reusch, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Geo W' Chief
Branch of Environmental Coordination
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

-3-
Copy Furnished (w/CD only):
Mr. Pace Wilber, Branch Chief
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. Greg Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Post Office Box 4297
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Mr. Johnny Martin
Moffatt & Nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Roy Brownlow
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Greg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Copies Furnished (w/o enclosures):
Mr. Frank Rush, Manager
Town of Emerald Isle
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle North Carolina 28594
Mr. Brian Kramer, Manager
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Sh., North Carolina 28512
Mr. David Walker, Manager
Town of Atlantic Beach
Post Office Box 10,
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Ms. Ronda Lambert, Town Clerk
Town of Indian Beach
Post Office Box 306
Salter Path North Carolina 28575
Mr. Tommy Burns, Manager
Carteret County
Courthouse Square
Beaufort North Carolina 28516
Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief
Wetlands Section- Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

in
Ms. Dawn York and Mr. Rahlff Ingle
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 N. Front St., Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ms. Deena Hansen
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Environmental Programs
45600 Woodland Road
Sterling, Virginia 20166
O

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Carteret County, the Carteret County Beach Commission, and the Shore Protection Office (SPO)
seek to provide long-term, sustaining management of Bogue Banks beaches. In 2001, by state
legislation, the Carteret County Beach Commission was established, and a room occupancy tax
(ROT) for funding beach nourishment and related functions was put in place mainly as a
response to the hurricanes of the 1990's (Bertha, Fran and Floyd) and subsequent storms.
Carteret County intends to maintain Bogue Banks beaches via implementation of this proposed
Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) with guidance from the SPO and oversight by the
Beach Commission.
Carteret County is specifically seeking federal and state permits to allow implementation of this
MBNP as a non-federal shoreline protection and inlet management project over a multi-decadal
period to preserve Bogue Banks' tax base, infrastructure, and tourist -oriented economy. An
inter -local agreement was developed and executed by each municipality on Bogue Banks
creating an effective and efficient approach for a long-term and sustainable implementation of
this MBNP.
The proposed program incorporates actions within multiple oceanfront municipalities to nourish
recipient beaches, via use of multiple sand sources, over a multi-decadal timeline with revolving
nourishment -project events. This MBNP identifies engineering design elements including: sand
volumes required to yield the desired level of protection throughout Bogue Banks; sand volume
triggers to initiate nourishment events; sand borrow source locations, volumes, quality, and
viability; the expected capacity of the recipient beaches for nourishment; and the projected
timing of nourishment events. A primary MBNP goal is to offset natural and anthropogenic
erosion effects by optimizing use of existing high quality borrow sources to nourish prioritized
recipient beaches to provide a spatially -equivalent level of protection to upland property along
Bogue Banks.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 Project Purpose
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) project purpose is:
• to establish a regional plan to facilitate authorization and implementation of shoreline
nourishment/maintenance events on Bogue Banks including management of Bogue
Inlet;
to provide long-term shoreline stabilization on Bogue Banks to: DECEIVED
RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 Z018 DCM WILMINGTOt , NC
DCM-MHD CITY

provide an equivalent level of storm protection to upland property along Bogue
Banks and the associated local, state, and federal tax bases;
to provide long-term protection to Bogue Banks tourism industry, State and local
infrastructure, and oceanfront or inlet adjacent structures
maintain natural resources and associated recreational uses while avoiding and
minimizing adverse environmental impacts to the extent feasible;
• to consolidate community resources to financially and logistically manage beaches on
Bogue Banks and manage Bogue Inlet in an effective manner by reducing/eliminating
the time and need for individual authorizations.
2.2 Project Need
After pronounced hurricane activity in the 1990's (Hurricanes Bertha, Fran, and Floyd), Carteret
County leadership began to take formal steps to address erosion concerns along the —25-mile
long island of Bogue Banks. Figure 2-1 shows some of the damage from these hurricanes.
Figure 2-1: 1990's Hurricane Damage
In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted a Reconnaissance Study
relative to Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) for Bogue Banks, but none of the analyzed
coastal storm damage reduction plans were found to be economically feasible at that time
(USACE, 2013). A USACE Feasibility Study was authorized by congressional resolution in 1998
and a Feasibility Study Agreement was executed in February 2001 after which federal funding
became available; the Feasibility Study culminated in the August 2013 report - "Integrated
Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement" for the USACE CSDR project for
Bogue Banks. Congressional authorization and federal funding for this project are unlikely and
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4.2018 2
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

remain uncertain due to lack of financial support by the present and prior administrations relative
to the Shore Protection Program for ultimate implementation of the project.
In 1994, a USACE Section I II Study was requested by Pine Knoll Shores to determine if
damages to the beach can be directly attributable to the Federal Navigation Project (SPO
website). In 2001, the USACE completed a Section I I I Study that addressed the impacts of
dredging Morehead City Harbor upon the beaches of Bogue Banks. The study found no direct
evidence that the harbor project has had a negative impact on any of the shorelines in the
vicinity, including Pine Knoll Shores. However, the report suggested that alternative sand
management practices in conjunction with harbor maintenance may be beneficial with regard to
long-term stability of the shoreline (USACE, 2001).
However, with the advent of the hurricanes in the 1990's, County and Town leaders determined
that action was needed. Occupancy tax legislation was developed to create a beach nourishment
reserve fund and a County -wide Beach Commission was formed to manage the funds and make
decisions regarding engineering intervention (i.e. nourishment) along Bogue Banks.
Consultants were retained by the Beach Commission to develop and implement the previous
locally -funded Bogue Banks Restoration Project which placed material, in three phases, along
Bogue Banks: Phase I) Indian Beach/Salter Path and Pine Knoll Shores (1.73 Mcy, 2002), Phase
II) Emerald Isle Central and Emerald Isle East (1.87 Mcy, 2003), and Phase III) Emerald Isle
West (0.69 Mcy, 2005) (see Figure 2-2).
In 2003, the USACE completed a Section 933 study investigating the beneficial placement of
beach fill to be obtained by maintenance dredging of the Morehead City Harbor navigation
project and by recycling previously dredged material from the adjacent Brandt Island confined
disposal area (USACE, 2013). Phase I of the Section 933 project (2004) placed approximately
700,000 cy of material in Indian Beach/Salter Path while Phase II (2007) placed approximately
508,000 cy of material in Pine Knoll Shores (see Figure 2-2).
In 2004 and 2007, two FEMA-funded restoration efforts were undertaken due to storm damage
from Hurricanes Isabel and Ophelia, respectively. These efforts resulted in the placement of
about 1.4 Mcy of sand along Bogue Banks. Most recently, in 2013, a post -Irene restoration
project, partially funded by FEMA, was constructed, placing approximately 965,000 cy of sand
along Bogue Banks (see Figure 2-2).
In 2010, the USACE completed a "Dredged Material Management Plan" for the Morehead City
Harbor navigation project. The base plan includes periodic placement of material on Fort
Macon, Atlantic Beach, and west through Pine Knoll Shores at regular intervals to ameliorate the
losses of material that would normally have been provided through natural sand bypassing
currently interrupted by the navigation project" (USACE, 2010). This plan resulted in a 3 year
nourishment cycle placing sand on Atlantic Beach and Fort Macon in 2011, 2014, and 2017.
Since 1978 roughly 14 million cubic yards of sand have been placed upon the beaches of Bogue
Banks — as illustrated in Figure 2-2 - at a total cost of about $124 million. While the Corps of
Engineers' Dredged Material Management Plan and Interim Operation Plan for the Morehead
RECEIVED RECEIVED
3
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4:2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTnN, NC

City Harbor Federal Navigation Project hold some promise for eastern Bogue Banks, long-term
beach nourishment for the entire island is needed to provide for pro -active management of
County beaches.
r __---
_____ --- _______ __ ____________________ _ __ _ ____ ___
BPA>:� I'ETfi.M NN' GMItlb MY E/•Y�IIO NN IMIan 9e.c.l PY NndI SM1 /•1W111[ _
MINI Yh l CnYtl FJ.I StlM P.N
a«n
j .- - ..aa.•i: ri3iiiCY3:u"Y::::::i :3:Y::u.. ............ :�Y�' i�i '+ l l: �' I can �.,
I N.eM J
Y.
SA1y11S[ay.
IMAM ry
3.192.M c,
15!•599ry
].226.51b,
...
.
2,3M.000K
S3D.R9K
�-133AID y )5.]19_ry
1LlANry
Hb.l10ry I19113ry
]3,39 ry
]HTBIK
)99,Sdry
y).196.5
45L5OOK
315,221K
53451.
ay Sb5,C67ry
{SlA00K
ISO.OMq
ey.ldn.]ww Y.I+Nsr." .]]]� ti.rIY IIINn.m P
Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Projects "" "• •°" ' ""g "n"
MCMIw lwrrrl.�9.rw.�+ .nNnA]. M.n II
1978-2017
layn lnYNNNI.1Nn91�1 �PfiVWPopCP.eY WsbMlnn
� lqr 4nY bWMbnNr11 � bCJnm MmMlen
Figure 2-2: Beach Nourishment Project Completed Since 1978 Along Bogue Banks
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MBNP and preferred alternative of Beach Nourishment with Non-structural Inlet
Management include the following elements:
• Renourishment events are expected to be required at 3, 6, and 9-year intervals starting in
2019 - based upon average background erosion rates. Actual renourishment events will
be dependent upon actual erosion, and available funding — including FEMA funding in
response to future storms for which the timing and severity cannot be reasonably
predicted.
• Sand from offshore sources (11 priority), inlet sources (2Id priority) and upland sources
(3`d priority) is proposed to be excavated and placed on the beach. These primary sand
sources are sufficient to maintain the design beach at a 25-year LoP with advance fill
varying from 25 to 50 cubic yards per foot — depending upon actual future erosion rates
and available funding.
• Sand obtained from the USACE maintenance dredging of the Morehead City Harbor
Channel and Bogue Inlet AIWW "crossings" is proposed to be used as part of the
RECEIVED RECEIVED4
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITYE)CM WaMING71—N, Nr,

primary sand sources; maintenance dredging is proposed to be performed by the USACE
under their permit authority, but USACE dredging and beach -fill placement are assumed
to continue and are an integral part of the MBNP.
• If the main channel at Bogue Inlet migrates outside the "safe box", the main channel is
proposed to be relocated by the Applicant, Carteret County, to the location constructed in
2005 with the excavated material used to nourish the beach as part of the primary sand
sources.
3.1 Project Volume Need
3.1.1 Background Erosion
A statistical analysis using historical monitoring data to calculate annual volume change (1999 —
2012) showed an overall annual background erosion loss along Bogue Banks (without Fort
Macon) of roughly 452,200 cy with a 50-yr nourishment need of approximately 22.6 Mcy just to
keep up with historical erosion patterns. The volume analysis indicated that renourishment
intervals, based on background erosion rates, in multiples of 3 years (i.e. every 3, 6, or 9 years
depending on the reach) would be required to maintain a 25-year level of protection along Bogue
Banks. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 present the preliminary proposed projects over the next 50
years. Please note that the nourishment volume approximates the need for background erosion
only.
Table 3-1: Renourishment Intervals and Preliminary Projects Based on Detailed
Subreach and Management Reach Approaches
Year
Detailed Subreach
Nourishment
Volume c
Management Reach
Nourishment
Volume (c))
Nourishment
Project (Yr)
2019
640,332
686,067
3
2022
1,686 018
1,839,351
6
2025
1,163,781
967,920
9
2028
1 1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2031
640,332
686,067
3
2034
2,209,467
2,121,204
6,9
2037
640,332
686,067
3
2040
1,686,018
1,839,351
6
2043
1,163,781
967,920
9
2046
1,686,018
1,839 351
6
2049
640,332
686,067
3
2052
2,209 467
2121204
6,9
2055
640,332
686,067
3
2058
1 686 018
1,839,351
6
2061
1,163,781
967,920
9
2064
1,686.018
1,839,351
1 6
TOTAL
21,228,045
21,612,609
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2018
k)CM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTMI NC

CARTERET COUNTY
prlB:P.@y1
M
ONSLOW BAY
Lpend .�.
r� YN1 � NWIYIIIMM
0 0.5 1 3 5
MM
Figure 3-1: Management Reach Nourishment Plan
3.1.2 Storm Erosion
To estimate storm losses, a similar statistical analysis to the background erosion was performed
but the overall dataset was restricted to the three years which covered Hurricanes Isabel, Ophelia,
and Irene to estimate potential hurricane storm losses. Based on the results, it is expected that
the losses experienced for a given storm may range between 1.4 — 1.7 Mcy. Given that storms
have occurred approximately once every three years, the storm need over 50 years may range
between 22.4 — 27.2 Mcy.
3.1.3 Sea Level Rise
Based on USACE guidance for intermediate sea level change of +1.01 11 over the next 50 years,
it was determined that the additional volume required to raise the dune and berm elevations
roughly 1 foot to maintain the 25-year level of protection is approximately 1.8 Mcy.
3.1.4 Total Erosion
Based on the overall sediment need comprised of background erosion (22.6 Mcy),
anticipated storm erosion (22.4 — 27.2 Mcy), and moderate sea level rise (1.8 Mcy), Carteret
County is requesting permission to place 46.8 to 51.6 Mcy of material on the beach over the
next 50 years. As mentioned previously, a combination of borrow sources which include
offshore sources (Old and Current ODMDS, Area Y, and Area Z), inlets (Bogue Inlet Channel
and Morehead City Outer Harbor), and upland sources (sand mines and AIWW disposal areas)
would be used to meet this need (see Section 5.0 for sediment analysis).
RECEIVED RECEIVED6
JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

