89-16 Picha, Kay

ICI
Permit Class
NEW
,(by CRC Variance) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Permit Number
89-16
Issued to Kay Picha, 6965 Lorian Charter Drive, Randleman, NC 27317
Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Atlantic Ocean at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd,
Ocean Isle Beach as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/6/16, incl. attached
1-3 of 3 all dated 3/28/16, and AEC Hazard Notice dated 4/2/16.
This permit, issued on August 3, 2016 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) In keeping with the Variance granted by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) on July 12, 2016,
and the CRC Variance Order signed by the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the base width of the
authorized temporary erosion control structures shall not exceed a base width of 45 feet, and the
height shall not exceed a crest elevation of 12 feet NGVD. The overall width of the structure shall
not exceed 53 feet.
2) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, it is noted that since the original application, the rapidly
changing conditions on the property may require changes to the footprint of the revetment to be
constructed. Depending on the degree of erosion existing if and when construction begins, the
location of the oversized sandbag revetment may have to be shifted landward.
may
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
or
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, 2019
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
BfAxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

Kay Picha Permit No: 89-16
Page 2 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
3) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by,
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, prior to the initiation of any activities authorized by this permit,
the permittee and a representative of the Division shall meet on site and agree to the location of the
oversized sandbag placement. The location of some of the bags may, but is not required to, be located at
the toe of the existing sandbag structure and may extend waterward of the mean high water line.
-4) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the permittee shall be required to remove any bag(s) which falls
outside of the alignment with the sandbag revetment based on the location established during the
required on site meeting referenced in Condition No. 3 of this permit. This requirement can refer to
failure of the sandbag revetment, bags slumping out of alignment, or bags falling from the revetment. In
any case, the permittee agrees that such bags shall.be removed.
5) ' In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the authorized oversized sandbag revetment may remain in place
for up to eight years from the date of issuance of this Permit.
6)• Sandbags used to construct the temporary erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to
five feet wide and seven to 15.feet long when measured flat.
7) Soldier pilings and other types of devices to anchor the sandbags shall not be allowed.
8)'t` Once the temporary erosion control structure is determined to be unnecessary due to relocation or
removal of the threatened structure, a storm protection project, a beach nourishment project or an inlet
relocation project, it shall be removed by the permittee within 30 days of official notification by the
Division of Coastal Management regardless of the time limit placed on the temporary erosion control
structure. However, removal of the authorized temporary erosion control structures shall not be required
if they are covered by dunes with stable and natural vegetation.
9) If the temporary erosion control structure becomes damaged, the permittee shall be responsible for the
removal of remnants of all portions of the structure(s).
10)_ There is the potential that work may occur during the sea turtle nesting window which runs from May 15t
to November 15'h, or until the last known nest has hatched. To reduce the potential for any unintended
impacts to nesting sea turtles and their nests, should any work take place during the sea turtle nesting
window, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission requests that the work be expedited to the greatest
extent possible. All work shall.be conducted during the daytime only.

Kay Picha
/:`i77"11RE1 FE61130_13ill _C RR!
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Conditions
Permit No. 89-16
Page 3 of 4
11) The permittee shall adhere to the following requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
a) The permittee shall implement the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), which were
determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be necessary and appropriate to minimize take
of piping plovers and red knots. Unless specifically addressed below, these RPMs are applicable for the
construction of the sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit. If the
permittee is unable to comply, with these RPMs, the permittee shall coordinate with the USACE, who will
then inform the USFWS why the RPM are not reasonable and prudent for the specific project or activity, and
who will request an exception under the biological opinion.
i) Prior to any construction, all derelict material or other debris must be removed from the beach.
ii) Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained at all beach access points used for the
project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots.
iii) In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed.
iv) All personnel involved in the construction process shall be aware of the potential presence of piping
plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area
of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present.
b) In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the permittee
shall comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and
outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non -discretionary.
Unless addressed specifically below, the terms and conditions are applicable for the construction of the
sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit.
i) Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other debris must be
removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.
ii) Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all beach access
points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping
plovers and red knots. All contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles
for the construction workers. All contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of
not littering and keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris. Contact the USFW for examples of
suitable receptacles.
iii) In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed and
deposited off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If removal of the structure is required
during the period from May 1 to November 15, no work will be initiated without prior coordination with
the USACE and the USFWS.
iv) All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential presence of piping
plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area
of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. If shorebirds are present in
the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning hours should allow those individuals
to move out of the area. Construction operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid
antagonizing shorebirds while allowing them to exit the area.

Kay Picha Permit No. 89-16
Page 4 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
c) Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification
must be made to the USFWS Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the
USFWSs Ecological Services Field Office, and to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at
[phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of
specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury.
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh. NC 27606
[phone], extension 34
12) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-eshnammal/manatee guidelines.pdf.
Easement
13) An Easement from the Department of Administration's State Property Office may be required. The
permittee shall contact the State Property Office prior to the initiation of construction of any structures
authorized by this permit to determine if such an easement will be required. Any required easements shall
be obtained. and a copy provided to the Division of Coastal Management, prior to the construction of any
sandbags authorized under this permit.
General
114) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the permittee agrees to work towards a long-term solution to
address erosion on the site.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
-NOTE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit. Contact
1
a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any such activity
for this determination.
;NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed projects COE Action Id. No.
SAW-2007-03637-10.
NOTE: The NC Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project under General Water
Quality Certification No. 3900 (DWR Project No. 16-0389) which was issued on 6/3/16.
NOTE: An application processing fee of $400 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also
satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water
Resources.

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
August 10, 2016
Kay Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Dr.
Randleman, N.C. 27317
Dear Sir or Madam:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
The enclosed permit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act, and
where applicable, the State Dredge and Fill Law, for you to proceed with your project proposal. The
original (buff -colored form) is retained by you and it must be available on site when the project is
inspected for compliance. Please sign both the original and the copy and return the copy to this office in
the enclosed envelope. Signing the permit and proceeding means you have waived your right of appeal
described below.
If you object to the permit or any of the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant to NCGS
113A-121.1 or 113-229. Your petition for a hearing must be filed in accordance with NCGS Chapter
150B with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27611-6714,
[phone] within twenty (20) days of this decision on your permit. You should also be aware that
another qualified party may submit an objection to the issuance of this permit within twenty (20) days.
The project plan is subject to those conditions appearing on the permit form. Otherwise, all work
must be carried out in accordance with your application. Modifications, time extensions, and future
maintenance requires additional approval. Please read your permit carefully prior to starting work and
review all project plans, as approved. If you are having the work done by a contractor, it would be to your
benefit to be sure that he fully understands all permit requirements.
From time to time, Department personnel will visit the project site. To facilitate this review, we
request that you complete and mail the enclosed Notice Card just prior to work initiation. However, if
questions arise concerning permit conditions, environmental safeguards, or problem areas, you may
contact Department personnel at any time for assistance. By working in accordance with the permit, you
will be helping to protect our vitally important coastal resources.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
I/ A
Douglas V. Hugge�Vq�
Major Permits Manager
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Nothing Compares_
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City. NC 28557
252-808-2808 T