3.2 Project Dimensions
Several template scenarios were developed to estimate potential project lengths and footprints
(bottom areas) for permitting purposes. Project templates equating to 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75
cy/ft fill densities were developed to produce a range of project lengths and footprints that may
be encountered over the 50-year timeframe for both background erosion and storm related
projects. Fill volumes from Table 3-1 were used to develop the range of project lengths and
footprints for projects related to background erosion losses. As mentioned previously, historical
storm erosion has proven to be approximately 1.4 Mcy — 1.7 Mcy per event with events
occurring approximately every 3 years. Therefore, 1.7 Mcy every 3 years was used to develop
the range of project lengths and footprints for projects related to storm erosion losses. To
incorporate sea level rise in, which was estimated to be 1.8 Mcy over 50 years, that volume was
split evenly between background and storm erosion over the course of 50 years, adding
approximately 56,250 cy to each potential project. Using these volumes, the length of project
was determined for each fill density as well as the size of the project footprint, or bottom area.
The various templates produced a range of project length and bottom area values to describe the
size of potential future projects.
At the request of permitting authorities, minimum and maximum project lengths and bottom
areas were identified for any 6-year or 10-year period as well as the minimum and maximum for
the full 50-year project authorization. In addition, ranges were identified separately for
background erosion and storm erosion to maintain consistency with the EIS. It should be noted
that renourishment placement locations will be repeated over the 50-year project authorization
(i.e. sand placed in the same location more than once). Therefore, the total renourishment length
and bottom area sizes may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly
larger area of impact than what the projects might cover.
The following sections present summary tables of the 6-year, 10-year, and 50-year ranges for
project length and bottom area. Tables containing the full analysis for those ranges identified
above are presented in Appendix A (Supporting Tables). Typical plan view and cross section
views are presented in Appendix B (Plan & Cross Section View) for renourishment events
containing a fill density of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft.
3.2.1 6 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-2, Table 3-3, and Table 3-4 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over any 6 year time period
for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background + storm),
respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during any 6-year period, which may include 2 projects
stemming from background erosion and 2 projects stemming from storm events, certain locations
may be nourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and bottom area sizes
may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger area of influence
than what will be impacted.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
7
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-2: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
6 YEAR
NWR W MFNT MISM AND BOf 1OMAIPIEA
MNG6 - 6ACNG W UND E0.0510N ONLY
Total Nourishment Volume
Mo,,tft
Fill
MndW
WWJftt
HII
Deaaft
75
/NFIII
otft
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
bottom
Rattan
om
Mck,,ouM
Sea level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Total
Nourishment
Area
Area
Total
Nourishment
Area
Total
Mina
MR
Nourishment
lenth
Above
Below
Bottom
length
Above
mi.
Bottom
length
Above
!Area
owMy
eonomNouNshment
Volum W
(W)
(W)
(mil
MHW
KIM
Area
(ml)
MM
MHW
Area
(ml)
MHW
W
Areai[RS
(a.$)
(xreS)
(.e,)MIN
onto
xrea
s)
2,5254111
1 SlO
;63],938
20.0
296
40O
69BMi)
216
1)1
3g6
6]
1,3
321,3221
3W
442
]R
11.1
239
M
4M
].4
203
3
3%
Table 3-3: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
c
rFAR N W uvwtFHr uNGM AND nor1DM
Alrw RANG a - sTDRM LRosIDN alu
red Noud3hmerdvdume
a
/NHna
so
/tt Fill
oe
Ts
/ft Nn
Deft
fttt
TOMI
Arrea
Tod
BAma
Bream
Total
Storm
Sea level
Total
Noudshmem
Atesm
Neam
Nourishment
Nourishment
Mlnar
Noudsitioam
Mre
Nowitha ant
length
Above
Below
Bottom
length
Above
Mi.
Bottom
length
Above
Below
Mttom
MHW
My
vdunM lq)
(M
(q)
(mi)
MNW
Area
Imll
MMN
MHW
Area
(ml)
MHW
MHW
Area
xrea
arns
(xres)
acres
aces
(xms)
acres
acres
(aces)
MIN
3,40DMO
1 5W
3,512,S
266
397
532
929
13.3
W
227
514
I 89
244
IM
411
MAN
3 =
1 500
3-1-26,6
39]
532
929
13.3
28]
11]
51/
8.9
244
1M
4]g
Table 34: 6 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area —Background &
Storm Erosion
6YFARNOUMI MLMIFNCMANDBDT20MARFARAN6ES-3TITALEROSION
UUGROUND.SiO11M
Tod NowlsMleMValume
E
/It Fill
natty
/2t FIII
M.I
nw/litriliftmity
Bottum
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bolton
Bad g ound a
Total
Tod
Total
Minx
Storm
Us level
NP
Tod
Noudshmsrrt
Naurishmem
length
Area
ARe
Below
Bottom
Nourishment
length
Area
Above
Arc.
Below
Butt.
Nourishment
length
Arta
Above
Area
Below
Bottom
Above
MNW
MHW
MM
Neudahmex
(W)
(4)
(M)
MNW
Ma
(ml)
MNW
Area
(.I)
MHW
MHW
Area
Volume(ry)
(one{)
(acres)
laces)
(arts
ana{
ams
a0e3
xreS)
(xrea)
MIN
592541M
22
1,,150p1!
46.6
11
932
1,62)
23.3
RKI
3%
%1
15.5
41,
322
149
MA%
6,2W 173
g
D00
ba3 2,
48.]
R)
9]5
1,]01
2/A
526
/16
9/2
16.2
44)
33]
)M
Based on Table 3-2, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are 6.7 miles and 321 acres (based on 75 cy/ft
fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are
22.1 miles and 772 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 6-year period would be in the range of 10.0 — 11.1 miles and 171 — 189 acres (based on a
50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-3, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for any 6 year time period are 8.9 miles and 428 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill
density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 6 year time period are
26.6 miles and 929 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 6-year period would be in the range of 13.3 miles and 514 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
Table 3-4 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for any
6-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 15.5 miles and 749 acres
(based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area are 48.7
miles and 1,701 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUN o 43018
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DMh WI_MINGTON, NC

likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
would be in the range of 23.2 — 24.4 miles and 901 — 942 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
3.2.2 10 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-5, Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over any 10 year time period
for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background + storm),
respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during any 10-year period, which may include 3 projects
stemming from background erosion and 3 projects stemming from storm events, certain locations
may be renourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and bottom area
incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger area of influence than
what will be impacted.
Table 3-5: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
W TEFLA
N W GISNMENT IENGTN MFD GDFIOM AGM
11ANG13 - MIN(illDUND ENDMM M LV
Tod NourlAinead
Volume
25
/ft Fill
I)enalty
50
/Nf111Deal
75
/ft Fill1XMi
Bottoltl
Board
Total
Bottom
Bottom
Total
Gonom
Bonam
Taal
Mina
"round
Bea Level
Total
Noudshmem
Ma
Above
M a
Gauorn
shmee
Nourishment
M
Area
e
Noudshmm
Area
M a
Noudshmem
Nu
Noudshmem
lengm
Below
length
Below
Gotten
length
Above
Below
Bottom
MNW
Agave
M"
MM
Volume(ry)
(ry)
(ry)
(ME)
MM
Area
(ml)
MNW
(M)
MM
MNW
eves)
ones
lanes)
anm
noes
(ones)
(ones
(ones
laces )
MN
1113,338
I68,T50
3,a2,M
27.7
1 alb
555
W
119
M
237
536
9.2
250
1ffi
aa6
MA%
a616,622
168,M
4,815,372
M..5
SM
i.
1,2F3
M2
M
312
TBS
al.
335
252
W
Table 3-6: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
WYW NWNStBAF 16 1 ANDBOfIDM
AAM NANGM- sTDGM EGosIM ONIT
TMalxaudshmemvanme
2s
/ft FGi
Den
so
/kf111
Densl
>s
/h FM
Dend
Bottom
Bolton,
Total
Go ann
]venom
Total
Bottom
llottom
Total
Slam
Sea level
Total
Nourishment
Area
Ma
NourishmentNourishmentArea
Area
Noudshmem
Ma
Area
Minn
Noudshmem
Alre
Noudshmem
Length
Above
Below
BArea
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
W"Ilth
Above
Below
brtom
MM
VAlume(ryi
(ry)
try)
(mil
MNW
MHW
(ml)
MNW
MNW
(W)
MM
MNW
saes
laves)
goes
(sues)
ones
ones
(ones )
MN
%I Mw
]58,150
5,268,]50
"A
595s
T9B
1,393
2D0
A31
All
M
13.3
366
2M
W
MAX
5 llm
1 250
5266,750
349
595
29B
393
20.o
A31
3l1
TR
13.3
366
226
W
Table 3-7: 10 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background &
Storm Erosion
mrFAN xouIGSINAFHr1rNGTNAxD
GDTroMAeMMNGFs-rorMFAosrox
GACIIGNDOND.sTaM
Total Noudshmem
Volume
ZE
Flll
De
SO
FlIIM
15
/ft flll
De
9aclaround •
I
Bohan
Bottom
Ton
Gatem
Bottom
Total
G"Mon,
Bottom
Total
Sea level
Total
Noudshmem
Ma
Ma
Noudshmem
Ma
Area
Noudshmem
Ma
Area
Minor
Storm
Rise
NoudshmeM
length
Above
Below
BMWm
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Woo
Above
Below
Bottom
M"MNW
Max
Noudshmem
1ry1
W(M)
Area
(Mi)
MM
MNW
Ma
(ml)
MNW
MNW
Ma
Volume lryl
(aoes)
(noes)
(saes)
ayes
(.Q
ayes
am
acres)
lasres
MN
59%M
LZ:
1,5
2,W
33.8
M
M
a62
lB8
9,M622
5F
067M
667
M.2
aMU
,MEE
n
25.5
MI
I 528
1 1,228
Based on Table 3-5, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for any 10 year time period are 9.2 miles and 446 acres (based on 75 cy/ft
fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 10 year time period
are 36.5 miles and 1,273 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density
RECEIVED RECEIVED 9
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4.2018
DCiM-MHD CITY DCM WI!_MINGTCRJ, NC

will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom
area for any 10-year period would be in the range of 13.9 — 18.2 miles and 536 - 705 acres (based
on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-6, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for any 10 year time period are 13.3 miles and 642 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill
density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for any 10 year time period are
39.9 miles and 1,393 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
for any 10-year period would be in the range of 20.0 miles and 772 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
Table 3-7 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for any
10-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 22.6 miles and 1,088
acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area are
76.4 miles and 2,667 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill density will
likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and bottom area
would be in the range of 33.8 — 38.2 miles and 1,308 — 1,477 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill
density).
3.2.3 50 Year Project Dimension Range
Table 3-8, Table 3-9, and Table 3-10 present the minimum and maximum nourishment lengths
and bottom areas for fill densities of 25 cy/ft, 50 cy/ft, and 75 cy/ft over the entire 50 year time
period for background erosion losses, storm erosion losses, and total losses (background +
storm), respectively. As can be seen, the lowest fill density of 25 cy/ft lends itself to the largest
nourishment length and thus, the largest bottom area covered. Conversely, the highest fill
density of 75 cy/ft lends itself to the smallest nourishment length and thus, the smallest bottom
area covered. It should be noted that during the entire 50-year period, which may include 16
projects stemming from background erosion and 16 projects stemming from storm events,
certain locations may be nourished more than once. Therefore, the total nourishment length and
bottom area sizes may incorporate the same location more than once, creating a seemingly larger
area of influence than what will be impacted.
Table 3-8: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Background
Erosion Only
WYEAR NOMWIVIENT IENGTN AND BOTIOM AREA
RANGES -BACKGROUND) NON ONLY
Totallodshmetn
VRlome
26
/NEill
Densl
50
/N NII
Oensl
h
/Et Nil
We
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bosom
Bottom
eonom
Bsdgowtl
B.Wwi
TRW
Nourishment
Arta
Area
Total
Nounshment
Area
Area
Tobl
Nourishment
Area
Area
Tmal
lBtr
NosRlshmeln
RW
WWth
Below
Bottom
Le ,Dh
Below
eo
Length
Below
Bottom
XosRislRttsM
W
Above
MNW
Above
MW
NNW
Ala
MNW
Vallm lm
IM
(mi)
M"
AKa
Imp
M
a
Area
(ml)
MRW
Area
saes
ones
I+aesl
atrts
aaas
(saes)
_
_
(ones)
50w
40ZM
M,000
22,51Z(M
IM6
2,SA3
3 11
85.3
LW
LAs2
3,297
1 5G9
L56a
LIW
2,713
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITYDCMWILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-9: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area — Storm Erosion
Only
SOYFARNDUpSHMEM1ENf.T1AND80TTOMARFAMNfFS-STORM
FR(5610NONLY
Tod Nwl
.MVolume
25
ry/N FIII
Dem
50
/NFIIIDe
l
75
/N FIII
ftmift
Bottom
Ronan
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Storm
Bea level
Tod
Nourishment
Area
Mea
Total
Nwdshment
Area
Area
Taal
Nwdshment
Area
Area
TMaI
TIM
NwrIAMM
Flu
Nwdfhmem
Length
Above
Below
Bottom
Length
Below
�wom
lerigd,
Above
Below
Bottom
Above
MHW
VWume (ry)
(ry)
(M
Imi)
MHW
MHW
Area
(,N)
MHW
Area
(mll
MHW
MNW
Area
IMRS)
(xR5(
IMreS(
aem2
WGS
Begs
BSRS
MfeS(
(MR51
SD r
27,=,ODD
9nDM
1 28,100,=
212.9
3,1]4
4,250
],431
1WA
2,M
1,819
1116
]7.0
],952
1,4]3
3.41
Table 3-10: 50 Year Nourishment Volume, Length, and Bottom Area— Background &
Storm Erosion
SDYFM NOUN6HMENTU]1GTNANDBOTTOM
MFA MNG6-TOTM.fRO910N
M GBOUND.STOBM
Tool Nouds
.Vol.
n
Wft Fill
M.ft
50
/tt FIII
MnsiftWtft
FIII
We
Badgmund♦
Bottom
Bottom
TOW
Bottom
Bottnm
Taal
TOW
Stow
Sealevel
Total
Noudshment
Area
Area
Bottom
NwdshmeM
Area
/uea
Baton
Nwrlshm of
Arta
Area
Time
Nse
Noudshn M
length
Below
length
Above
Below
IengN
Below
Above
MNW
Above
MNW
Nwdshment
(ry)
(ryl
(mil
MHW
Area
(ml)
MHW
MHW
Area
(ml)
MHW
Area
Volume(ry)
(acres)
(aoxsl
(attest
(acre5l
(.re)
awes
awes
acres
acres
Sa r
4881 609
B10 nn0
SD,61ZW9
M8 ,i I
5)3]
I ]669
13385
391.]I
4,136
I 3277
7413
1 227.8
3517
1 Z60
1 6,.166
Based on Table 3-8, for projects stemming from background erosion, the minimum nourishment
length and bottom area for the entire 50 year time period are 56.9 miles and 2,743 acres (based
on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for the entire 50
year time period are 170.6 miles and 5,954 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected
that the fill density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project
length and bottom area for the entire 50-year period would be in the range of 85.3 miles and
3,297 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Based on Table 3-9, for projects stemming from storm erosion, the minimum nourishment length
and bottom area for the entire 50 year time period are 71.0 miles and 3,423 acres (based on 75
cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom area for the entire 50 year
time period are 212.9 miles and 7,431 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that
the fill density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project
length and bottom area for the entire 50-year period would be in the range of 106.4 miles and
4,116 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
Table 3-10 presents the total impact expected from background erosion and storm erosion for the
entire 50-year period. The minimum nourishment length and bottom area are 127.8 miles and
6,166 acres (based on 75 cy/ft fill density) and the maximum nourishment length and bottom
area are 383.4 miles and 13,385 acres (based on 25 cy/ft fill density). It is expected that the fill
density will likely be in between 25 cy/ft and 75 cy/ft. Therefore, an average project length and
bottom area would be in the range of 191.7 miles and 7,413 acres (based on 50 cy/ft fill density).
3.3 Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1
The initial project under the Master Beach Nourishment Plan is set to take place during winter
2018/2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along 9.5 miles of
shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores. This is an average
fill density of 30 cy/ft. Figure 3-2 shows the planned placement locations and volumes. Material
for the project will be dredged from portions of the Current and Old ODMDS as presented in
RECEWD
RECEIVP
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
JUN 0 4.2018
DCM WILM!NGTON, NC

Figure 3-2. Permit drawings for the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1
are presented in Appendix B.
ta�`ea s
e.c cece aceac uecBeeepa Yume -;caaee.;c6 ®a
aeee'c
e ea.9 �sd5•r v 55
�tpa.a Ipn`BaKh ire Kb 55.5a Tr 1aT0.
a a9: peaces aK\a <0.53 mlb. iNAap CY _..
'ryATOY im.rald lslag ldtla cY
5 a maaa tab,
tr.naaps YO - IN(£T -
'NGT 90 miles 1aalat cY_....
aY
�ry.rY
W0^
a
v.d'r��
ONSLOW BAY
Old
— — ooxos
VdwM
eane-
arl.m
ooaoa
0 05 r f
Figure 3-2: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 (Winter
2018/2019)
It should be noted that this initial project is essentially the "Year 6" nourishment, as presented in
the Master Beach Nourishment Plan (see Figure 3-1), rather than "Year 3". As time has
progressed during the formulation and permitting of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, a need
has developed to start the project with "Year 6".
4.0 METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The proposed fill will be reclaimed by a variety of methods depending on the borrow source
location with respect to the oceanfront shoreline: 1) ocean-going, trailing suction hopper
dredge(s) placing from offshore pump -out stations along the recipient beach, 2) pipeline dredges
placing material from adjacent inlet or AIWW sites along the recipient beach, or 3) truck haul
from upland sand mines. Only the profile above high water is controllable in beach nourishment
construction; intertidal and underwater portions of the profile will be subject to natural
adjustment by waves. The fill will be placed no higher than +6 ft NAVD (the natural elevation of
the berm).
Work will progress in sections within the borrow area and along the beach. Fill placement along
the beach will typically progress at a rate of 400-700 linear feet per day for dredged material.
Construction activities will involve movement of heavy equipment and pipe along —1 mile
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED
12
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

reaches over a period of 1-2 weeks. Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment will
be shifted to a new section and the process repeated. As soon as practicable, sections will be
graded and dressed to final slopes. Other than at temporary equipment staging areas, residents
and visitors along the project area will not experience significant disruption to recreational
activities except within the immediate construction area. Existing public access to the beach will
remain open during construction. Offshore pump -out stations and appurtenances would not
affect commercial or recreational boating.
Land -based equipment will be brought to the site over public roads and will enter the beach at
existing permanent beach accesses identified on the permit drawings. Existing dunes and
vegetation on the beach will be avoided and preserved; however, any alteration of dune
vegetation/topography necessary for equipment access will be repaired to pre -project conditions.
Daily equipment staging will be on the constructed beach seaward of the dune line. Construction
contracts will provide for proper storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, and hydraulic fluids
(etc.) necessary for operation in accordance with state and federal regulations.
4.1 Equipment- Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge
Hopper dredges will dredge material from the designated ocean borrow area. Hopper dredges
typically require —25 ft minimum operational depth and are efficient for excavating shallow cuts
on the order of —2-5 ft. During excavation and loading, the sand/water slurry drains overboard
via scuppers, leaving coarser material in the hopper. When loaded, the dredge travels to a
temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the project site. The hopper dredge connects to
the pipeline and pumps the material from the hopper to the beach where the sand is spread
mechanically by bulldozers. This is the same type of dredging placement operation used during
Phase 1 and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment projects completed in
winter of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively) as well as the Post-Ophelia and Post -Irene
projects.
4.2 Equipment —Pipeline Dredge
Pipeline dredges will dredge material from a designated nearby borrow area, likely Bogue Inlet
or adjacent waterway. A pipeline dredge sucks dredged material through one end, the intake
pipe, and then pushes it out the discharge pipeline directly into the disposal site. The discharge
line for pipeline dredges is usually floated on top of the water until it reaches land where it is
then run to the disposal site. Material pumped from the pipeline dredge onto the beach is spread
mechanically by bulldozers.
4.3 Equipment — Truck Haul
If upland sand mines are used as a borrow source, dump trucks are used to transport material
from the sand mine to the recipient beach where it is dumped and then mechanically spread by
bulldozers.
4.4 Construction Schedule
Construction will take place within the environmental window stated in the FEIS (November 16
through April 30).
RECEIVED
RECEIVEDI3
JUL 13 2013
D
JUN 0 4 2018
CM-MHD CITY
Dr," IML"'W"rOnI, NC

4.5 Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan —Project #1
The initial project to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 (see Section 3.3) will use a hopper
dredge to obtain material from the Current and Old ODMDS where it will then be transported to
an offshore temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the project site. The hopper dredge
will then connect to the pipeline and pump the material from the hopper to the beach where the
sand is spread mechanically by bulldozers. As mentioned previously, this is the same type of
dredging placement operation used during Phase 1 and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks
beach nourishment projects completed in winter of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively) as
well as the Post-Ophelia and Post -Irene projects.
5.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
The following sections summarize the data collection and analysis performed as part of the
Master Beach Nourishment Plan. The full sediment analysis report is provided in Appendix C
(Sediment Analysis).
5.1 Native Beach Sediment Data
Before the series of nourishment projects which took place along Bogue Banks in the 2000's,
native beach data was collected by the USACE as well as CSE. These data indicate a native
grain size ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm. For this report, a median grain size of 0.3 mm is
selected as the best representation of the native beach based upon the 64 samples analyzed by
CSE in 2001. Table 5-1 summarizes the available native beach data. More detail on these
studies can been seen in Appendix C.
Table 5-1: Available Native Beach Data
Date
Source
Mean Grain Sim mm
Coverage
1976
USACE
0.17
Atlantic Beach 4 hwisects
1999
CSE
0.3
Bogue Banks 6 hwmas; 20,000 fl art
2001
USACE
0.19
Bog& hdet Area
2001
USACE
0.19
West Emerald Isle
2001
USACE
0.2
East Emeaid Isle
2001
USACE
0.2
Indian Beach
2001
1 USACE
1 0.19
Pme Knok Shores
2001
USACE
0.19
Atlant c Beach
2001
USACE
0.22
Fort Macon
2001
1 CSE
1 0.3
Iffidian Beach/Saker Path & Pire Knok Shores 16 uansects
The material in the proposed borrow areas must meet the characteristics prescribed by North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) "Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects" (15A
NCAC 07H .0312) resulting in the parameters listed in Table 5-2.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 22 9 JUN 0 4 2018 14
®CM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 5-2: Native Beach Characteristics and Rule Parameters
Characteristic
2001 Native
NCAC
Requirements
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Fines (<#230)
Reported: 0%, Assumed: <1%
<1%+5%
<_ 6%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
Reported at 98.68%
-
-
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
Reported combined at 1.32%,
Assumed 0.7% each
0.7% + 5%
< 6%
Gravel(>#4)
0.7%+5%
<6%
Calcium Carbonate
Reported at 15-20%
20%+ 15%
<35%
In addition, Moffatt & Nichol conducted a field investigation on May 24, 2018 to estimate the
total number of sediments and shell material greater than or equal to three inches in diameter,
observable on the surface of the beach between mean low water and the frontal dune toe, in a
50,000 square foot area. Investigations were performed two locations, one in Atlantic Beach
between Transects 78 and 80 and one in Emerald Isle between Transects 29 and 30. The Atlantic
Beach investigation area has never been nourished and the Emerald Isle investigation area has
only been nourished once. Results of the investigation found 138 pieces of shell material greater
than or equal to three inches in diameter at Atlantic Beach and 211 pieces of shell material
greater than or equal to three inches in diameter at Emerald Isle. Appendix C contains the details
and documentation of the field investigation.
5.2 Potential Sources for the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
In 2012, Alpine and Coastal Tech conducted a geotechnical investigation of the main potential
offshore borrow areas near Bogue Banks to identify beach -compatible sand resources for the
long-term beach nourishment needs of Carteret County. The sites investigated were the Old
Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) located directly offshore of Beaufort Inlet, the
Current ODMDS just south of the Old ODMDS, Area Y and Z directly offshore of Emerald Isle,
and the main ebb channel of Bogue Inlet, as shown in Figure 5-1. The 2012 investigation
consisted of 164 twenty -foot vibracores extracted in the Old ODMDS, Current ODMDS, Area Y,
and Area Z. There were an additional 5 ten -foot vibracores extracted in Bogue Inlet by Alpine
Ocean Seismic Survey. Analysis of vibracores collected in 2002 by the USACE in the Morehead
City Outer Harbor was also conducted to ensure compatibility and verify the quantity of any
material available for placement as a result of the USACE Morehead City Harbor Dredged
Material Management Plan (DMMP). The results of the sand search investigation are
summarized for each site in the following sections while a detailed report can be found in
Appendix C. In addition, research was conducted to estimate potential sediment quantities in
upland sediment sources (sand mines) and AIWW disposal areas.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 261
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

e — i
4 • lr, II
-
I O S
Aroa YAmaZ
'I
r" -
•
Legend
Vibrawres Potential Borrow Areas •' • • - ., - „
c Aw&Y C.,,l ODMDS
e AmaZ -USACE A.Y • -t
• ODMDS -DMODMDS
• Bysox lnbi
M
Figure 5-1: Potential Borrow Areas and 2012 Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.3 Old ODMDS
This site is located directly north of the Current ODMDS in State waters. The Old ODMDS was
split into two sections; designated Old ODMDS 1 and Old ODMDS 2, to maximize the potential
borrow area volume as shown in Figure 5-2.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2016 DCM WILMIN61ON, NC
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 5-2: Old ODMDS Site and Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.3.1 Old ODMDS I
Old ODMDS 1 borrow area is location on the boarder of Current ODMDS. This area consists of
fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand with a mean grain size of 0.30 millimeters (mm) and an
overfill factor of 1.30. This area is estimated to contain 13.1 Million cubic yards (Mcy) of beach
compatible sand. The characteristics of this material are compliant with the parameters defined
by the NCAC as shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Old ODMDS 1 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Old ODMDS 1
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
0.53%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
%.00%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
2.14%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
133%
Calcium Carbonate
1 <35%
1 13.55%
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 R18
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

5.3.2 Old ODMDS 2
Old ODMDS 2 borrow area is similar to Old ODMDS 1 with a slightly larger mean grain size of
0.32 mm and an overfill factor of 1.25. This area is estimated to contain 1.1 Mcy of beach
compatible sand that meet the NCAC criteria as listed in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Old ODMDS 2 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Old ODMDS 2
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
0.20%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
%.30%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<_ 60/c
2.49%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
1.01%
Calcium Carbonate
5 35%
13.57%
5.4 Current ODMDS
The Current ODMDS is located south of the Old ODMDS just outside of the 3-mile
jurisdictional line in Federal waters. This area was divided into eight potential borrow areas
consisting of one large mound and seven smaller disposal mounds. The seven small disposal
mounds were then grouped according to the level of confidence in the granularmetric data.
5.4.1 Current ODMDS 1
Current ODMDS I is an extension of the large mound located in Old ODMDS 1 as shown below
in Figure 5-3; therefore, they have very similar sediment properties. The mean grain size is 0.30
mm and has an overfill factor of 1.25 and meets all the NCAC compatibility requirements as
listed in Table 5-5. This site contains approximately 3.27 Mcy of beach compatible material.
This number has been adjusted from that presented in Appendix C (4.23 Mcy) by subtracting out
the Hurricane Irene renourishment amount which was dredged from this borrow area.
RECEIVED
REMOVED
IJUL 13 ?",
DCM-MHD CITY
JUN 0 4,zo%
DCM WII.WNIGTCN), NC

A1031 *032 0
•
9 .2
076 049 050
r
ffThe
R'8" stroll
0R
46
41
V
J --1
1 4.350
044
j t A
0
7
Legend
52 Salad Quality Navigation Channel
• Oood Geodynamics 2009+2011 bathy
• Mocimb NAVD88 Ft
_52 52 • Poor . High 31
ourem ODMDs 0 N 3,000
r 101dOEWDS .1-ow .56 5 ee
Figure 5-3: Current ODMDS 1 Site and Vibracore Locations (Coastal 'Tech, 2013)
Table 5-5: Current ODMDS 1 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Current
ODMDS 1
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
0.52%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.06%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
2.06%
Gravel(>#4)
:56%
1.36%
Calcium Carbonate
5 35%
13.29%
5.4.2 Higher Confidence Mounds
The higher confidence mounds include mounds where at least one vibracore penetrates the
thickest portion of the mound. This allows for more accurate representation of the stratigraphy
to be defined. The higher confidence mounds include Mounds 0-15, 0-192, 0-48, 014, and 0-
47, as shown in Figure 5-4.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018 19
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Figure 5-4: Higher Confidence Mound Sites and Vibracore Locations (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Mound 0-15
Mound 0-15 is located west of Current ODMDS 1 and has vibracore 0-15 passing directly
through the thickest section of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained,
moderately sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.24 mm, which is smaller than the
native mean grain size. This results in a larger overfill factor of 1.60 and Mound 0-15 being
assigned a " B" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-6;
therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible
material in this mound is approximately 356,000 cubic yards (cy).
Table 5-6: Mound 0-15 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-15
Fines(<#230)
<_ 6%
0.07%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
99.23%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
5 6%
0.54%
Gravel (>#4)
< 6%
0.16%
Calcium Carbonate
5 35%
10.10%
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
20
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM WILMwr;TON. NC