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 29, 2016
CERTIFIED MAIL
Kay Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Dr.
Randleman, NC 27317
Dear Ms. Picha:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your application for development under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) and the State Dredge and Fill Law, in which authorization was requested to expand an existing
sandbag revetment adjacent to Tubbs Inlet, at 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard, in Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County. Processing of the application, which was received as complete by the Division of
Coastal Management's Wilmington Office on April 15, 2016, is now complete. Based on the state's review,
the Division of Coastal Management has made the following findings:
1) The subject property is located adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and is located within the Inlet Hazard Area
of Environmental Concern (AEC), as designated by the Coastal Resources Commission. 15A
NCAC 07H.0304(2) defines Inlet Hazard Areas as "natural -hazard areas that are especially
vulnerable to erosion, flooding and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of their
proximity to dynamic ocean inlets."
2) Three general permits (Numbers 49157D, 49198D and 52423D) were issued to Kay Picha from
2007 to 2009 for the installation and extension of a sandbag revetment to protect the immanently
threatened single-family home at 149 Ocean Isle Boulevard in Ocean Isle Beach. The sandbag
revetment was authorized at a maximum base width of 12' and maximum height of 6'. Additionally,
a fourth permit (No. 49148) was issued to Ocean Isle Beach West on December 13, 2007 to protect
the end of Ocean Isle West Boulevard. This permit authorized 68 linear feet of sandbags, also with
a maximum base width of 20' and a maximum height of 6', which were installed contiguous to the
Picha sandbags.
3) General permits 49157D' (issued October 30, 2007) and 49198D (issued November 14, 2007)
included Sandbag Removal Notices indicating that the authorized sandbags may remain in place
for up to two years from the date of permit approval. General Permit 52423D (issued July 30,
2009), included a Sandbag Removal Notice indicating that the authorized sandbags may remain in
place for up to five years from the date of permit approval.
4) In accordance with guidance provided in 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(G), the proposed project area
is not located within a community that is actively pursuing a beach nourishment project or an inlet
relocation or stabilization project in accordance with G.S. 113A-115.1
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 2
5) Under the applicant's current proposal, the existing sandbag revetment would remain in place until
such time as the new (proposed) bags would be removed.
6) The applicant proposes to expand the size of the existing sandbag revetment to allow for additional
protection of the property. As proposed, the approximately 468 linear foot revetment would be
expanded waterward to create a revetment with a base width of 45' and a crest height of 12'
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). An estimated 2,555 cubic yards of material is
proposed to be excavated below mean high water (MIM in order to fill the sandbags.
7) In Project Narrative submitted with the Major Permit application, the applicant's consultant
stated, "While the existing revetment is functioning properly to preclude erosion of the shoreline
when subjected to the energy from ocean waves, the limited 6-ft by 20-ft nominal dimensions are
simply not sufficient to preclude undercutting by the Tubbs Inlet tidal channel when it migrates to
a position adjacent to the existing revetment." However, due to the fact that the new sandbag
revetment is proposed to be constructed oceanward of the existing revetment, and at the same
base elevation as the existing revetment, undercutting of the proposed bags would appear to be
more likely, thereby conflicting with the applicant's stated purpose and need.
8) The proposed project has been found to be in conflict with the Shoreline Erosion Policies found at
15A NCAC 07M.0202(e). This policy states that "Temporary measures to counteract erosion,
such as the use of sandbags and beach pushing, should be allowed, but only to the extent
necessary to protect property for a short period of time until threatened structures may be
relocated or until the effects of a short-term erosion event are reversed. In all cases, temporary
stabilization measures must be compatible with public use and enjoyment of the beach."
9) Based upon the above referenced findings, the Division has determined that the proposed project
is inconsistent with the following Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:
a) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(F), which states: "Temporary erosion control structures may
remain in place for up to two years after the date of approval if they are protecting a
building with a total floor area of 5000 sq. ft. or less and its associated septic system, or,
for up to five years for a building with a total floor area of more than 5000 sq. ft. and its
associated septic system. Temporary erosion control structures may remain in place for
up to five years if they are protecting a bridge or a road. The property owner shall be
responsible for removal of the temporary structure within 30 days of the end of the
allowable time period';
b) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(G), which states: "Temporary sandbag erosiow control
structures may remain in place for up to eight years from the date of approval if they are
located in a community that is actively pursuing a beach nourishment project, or if they
are located in an Inlet Hazard Area adjacent to an inlet for which a community is actively
pursuing an inlet relocation or stabilization project in accordance with G.S. 113A-115.1
For purposes of this Rule, a community is considered to be actively pursuing a beach
nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization project if it has:
(i) an active CAMA permit, where necessary, approving such project; or
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 3
(ii) been identified by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Beach Nourishment
Reconnaissance Study, General Reevaluation Report, Coastal Storm
Damage Reduction Study or an ongoing feasibility study by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and a commitment of local or federal money,
when necessary; or
(iii) received a favorable economic evaluation report on a federal project; or
(iv) is in the planning stages of a project designed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or persons meeting applicable State occupational licensing
requirements and initiated by a local government or community with a
commitment of local or state funds to construct the project and the
identification of the financial resources or funding bases necessary to fund
the beach nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization project.
If beach nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization is rejected by the sponsoring agency
or community, or ceases to be actively planned for a section of shoreline, the time
extension is void for that section of beach or community and existing sandbags are subject
to all applicable time limits set forth in Part (F) of this Subparagraph';
c) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(K), which states: "Sandbags used to construct temporary
erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to five feet wide and seven to 15
feet long when measured flat. Base width of the structure shall not exceed 20 feet, and the
height shall not exceed six feet"; and
d) 15A NCAC.0308(a)(1)(A), which states "All oceanfront erosion response activities shall
be consistent with the general policy statements in 15A NCAC 07M.0200."
Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for issuance of a CAMA Major Permit under
the Coastal Area Management Act be denied. This denial is made pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8)
which requires denial for projects inconsistent with the state guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern
or local land use plans.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a contested case hearing. The hearing will involve
appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of both parties
before making a final decision on the appeal. Your request for a hearing must be in the form of a written
petition, complying with the requirements of § 150B of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and must
be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714,
within twenty (20) days from the date of this denial letter. A copy of this petition should be filed with
this office.
Another response to a permit denial available to you is to petition the Coastal Resources Commission for
a variance to undertake a project that is prohibited by the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Applying for a variance requires that you first acknowledge and recognize that the Division of Coastal
Management applied the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission properly in processing and issuing
this denial. You may then request an exception to the Commission's Rules based on hardships to you
resulting from unusual conditions of the property. To apply for a variance, you must file a petition for a
variance with the Division of Coastal Management Director and the State Attorney General's Office on a
standard form, which must be accompanied by additional information on the nature of the project and the
State of North Carolina I Environmental. Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 4
reasons for requesting a variance. The standard variance forms may be obtained by contacting a member
of my staff, or by visiting the Division of Coastal Management's web page at:
https://deq. ne.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-perm its/variances-appeals.
Members of my staff are available to assist you should you desire to modify your proposal in the future.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Doug Huggett at [phone].
Sincerely,
Braxton C. Davis
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
OCRM/NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
State of North Carolina I Enviromnental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

I-
ItCll E-1
APPLICATION for
Dolor Development Permit
(last revised 12127106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
t a Pr�m�ry AppLc�jnt/Cantlowner, lnformatr4n '
n. b.
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Picha Erosion Control
Applicant 1: First Name
Kay
MI
P.
Last Name
Picha
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional pages) with names listed.
Mailing Address
6965
PO Box
City
Randleman
State
NC
ZIP
27317
Country
USA
Phone No.
336-674-8176 ext.
FAX No.
336-674-0016
Street Address (d different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2 AgQntrCdr tractdr, trrfoa>latio�i� �, ' , ` x 5 �` ti v
x „ ^ mi ° '� M1✓..
��
.. s. ;K ._fcr'.. !,-ri. ,.. x L a si.
,
.x, s, ° „ s cJ^. ,:f,_
Business Name
NO 'Lk; L VL
Sampson Contracting, Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
APR 2 2 2016
Theodore
J.
Sampson
Agent( Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
D IVI — M H D zCffY
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
125 Hunters Trail West
Elizabeth City
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27909
252-548-4292 ext.
252-331-2447 ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
866 793 4261
68247
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
5 West Hargett Street, Suite 310
Raleigh
NC
27601 -
Email
[e-mail]
<Form continues on backs
1-1tZk,t;IVImU
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016
252.808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAS7 -- wrww.nccoastalmanagement. not

ON
Form DCM MPA (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Brunswick
149 Ocean Isle W Blvd
NA
Subdivision Name
City
—7
State
Zip
NA
Ocean Isle Beach
NC
28469 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
NA- ext.
2571E010, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Old Sound Creek; Tubbs Inlet; 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.
Ocean Isle Beach
A. Site pescrijtron
,
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b.r Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
5,710
52,625
c. Size of Individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high wafer) or
21,650 sf,
NWL (normal waterlevel)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
4-ft ®NHW or ❑NW L
e. Vegetation on tract
Planted shrubbery; Spartina patens; Uniola particulate; Ammophila breviligulata; Hydrocotyle americans
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family dwelling; sw mming pool; deck; beach access & stairs; Ocean Isle W Boulevard & right-of-way with buried "
utilities; driveway, parking areas; fence; pier, pier access with gazebo; rock revetment; sandbag revetment
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiace to the proposed project site.
To east: residential lot with single family dwelling. To west: shoreline of Tubbs Inlet (fishing, shelling, walking area). To
north: Shoreline of Old Sound Creek (fishing, walking). To south: shoreline of Atlantic Ocean (fishing, shelling, walking area.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
C-1
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. []Yes []No ®NA
If yes, by whom?
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?
ECEIV E
<Fonn continues on next page>
APR 2 2 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WI=MINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016
OCH2-0560OL �dai . 1.688-4rtCOAST :: www.nccoastalmaoagement.nat

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(lii) If yes to either (1) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? []Yes []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach sewerage system
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach water system
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
None; sheet flow to sand soils.
A6601 69ar;,' I � ,
n. t
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial„ ❑PubliciGovernment
®Private/Community
to Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
Project is designed to augment existing shoreline stabilization provided by increasing sandbag revetment size to prevent
undercutting of sandbag revetment, by encroaching tidal channel of Tubbs Inlet.
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.
Submersible pump slung from long -reach excavator to transfer sand from adjoining waterways into geotextile sandbags.
Skid -steer to be used to shape area prior to placement of sandbags: 1 Submersible pump, 1 long -reach excavator, 1 skid -
steer. All stored on uplands at northern property boundary.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Construct enlarged sandbag revetment as shoreline protection by adding on to existing sandbag alignment within a 45-ft
base width, by +12-ft NGVD alignment.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, newwork or both? Both new work and maintenance of an
existing project.
f. What Is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? , 17,900 J$Sq.Ft or []Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ®Yes []No ❑NA
that the public has established use of? El
h. Describe location and Type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state. Fri
None, other than sheet -flow of rain run-off. APR 42 2016
I. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes []No WN& - w var )
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? []Yes []No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? []Yes I$No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. _ i a
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
<Form continues on back>
Q
ITY
APR 12, 2016
252-808-2.808 ;: 9-888.4RCOAST -- www.ncconstalmanagernent.net

V
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Addib6nal'Informad6n
sy c,
An,adofflon to this completed appication form; (Mp 1) the following items below 4,applfcab/e must be submitted inlorder for the'appboahor
pac&age to be complete )terns (a) �fJ are ahvays ap'phcatil'e to aqy maJor development pphcahgn ',Please consu/f the apphosfron ,y
(nstNdtlon bock/et on hbw to properly prepare fherequved,hems below i`. a - ,-`
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 ads 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 recelpts,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 Robed and Sharon dell No (503) 345 t1020. d r
„Address 186 Heimatsweg Ijoad Chapin ;$C 29036 , •, � 4 _
Name Phone No.
Address
',Name n n - ;Pfiore 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/D&F Permits: 52423D 6/30/09 Kay Plcha; 49148D NCDCM Letter of Exemption for Maintenance & Repair project
12/13/07 Curt Rodgers; 49198D 11/14/07 Kay Picha; dated 5/7/2009
49157D 10/30/07 Kay Picha; 240-89 6118189 Ocean Isle
Developing Co.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Wetland 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.
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.
Date April 6, 2016 Print Name Theodore J. Sampson (for Kay Picha)
. MEWED
Signature
APR 2 2 Z016
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts M EL AP H �
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development F j R
TY
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RROAST :: www.necoastalmanagement.not

>,kq i
Foy DCM MP-2
e r r-4 811�� ry '� E•11 �, 'sT I'9 Y fe �7 )E j`.,
ia,,. ✓ +.. �, .l a'b: .i d L``.� a 9�J .� J ! !w :! lu y
(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/orfill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NVVL)
stabilization
Length
Width
Avg. Existing _
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
2555
c. (!) 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
(I!) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
NA
2. DISPOSAL OFEXCAVATED,MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area.
c. (I) Do you claim We to disposal area?
[]Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
e. (1) 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
(li) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
C
sand
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards
NA
This section not applicable
b. Dimensions of disposal area.
d. (1) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
[]Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
[]Yes ❑No ❑NA
(it) If yes, how much water area is affected?
I il:_CE1VED
RECEEVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 2 2 2016
APR 12 2016
252-300-2808 :: 1-886 4RCOAST :: www.nceoastalntanaaement.not revised: 12126106

,Faripm r"'r'. IMP-' i 63C ^ 'XU"a 'S.eM!"pav ,`R"."n"'Ry
�. SF/OREUhlE STABItlZ/4TIOAl . atfi sedan nbt aoplicabie
p ,.
(Ito, v✓ood`groiq ,use MP-4- Structures)
R. Tvne of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: 448'
OBulkhead ❑R)prap CBreakwatedSill [90ther: Width.. 45
sandbaos
c. Average distance waterwayd of NHW or NW L: M d. Maximum distance waterwrard of NHW or NWL' 39'
e. Type of stabilization material:
Sandbag revetment
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkheadback1ill Riprap_
Breakwater/SiL'Other 14.320
L Source of rill material.
Sand from adjolning waterways
(tX5Uo!M9 Stkomlrta.Jta'}OffR,aGOrrf
a. (I) Will fill material be brought to the site? DYes Mo
If yes,
(h) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii) Dimensions of fill area _
(iv) Purpose of fill
f. (I) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
RYss (]No ❑NA
(u) if yes; state amourd of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
49 over 4 mo; 115' over 17 mo; field observation/measurement
h. Type of fill material.
sand
submerged aquatic vegetation ($AV), shelf bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (W L)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
OCW ❑SAV _ [JSB
OWL []None
(h) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragiine,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Enclosed within geotextile sandbags Submersible pump
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
OYes NNo )]PIA
()I) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Project Name
d. (I) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? OYes MNo [INA
(if) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
25F•S 08.2808 a: 14.88ARCOAST :s wrun;s.stectza 9,mparrafrans}epe�2esa _5 a*wv ed-. •'Mzsntos

tflaruh..sn. ids:€iia} 6e _
u#, DG ., MH CITY
TM+hak tic�r�at�itai;rc��ircr�t� RECEIVED
p %d s4.wn,ttaa .t .pt} r DGMWILMINGTON NC
iiifiz�tTte APR 3 201&

Coats, Heather
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <Tyler. [e-mail]. mil>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 7:42 AM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Federal Comments for sandbag placement, Tubbs Inlet
-----Original Message -----
From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Robin Wiebler - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>; Fritz Rohde - NOAA Federal
<fritz. ro h d e @ no a a.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Federal Comments for sandbag placement, Tubbs Inlet
DearTyler,
The NMFS has reviewed the detailed response provided in reference to EFH Conservation Recommendations for
expansion of a sandbag revetment for Action ID No. SAW-2007-03637-10, dated May 24, 2016. The applicants response
is acceptable to the NMFS. The NMFS appreciates the applicant's commitment to monitoring, maintenance, and
removal of sandbags as required.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Best regards,
-Ken
Kenneth Riley, Ph.D.
Fishery Biologist
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
101 Pivers Island Road; Beaufort, NC 28516
Office: 252-728-8750 <tel:[phone]> I Cell: 252-864-6193 <tel:[phone]> I Email: [e-mail]
<mailto:ken. [e-mail]>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
Pace and Ken,

E
Below is the response that the Applicant's Agent (Ted Sampson) sent last week. Please review and let me know
if you find these responses satisfactory. I can either write a return letter with an official response, or do what we
normally do and handle it via'email, but I wanted to have it worked out first.
Thank you.
-Tyler
Relative to the NMFS comments:
No provisions to monitor, maintain or remove: NC DCM standard comments to address these matters are
anticipated, and so long as they are in line with the typical provisions we are accustomed to see in.similar projects, the
applicant should have no problem, and this matter can be adequately addressed.
Dessication of benthic infaunal organisms, machinery crushing of organisms, burial of habitat, physical damage
to intertidal & surf zone from sandbags: These potential impacts are virtually identical to the impacts associated with the
NC DCM General Permit for Emergency sandbags, and the Corps' authorization of such emergency permits with these
associated impacts.
Recommendation for "soft" measures as alternatives: Beach nourishment is not allowed by NC DCM in inlet
areas. Sand Dune restoration is not applicable to this situation. The existing sandbag stabilized dune is being undercut by
the deep tidal channel that has migrated up against the existing sandbag revetment --any dune restoration would
disappear into the inlet as fast as it could be placed due to the 4-time daily tidal currents. Vegetative Plantings --have
little if any shoreline stabilization effect. They can trap sand that is moving by aeolian transport and thereby help build a
protective dune. But, when there is no dry sand beach, as is the case here, vegetative plantings have no benefit outside
of the aesthetic.
Relative to the NMFS recommendations:
Consider only temporary emergency erosion control: By the very nature of the permit that is sought, it is only
allowed by NC DCM as a temporary measure. The permit requested is anticipated to be temporary in nature. In this
instance, a hard, specified date for removal is probably not appropriate because of the nature of the migration of Tubbs
Inlet. These sandbags should be viewed as temporary until such time as the forces of nature come together to reverse
the direction of the migration of Tubbs Inlet, or until such time as man-made efforts, such as channel realignment brings
a degree of stability to this shoreline. Studying the history of the migration of Tubbs Inlet, it appears that the migration
direction was to the west (toward Sunset Beach) until around 1966 when a Corps project (or perhaps a Corps authorized
project) moved the natural channel along the shoreline of Sunset Beach into the middle of the Inlet. Is the Corps
prepared to now take similar actions to prevent the encroachment of the Inlet upon Ocean Isle Beach with channel
relocation, as it did to provide relief to Sunset Beach? This could address both the concerns for shoreline protection
impacts and the temporary nature of the project proposed by the Pichas.
Recommendation for alternatives analysis, including avoidance & minimization: This was addressed succinctly in
the Permit application. In essence, the do nothing alternative results in the loss of the Picha property and Town of Ocean
Isle Beach utilities, to be followed by the steady loss of additional residential property and utilities to the east of the
Picha property. Stabilizing the Inlet by the dredging of a central tidal/navigation channel is beyond the purview of the
Picha's to request, and the amount of inlet area and habitat impacted by such action would be greatly increased when
compared to the current Permit request. Seeking a hard, rock revetment or groin is something that NC DCM rules and
law do not allow for owners of private property, and associated impacts would be similar to the proposed Permit, but
have the drawback of being permanent. Avoidance of all impacts is not practicable, if the property, and the neighboring
properties/utilities are to be protected. Avoidance of many impacts are built-in the requested Permit, in that there is no
request to reclaim land lost to the inlet, and cost and practicality of building an enlarged sandbag revetment requires
the building of the smallest structure that be projected to provide the needed results, and this excludes attempting to
fill-in the deep tidal channel that has since the time of this application now migrated up against and under the existing
sandbag revetment. Minimization of impacts has long been built into the process that the applicant has followed to
provide protection for their property. The existing sandbags were installed only incrementally, under a series of
separately issued General Permits. The impacts associated with the currently requested Permit are already minimized by

it
seeking a size of the alignment no greater than that seen by the NC CRC to be appropriate in other situations where a
nominal 6-ft by 20-ft is found to be insufficient. Given the difficulty and length of time needed to obtain a Variance and
Corps agreement for an enlarged sandbag revetment, it is necessary to seek a footprint forthe needed protection for
the full length of the shoreline, especially in light of the dynamic and changing nature of where Tubbs Inlet will
conc ntrate its erosive forces. This means that a full 45-ft by+12 NAVD alignment may not be constructed initially along
thentire shoreline --limiting the width of the alignment initially.to the areas where erosion forces are concentrated.
This is what was initially envisioned when the Permit application was made. However, given the very lengthy Permit and
Variance process that we are experiencing, more and more of the shoreline is in need of immediate; full protection. Still,
if at the time of construction commencement we find that there are segments that do not require the full enlarged
revetment, these will be constructed to a smaller initial footprint to minimize impacts.
Relative to Detailed Plan for Removal, Including all Components: Such removal is required by existing NC DCM
rules, and is typically made part of the Permit conditions, and applicant would likely have no objection to such typical
conditions.
Relative to, Monitoring & Maintenance Plan to Prevent Marine Debris: Applicant already monitors and
maintains the existing sandbag revetment which has included the removal of already failed or failing sandbags.
Applicant intends to continue with this active monitoring, maintenance and removal of marine debris. If this needs to be
formalized, that can be done.
Tyler
Tyler Crumbley, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] <tel:[phone]> <tel:[phone] <tel:[phone]> >
Fax: [phone] <tel:[phone]> <tel:[phone] <tel:[phone]> >
email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
"The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us
ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
Blockedhttp://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/ <Blockedhttp://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/> "