Mound 0-192
Mound 0-192 is located southwest of Current ODMDS 1 and has vibracore 0-192 and 0-41
passing through this mound; with 0-192 passing through the thickest section of the mound. This
potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain
size of 0.36 mm, which is coarser than the previous mound. This results in a smaller overfill
factor of 1.25 and Mound 0-192 assigned an "A" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC are
met, as shown in Table 5-7; therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total
amount of beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 785,270 cy.
Table 5-7: Mound 0-192 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-192
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
0.13%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
93.07%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
_< 6%
3.43%
Gravel (>#4)
_<6%
3.37%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
19.59%
Mound 0-48
Mound 0-48 is located southwest of Current ODMDS I and has vibracore 0-48 passing through
the middle of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, moderately sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.2 mm, which is significantly finer than the native
sediment. This results in a larger overfill factor of 2.25 and Mound 0-48 assigned a "C"
ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-8; therefore, the
material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible material in this
mound is approximately 468,740 cy.
Table 5-8: Mound 0-48 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-48
Fines (<#230)
<_ 6%
5.91%
Sand (>#230 & 010)
-
92.83%
Granular (>#10&<#4)
<6%
1.11%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
0.15%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
1 7.76%
Mound 0-14/0-47
Mound 0-14/0-47 is located west of Mound 0-48 and has vibracore 0-14, 0-47, and 0-38
passing through the mound. This mound was split because it was assigned two different cut
depths to maximize beach quality material being removed. Even though this area was split, the
sediment properties were analyzed and recorded as one site. This potential borrow area consists
of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.38 mm, which is coarser
RECEIVED RECEIVED 21
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4,2018
®CM-MHD CITY DCM WII s4uA1( Te%Pi nv;

than the native sediment. This results in a smaller overfill factor of 1.20 and Mound 0-14/0-47
assigned an "A" ranking. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in Table 5-9;
therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of beach compatible
material in this mound is approximately 566,028 cy.
Table 5-9: Mound 0-14/0-47 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound
0-14 / 0-47
Fines (0230)
<_ 6%
0.23%
Sand (>#230 & <# 10)
-
93.43%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<6%
4.71%
Gravel(>#4)
<6%
1.63%
Calcium Carbonate
< 35%
19.80%
5.4.3 Lower Confidence Mounds
The lower confidence mounds include mounds where the vibracore is located along the edge and
none that penetrate the thickest portion of the mound. This prevents an accurate representation
of the stratigraphy to be defined. The lower confidence mounds include Mounds 0-35 and 0-46,
which are shown in Figure 5-5. Coastal Tech recommends that these mounds be sampled with
additional vibracores in the thickest portion of the mounds to confirm the sediment characteristic
inferred from the existing cores.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2018 22
JUL 13 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 5-5: Lower Confidence Mound Sites and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Mound 0-35
Mound 0-35 is located south of Current ODMDS 1 and shares data from vibracore 0-35 which
was used in the analysis of Current ODMDS 1. Vibracore 0-43 passes through the southern
edge of this mound. These vibracores were weighted equally when the mound composite was
created. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted quartz sand. An
overfill factor of 1.3 was calculated and Mound 0-35 was assigned a `B" ranking due to the lack
of sampling in the middle of the area. All parameters defined by NCAC were met, as shown in
Table 5-10 below; therefore, the material is considered beach compatible. The total amount of
beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 499,500"cy.
Table 5-10: Mound 0-35 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-35
Fines(<#230)
5 6%
0.31%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.08%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
< 6%
2.65%
Gravel (>#4)
_<6%
0.96%
Calcium Carbonate
<35%
15.20%
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED 23
JUN 0 4 2018
ACM WILMINGTON, NO

Mound 0-46
Mound 0-46 is located southwest of Current ODMDS 1 and only has vibracore 0-46 passing
through the edge of the mound. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, poorly sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.4 mm, which is coarser than the native sediment. An
overfill factor of 1.25 was calculated and Mound 0-46 was assigned a `B" ranking due to the
lack of sampling in the middle of the area. All parameters defined by NCAC were met except
for Granular, as shown in Table 5-11. It is believed that, upon further sampling in the center of
the area, the percent granular may fall within the guidelines defined. The total amount of
potential beach compatible material in this mound is approximately 493,564 cy.
Table 5-11: Mound 046 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Mound 0-35
Fines (0230)
< 6%
0.37%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
90.60%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<6%
6.27%
Gravel (>#4)
< 6%
2.76%
Calcium Carbonate
< 35%
18.17%
5.4.4 Contingency Mounds
The remaining mounds in the Current ODMDS lack a vibracore within the boundary of the
mound, as shown in Figure 5-6. Conceptual cut depths were assumed from the surrounding
vibracores and potential volumes were calculated. These mounds do not have sediment
characteristics defined. The potential volumes these mounds contain are shown in Table 5-12
with a total volume of approximately 320,000 cy.
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 24
2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

52 053
•
4s
1
tip- �"` ®51 052
• •
• •
M
fj
056
•
57 058
• •
059 060
• •
I
„1`wi 11�
h y- 52
52
Legend
2012 Vibracores
Q Contingency Mounds
Sand Quality
Geodynamics
2011 bathymetry
nj \w
Good
NAVD88 Ft
\
• Modereb
• Poor
High: -31.0
a
\
J \
CumntODMDS Low:.56.5
0� N 2,000
\,
Q Old ODMDS
FB@I
Figure 5-6: Contingency Mound Sites and Vibracores
Table 5-12: Contingency Mound Volumes (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Mound
Cut Elevation NAVD88
Volume (cy)
0-16
-50 ft
95,326
0-39
-52 ft
94.352
0-37/0-38
-51 ft
71.233
0-32
-50 ft
58,543
Total
319,454
5.5 Area Y
Area Y is located seaward of Emerald Isle within State waters in which 55 vibracores were
collected. Vibracores were initially taken on a 1,000-foot by 1,000-foot grid; however, a
significant amount of fines were found in the surficial layer. The spacing was then increased to a
2,000-foot grid spacing, and two areas were identified as potential sites as shown in Figure 5-7.
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVER5
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NO

b
�
idle 1 b�nrzri
Y �
G s
Bog lnl l
Q
5 -� —25
-" 41
24
hart 11541) O.O a c *eWns+B10 21
v1 r i
4
va T1%
34..
r135 • • •
>p
4 t
vvz rya
26
rma
m • x101 na
ZM 0
• • r1m
nr • xaa
a1s
$ 2 19 • ze1ZY
a32
0
i • r107
vea31
•
AW'BPDni
.
Z�Za
vo
va�V115 ram
• Tlta •
he (A) � ,57 •
h�z
2ns •g
z1a• 2�1 • jaA
Z177 •WHIS
Zia 0
a1a • - �.. � ZIN 0 Z2Nzn� • _45
40zllrlqi• zzm•zi° • i
\ ,\
Legend 44
\9
"0
Obstn
• 2012 Vibracores Geodynamics 2011 Ba1hy
Fish Ha
Y120 Mound NAVD88 Ft
47
.......
i (auth m
VaD Mound High --31.0 A ��
0 4,000 N
%
Low -se. e
Figure 5-7: Area Y Site and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
5.5.1 Vibracores Y-80/Y--75
Vibracores Y-80 and Y-75 are 2000 feet apart and, due to the hardbottom buffer to the east, no
vibracores were taken on that side. The vibracores taken to the west of Y-80 and Y-75 are not
beach compatible. This potential borrow area consists of fine grained, moderately well sorted
quartz sand and has a mean grain size of 0.23 mm, which is finer than the native sediment. All
parameters defined by NCAC were met as shown below in Table 5-13. Although the parameters
are met, the area should be considered a low priority with a "C" ranking due to insufficient
vibracores to designate a reliable borrow area and poor quality of sediment. The potential
volume is estimated at 1.08 Mcy; however, the rectangular area defined is purely conceptual and
not based on the vibracores.
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED 26
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 5-13: Vibracores Y-80 & Y-75 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal
Tech,2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracores
Y-80 / Y-75
Fines(<#230)
<_ 6%
2.37%
Sand (>#230 & <#I0)
-
97.55%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
0.08%
Gravel(>#4)
<6%
0.00%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
1.85%
5.5.2 Vibracores Y-120/Y--90
Vibracores Y-120 and Y-90 are 1000 feet apart and are located along a ridge; however, the
sediment color is dark in color. This potential borrow area also exceeds the requirement set by
NCAC for Gravel as shown in Table 5-14; therefore, would not be considered beach compatible.
The total amount of material in this mound is approximately 379,675 cy.
Table 5-14: Vibracores Y-120 & Y-90 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal
Tech,2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracores
Y-120 / Y-90
Fines(<#230)
< 6%
2.04%
Sand(>#230 & <#10)
-
86.60%
Granular (>#10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
Gravel(>#4)
_<6%
7.93%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
1.50%
5.6 Area Z
Area Z consisted of forty-three vbracores that were taken southeast of Bogue Inlet in efforts to
locate the White Oak River channel, shown in Figure 5-8. Vibracore Z-174 was the only sample
showed a possibility of having beach compatible material; however, it exceeded the Gravel
requirement as shown in Table 5-15.
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED 27
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

— Grdra.... 5 24
ION LINL- ,.\.•.\$ h
i
L tdA�CA le A) \ 6 �P
Ial:'C1 5'2cc ffiee e O nas
ns z0 •
n� ;� ' 2 G1 ::„ • 0 a z,m Z' '44
4 5 �/ :zM ® Z,V, •
• Z0 ® Ztr
� ,• •
z,nss
15 20 (a) Z • : •
ir z• �zzss •41 ` /
28 Z9T _�, • nn a:•�r
— \ rr Z:n •
\ r • z2M• zaro
T Z1\ U.,n
Le�.,r
..� •' 45 46 45
Y'A"
/ FI Y 4S \
47 4Y
LBdZ. � '�..
Legend a 48 41, LBM_,r
• 20V V r Gs N N 4 •'�
• usn E z vneo
ee 45
Figure 5-8: Area Z Site and Vibracores (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Table 5-15: Vibracore Z-174 Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracore Z-174
Fines (0230)
_< 6%
1.34%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
84.57%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
<_ 6%
2.28%
Gravel (>#4)
<_ 6%
11.81 %
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
11.10%
5.7 Bogue Inlet Channel
Five vibracores were collected within the authorized dimensions of the 2005 Bogue Inlet
relocation project as shown in Figure 5-9. The Bogue Inlet ebb and flood shoals are fed by the
surrounding beaches based on "sediment transport analysis. The mean grain size of material from
vibracores is 0.33 mm with an overfill factor of 1.15. The sediment met all NCAC compatibility
requirements as listed in Table 5-16. This site contains approximately 850,000 cy to 1 Mcy of
beach compatible material.
RECEIVED RECEIVED 28
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
®CM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Dudley I IAarsh t
O
10
24 34
h
�5�2od
OuPas ,.........t ..
L1xgend
15 N�
-- � 2012 Vibracores
_ Authorized Dredge Channel
22 i Geodynamics 2009 Bathy
NAVD88 Ft
i S . High: 15.0
33 9 0
-, - J e �.. law: �7.3 N
Figure 5-9: Bogue Inlet Channel Site, Vibracores, and Authorized Channel Location
(Coastal Tech, 2013)
Table 5-16: Bogue Inlet Channel Characteristics and NCAC Parameters (Coastal Tech,
2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Vibracore Z-174
Fines (<#230)
5 6%
0.15%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
96.61%
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
< 6%
2.40%
Gravel (>#4)
<6%
0.84%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
14.96%
5.8 Morehead City Outer Harbor
The Outer Harbor consists of the Cutoff and Range A out to Station 110+00 as shown in Figure
5-10. Since this is a federal navigation project, the requirements for beach compatibility only
limit the silt content to less than 10%. The characteristics of the sediment in this area meet that
requirement and are listed below in Table 5-17. The USACE Morehead City Harbor draft
RECEIVED RECEIVED 29
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) estimates that the Outer Harbor is shoaling at a
rate of 1.2 Mcy per year (2012). Depending on the final DMMP, there could be between
228,000-635,000 cy of sand available for beach placement annually. A mid -range amount of
400,000 cy/yr is assumed to be available from this source.
•w ti (FG{Nig�
• •• t lFl`- 3
--
_ Q • 47
)• tf Q G (1N#1)
- Marsh • Ir F12 6s 9,
CG �� i �.' • ofa
7 1
VtegeRI5�4M'1
15
34 ys 23 G 11 Ftig4s >0
20 FIG 2.ft 13 �r1
S Pnv 1 7
M 4 •34 7 22i/; 2 191'\ ti 21
22
�\T
48 • • 35 G It �1 /
\.5\• • ' 3f
, • i • 3y 7 40
I 40
M ( Bf•AVJF
46 0 3psT The prol ' t de
Legend 38 0 G RIV 0 R ro?11 Qling opth
a. USACE 2002 Vibracores 43
Navigation Channel y 16 \�
Section i /41
Cutoff u r
V ,
Range A r - 48
Range 8 0� 21 �,SOD H ` R-M _ so
Range C 1'C
Faat I 1. F1 R 4s ;>A �
Figure 5-10: Morehead City Channel Vibracore and Reach Locations (Coastal Tech,
2013)
RECEIVED
RECEIVED 30
JUN 0 4 2018
JUL 13 2018
,M-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 5-17: Morehead City Outer Harbor Characteristics and NCAC Parameters
(Coastal Tech, 2013)
Characteristic
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Morehead City
Outer Harbor
Fines(<#230)
<_ 6%
<1%
Sand (>#230 & <#10)
-
Not Reported
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
_< 6%
Not Reported
Gravel (>#4)
<6%
6.40%
Calcium Carbonate
<_ 35%
15.70%
5.9 Upland Sources and AIWW Disposal Areas
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has a database of permitted active and inactive
upland mines. From this database, a list of active sand and gravel mines within 30 miles of
Bogue Banks (estimated to be feasible from a trucking cost perspective), which included mines
in the surrounding counties of Craven, Jones, and Onslow, was generated. Based on a
description of the material from various mine owners, a list of potential upland sources was
compiled containing approximately 1,380,700 cy of material. However, if the need arises,
further testing would have to be completed to verify the compatibility based on the current state
rules for beach compatibility.
The USACE performs maintenance dredging for navigation along the AIWW and disposes the
sand in specific disposal areas. A visual inspection of aerial photography for each disposal area
was performed and areas that were in proximity to a previous vibracore location were examined
first. If the sand described by the vibracore and associated geotechnical report met the beach
compatibility standards, it was determined to be a viable site. It is important to note that most of
these areas have not had a sediment analysis performed; therefore, it cannot be confirmed that
the sand meets the compatibility criteria. A sand thickness was assumed for each area of 5 feet
and volumes were then calculated based on this assumption and the area of the disposal island
found from ArcGIS. If 90% of the available sand is placed, the total volume available from the
dredge disposal areas is approximately 1,288,800 cy.
Given the limited amount of sand in the upland sources and AIWW disposal areas compared to
the total 50-yr need, these sources should be considered for the overall project but solely for
possible use for small "hotspot" projects in the future, as needed, because they do not meet the
50-yr need.
5.10 Summary of Sediment Data — Total Available Volume
The total volume available when the upland sources, AIWW disposal areas, and the offshore
sources (Old ODMDS, Current ODMDS, and Area Y) are combined is presented in Table 5-18.
The total non-renewable volume available from these sources is 25,123,057 cy. The overall
sediment need for Bogue Banks over the 50 year planning horizon based on the
analytical/empirical analysis is between 45.0 and 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy for moderate sea
level change). Therefore, the volume of the combined upland, AIWW, and offshore sources will
not be enough to meet the 50 year need by itself.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
31
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 5-18: Summary of Non -Renewable Potential Borrow Areas
Area
Total Volume
Upland Sand Mines
1,380,700
AIWWDisposal Areas
1,288,800
Offshore Sources
22,453,557
TOTAL
25123 057
In addition to the upland, AIW W, and offshore borrow sources, Bogue and Beaufort Inlets could
also provide material on a cyclical basis as they regularly shoal and must be dredged by the
USACE for navigation purposes. These renewable borrow areas could potentially provide
approximately 25,130,000 cy over 50 years, as shown in Table 5-19, which, by itself, is not
enough to cover the 50 year need of between 45.0 and 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy for moderate
sea level change).
Table 5-19: Volume of Renewable Potential Borrow Areas (Coastal Tech, 2013)
Area
Section
Volume
Dredging
50 yr
Frequency
Total
MHC Outer
Cutoff+Range A
400,000 cy
1 years
20,000,000
Harbor
to STA 110
(assumed)
Inlet Relocation
850,000 cy
10 years
4,250,000
Rogue Inlet
AIW W Crossing
44,000 cy
2.5 years
880,000
Totals:
25,130,000
However, if all mentioned sources are incorporated (upland, AIWW, offshore, and inlets)
approximately 50,253,057 cy of material would be available and would meet the 50-year
sediment need of 45 Mcy to 49.8 Mcy (46.8 to 51.6 Mcy with moderate sea level change).
The total volume available when the renewable and non-renewable sources are combined is
tabulated in Table 5-20.
Table 5-20: Total Volume Available
Source
50-Yr Total Volume (cy)
Renewable
25,130,0000
Non -Renewable
25,123,057
TOTAL
50,253 057
5.11 Bogue Banks Master beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1
The initial project to be performed in Winter 2018/2019 will have the option of dredging
material from the Current and Old ODMDS. Figure 5-11 shows the location of the potential
borrow areas within the Current and Old ODMDS. A large portion of the potential borrow area
in the Current ODMDS was also used in 2013 for the Post -Irene nourishment project.
RECEIVED RECEIVED 32
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NO

Figure 5-11: Potential Borrow Areas Within the Current and Old ODMDS
Table 5-21 presents the sediment characteristics of the vibracores within the potential borrow
areas. Based on analysis of these vibracores, it is estimated that beach compatible material exists
down to an elevation of —52 ft NAVD88. Thus, plans will specify a dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft of allowable overdredge. Volume calculations indicate roughly 2,711,727 cy
of material exists above —52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the Current
ODMDS and 9,225,657 cy of material exists above -52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area
within the Old ODMDS (see Figure 5-11). Therefore, the total volume available from the
potential borrow areas is 11,937,384 cy. While 1,519,030 cy is the expected placement volume,
the anticipated dredge volume could reach 1,974,740 cy due to losses typically incurred between
what is dredged and what is placed (approximately 30%).
RECEIVED 33
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 5-21: Sediment Characteristics of Potential Borrow Area
vibrator¢
�m(kN N�'
91NT G.W.. .
uW
Com9otl6on %1%1
Sbe CWe 1W%)
Oeac'IKNe Rawfics
GrwN
GnnWv
SMW
H2M
Men (nn/
S0. dv.(p�
Of990k
Cremate
431
1.1MS
1.u%
97.W%
0.12%
0.27
ON
SW
ON
0.12
010
A82
0.22%
1.81%
9T.62%
029%
0.28
On
SW
am
0.13
-69.2
0.18%
1.00%
86.5'A6
0.26%
a.26
O.B2
SP
0.80
O.f0
-M.2
0]1%
2.M%
W.62%
0.18%
0.33
1.01
SW
am
0.14
E-48.2
39.6
2.10%
1.61%
92.W%
0.03%
ON
1.M
SW
0.10
0.16
A2.8
OAS%
3.u%
95.BB%
0.27%
OM
10]
SW
am
0.14Ott
J1.6
0.01%
am%
No%
O.N%
026
ON
W
am
0.14
4M6
1A3%
1.N%
NAM
0.12%
a29
1OB
SW
am
0.14
61.0
1.SB%
611%
0.11%
0211%
OAS
1."
SW
0.10
am
012
-51.6
-55.6
1.3!%
3.24%
W5
021%
0.32
1.15
6W
O60
0.14
65.6
me
am%
1.09%
68.36%
3021%
am
ON
SW
3.10
0.18
60.5
8.6
0.02%
1.89%
91.83%
10.0%
am
1.12
SWSM
1.70
0.30
41.3
63.3
0.08%
1.M%
9826%
am
on
ON
SW
0.80
0.12
013
-503
-M.3
O.N%
1.01%
M22%
9.M
023
1.01
BW-SM
1.M
0.15
N.3
68.3
0.01%
0.26%
M.69%
61.01%
0.18
0.79
CL
1.M
0.11
44.1
60.1
1.22%
1.1i%
WA8%
0.53%
a.M
1.10
SW
am
0.12
018
-50.1
-N.1
0.21%
2.53%
W.W%
0.29%
0.28
1.02
SW
ON
0.13
W.1
4MI
0.0914
1.10%
19.59%
1 18.82%
1 0.20
1.05
SN
2DO
am
-M.1
'Mi
0.00%
0.66%
99.21%
0.08%
025
am
SW
0.60
0.11
42.1
-16.1
L69%
1.16%
97.13%
0.00%
021)1.07
SW
OM0.14
019
A8.1
-53.1
1.88%
128%
Wom
0.12%
On
1.10
SW
0.70
0.13
"A
35.4
0.00%
02/%
NM%
0.19%
021
0.73
SP
a."
0.10
36.1
-11A
ZN%
3.M%
90M%
OAM
O.M
129
SW
am
0.18
020
41.4
- A
128%
223%
95.11%
am
0.31
1AS
SW
am
021
J A
60.3
2.31%
2.38%
N.9299
0.39%
On
121
SW
am
0.09
-37
J2
0.38%
1.61%
91.12%
0.26%
O.M
a.92
SW
am
0.18
021
42
41
1.11%
3.11%
N.M%
0.4%
On
12
SW
am
0.12
Al
-52
1.M%
1M%
NAM
0.10%
031
1.08
SW
0.10
0.12
!,
32.T
31.7
31.1
I J
2.14%
2.12%
2.62%
2.95%
0.21%
1),1.19%
0.13%
0.14%
O.N
0.31
120
1.18
SW
SW
am
a.1a
0.16
0.12
on
-12.1
47.7
41.8
41.7
-52.1
6.6
1.68%
1.06%
1.88%
1.21%
261%
3.50%
N."%
95.8m
91.51%
0.33%
OAO%
0.11%
a.2B
0.0
ON
1.09
1.02
126
SW
SW
SW
am
am
0.60
0.12
0.15
0.13
-0.8
61.8
0.06%
0.60%
91.30%
1.62%
0.19
0.70
WP
1.00
ON
ON
-57.8
4M8
0.71%
1.0^
81.0%
16411%
021
IN
W
120
021
62.8
d5
0.13%
16.02%
"A3%
9.12%
0.81
1.90
SW-SM
IM
am
49.3
31.2
1.18%
3.M
W.91%
4.01%
021
1.SB
MW
1.50
0.13
024
-51.2
36.1
013
0AM
W.51%
02a%
0.28
O.M
W
am
0.10
-M.1
42
Z11
-M
1.M%
O.BO%
6.13%
2.86%
13.39%
95.M%
AV%
am
O.M
On
1.0
1.10
W
SW
2.M
Om
On
0.14
F
025 v
JB
.0
-59.9
-fit
2.05%
1.91%
95.21%
0.83%
0.33
1.21
BW
ON
0.18
0A9
0.10
-69.9
61.5
129%
0.00%
2.80%
1.01%
9623%
u.30%
OAM
SAM
O.0
0.18
1.17
am
SW
SPBN
ON
1.m
0,
453
-50.1
-W.1
65
521%
0.m
1.11%
1.31%
90.21%
9T15%
0.33%
0.21%
O.M
ON
1.62
0.97
SW
SW
am
am
0.13
0.12
w
.55
I3.6
69.5
4716
O.M%
O.M%
3.15%
211%
1553%
W21%
20.31%
020%
am
0.10
1.M
1.06
W
SW
1.50
a.50
0.11
0.17
5
027 '
41.8
51.6
41.6
66.5
0.61%
OAM
2.02%
12M
W.W%
9 O(M
0.35%
OAM
O.0
Oil)
1.00
SW
am
0.12
0.12
am
SW
am
68.5
60.1
0A%
3.15%
M.13%
12.12%
0.21
1.15
W
1.80
am
42.7
46.1
OMM
1.62%
91.10%
0.09%
On
0.0
SW
ON
0.13
0213
ABJ
-513
0.41%
t.n%
9T10%
Ode%
01)
ON
SW
am
0.13
-613
-66.B
036%
1.87%
11.N%
22.90%
0.27
1.13
W
1.70
0.14
49.1
62.6
0.16%
1.22%
98.51%
0.03%
ON
am
SW
O.N
0.12
-52.6
-M.3
2.15%
1.31%
M.01%
1 5.4 %
1 0.21
1.0
SW
1.50
a22
OM
M3
ml
0.00%
0.W%
0321%
6.10%
0.14
O.M
SW
1A0
ON
60.1
-05
2.80%
3.99%
"JIM
15.13%
O.M
1.66
SM
2.90
0.31
RECEIVED RECEIVED 34
'JUL 13 2018
JUN 0 4 2018
1'1CM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Pursuant to the NC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the environmental effects of
implementing the Bogue Banks MBNP have been evaluated in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Final EIS (FEIS) was distributed to state agencies through the NC State
Clearinghouse on March 8 h, 2018. This section presents a summary of the projected
environmental effects as described in the FEIS.
6.1 Marine Benthic Communities
6.1.1 Softbottom
Offshore borrow site dredging events at the ODMDS and/or Area Y would disturb
approximately 35 to 240 acres of soft bottom habitat every three years. Direct and indirect
effects on softbottom benthic communities within the dredging footprints would include short-
term direct impacts on benthic invertebrates via excavation and short-term indirect impacts on
demersal fishes via temporary reductions in the benthic prey base. Benthic recovery would
begin immediately upon the cessation of dredging operations; and it is anticipated that relatively
shallow dredge cuts, the mounded nature of the sand deposits at the ODMDS, and avoidance of
peak benthic infaunal recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid dredge cut infilling
and benthic community recovery.
Sand placement within the subtidal portions of the beach fill footprints would result in the burial
and temporary loss of the associated soft bottom benthic invertebrate infauna and epifauna.
Benthic recovery would begin immediately upon the cessation of placement operations; and it is
anticipated that the use of beach compatible material and avoidance of peak invertebrate
recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid benthic community recovery. Losses of
benthic invertebrate prey may affect the foraging activities of demersal surf zone fishes;
however, recruitment of opportunistic benthic taxa to the disturbed areas would provide
substantial prey resources within a relatively short period of time, and the distribution of
alternative soft bottom habitats within the overall project area is expansive.
6.1.2 Hardbottom
As described in the FEIS, comprehensive remote sensing and ground-truthing surveys indicate
that hardbottom features are absent from the nearshore ocean zone along Bogue Banks (shore to
2,500 feet). Therefore, sand placement would not be expected to have any adverse effects on
hardbottom habitats. Remote sensing surveys of the offshore borrow sites conducted by Hall
(2008, 2011) found no hardbottoms within 500 in of the former and current ODMDS offshore
borrow sites. The surveys identified a series of low relief hardbottom features to the east and
south of the Area Y 90/120 and Y-75/80 borrow sites. The Area Y 90/120 borrow site is
separated from the nearest identified hardbottom feature by a distance of-1,000 in. The Y-75/80
borrow site is separated from the nearest identified hardbottom feature by a distance of at least
500 in; however, the survey area did not include the northernmost portion of the Y-75/80 borrow
site. The line of identified hardbottoms appears to be trending northeast and away from the
northern portion of Y-75/80; however, additional geotechnical investigations will be conducted
prior to any use of the Y-75/80 borrow site to verify that no hardbottom features are present
within 500-m of the proposed dredging footprint. These investigations would also be used to
RECEIVED RECEIVED
35
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4,2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