DCM Coordinator: 0 1 f /� I C- Permit #: ci- 7 -(6
/ MAILING DISTRIBUTION SHEET
V Permitee• Kv5 1. f, c 4c
Agents:
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City (with revised work plan drawings)
Morehead City
Washington
Wilmington/
US ACOE Offices:
Washington:
Raleigh Bland
William Westcott (NC DOT)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT)
Wilmington:
Tyler Crumbley
Liz Hare
Cultural Resources:
Renee Gledhill -Early
Public Water Supply:
Heide Cox (WIRO)
Joey White (WARD)
DCM/ Shane Staples
Fisheries Specialist Gregg Bodnar
NC DOT: Ben Hughes
DMFI
Shellfish Sanitation: Shannon Jenkins/
State Property: Tim Walton ✓
Water Resources: Karen Higgins (Raleigh
John Hennessy (NC DOT)
Washington:
Anthony Scarbraugh-401
Wilmington:
Joanne Steenhuis - 401 /
Chad Coburn - 401
DEMLR
Washington:
Scott Vinson-Stormwater
Wilmington:
Georgette Scott- Stormwate
Wildlife Resources:
Maria Dunn
LPO:
Fax Distribution: Permitee
Agent #:.

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 29, 2016
CERTIFIED MAIL
Kay Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Dr.
Randleman, NC 27317
Dear Ms. Picha:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your application for development under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) and the State Dredge and Fill Law, in which authorization was requested to expand an existing
sandbag revetment adjacent to Tubbs Inlet, at 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard, in Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County. Processing of the application, which was received as complete by the Division of
Coastal Management's Wilmington Office on April 15, 2016, is now complete. Based on the state's review,
the Division of Coastal Management has made the following findings:
1) The subject property is located adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and is located within the Inlet Hazard Area
of Environmental Concern (AEC), as designated by the Coastal Resources Commission. 15A
NCAC 07H.0304(2) defines Inlet Hazard Areas as "natural -hazard areas that are especially
vulnerable to erosion, flooding and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of their
proximity to dynamic ocean inlets."
2) Three general permits (Numbers 49157D, 49198D and 52423D) were issued to Kay Picha from
2007 to 2009 for the installation and extension of a sandbag revetment to protect the immanently
threatened single-family home at 149 Ocean Isle Boulevard in Ocean Isle Beach. The sandbag
revetment was authorized at a maximum base width of 12' and maximum height of 6'. Additionally,
a fourth permit (No. 49148) was issued to Ocean Isle Beach West on December 13, 2007 to protect
the end of Ocean Isle West Boulevard. This permit authorized 68 linear feet of sandbags, also with
a maximum base width of 20' and a maximum height of 6', which were installed contiguous to the
Picha sandbags.
3) General permits 49157D' (issued October 30, 2007) and 49198D (issued November 14, 2007)
included Sandbag Removal Notices indicating that the authorized sandbags may remain in place
for up to two years from the date of permit approval. General Permit 52423D (issued July 30,
2009), included a Sandbag Removal Notice indicating that the authorized sandbags may remain in
place for up to five years from the date of permit approval.
4) In accordance with guidance provided in 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(G), the proposed project area
is not located within a community that is actively pursuing a beach nourishment project or an inlet
relocation or stabilization project in accordance with G.S. 113A-115.1
state of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

f
Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 2
5) Under the applicant's current proposal, the existing sandbag revetment would remain in place until
such time as the new (proposed) bags would be removed.
6) The applicant proposes to expand the size of the existing sandbag revetment to allow for additional
protection of the property. As proposed, the approximately 468 linear foot revetment would be
expanded waterward to create a revetment with a base width of 45' and a crest height of 12'
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). An estimated 2,555 cubic yards of material is
proposed to be excavated below mean high water (MHW) in order to fill the sandbags.
7) In Project Narrative submitted with the Major Permit application, the applicant's consultant
stated, "While the existing revetment is functioning properly to preclude erosion of the shoreline
when subjected to the energy from ocean waves, the limited 6-ft by 20-ft nominal dimensions are
simply not sufficient to preclude undercutting by the Tubbs Inlet tidal channel when it migrates to
a position adjacent to the existing revetment." However, due to the fact that the new sandbag
revetment is proposed to be constructed oceanward of the existing revetment, and at the same
base elevation as the existing revetment, undercutting of the proposed bags would appear to be
more likely, thereby conflicting with the applicant's stated purpose and need.
8) The proposed project has been found to be in conflict with the Shoreline Erosion Policies found at
15A NCAC 07M.0202(e). This policy states that "Temporary measures to counteract erosion,
such as the use of sandbags and beach pushing, should be allowed, but only to the extent
necessary to protect property for a short period of time until threatened structures may be
relocated or until the effects of a short-term erosion event are reversed. In all cases, temporary
stabilization measures must be compatible with public use and enjoyment of the beach."
9) Based upon the above referenced findings, the Division has determined that the proposed project
is inconsistent with the following Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:
a) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(F), which states: "Temporary erosion control structures may
remain in place for up to two years after the date of approval if they are protecting a
building with a total floor area of 5000 sq. ft. or less and its associated septic system, or,
for up to five years for a building with a total floor area of more than 5000 sq. ft. and its
associated septic system. Temporary erosion control structures may remain in place for
up to five years if they are protecting a bridge or a road. The property owner shall be
responsible for removal of the temporary structure within 30 days of the end of the
allowable time period";
b) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(G), which states: "Temporary sandbag erosion control
structures may remain in place for up to eight years from the date of approval if they are
located in a community that is actively pursuing a beach nourishment project, or if they
are located in an Inlet Hazard Area adjacent to an inlet for which a community is actively
pursuing an inlet relocation or stabilization project in accordance with G.S. 113A-115.1
For purposes of this Rule, a community is considered to be actively pursuing a beach
nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization project if it has:
(i) an active CAMA permit, where necessary, approving such project; or
Slate of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808 -

,
Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 3
(ii) been identified by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Beach Nourishment
Reconnaissance Study, General Reevaluation Report, Coastal Storm
Damage Reduction Study or an ongoing feasibility study by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and a commitment of local or federal money,
when necessary; or
(iii) received a favorable economic evaluation report on a federal project; or
(iv) is in the planning stages of a project designed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or persons meeting applicable State occupational licensing
requirements and initiated by a local government or community with a
commitment of local or state funds to construct the project and the
identification of the financial resources or funding bases necessary to fund
the beach nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization project.
If beach nourishment, inlet relocation or stabilization is rejected by the sponsoring agency
or community, or ceases to be actively planned for a section of shoreline, the time
extension is void for that section of beach or community and existing sandbags are subject
to all applicable time limits set forth in Part (F) of this Subparagraph';
c) 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(K), which states: "Sandbags used to construct temporary
erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to five feet wide and seven to 15
feet long when measured flat. Base width of the structure shall not exceed 20 feet, and the
height shall not exceed six feet'; and
d) 15A NCAC.0308(a)(1)(A), which states "All oceanfront erosion response activities shall
be consistent with the general policy statements in 15A NCAC 07M.0200."
Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for issuance of a CAMA Major Permit under
the Coastal Area Management Act be denied. This denial is made pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8)
which requires denial for projects inconsistent with the state guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern
or local land use plans.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a contested case hearing. The hearing will involve
appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of both parties
before making a final decision on the appeal. Your request for a hearing must be in the form of a written
petition, complying with the requirements of § 150B of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and must
be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714,
within twenty (20) days from the date of this denial letter. A copy of this petition should be filed with
this office.
Another response to a permit denial available to you is to petition the Coastal Resources Commission for
a variance to undertake a project that is prohibited by the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Applying for a variance requires that you first acknowledge and recognize that the Division of Coastal `
Management applied the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission properly in processing and issuing
this denial. You may then request an exception to the Commission's Rules based on hardships to you
resulting from unusual conditions of the property. To apply for a variance, you must file a petition for a
variance with the Division of Coastal Management Director and the State Attorney General's Office on a
standard form, which must be accompanied by additional information on the nature of the project and the
State of North Carolina J Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