determine specific pipeline placement corridors for the conveyance of dredge material from the
Area Y borrow sites to the beach. Based on these considerations, offshore borrow, site dredging
operations are not expected to have any adverse effects on hardbottom habitat.
6.2 Ocean Water Quality
Offshore borrow site dredging would involve the extraction of beach -compatible sand with a
very small fine sediment fraction, thus indicating that the effects of dredging -induced sediment
suspension on marine water quality and pelagic communities would be short-term and localized.
Increases in suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity attributable to sand placement
would also be expected in the surf zone along the management reaches. However, as described
in the FEIS, the results of water quality monitoring during nourishment operations along Bogue
Banks and other southeastern NC beaches indicate that turbidity increases are typically confined
to the surf zone in the immediate vicinity of the slurry discharge point. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that the beach -compatible composition of the material and the use of temporary dikes
and spreaders to contain the discharged sand slurry would reduce the extent of sediment
suspension. Therefore, it is anticipated that sediment suspension effects attributable to sand
placement would be short-term and localized.
6.3 Ocean Beach and Dune Communities
6.3.1 Intertidal Beach
Beach construction activities may disrupt shorebird foraging activities and/or prevent shorebirds
from using otherwise suitable intertidal beach foraging habitats. However, the effects of
disturbance would be short-term and localized to the vicinity of the active construction zone.
Sand placement on top of the existing intertidal beach substrate would eliminate the majority of
the intertidal benthic invertebrate infauna through direct burial. However, it is expected that the
use of compatible sediments in accordance with State Sediment Criteria and avoidance of peak
benthic infaunal recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid benthic community
recovery. As described in the FEIS, most benthic recovery studies have reported rapid recovery
within one year of the initial impact when highly compatible beach fill sediments were used and
larval recruitment periods were avoided. Direct impacts on intertidal benthic communities may
affect shorebirds and demersal surf zone fishes by temporarily reducing the availability of
benthic infaunal prey. However, it is anticipated that relatively rapid benthic infaunal
recruitment would provide substantial prey resources along the disturbed reaches within a
relatively short period of time, and substantial undisturbed intertidal beach foraging habitat
would be available within the action area during benthic recovery periods. Therefore, it is
expected that the impacts of sand placement on intertidal beach communities would be short
term and localized.
6.3.2 Dry Beach and Dune Communities
Dry beach (berm) and dune construction would involve the use of bulldozers and other heavy
machinery to redistribute and grade the placed material according to design profile
specifications. Construction activities would directly impact ghost crabs and dune vegetation
through burial and/or mechanical disturbance. However, it is anticipated that the replanting of
constructed dunes with native species would facilitate dune stabilization and plant community
recovery. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the use of compatible beach fill and avoidance of
RECEIVED RECEIVED 36
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

peak recruitment periods would facilitate relatively rapid ghost crab recovery. As described in
the FEIS, post -nourishment monitoring studies have reported relatively minor and short-term
effects on ghost crab populations when highly compatible beach fill sediments were used and
peak recruitment periods were avoided. Beach construction activities; including heavy
equipment operations, generator use, night-time lighting, and other related activities; may disrupt
shorebird activities and/or prevent shorebirds from using otherwise suitable dry beach roosting
and loafing habitats. However, the effects of disturbance would be short-term and localized to
the vicinity of the active construction zone. Nourishment projects would avoid the sea turtle
nesting and hatching season through adherence to a 16 Nov-30 April sand placement
environmental window. Therefore, direct impacts on nesting females, nests, or hatchlings would
not be expected. Beach nourishment may indirectly affect sea turtles through physical
modification of dry beach nesting habitat. Measures employed to minimize adverse effects on
nesting habitat would include the use of compatible sediments, escarpment monitoring, and
sediment compaction monitoring. It is expected that these measures would minimize the extent
and duration of any habitat -modification effects on sea turtles.
6.4 Inlet and Estuarine Communities
6.4.1 Water Quality
Bogue Inlet realignment dredging would be conducted by cutterhead dredges. As described in
the FEIS, sediment suspension by cutterhead dredges is typically confined to the near bottom
water column and is typically short term and localized when the dredged material is composed of
relatively clean sand with a minimal fine silt/clay fraction. Analyses of vibracore samples from
the proposed ebb channel realignment footprint have characterized the sediments as highly
compatible sand with a very small fine sediment fraction of less than two percent. Therefore, it
is anticipated that sediment suspension effects attributable to inlet realignment dredging would
be short-term and localized.
6.4.2 Estuarine Subtidal Softbottom
Bogue Inlet ebb channel realignments would directly impact —35 acres of estuarine soft bottom
habitat within the new channel excavation footprint. Dredging would remove the majority of the
associated soft bottom benthic infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates; resulting in an initial sharp
decline in community abundance, diversity, and biomass within the new channel footprint. The
removal of benthic invertebrate prey may temporarily affect the foraging activities of predatory
demersal fishes. However, as described in the FEIS, studies of benthic community recovery in
dredged navigation channels along the southeastern coast have reported rapid recovery within six
months. Rapid recovery has been attributed to recolonization via slumping of adjacent
undisturbed sediments into the dredged channel and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods. The project construction window (16 Nov-30 April) would avoid peak
benthic invertebrate recruitment periods; and therefore, it is anticipated that impacts on estuarine
soft bottom communities would be short term and localized.
6.4.3 Intertidal Flats and Shoals
Bogue Inlet ebb channel realignment dredging may directly impact mid -inlet intertidal shoals
within the new channel excavation footprint, depending on the configuration of shoals at the time
of realignment events. Any intertidal shoals that are present within the new channel footprint at
RECEIVED RECEIVED 37
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, INC

the time of realignment events would be excavated and converted to subtidal soft bottom habitat.
Any direct losses of intertidal habitat and associated benthic invertebrates may temporarily
reduce foraging opportunities for shorebirds and demersal fishes. However, it is expected that
losses would be offset by new intertidal habitat formation via dredged material placement along
the Bogue Banks inlet shoulder, natural shoaling of the old channel, and subsequent expansion of
the Bogue Banks sand spit.
Realignments of the ebb channel would modify patterns of flow and initiate a period of sediment
redistribution and habitat reconfiguration within the inlet complex. During the adjustment
period, the distribution and areal extent of intertidal flats and shoals within the inlet complex
would be expected to fluctuate in response to sediment redistribution and related conversions
between supratidal, intertidal, and subtidal habitats. The post -realignment habitat
reconfiguration process would produce corresponding changes in the distribution and
composition of intertidal benthic communities. However, habitat fluctuations would be
consistent with the dynamic nature of inlet habitats and the habitat changes associated with
natural ebb channel repositioning events that occur periodically in Bogue Inlet. Based on the
opportunistic nature of the dominant benthic taxa and gradual pace of the inlet reconfiguration
process, it is expected that benthic community adjustments would generally occur with only
minor, short-term reductions in community levels of abundance, diversity, and biomass.
6.4.4 Larval Transport
Cutterhead dredging in Bogue Inlet would entrain the planktonic eggs and larvae of estuarine
dependent fishes and invertebrates that occur in the vicinity of the dredge pipe suction field.
However, as described in the FEIS, modeling studies of larval entrainment in Beaufort Inlet
indicate that dredge entrainment rates are extremely low regardless of inlet larval concentrations
and the distribution of larvae within the water column. Therefore, infrequent cutterhead
dredging in Bogue Inlet every 10 to 15 years would not be expected to have any measurable
effect on estuarine -dependent fish and invertebrate populations.
6.4.5 Shellfish, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Tidal Marsh
Shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and tidal marshes are generally restricted to
waters inland of the Bogue Inlet channel realignment footprint. As described in the FEIS,
NCDMF benthic habitat maps, SAV maps developed by NOAA and NCDMF, and coastal
wetland maps developed by the NCDCM do not show any shell bottom, SAV, or tidal marsh
habitats within the proposed channel. Therefore, direct impacts on shellfish, SAV, and tidal
marsh habitats would not be expected. Fine sediments suspended by the dredging process may
be transported inland and redeposited in areas containing shellfish beds and/or SAV; however,
based on the composition of the dredged material (sand with minimal fines), it is expected that
any sediment suspension and redeposition effects would be minor.
6.5 Cultural Resources
Remote sensing surveys did not identify any potential archaeological resources in the vicinity of
the ODMDS or Area Y offshore borrow sites (Hall 2011). Ebb channel relocations would
realign the channel to the previously dredged 2005 channel footprint; which prior surveys
indicate does not contain cultural resouffffC re, the project would not be expected to
JUL 13 2018 RECEIVED 38
DCM-MHD CITY JUN U 4 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

have any adverse effects on cultural resources. The full archeological report can be found in
Appendix D (Archaeological Remote Sensing).
6.6 Avoidance and Minimization
All beach placement activities under the Master Beach Nourishment Plan will be covered under
the USFWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion per consultations. The following are
measures that would be implemented to reduce the impacts of the project:
6.6.1 Environmental Windows
All sand placement, dredging, and associated construction activities would adhere to a 16
November to 30 April environmental window.
6.6.2 Sediment Compatibility
All material placed on the beach and in associated dune systems would consist of beach
compatible sand that meets NC Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects (15A NCAC 07H
.0312). Monitoring of fill material at the pipeline outfall would be conducted throughout sand
placement operations.
6.6.3 Construction Methods
Sand Placement
• Construction equipment would access the beach via existing public access corridors to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Temporary storage areas for construction equipment would be located off the beach to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Construction staging areas and pipeline routes would be located so as to avoid piping
plover critical habitat and other high -value shorebird/waterbird inlet complex habitats to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Operations would avoid disturbing dunes to the maximum extent practicable. Any
unavoidable dune alterations would be coordinated with NCDCM, and the disturbed
areas would be restored to their original grade and position relative to the surveyed
normal high water line. Once restored to grade, any impacted dunes would be replanted
with native dune grass species during the optimal planting season.
• Pipelines would be equipped with spreaders to reduce effluent discharge velocities during
sand -slurry placement. Temporary longitudinal sand dikes would be used to contain and
direct the horizontal flow of the discharged sand -slurry along the beach. These measures
would maximize sediment retention within the designated placement area, thereby
minimizing potential surf zone turbidity effects.
• Sand delivery pipelines would be routinely inspected for pressurized leaks, and any leaks
that are found would be immediately repaired.
RECEIVED RECEIVED 39
JUL 13 2018 JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Dredging
All hopper dredges would be equipped with rigid draghead deflectors, thereby
minimizing the risk of sea turtle and sturgeon entrainment. Dredging contracts would
include specifications for the proper installation and operation of rigid dragheads to
ensure effective mitigation of the entrainment risk.
To reduce the risk of sea turtle entrainment, relocation trawling would be initiated at the
onset of each hopper dredging project as determined through Section 7 consultations with
NMFS.
Prior to the initiation of each dredging project, proposed pump -out station anchor point
locations and sand delivery pipeline routes would be evaluated by the awarded Contractor
for the presence of hardbottom habitats and cultural resources. Based on the survey
results, proposed anchor points and pipeline routes would be adjusted by the Contractor
to avoid any hardbottom sites in accordance with NC CAMA regulations (500-m buffer).
Similarly, anchor points and pipeline routes would be adjusted to avoid any cultural
resource sites based on coordination with the SHPO.
Dredging contractors would be required to maintain spill control plans and waste
management plans for all dredging fleet equipment.
6.6.4 Monitoring
Sediment Compaction
Immediately after construction and to the maximum extent practicable prior to 1 May, the limits
of construction areas would be evaluated for sediment compaction in coordination with the
USFWS and NCWRC. If it is determined that tilling is required for sea turtle nesting habitat
suitability, the construction areas would be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activity shall
be completed prior to 1 May to the maximum extent practicable. Any tilling activities that are
required after 1 May would be coordinated with the USFWS or NCWRC. A summary of
compaction monitoring efforts and tilling actions taken would be submitted to the USACE and
the USFWS.
Escarpments
Immediately after construction and to the maximum extent practicable prior to 1 May, surveys
for escarpments would be conducted within the limits of construction areas. Identified
escarpments that that may interfere with sea turtle nesting (> 18 inches in height and >_ 100 ft in
length) would be leveled to the natural beach profile. If it is determined that escarpment leveling
is required after 1 May, leveling activities would be coordinated with the USFWS or NCWRC.
An annual summary of escarpment surveys and leveling actions taken would be submitted to the
USACE and USFWS.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 40
JUN 0 4 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY ZONING AND CAMA
LAND USE PLAN
The beach nourishment project is consistent with the approved CAMA Land Use Plans for
Carteret County and the Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores,
and Atlantic Beach. The project property is within the planning jurisdiction of Carteret County
and the Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach
and is classified "Developed" by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE NC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The Division of Coastal Management has determined prior to the application that review of this
project under SEPA is not be required.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality in Wilmington will be provided a full copy of the
NCDCM permit application describing the scope of the project and requesting a 401 Water
Quality Certification.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
Perpetual beach nourishment easements are in place for the oceanfront in Emerald Isle, Indian
Beach. Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach. The easements were acquired in
2001 and 2002 as part of the financed beach nourishment projects that were completed in the
spring of 2002 for the Towns. The perpetual easements are for any part of private property that
visibly appears to be a part of the ocean beach strand and is covered with little or no vegetation,
is seaward of the last line of stable vegetation, is within the frontal sand dune, or is seaward of
the erosion escarpment. The easement allows all work necessary to nourish the beach.
However, the Towns cannot damage permanent improvements in the easement area but must
work with property owners to remove and replace permanent improvements in the easement area
that obstruct nourishment.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN Q V018
41
JUL 13 Z018 CCM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM-MHD CITY