Kay Picha
June 29, 2016
Page 4
reasons for requesting a variance. The standard variance forms may be obtained by contacting a member
of my staff, or by visiting the Division of Coastal Management's web page at:
Members of my staff are available to assist you should you desire to modify your proposal in the future.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Doug Huggett at [phone].
Sincerely,
Braxton C. Davis
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
OCRM/NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I coastal Management
400 Commerce Drive., Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

GPii_ N5120R
UNITED STATE�ERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage &Fees Paid
13 1LA '1c;
usas
RKt 3 1..
Pe mit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4e in this box*
por-
(fi0162"ar Giiv,
803-28103 or-rr-ivE D
I��NIIIIiIIIRIIIV'E�A � ""`20`

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A. Signature
■ Print your name and address on the reverse )( V . 12
12
so that we can return the card to you. f
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, eyed b ame)r C. D e
or on the front if space permits. C ,
1. Article Addressed to:
D. Is dell*y address diRevent from Item 1? U Yet
0 YES, enter delivery address; below: ❑ No
3 vice
0 Priority Mall Expressilli
II
I
IIIIII
IIII
III
I I I I
I II
I III II
I
IIIII
I III
IIII
III
lt
uneRestricted
❑ AdulS gna Delivery
❑ Registerc-0 Mal Restricted
9590 9403 0412 5163 9036 30
teed Mal®
CertYRed Mall Restricted DWNery
Receipt for
❑ Collect on Delivery Merchandise
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Signature ConfimretiorTM
❑ Sgnatura Conflnnaaon
2. Article Number (transfer from service 19W
I Mail
7 0 0 2 3150 0003 9 918 2976 'a, Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
Ps Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt

Certified Mail Provides: ss �eaJ gum euar ooee aacj sa
is Amailing recelpt
■ A unique Identifier for your mailpiece
■ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
Important Reminders.
is Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail, o"r Priority Mall,
■ Certified Mall is notavailable for any class of International mail.
■ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certifiec# Mail. For
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mall.
is For an additional fee, a Return Receipt m% be requested to Provide proof of
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete antl attach a Return
Receipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postagd to cover the
fee. Endorse mailpiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee waver for
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS, postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is
required.
in For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the malipiece with the
endorsement 'Restricted Delivery'.
■ If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, Please present the ar i-
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and Present it when making an Inquiry.
Internet access to delivery information is not available on mall
addressed to APOs and FPOs.

U.S. Postal Servicer,, lip,�
CERTIFIED MAILTa REMIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
'm
r
Ir
0'
{ Postage
$
m
"Certified Fee
O
Postmark
C3
Retern Bateau[ Fee
Here
(Endorsemera Required)
O
Restricted Delivery Fee
Ll
(Endorsement Required)
rq
M
Total Postage & Fees
s
PS Form 3800, June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions

DCM Coordinator:
/ MAILING DISTRIBUTION SHEET
V Permitee: \ S.e Li Cc,, -� (Y).J / 44 vi,7 RP
1/ Agents: led -Sc,m
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City
Morehead City
Washington
mm on
US ACOE Offices:
I z 5- H,afe,-s 1ro: / tve5 f
Washington: Raleigh Bland
Wilmington:
Cultural Resources:
Public Water Supply:
DCM/
Fisheries Specialist
NC DOT:
DMF/
Shellfish Sanitation:
State Property:
Water Resources:
Washington:
Wilmington:
DEMLR
Washington:
Wilmington:
Wildlife Resources:
LPO:
Permit #•
l
(with revised work plan drawings)
William Westcott (NC DOT)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT)
er rum e
Liz Haze
Renee Gledhill- • •
amide Cox
Joey White (WARD)
Shane Staples 1
regg Bo
en Hu s
annon Je ' s
T' ton
Karen Hi ins ale'
John Hennessy (NC DOT)
Anthony Scarbraugh-401
Joanne Steenhuis — 401
Chad oburn - 401
Scott Vinson-Stormwater
Georgette Scott- Stormwater
Mazia Dunn
Fax Distribution: Permitee #:
Agent #:
C•h
Z790r
f?f I n' 5 S
go L teen S-Arf
Wd('o'n ov"'Cloce,
M

I/
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
t4-
2.
3.
4.
5.
APPLICANT'S NAME: Kay Picha c/o Sampson Contracting, Inc.
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project site is located at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd, Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County. The property is adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean.
Photo Index - 2006: 1-6153, 12-P
2000. 1-6, 12-P
1995. 1-6, 12-P
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2158698 Y: 46272
Lat.:33°87'59.83"N Long:78°47'72.51"W
INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA / D&F
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - April 15t6, 2016
Was Applicant Present - No
PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - Complete 4/13/16
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Classification From LUP - Residential
(B) AEC(s) Involved: OH, IH, ES
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - Municipal Sewer
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Existing sandbag revetment, rock revetment, private docking
facility, and residential structures and access -ways
Planned - Oversized sandbag revetment
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 4.3'/year Source - LTAASCR 2011 Update
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FII.LQ QTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands (coastal)
N/A
N/A
N/A
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands - open
-2,555
N/A
N/A
water
Cu. yds
(for
sandbag
fill)
(C) Other (High ground)
N/A
-14,320 sq. ft. (sand
N/A
bags placed on beach)
*N/A - Not applicable
R E
• r
(D) Total Area Disturbed: -0.4 acres (-17,900 sq. ft.) APR 2 2 2016
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA & SB Open: Yes D C M - M H D CITY
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to increase an existing sandbag revetment to an oversized
alignment to protect their single family home on the West end of Ocean Isle Beach.

Picha — Oversized Sandbag Revetment
Page Two
r�
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located in Ocean Isle Beach, at 149 Ocean Isle W Blvd., adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs
Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County. To get to the site From US HWY 17 in Shallote, turn left
on to Ocean Isle Beach Rd. SW and travel approximately 3.56 miles. Continue straight on to Causeway Dr. /
NC 904 and travel approximately 1.16 miles. Enter roundabout and take first right onto W. 1s` Street. Travel
approximately 1.34 miles then turn slight right onto Charlotte Street. Travel approximately 0.08 miles and then
take a slight left onto W. 2°d Street. W. Second Street will become Ocean Isle Blvd West. Continue on Ocean
Isle Blvd W. for approximately 0.55 miles until you arrive at the project site at the very end of the road.
The project area would span across two separate tracts of land at the western tip of Ocean Isle Beach. One tract
is owned by the applicant Kay Picha, and the other indicated as a "washout lot" in the application. The tract of
land owned by the applicant measures approximately 0.5 acres with a 60 ft. easement for Ocean Isle W Blvd.
The project site is bordered by Old Sound Creek to the north, Tubbs Inlet to the west, the Atlantic Ocean to the
South, and residential properties to the east. The high ground portion of the property is vegetated with Salt
Meadow Hay (Spartina patens), Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata), American Beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata),
American Marsh-pennywort (Hydrocoytle americana) and planted ornamental vegetation. No wetlands were
observed within the limits of the proposed project area. The current elevation of the residentially developed area
of the property is approximately 8' above Mean High Water (MHW). The Annual erosion rate in the project
area is 4.3'/year per the Division of Coastal Management's 2011 Annual Erosion Rate maps. Existing site
conditions include a sandbag revetment measuring approximately 6' in height by 20' in width by 430' in length
running along Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean. The landward edge of the existing
sandbag revetment is located approximately 12' waterward from the southwest corner of the existing house
structure and approximately 60' waterward from the northwest comer of the existing house structure. The
sandbag revetment along on the western portion of the project site, adjacent to Tubbs Inlet, incorporates
property listed as a "washout lot" in the application. The existing sandbags were authorized in 2009 under
CAMA General Permits #52423D, #49148D, #49198D, and #49157D. There is additional existing shoreline
stabilization in the form of a dilapidated rip rap revetment that measures approximately 140' in length by
approximately 20-30' in width along the northern section of shoreline adjacent to Old Sound Creek. The
applicant currently maintains a private docking facility, consisting of a pier, covered platform, and floating dock
within Old Sound Creek.
The Town Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan classifies the upland areas of the proposed project as "residential".
The waters of the project site are classified as SB for adjacent Tubbs Inlet and Atlantic Ocean and SA for
adjacent Old Sound Creek by the NC Division of Water Quality. The NC Division of Marine Fisheries has NOT
designated this area of Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean as a Primary Nursery Area, and
the waters adjacent to the proposed project area OPEN to the harvesting of shellfish.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing to increase an existing sandbag revetment to an oversized alignment to protect their single
family home on the West end of Ocean Isle Beach. As proposed, the sand bag revetment would adjoin, or abut, the
existing sandbag revetment located along the property's shoreline adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet,
and the Atlantic Ocean. As designed, the sand bag revetment would consist of multiple bag layers, with a base
width of 45' and a crest height of 12' NGVD.
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