10.0 REFERENCES
Coastal Tech. 2013 (March). Carteret County North Carolina Sand Search Investigation: Draft
Final Geotechnical Report. Coastal Tech, Melbourne, FL.
Dial Cordy and Associates. 2018 (March). Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bogue Banks
Master Beach Nourishment Plan. EIS for NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management; submitted by Carteret County, NC; prepared by
Dial Cordy and Associates, Wilmington, NC.
Mid -Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. 2011 (September). An
Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore
Borrow Areas Q2, YI, and ODMDS, Carteret County, NC. Mid -Atlantic Technology and
Environmental Research, Inc., Castle Hayne, NC
Moffatt & Nichol. 2014 (February). Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan. Moffatt &
Nichol, Raleigh, NC.
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
J'JN042018 42
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

AGENT AUTHORIZATION
LETTER
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DC"-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUiN n 4 GIB
DCM WILiNUNG70N, NC

April 11, 2018
Shore Protection Office, Carteret County
POB 4297
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
NC Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Regional Office
TEL:[phone]
FAX:[phone]
400 Commerce Avenue TEL: [phone]
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 FAX: [phone]
RE: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan, Carteret County
Authorized Agent Agreement
To Whom it May Concern:
This is to inform you that Moffatt and Nichol is the Authorized Agent for the above -referenced
project. Moffatt and Nichol is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant on matters related to
the CAMA Major permit and related federal permits.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Rudi Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager, Carteret County
RECEIVED
'JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
Icy 0 ¢ 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

AEC HAZARD NOTICE
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
!RECEIVED
JUN 0-4 201A
0CM WILMINGTON, NC

a
t {ro x ni.
•v is • r i• t.
0
_off •vs,pi,i'C)i

p.r If �. 1'IUf N.f. I. "f,. 'J /' Mf. I . rh � n 'I �� ..:L�. l

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
June 12, 2018
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
s4wre
protection office
Re: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan - Project #1
Event Notification Letter
Dear Mr. Sugg (Mickey),
Carteret County is in the process of obtaining federal and state permits to allow
implementation of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan (MBNP) as a non-federal shoreline
protection and inlet management project over a 50-year period of time during which
nourishment events will be initiated based on minimum sand volumes required to maintain
protection from a 25-year storm event as well as federally -declared storm events which
cause damage and erosion to the beach.
As determined during the development and implementation of the MBNP, the Carteret
County Shore Protection Office would provide notice in advance of an anticipated
renourishment event. This letter serves as notification of the first project implemented
under the MBNP, also described herein as Bogue Banks MBNP - Project #1. Moffatt &
Nichol, as the authorized agent for the County, has developed the subsequent
documentation provided in this letter request which details the dredging volume, dredging
depth, placement reaches and sediment compatibility.
The Bogue Banks MBNP - Project #1 will take place during 16 November 2018
through 30 April 2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along
9.5 miles of shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores at
an average FlII density of 30 cy/ft. Beach compatible sediment will be dredged from
portions of the Current and Old ODMDS.
We appreciate your review of these materials and proceeding as efficiently as
possible. Please contact me at 252-222-5835 or Johnny Martin at 919-781-4626 with any
questions.
Respectfully,
RECEIVED
G eg "rudi" Rudolph RECEIVED
Shore Protection Manager
JUL 13 2018 JUN 15 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
w . protect the beach. com

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN
PROJECT #1 EVENT NOTIFICATION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project # 1 is anticipated to take place during
winter 2018/2019. Current plans call for 1,519,030 cy of material to be placed along 9.5 miles of
shoreline in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Salter Path, and Pine Knoll Shores. This is an average
fill density of 30 cy/ft however it is expected that the fill density will vary between 25 cy/ft and 50
cy/ft. This correlates to a berm width ranging from 35 ft to 85 ft with an average of approximately
55 ft. Figure 1-1 shows the planned placement locations and volumes. Approximately 1,974,740
cy of beach compatible material will be dredged from portions of the Current and Old ODMDS as
presented in Figure 1-1. Permit drawings are provided in Attachment A.
CARTERET COUNTY
I`i{Y{ilil{{II I
9{lIi911i
Ii{{{11{ iC 6i Ci s@
go {Iiit
{°{
{I
{I{I 0. Rid II Fa.n R..cm Pme Kn EmR..y1n0.., Pnn se T,.n1i.5enmu1l5
l59°:
ht 9e
f°{i zn
Y*��'
1661t6 cY _.
!
PJ IL TKnHCH ry5�
� 0 mlla.
eM
H^Rae
F�i1-0jSVV
W
ONSLOW BAY
POYnWI
Rwrow
Arce.
°"1 S i
W
Figure 1-1: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 (Winter
2018/2019)
Reach 1 and Reach 2 represent a continuous section of fill starting just west of Transect 35 at 2901
Pointe West Drive in Emerald Isle and ending just cast of Transect 52 at 1401 Salter Path Road in
Salter Path. Reach 3 and Reach 4 represent a continuous section of fill starting just west of
Transect 55 at 199 Hoffman Beach Road in Salter Path and ending just cast of Transect 76 at 119
Salter Path Road in Pine Knoll Shores.
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
JUL 13 20'18
DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC

The borrow area covers approximately 773 acres, with 218 acres located in the Current ODMDS
in Federal waters and 555 acres located in the Old ODDMS in State waters. It is anticipated that
if the dredging is confined to the portion of the borrow area located in the Current ODMDS, the
average cut depth will be approximately 5-7 ft based on a maximum dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 ft allowable overdredge. If the dredging expands into the Old ODMDS, it is
anticipated that the average cut depth will between 2-3 ft due to the larger area to dredge within.
It should be noted that while the Old ODMDS contains large mounds of material comprising
approximately 15 ft of compatible cut material, a majority of this material will not be necessary to
meet the potential dredge requirement of 1,974,740 cy and therefore it is expected that only 2-3
feet would be dredged from the top.
It should be noted that this initial project is essentially the "Year 6" nourishment, as presented in
the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, rather than "Year 3". As time has progressed during the
formulation and permitting of the Master Beach Nourishment Plan, a need has developed to start
the project with "Year 6".
The 2017 annual monitoring analysis indicated that there were several transects that were
approaching the minimum volume trigger for the 25-year level of protection. Figure 1-2 presents
the volume above -12 ft NAVD88 for each transect based on the 2017 monitoring data in
comparison to the volumes required for the 25 year and 50-year levels of protection. As can be
seen, there are transects located in Emerald Isle East, Indian Beach/Salter Path, and Pine Knoll
Shores that are all approaching the 25-year level of protection. Given that it has been 5 years since
the previous nourishment project was completed (post -Irene, 2013), Carteret County and the
Towns have chosen to be proactive in moving forward with the next project to avoid consequences
from any storms that may impact the area in the next few years as the beach approaches the
minimum volume for protection.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
2
JUN 15 2015
JUL 13 2018 p
DCM-MHD CITTCM WILMINGTON, NC

myw neo.e-12ntnv
.1
1nnfM
Figure 1-2: 2017 Monitoring Volume Analysis
2.0 METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 to be performed in Winter
2018/2019 will use a hopper dredge to obtain material from the Current and Old ODMDS where
it will then be transported to an offshore temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the
project site. The hopper dredge will then connect to the pipeline and pump the material from the
hopper to the beach where the sand is spread mechanically by bulldozers. As mentioned
previously, this is the same type of dredging placement operation used during Phase 1 and most of
Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment projects completed in winter of 2001-2002 and
2002-2003 (respectively) as well as the Post-Ophelia (2007) and Post -Irene (2013) projects.
3.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1 to be performed in Winter
2018/2019 will have the option of dredging material from the Current and Old ODMDS. Figure
3-1 shows the location of the potential borrow areas within the Current and Old ODMDS. A
substantial portion of the potential borrow area in the Current ODMDS was also used in 2013 for
the Post -Irene nourishment project.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 15 2A
DCM-MHD CITDCM WILMINGTON, NC

Legend - Elevation (ft NAVD88)
b1 !--.
37
-56.53--56.00®43.99--42.00
`
`M•
-55.99--54,00� 41.99-.40.00
OLD
-53.99--5200-39.99 - -38,00
Approximately
9,226,667 cy
a
m ODMDS
4
5199--50.000-37.99--36.00 7
=4999-48,00=J5.99--34.00
Above-62 ft NAVD88
O
O
O
Rom+
�47,99--46.00M-33.99--32.00
1
QR
44 �4599--.00-31.99--30o0
m
O
O
O
O
_
46
0 2 000 4 000 8,000 ,
O
� Feet
49
O
o
.-S M
I
�\ 1
8tenr;ai o
0
0
0
'o
i
4gi , -.-60
on
O
Approximately
2,711,727 cy
\
O� �Bsolrrowc� �0
O H, reas O O
p
p
Q
Above -52 ft NAVD88
o
Si
i 50
CD
GD O O O
p�
�9
b 1 /7
I D
i Y
5
r
RRI55
9254
P
I
i
�!4
ti'1'
:Il IIHIIi
�11n
t CURRENT
Figure 3-1: Potential Borrow Areas Within the Current and Old ODMDS
Based on analysis of the native beach sediment data from 64 samples (16 transects) investigated
by CSE in 2001, a median grain size of 0.3 mm was selected as the best representation of the native
beach. The native beach characteristics and fill requirements established for the project are
presented in Table 3-1.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
4
JUL 13 201R JUN 15 2018
DCM-MHD CIT1ICM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-1: Native Beach Characteristics and Rule Parameters
Characteristic
2001 Native
NCAC
Requirements
Required Borrow
Site Parameters
Fines(<#230)
Reported: 0%, Assumed: <I%
<I%+5%
<6%
Sand (>#230 & 010)
Reported at 98.68%
-
Granular (># 10 & <#4)
Reported combined at 1.32%,
Assumed 0.7% each
0.7% + 5%
<_ 6%
Gravel (>#4)
0.7% + 5%
_< 6%
Calcium Carbonate
Reported at 15-20%
20%+ 15%
< 35%
In addition, Moffatt & Nichol conducted a field investigation on May 24, 2018 to estimate the total
number of sediments and shell material greater than or equal to three inches in diameter, observable
on the surface of the beach between mean low water and the frontal dune toe, in a 50,000 square
foot area. Investigations were performed in two locations, one in Atlantic Beach between
Transects 78 and 80 and one in Emerald Isle between Transects 29 and 30. The Atlantic Beach
investigation area has never been nourished and the Emerald Isle investigation area has only been
nourished once. Results of the investigation found 138 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Atlantic Beach and 211 pieces of shell material greater than or
equal to three inches in diameter at Emerald Isle.
Vibracores within the borrow area were analyzed with respect to parameters as presented in Table
3-1 to determine the quantity and depth to which beach compatible material exists within the
borrow area. Table 3-2 presents the sediment characteristics of the vbracores within the potential
borrow areas. Based on analysis of these vbracores, it is estimated that beach compatible material
exists down to an elevation of —52 ft NAVD88. Thus, plans will specify a dredge depth of -50 ft
NAVD88 with 2 It of allowable overdredge. Volume calculations indicate 2,711,727 cy of
material exists above —52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the Current ODMDS
and 9,225,657 cy of material exists above -52 ft NAVD88 in the potential borrow area within the
Old ODMDS (see Figure 3-1). Therefore, the total volume available from the potential borrow
areas is 11,937,384 cy. While 1,519,030 cy is the expected placement volume, the anticipated
dredge volume could reach 1,974,740 cy due to losses typically incurred between what is dredged
and what is placed (up to 301/6).
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018
RECEIVED DCM-MHD CITY
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 3-2: Sediment Characteristics of Potential Borrow Area
Wbnwn Bempb lnnrvel M.
04 NNDp)
DINT GranulmmwttlCs
uw
CompoNtlen (wl%)
Sim ClnI, Nw1%)
peecO tw. SIi1411ce
GmN
GmWN
SNtl
0230
Neon 9m9
DLL Ckv. (pR0
Orprlk
Gtmmte
4N9.2
43.2
43.2
J 2
1.18%
02M
1.34%
1.87%
97.36%
97.BM
OAM
02916
09
O28
On
ON
BUD
BW
ON
OA2
13M
OA3
J82
-53.2
-3).6
-NA
-53.2
J3.2
439.6
42.6
0.18%
0.74%
2.70%
OA3%
1.00%
2.66%
4.81%
3.3M
WISM
96.2
92.08%
ON%
025%
0.18%
0.63%
0.2!%
on
O.w
ON
1.01
DIP
O60
010
SW
O.W
0.14
ON
On
1.35
SW
OJO
0.16
1.07
SW
0.60
OA4
42.6
416
47.6
32.6
0.CM
110%
0.&%
1.41%
98M
BEAM
0.20%
OAM
026
Do
SP
0.60
CAI
DID
1.N
SW
ON
0.14
ABC
41.6
4.61%
SAM
0.24%
O.N%
CAI$
1.SB
SW
0.70
0.23
-51A
-55.6
-60.8
47.3
-53.3
-56.6
J0.6
-01.6
1.3M
0.84%
O.OM
3.24%
1.08%
1.89%
IM46
1.81%
N23%
01
87.0%
NN%
88.22%
021%
30.21%
10.0%
OM
02D
029
1.16
On
8W
w
ON
3.10
0.14
0.18
1.12
SW-861
1.70
0.30
S 3
-55.3
0.U6%
024%
02816
029
ON
SW
0.80
0.12
9]m
OM
1.01
6W-1I4
1.30
0.16
-fi6.3
44.1
38.3
-50.1
DOM
1.22%
026%
1.77%
35.09%
NAM
84.04%
0.10
0.'n
CL
4.30
0.11
0.63%
on
1.10
BW
0.90
0.12
450.1
-66.1
-66.1
411
0.21%
0.08%
2.53%
1.70%
N.9M
711.60%
DID%
18.62%
on
0IO
I'M
1.N
SW
OM
0.13
w
2.00
023
430.1
421
J8.1
42.1
4W9.1
53.1
0.00%
1.00%
1.83%
O.016
1.18%
1.2816
99.24%
97.IM
BEAN
0.01%
00016
0AM
On
D29
0.32
0.N
SW
ON
0.11
1.07
SW
0.80
OA4
1.10
SW
0."
OA3
41.1
-NA
41.4
-55.4
41.4
J A
O.OD%
2.56%
1.N%
On%
3.35%
223%
N.23%
9098%
049%
0.12%
072%
ON
ON
3.73
1.P
SP
0."
0.10
SW
0.90
0.18
NA%
0.31
1.18
SW
0.80
0.21
49A
J]
-50.3
J2
2.31%
0.36%
03096
1.64%
94.9M
97.YM
039%
028%
DID
1.21
SW
O.N1
0.09
0.30
0.92
SW
0.80
0.15
J2
J]
J]
1.]
3.11%
94.66%
OA6%
O.N
124
M
O.BD
0.12
-62
1 B8%
1.n%
9842%
0.10%
0.31
1.N
SW
On
0.12
-32.7
J]]
2.14%
2.52%
95.21%
0.13%
0.34
1.20
BW
0.80
0.18
-3).]
022
J29
J0]
2.12%
2.95%
94.79%
0.14%
0.31
1.18
SW
0.40
0.12
1 i].]
1 50%
1.21%
9B.81%
037%
O29
1.0
SW
0.40
0.12
J).]
4).8
-w.]
53.8
LOB%
1.N%
267%
350%
Mm
94.51%
0.40%
0.11%
0.34
036
IM
126
SW
w
0.50
0.60
0.15
0.13
43.8
-5].8
47.8
008%
O80%
91.30%
).0M
OA9
0.70
SP-M
1.N
ON
42.0
071%
1.OM
81.63%
18.64%
0.27
1.N
8M
1.20
0.24
J .8
415
9.13%
16.02%
65.43%
9.12%
0.81
1.90
8W-SN
1.90
0.63
493
-54.2
4.70%
3.60%
86.81%
4.81%
ON
1.68
SW-SN
1.50
0.13
024 -54.2
-58.1
0.32%
OB)%
NO1%
020%
0.N
ON
SP
0.50
0.10
-56.1
MI
1.11M
GAM
73.39%
1863%
an
1.0
SN
2.30
OM
42
48
D.N%
2.8546
9888%
0.36%
On
1.10
SW
0.50
0.14
40
-14
205%
1.91%
9521%
08M
On
121
SW
O.N
0.18
025
51
-69.9
1.79%
2N%
9523%
OAM
ON
1.17
SW
0.90
0.19
59.9
-61.5
0.00%
1.07%
9230%
9.63%
0.18
0.00
SP-94A
1.60
0.10
45.7
30.7
5.01%
4.41%
W.21%
O.3M
0.36
1.62
M
0.60
0.13
026 .50.7
495
0.97%
1.3M
97.46%
021%
Ow
0.97
SW
0.40
0.12
55
J9.5
O.SS%
3.75%
MISS%
20.3M
0M
1.33
SM
1.60
0.11
43.6
47.6
ON%
2.90%
NSM
O20%
OAD
1.N
SW
13M
0.17
GZT
47.8
41.6
0.67%
2.OM
NN%
ON%
On
1.00
SW
0.50
0.12
51,6
40.5
0.16%
125%
N.N%
0.11%
0.29
ON
SW
0.50
0.12
-W.5
4 A
040%
3AM
".713%
12.72%
021
1.15
BN
1.80
DID
42.7
48.7
O.SB%
1.8M
9).]0%
0.00%
0.28
0.N
SW
0.50
0.13
ON J J
44.3
OA1%
1T3%
91.]0%
0.1616
030
0.0
510V
ON
0.13
44.3
49.1
N.6
D.SS%
1.87%
1.22%
74.98416
22.80%
027
1.13
w
1.70
0.14
416
0.15%
0.67%
0.00%
0.29
ON
SW
0.50
0.12
.O>0 -62.8
J5.3
-65.3
218%
0.00%
4.31%
0.09%
N.0)%
93.2M
SA]%
e.]O%
OR]
0.14
1.41
0.31
SW
SW
1.fi0
0.22
1.N
O.N
410.1
4t6
2.8D%
9.BB%
)1 )e%
15.4M
0.33
1 B8
SM
2.30
0.34
RECEIVED
30L 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