M" I
Picha — Oversized Sandbag Revetment
Page Three
As described in the application's cross section (sheet 3 of 3), traditional sandbags (i.e. each tan in color, 5' in
width and 10'-15' in length) would be installed along approximately 468 linear feet of beach. The proposed
sand bags would abut the existing sandbag revetment extending an additional 25' waterward, in a stair stepped
arrangement, for a total base width of approximately 45'.
The proposed sandbag revetment would increase the existing vertical dimension of the sandbags, with a
proposed height of approximately 12'NGVD. As proposed, the most landward sand bags would be installed
perpendicular to the shoreline against the existing dune escarpment. The revetment would then stair step
waterward, with the bags installed parallel to the shoreline along Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic
Ocean. The sand bags would be placed atop a scour apron that would span the entire length of the project.
Information provided by the applicant's agent (Sampson Contracting, Inc.) indicates an approximate mean high
water boundary survey was performed in the vicinity of the proposed project on March 31, 2016. Based on this
data, it appears the proposed sand bag revetment would be placed along an alignment that would extend from
approximately 8' landward of the approximate MHW line, in areas adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, to
approximately 1' landward of the approximate MHW line in areas adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound
Creek. The applicant has accounted for approximately 14,320 sq. ft. of impacts above the approximate MHW
line, however, these numbers will likely change again prior to initiation of the project due to the continuing
easterly migration of the Tubbs Inlet channel.
According to the application package, the applicant intends to fill the sand bags with sand from below MHW
within the adjoining water bodies that are Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. As proposed, the applicant would
remove approximately 2,555 cubic yards of sand by means of a submersible pump attached to a long reach
excavator to fill the proposed bags. Prior to placement of the bags, a skid steer would be used to shape the
profile of the proposed revetment area.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The applicant's proposal to remove approximately 2,555 cubic yards of sand from the adjoining waterbodies
would result in the disturbance of shallow bottom habitat for the fill of the proposed sand bags. The proposed
bags would incorporate approximately 14,320 square feet of high ground area above MHW that is also
proposed to be disturbed by a skid steer to shape the profile of the revetment prior to sandbag placement. The
application also calls for a work area waterward of the proposed alignment where temporary impacts including
increased turbidity can be expected.
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Submitted by: Sean Farrell Date: April 19, 2016 Office: Wilmington

If"
SAMPSON CONTRACTING, INC.
Marine Construction And Environmental Consulting Services
125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 27909 USA
Tel: [phone] — Fax: [phone]
[e-mail] www.sampsoncontracting.com
PROJECT NARRATIVE
IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR MAJOR PERMIT
APPLICANT: Kay P. Picha
PROJECT: Erosion Control
LOCATION: Brunswick County, North Carolina, at western terminus of Ocean Isle W
Boulevard, Ocean Isle Beach
Directions:
From US Hwy 17 (Business) in Shallotte, NC, proceed south on NC 179 to
the intersection of NC 904, turning left toward Ocean Isle Beach. Proceed
south, passing over the Intercoastal Waterway and continuing into Ocean
Isle Beach to the traffic circle just south of 2nd Street. Proceed to the right
out of the traffic circle onto Ocean Isle W Boulevard, and travel to the end,
which is adjacent to the project location at 149 Ocean Isle W Boulevard.
SITE: Description:
The project area consists of two tracts of land. The first tract is owned by
Kay P. Picha, and is listed by Brunswick County as Parcel # 2571E010.
This tract is approximately 0.5 acres, with a 60-ft easement for Ocean Isle
W Boulevard separating the portion of the tract that borders the Atlantic
Ocean from the portion of the tract that borders Old Sound Creek. The
second tract, where some of the existing sandbags are located, is now listed
by Brunswick County as a washout lot.
The total shoreline of the area of the Project along the Atlantic Ocean,
Tubbs Inlet, and Old Sound Creek is 5,710 feet. The project area lies within
the Ocean Erodible and Inlet Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern.
The Picha tract of land is currently utilized for residential purposes. The
residentially developed area is approximately 8-ft above Mean High Water
RECEIVED and the land descends steeply to Mean High Water along the Atlantic
Ocean, Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. Access to a pier along Old
APR 2 2 2016 Sound Creek exists. The "Washout' lot has some isolated areas where the
topography exceeds 8-ft above Mean High Water, but it transitions steeply
to Mean High Water down the existing sandbag revetment along Tubbs
DC M- M H D CITY Inlet. This "Washout' lot is undeveloped with the exception of the existing
sandbag revetment and an existing rock revetment placed along Old Sound,
Creek during development of the island. R E- C E i V E D
WIAW,:,",. "' - "'" MINGTON, NC
A P R 12 2016

49v
Moining Development:
Immediately adjoining the Picha tract, and extending to the east along the
Atlantic Ocean, are a series of residentially developed lots with beach
access, and most have access to, and piers on Old Sound Creek.
Erosion:
Erosion is ongoing, and readily discernable along the shorelines of the
Atlantic Ocean, Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. The landward reach of
the erosion has been stopped by the existing sandbag revetment, but the
Tubbs Inlet channel has steadily migrated to the east, eroding away
subsurface inlet soils on the Picha side of the Inlet. As the sand spit on the
Sunset Beach side of the Inlet has grown to the east, the tidal channel has
become narrowed, and the depth of the channel has increased to
accommodate the flow to and from the tidal prism. These depths have
recently been recorded along the Picha property ranging from 8 — 20-ft
below the NMLW level.
During the period of 6/17/2008 to 12/13/2012 the tidal channel migrated by
106-ft to the northeast, corresponding to a migration rate of approximately
2-ft/month. During the period of 12/13/2012 to 10/9/2014 the tidal channel
migrated by 34-ft to the northeast, corresponding to a migration rate of
approximately 1.5-ft/month. During the period of 10/9/2014 to 11/25/2015
the tidal channel migrated by 69-ft to the northeast, corresponding to a
migration rate of approximately 5-ft/month. During the period of
11/25/2015 to 3/25/2016 the tidal channel migrated by 48-ft to the
northeast, corresponding to a migration rate of approximately 12-ft/month.
The shoreline along Tubbs Inlet near the Picha property is a high energy
shoreline where winds have an unlimited open fetch of water when blowing
from directions from the southwest to the southeast.
Soils:
Information available from the USDA indicates Newhan Fine Sand is the
soil type that exists in the project area.
Hy(kology:
The hydrology is uniform throughout the project area with the Newhan
Fine Sand being located more than 80 inches above the water table and
with no restrictive underlying structures.
IVED Drainage from the project area is through sheet flow, which rapidly
RECE percolates into the Newhan Fine Sand.
APR 2 2 2016 Section404 Wetlands:
A 404 wetland delineation has not been conducted for the project area; no
D C 110 _ �%r �° , 6TY such wetlands were observed. RECEIVED
_ DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016

RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHJ CVTY
Coastal Wetlands:
Coastal wetland vegetation consisting of Spartina patens was observed, but
not in areas flooded by tides; as such, no coastal wetlands are considered to
exist within the project area.
Uplands:
Upland vegetation includes planted shrubbery, Spartina patens, Uniola
paniculata, Ammophila breviligulata, and Hydrocoytle Americana.
Waters:
The waters adjoining the project area include the Atlantic Ocean, Tubbs
Inlet, and Old Sound Creek. None of the waters adjoining the project area
are designated as an Anadromous Fish Spawning area, and the adjoining
waters are outside any primary or secondary nursery areas. Similarly the
adjoining waters are outside of any Striped Bass and Herring Management
Areas. These waters have been designated by the NC Shellfish Sanitation
Commission as areas open for shellfish harvesting. These waters are
considered to be Coastal Waters subject to the jurisdiction of the NC
Division of Marine Fisheries
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation:
No submerged aquatic vegetation has been observed within the waters
adjoining the project area.
Historical -Archaeological:
No indication has been found that the project area has been identified to
have either historical or archaeological importance.
Species of Concern:
The following species are recorded as being either Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T) in Brunswick County, North Carolina:
American alligator
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Piping plover
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Red knot
West Indian manatee
Wood stork
VERTIBRATES
Alligator mississippiensis
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricate
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Picoides borealis
Calidns canutus rufa
Trichechus manatus
Mycteria Americana
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

VASCULAR PLANTS
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyt E
Rough -leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T
Eleven vertebrate species of concern are listed as either Threatened or
Endangered in Brunswick County by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
three vascular plants are listed as either Threatened or Endangered. On the
project site, only the five sea turtles, the Piping plover, the Red knot and
the Seabeach amaranth would have potential habitat. The dynamic nature
of the inlet makes the project area unappealing for nesting of any of these
species, and would serve only as a feeding area for the Piping plover and
the Red knot. While Seabeach amaranth could occupy the project area, no
evidence of the presence of this species was observed.
It is unlikely that the proposed development will have any impacts on the
identified species.
DEVELOPMENT: This project consists of enlarging an existing erosion control sandbag
revetment from nominal dimensions of 6-ft vertical by 20-ft base -width to a
total base -width of 45-ft, and a vertical limit of +12-ft NGVD. While the
existing revetment is functioning properly to preclude the erosion of the
shoreline when subjected to the energy from ocean waves, the limited 6-ft
by 20-ft nominal dimensions are simply not sufficient to preclude
undercutting by the Tubbs Inlet tidal channel when it migrates to a position
adjacent to the existing revetment.
This proposed project seeks to address the imminent threat to the property
of the applicant, and thereby the west -end of the town of Ocean Isle Beach.
At present, the work area water -ward of the proposed enlarged alignment is
limited to no more than 3 - 10-ft in some areas. Having a work area water -
ward of the proposed alignment is essential in order to perform the
proposed work. At the current rate of migration of the tidal channel of
Tubbs Inlet, this work area will not exist in some areas within 1 month. At
the current rate of migration of the tidal channel, the existing sandbag
revetment can be expected to be undermined in less than 3 months.
The project as proposed is in compliance with the N. C. Environmental
Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10).
RECEIVED Existing:
NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) General Permits, #52423D,
APR 2 2 2016 #49148D, #49198D and #49157D, authorized a total of approximately 430
feet of 6-ft by 20-ft sandbag revetment.
DCM- MHC CETY
RECEIVED
4 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