4.0 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION AND PLAN VIEWS
Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-4 present typical cross-section and plan views for the area to be
nourished during the Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project #1, which will
extend from Transect 35 in Emerald Isle Central to Transect 76 in Pine Knoll Shores, with a small
break from Transect 53 — 55 in Indian Beach/Salter Path. These typical cross section and plan
views were developed for the permit process based on the newest March 2018 survey data. Slight
adjustments within the permit guidelines might be made prior to construction based on pre -
construction surveys. While the average fill density for the project is approximately 30 cy/ft, this
value will vary at each tansect across the reaches based on the existing conditions. However, it
is expected that the fill density will remain between 25 cy/ft and 50 cy/ft throughout the project.
Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 present the site plan and typical cross sections for the proposed borrow
area located in the Current and Old ODMDS.
Bogue Banks Transect 39
22
20
_
14
12
10
8
m 6
SR 4
z 2
z
Berm El = W.0 NAVD88
Berm Width = 57 ft
Fill Density = 38 cy/ft
'
-
i
2
S
-4
6
-10
12
,...
14
16
-18
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Olstanm OBshere )R)
—Mardi2018 —Template
Figure 4-1: Reach 1 and 2 Typical Cross Section
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2018 JUN 15 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Bogue Banks Transact 62
20
16
14
12
10
6
4
2
Berm El =+6.0 NAVD88
Berm Width =51k
Fill Den sity=36 tV/ft
�
0
0
2
W -4
6
-8
SO
42
.14
16
IB
20
0 100 2W 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 LOW 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Distance Offshore (h(
—March 2018 —Template
Figure 4-2: Reach 3 and 4 Typical Cross Section
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2018
JUL 13 2018
DCM-MHD CITY
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

v
n
c`
r
m
n
n
-
m
m
A
C�
G
z
O
z
z
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
-------------- --_T___-T—___
+y-�itlN w w_" _ ����uLw I.'�Y{R�tl ��� �� �L .�.���� �a� Y- T[YI��•W �i Y4a l �nr.
wl _.----- __ _ _ -_{a) _-_ ____---
M
W - FIBIICMMY - _ _
_—.. I
W—�AY--
wl
J. — _ -- y_---_•_—••—•--_._.._..— —
— — —
— — — — — — — —
f — — — — — — — — —
L. T
`—aEWou7WueJLaoE un
all WTUHrx:onw
MAEc)nn. CARTERETCOUH , sRERAgD fOe: CMTEPEI C0111lIY, MORTICMOLIIN Zr PW. s¢rr
BOCUE B KS MASTER BEACH
ROURMHMENT PI - PROJECTI FW40L BHMENT PUN. SHEET 6 Of S7 T
ague ww��rn 1
AYnw%D Bn uonWnL Mora MIE: WYaI� 61
Figure 4-3: Reach 1 and 2 Typical Plan View

eoerxn nw
N
N
W�-MII—I-..—Wt—_.—MGM—...—Mlw—...—MI•
..TUI•—'-�IMM—...—MI•— YIM MI/ —W�- MI• —MA y(n
fYl
_ "w]R'�MM � yJ
---------------------
I/I
1--T------------- 1--------- --------------------------------
zZ
• W
— — — MLw—...—M.—1••—...——...—�w—...—ar—._—rr—..�
—��-----
TI
yF{
— J7
y}c
.,u.ncocv.x E W
a
I
I I
CMTERET CMM .
anFeipFU IM. CIRIEIIEf CpIMn. MORM C�,MR
y(() nnL
9 UEB MM�B=B H
P HWRMMMEW UW-PRWECTI
RENOURSHWNT PUN. SHEET23.137
25
OA RMf 1YW MPi1
_
GFF➢Aq£O Bc YMATf�MCM%
OAR' u
l�4'
61
n
m
m
v
Figure 4-4: Reach 3 and 4 Typical Plan View
10

i
IIAWRNt (Mrifl11
PROPOSRDBORROW AREA
(%NIRIxI m. AB ..
RJNT
NORD m
EAST
A
S I.m
TmYS]317
B
13TET.nx
ReW m
C
.13.91
TOASS1.eS
O
1 MTQ.17
TeVle m
E
1 W7W.W
TSS065D.SS
I A0.YC! pR
a.nAr INw�tm
/ATAtYD er. Nwr.,...wa.
v
n
r
m
n
_
-
m
C;
;'"
<
n
o
m
�
L>o
N
ED
DFEWe W i...a, ...vw
139 NAW NGG'MTRTOVERSLRDEM .
IEDENO WTES
I�A MIWOBEDBONRDWNiEACOMNOL NT 1. MA EIRCALCONT SHONNBASEOON
WLREEMA WWEn REKON.ED BY
Gorr m I NBRACORE LOCATION OEOOYNMACSINTM&
IEEE ATIACNNENT 1 FOR MTAS WAM I)
f. WI AREAL DINATES ARE NC STATE
RAKE NAD iM (FEET)---j .
PB IEDl CART RETCOIINTY,NORTHCRHOIINA S ffe
BORROW AREA WE PLAN
o. z
Figure 4-5: Borrow Area Site Plan
fiARBOIt \AV[DAIION
CHAATE[
T

v
a
z
0
z
z
0
SECTION A -A
as
as
e .® am m .Fm a,en
e000 aooa .r
dSTAAE;E T WEST TO EAST (FEET)
SECTION ae
0
e
�$
#[
LAIMR ...... .. ..... .. ... ...
m
3
d
s
....._....... ............_
a Iea
Mw
ITT mo I.eo
cw MM
gSTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
DW
4
SECTION C-C
•
..........
4
s4
......................
......_..._........... ........... ......... :......._.........._........_.:................ ........_.....i.........
..
.._............
y
s
a
-
o Ion
aoao Mm am Mm m fela
F10e .ee.
0.9TANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
TOLE
TYRCAL E%CAVATg OEM NA HOWER ORED(iE
WNL SE ]E FEET PER PARS ANCOApIETE CM),
A CTR E: CARTENETCOUN .
PRPANfD FPP: CARTERETCOUNTV,NORTNCAROIIFU
.g1FFI BBE
9¢T
BOCUE BANM MASTER BFACN
NOURMHMENTPIAN-PROJCTI
BORROW AREA TYPICAL SECTIONS
11
RAruA xAwMP+�
1
Z
o
m
n
m
m
v
v
T+
zv
c
Nr.
N
m
m
m
v
Figure 4-6: Borrow Area Typical Cross Sections
1?

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321-
4347], to address the environmental effects of proposed shore protection activities on the barrier
island of Bogue Banks in Carteret County, North Carolina. The Wilmington District, United States
Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating a request from Carteret County (Applicant) for Department
of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act to implement a comprehensive, long-term beach and inlet management
plan for the protection of 25 miles of shoreline on Bogue Banks. Concurrently, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy and Management is evaluating a request from the Applicant for authorization
pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) [43 (USC) 1337(k)(2)] to use outer
continental shelf sand resources as a component of the proposed action. A Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major permit application was submitted 7 June 2018 to the NC
Division of Coastal Management.
6.0 MASTER BEACH NOURISHMENT PLAN STATUS
The Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan — Project # 1 is the first project to be performed
under the 50-Year Master Beach Nourishment Plan and is estimated to use 1,519,030 cy of the
22.6 Mcy allotted for background erosion. As discussed in the Final Master Beach Nourishment
Plan (2014), the proposed nourishment volumes approximate the need for background erosion only
and will be used for overall long-term planning and budgeting purposes (Table 6-1, Figures 6-1
and 6-2). It is expected that named storm losses will be handled separately through FEMA
reimbursement projects. Reference should be made to Table 1-3 in the Final Master Beach
Nourishment Plan for the initial volume needs and cycle of nourishment events.
RW%W
UI&IL 1.3 2018
&NONS)PW
RECEIVED
JUN 15 918
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Table 6-1: Renourishment Intervals and Preliminary Projects Based on
Management Reach Approaches*
Year
Management Reach
Nourishment
Volume (cy)
Proposed
Nourishment
Project (Yr)
2019
686,067
3
2022
1,839,351
6
2025
967,920
9
2028
1,839,351
6
2031
686,067
3
2034
2,121,204
6,9
2037
686,067
3
2040
1,839,351
6
2043
967,920
9
2046
1,839,351
6
2049
686,067
3
2052
2,121,204
6,9
2055
686,067
3
2058
1,839,351
6
2061
967,920
9
2064
1,839,351
6
*Reference Table 1-3 in the 2014 Bogue Banks MBNP for projected volume needs and
nourishment cycles of the managed reaches.
R§@CE1VED
J%L] 13 2018
DW790910tY
RECEIVED
JUN 15 201814
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

0.5 1 1 i . -
���_ MINE . _. __ - �y,•�
.-___ _+_- .____ ----- ________--- _______--- ____ v` Rl
�'-80Wk r _ -
Inlet � nitl Uk � Emanl0lsk r Emerald kk i Mdur BaacN r r
Pine Knell Shoes
CanmN r East � Baltar Patli � �
Ocean � vs....
........ ...
is asFa�.aaauasui�u aau •aau a-aau.aua as •aae �� W� a aa-aaa
'.i-iwi iyiJa•
NN-i'a
e I.un Ce-e nL.l 11.r
Bogue Baia Beach NOtlf$Shnnmt PmJec S 1117Fnpsl al
2018 - 2068
Z
0
M
0
M
M
v
0
=
v
M
n
m
<
0
_
^
o
m
0
Figure 6-1: History of Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan Projects
f `7
15

D
n
z
O
z
z
0
M
M
0
M
M
Q
CARTERET COUNTY
gosng� _ 4H.N4 <Y '
P.keK e� Atlann
� (n-102)-toz�
N�ppks,
- ar Pee`
19, 32
feat
.,sue 's�ji
22,,6g4Tc Vet Emardj ♦61
SIP ,Hank
E� ?g 1�
Reach 3
Beachl
Reach 4
Kno11 shores
knMa
o" �12•�'�
Indian
Salter Path
5
Pmg
Transacts 59
miles
fY"ty
Reach 5
Trensect miles
4 5
711489 cY
Emerald Isle
35.46
t.Om
Am716 cY
Transacts
3.0 miles
4T2,544 cY
F.ore 6-2
`c
M
r
n
M
o
m
60-
v
ONSLOW BAY
Legend
�+ Year 3 Nourishment
-• Year 6 Nourishment
F—w Year 9 Nourshment
0 0.5 1 2 3
m Niks
Overlay of MBNP — Project #1 with Proposed Future Nourishment Intervals
16
r4