M
Other prior development includes one residential structure with swimming
pool, one beach accessway, one pier access and floating pier. Prior to the
residential development of this lot, a paved, asphalt road was constructed
within the roadway easement on this property.
Additionally, prior to the residential development of this lot, a rock
revetment was constructed, as authorized by CAMA Major Permit 240-89
(issued in 1989), along the shore of Old Sound Creek during the
development the island. This revetment extended into what has now
become a part of Tubbs Inlet. Most of this revetment is covered by sand,
but can be observed where the sand has been washed away by the
encroaching tidal channel.
A separate rock revetment was constructed under a NC Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) authorization letter for an exempted maintenance and
repair project, issued on 5n12009. This revetment extends approximately
140-ft in length along Old Sound Creek, turning eastward along Tubbs
Inlet. This revetment is approximately 20-ft in width, with a 30-ft width
existing at each end of the structure.
Proposed New as Part of this Permit Application:
Enlargement of the existing sandbag revetment is proposed by increasing
the height to +12 NGVD, and extending the base -width water -ward for a
total base -width of 45-ft.
UTILITIES Wastewater:
Wastewater is handled by direct connection to the Ocean Isle Beach
sewerage system.
Potable Water:
Potable water is provided through connection to the Ocean Isle Beach
water main.
Power. Telephone and Cable:
Power utilities are provided through underground service. Telephone and
cable utilities are similarly provided through underground service.
IMPACTS Project development under this Permit application seeks no new
impervious surface.
Overall project development involves the following impacts:
Enlarged SaadbAg Revetment
RECEIVED Fill placed within geotextile bags, is above MHW, but could
include up to 14,320 sq. ft. placed on top of existing sand that at
APR 2 2 2016 times may be below NH W.
DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

W—
• Removal of approximately 2,555 cu. yds. of fill sand for the
geotextile bags from below MHW within the adjoining water
bodies.
Access
Access is available through the site to the Areas of Environmental
Concern in the vicinity of the proposed development without crossing
any Section 404 or NC coastal wetlands. Access of equipment to the
shoreline will be across the slope located just to the east of the existing
access to the pier on Old Sound Creek.
AVOIDANCE AND
MIMI IIZATION Applicant seeks to provide erosion protection for her property, and
thereby, for the west end of the island on which Ocean Isle Beach is
located. The proposed project could better be done with the use of a
hardened structure, which is not allowed under current North Carolina law
and rules. Applicant seeks to provide the needed protection by
constraining the design to the use of temporary erosion control measures.
While the size of this alignment is greater than that provided for in the
rules of the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), the design has been
constrained to a width and height that the CRC has, in the past, found
acceptable for situations where the nominal 6-ft by 20-ft alignment is
insufficient to address the imminent threat
Signed:
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Date: 7 April 2016
_`;EiVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016

I

vvI
LOCATION MAP
C-*UP lVq:,."..B oo.m nOW9339294355;78.1214398.131
t L�
[E b
bq
l gFyS" i
y
+
' w
I J+rY '.xf ra�«f afw
l f
WA'M.iP+ _-. j Imp,. ux v' el '+as uuy, 1133 ssl?i8l_ IS 4AL10.15a
y
YM nb+�
APR 2 2 2016
I-� CITY
PROJECT SITE: D C M- M H D C II �f,
149 OCEAN ISLE W BLVD.
OCEAN ISLE BEACH NC " q NIi
APR 12 2016

I%%
troject Is In An Ocean Fredihle Area High Hazard rir,od Area Inlet Hazard Area
Iroperty owner: Kay P. Picha
3roperty Address 149 Ocean Isle W Blvd.. Ocean Isle Beach NC
)ate Lot Was Platted 9/7/1994
.. IU •,(Sj; 1 1.. ,11.i c. dh:,n (16 .tikl i! I, {s il:.,3!'i.l:1Y
2
25 ezt lattdu:uti ut <, m+�,>r .t<<tst
ui •.ca,�.,. ;.,,: �,t arc p+edscttxt tz, t^u•.ibvtut
'...-. fT4tl lri:eAnlr , _..., s. i.,.. •-i;v..3[: bR:dtil i' ..,"u: n'.
uai ;rlrlcatiGn r.t +lsir.t,ceed 9tristittJiea Nand a,:... - ; ,
ttti.-sua�+.. acts,=�i�tllithea�,�eawafts.i�evctrnetrt=: r i�t:,;�-.
,r: .4ibtted 'lemptrary sand h gs n°,at vc
t7 Tatci ttmtast.,. txati}tti x t#a ,;i,ommuionanti rlupu :t s; t,, -
1} signing thin notice sit the alktix lavloll, wittisout tilt: prow
,•1?.it,irt t!IP :�j�ltlic do>r; aillfrt l,'r�uri;tieta•.
SPECIAL NOTE; Ihi4twtvclr>dJt utxcrytlircKliix k+cicr}?atvrt;
lonandsna ise;sorsn,andcrnaxHa Permirs
ract nlhi4ar_act!auciutDecemIx'01(Afthe
ut", 1 i`t, ;11,,51 i' 'A'N ISAtdrl_
n•ii !.'i. ..."U I1 -.'p: ;c,.. t-, Il ocal t3ermil.
=clha>,%,i"Esi: 1' F_ lmKSects littirehsnge
sceerc toil. t , writ �� u..lt.. at..t t6E pt�dtit�hspntwttz
call sill filvel ths.±ttpa,:k t ti{atrenlvatL lilt t PO will infiinim Nan
;hat you ma}- hci:in mirk. Suhstantial pragre,%on the project
Or
-a 17d,itdlt` �'.9. ,tZit ;: .3 .ivt! .c ❑l:iP: t.«l,f i_day tvjrtA
o. t;l ncc.rs4a.;k- atnca�.crelsicn: <�f the �ethatk 11 is inrlx+,dant
that y ou check with the LPf� tx�ibrc the ix:rrrit r:xitims irsr affitasl
JPlv.<tsot w ttinttivue the %olL after llk ritmil Iris expired.
La�C ;.ill}.11 loi, [!IlatltM piling~, haitc tx.en placiA and ;lob ilalntal
,04AMIg. petnlil tcncwai ran he ziulhonzed It is
t:nftntt,; wol't,alicrpernnl-txtw:I ;r+a,
fur nturt• iu/irrnrtzti,=n, , onrt7tr.
mo $I -MON AT
Lugs tyrr;: , .
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
AU;
Wilmington, NC 27405
252 264 3901
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016

1011111-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Picha Erosion Control
Applicant 1: First Name
Kay
MI
P.
Last Name
Picha
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional pages) with names listed.
Mailing Address
6965
PO Box
City
Randleman
State
NC
ZIP
27317
Country
USA
Phone No.
336-674-8176 ext.
FAX No.
336-674-0016
Street Address (if dWerent from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
RECEIVED
Sampson Contracting, Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Theodore
J.
Sampson
Agent/ Contractor 2 First Name
MI
Last Name
M- M i-6 COiTY
Mailing Address
PC Box
CRY
State
125 Hunters Trail West
Elizabeth City
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27909
252-548-4292 ext.
252-331-2447 ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
866 793 4261
68247
Street Address (d different from above)
City
State
ZIP
5 West Hargett Street, Suite 310
Raleigh
NC
27601 -
Email
[e-mail]
<Form continues on baelo
Ht=UER ED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCCAST :: www.nc coastal management. net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Brunswick
149 Ocean Isle W Blvd
NA
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
NA
Ocean Isle Beach
NC
28469 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (d many, attach additional page with list)
NA- ext.
2571 E010, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Old Sound Creek; Tubbs Inlet; 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.
Ocean Isle Beach
4. She Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
5,710
52,625
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) a
21,650 sf, I I
NW L (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a fist)
4-It ®NHW or ❑NW L
e. Vegetation on tract
Planted shrubbery; Spartina patens; Uniola paniculata; Ammophila breviligulata; Hydrocotyle amencana
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family dwelling; swimming pool; deck; beach access & stairs; Ocean Isle W Boulevard & right-of-way with buried
utilities; driveway, parking areas; fence; pier, pier access with gazebo; rock revetment; sandbag revetment
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiaceM to the proposed project site.
To east: residential lot with single family dwelling. To west: shoreline of Tubbs Inlet (fishing, shelling, walking area). To
north: Shoreline of Old Sound Creek (fishing, walking). To south: shoreline of Atlantic Ocean (fishing, shelling, walking area.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
C-1
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
®Yes []No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity pan or an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? []Yee ®No
k Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the trwV If yes, attach a copy. []Yes ❑No ONA
If yes, by whom?
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?
RECEIVED
<Form continues on next page>
APR 2 2 2016
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016
DICIM17.MKIdGIT-Y11-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagament.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
APPUCATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(lit) H yes to either (1) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ❑No
(Affach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach sewerage system
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach water system
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
None; sheet How to sand soils.
5. ACt/vides and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? OCommercial Public/Government
®PrivatelCommunity
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
Project is designed to augment existing shoreline stabilization provided by increasing sandbag revetment size to prevent
undercutting of sandbag revetment by encroaching tidal channel of Tubbs Inlet.
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.
Submersible pump slung from long -reach excavator to transfer sand from adjoining waterways into geotextile sandbags.
Skid -steer to be used to shape area prior to placement of sandbags: 1 Submersible pump, 1 long -reach excavator, 1 skid -
steer. All stored on uplands at northern property boundary.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Construct enlarged sandbag revetment as shoreline protection by adding on to existing sandbag alignment within a 45-ft
base width, by +12-ft NGVD alignment.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, newwork, or both? Both new work and maintenance of an
existing project.
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 17,900 ®Sq.Ft or []Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any pudic easement, public accessway or other area ®Yes ONo ONA
that the pudic has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state. RrmGEIV
None, other than sheet -How of rain run-off.
APR 2 2 2016
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? []Yes ❑No
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Ym []No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? Oyes RNo ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. REQ61VED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
<Form continues on back>
J
ITY
APR 12 2016
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCaAST :: www. no coast al managem ant. net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
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) — (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 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 wank 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 Robert and Sharon Bell Phone No. [phone]
Address 186 Heimatsweg Road, Chapin, SC 29036
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, permiltee, and issuing dates.
CAMAID&F Permits: 52423D 6/30/09 Kay Picha; 49148D NCDCM Letter of Exemption for Maintenance & Repair project
12113107 Curt Rodgers; 49198D 11/14/07 Kay Picha; dated 5/7/2009
49157D 10/30/07 Kay Picha; 240-89 6/18189 Ocean Isle
Developing Co.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, it applicable.
I. Weiland delineation, ff 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.
Date April 6, 2016 Prim Name Theodore Kay Picha) RECEIVED
Signature
APR 2 2 2016
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts DCL[
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development EI.�iY
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016
252-808-2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

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 andfor 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
Width
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NW L in
cubic yards.
2555
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 _
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas.
NA
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area.
C. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
e. (1) 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
(it) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
[:I This sedan not applicable
b. Type of material to be excavated.
sand
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
NA
®This sedan not applicable
area.
d. (i) Will a dal�msal area be available for future maintenance?
Oyes LJNo ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
I. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ONO ❑NA
(it) If yes, how much water area is affected?
HECi:--IVED
RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 2 2 2016
APR 1 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
252-808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastralmanag-ement.net revised: 12/26/06

fjn 1rr'x Or,", PAP-2 EzX;—.4v tt' on and Fitt, Page 2 of 2
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ❑ This section not applicable,
(ff development is a wood groin, usilMP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: 4687
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑ereakwatentSlll ®Other
sa.
c. Average distance waterward of NHW of NW L 3 r
e. Type of stabilization material:
Sandbag revetment
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap—
Breakwater/Sil!_ Other 14.32C
L Source of fa material.
Sand from adjoining waterways
Width: A@
d. Maximumdstancewaterwardot NHWorNWL: 39
I. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(irl It yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
48' over 4 mo; 115' over 17 mo, field observation/measurement
h. Type of fill material.
sand
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreilrre Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? Yes CINO NA b. (i) W illfill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW ),
If yes,
(it) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii Dimensions of fill area
(Iv) Purpose of fill
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
(it) Describe the purpose tithe fill in these areas:
If. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erasion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Enclosed within geatextile sandbags Submersible pump
C. (i) Will mart9gaauUonal aids be required as a result of the project?
[]Yes ®No ❑NA
(iq If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
d. (i) 'W kl wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? []Yes ®No ❑NA
(i) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental inVacts.
04/06/2016 G p C Q ET,
`1; , D Theodore J. Sampson (for Kay Picha)
Date �l Applicant Name
s*�
Picha Erosion Control APR 22 2016 ocr+rr..rD
Project Name Applicant Signatu a DCM WILMINGTON, NC
UCM- rvlr;G C"T Y
APR 12 2016
..�..: d084808 a 1-8884RCOAST :: www.nceoastatmartager" .ne4 revised: 12126+06

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Kay Picha
PROJECT NAME: Picha Erosion Control SB's
COUNTY: Brunswick
LOCATION OF PROJECT:149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Creek and the AIWW, in Ocean Isle Beach
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BV FIELD:4-13-16 /
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: Yes
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: n/a
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Sean Farrell
n n
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: ✓-� J -r--I
—
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 4-21-16 /
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO: 0
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: lDW I(Lq
MAIL OUT DATE:4-19-16
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
To Be Forwarded: n/a
To Be Forwarded: n/a
DISTRICT OFFICE: WILMINGTON
FEE REC'D: $400/#7328 (Wo)✓
END OF NOTICE DATE: 5-12-16 d
DEED REC'D: y 2 4
ON: L
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 5-12-16
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT ON
AGENCY
f�U 4/1O/*
FR
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management- Regional Representative
IAc-^Sir I I 0308 ex 2 I✓
Coastal Management- LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section (DEMLR)
b
Division of Water Resources (401)?�((
Storm Water Management (DEMLR)
State Property Office
e,45�e".,JT
Division of Archives & History
sI(WI6
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways
RECEIVED
Wildlife Resources Commission
pG0,' ml 1J
Local Permit Office
Division of Marine Fisheries / DCM
eo M H D CITY
Corps of Engineers
'cry)
pbJS `t/Z�/i�

Recommendations for State Permit — Picha Oversized Sandbag Revetment 0411912016
As proposed, this project is INCONSISTENT with 15A NCAC 071-1.0308 (a)(2)(B) (E)&(K) Temporary
Erosion Control Structures. Based on this information, the Wilmington Regional Office OBJECTS to the
project as proposed and any request for a favorable permit decision should be DENIED. The basis for this
determination is referenced below, as specked in accordance with current Rules adopted and administered by
the Coastal Resources Commission. Additionally, it should be noted that the installation of the proposed sand
bag revetment may limit if not restrict public access to and/or from the public beach.
The proposal in in conflict with:
15A NCAC 07H .0308 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS FOR OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
(a)(2) Temporary Erosion Control Structures:
(B) Temporary erosion control structures as defined in Part (2)(A) of this Subparagraph shall be used to protect
only imminently threatened roads and associated right of ways, and buildings and their associated septic
systems. A structure is considered imminently threatened if its foundation, septic system, or right-of-way in the
case of roads, is less than 20 feet away from the erosion scarp. Buildings and roads located more than 20 feet
from the erosion scarp or in areas where there is no obvious erosion scarp may also be found to be imminently
threatened when site conditions, such as a flat beach profile or accelerated erosion, increase the risk of
imminent damage to the structure.
(E) Temporary erosion control structures shall not extend more than 20 feet past the sides of the structure to be
protected. The landward side of such temporary erosion control structures shall not be located more than 20 feet
seaward of the structure to be protected or the right-of-way in the case of roads. If a building or road is found to
be imminently threatened and at an increased risk of imminent damage due to site conditions such as a flat
beach profile or accelerated erosion, temporary erosion control structures may be located more than 20 feet
seaward of the structure being protected. In cases of increased risk of imminent damage, the location of the
temporary erosion control structures shall be determined by the Director of the Division of Coastal Management
or their designee in accordance with Part (2)(A) of this Subparagraph.
(K) Sandbags used to construct temporary erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to five feet
wide and seven to 15 feet long when measured flat. Base width of the structure shall not exceed 20 feet, and the
height shall not exceed six feet.
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

MEMORANDUM
To: Heather Coats
lu
From: Michael Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner
Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Applicat n, — Kay Picha,
Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Date: May 20, 2016
This project is consistent and not in conflict with the Ocean Isle Beach Land
Update.
The applicant is proposing to increase an existing sandbag revetment to an oversized
alignment to protect their single family home on the west end of Ocean Isle Beach. The
project is located at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd. in Ocean Isle Beach.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) impacted by the proposal are OH, IH and ES.
Waters at the project site are classified as SA and SB and are open to the harvesting of
shellfish. The area is not a Primary Nursery Area.
I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan
and offer the following comments.
The general area of the project is classified as Residential.
In general, Ocean Isle Beach allows development in Residential classified AECs, which
is consistent with the State's minimum use standards. The Ocean Isle Beach Land Use
Plan contains some policies, which exceed the State's minimum use standards. However,
none of these standards appear to be applicable to this proposal.
This project appears to be consistent with the Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan.
Cc: File
Received
MAY Y• 0 2016
DCM

a
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Mark Zeigler
WiRO
Division of Community Assistance
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(o),ncdenrgov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY:
SIGNED
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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.
DATE 14[ 2 D 1 ! 6
Received
APR 2 6 2016
Nothing Compares.`
State of Noah Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management DC M
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Dan Sams
District Manager
DEMLR - WiRO
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
ccEF,ve
APR 2 ® 2016
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(C)ncdenrgov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. ,If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 ` DATE ��Z—q /2allr
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Nothing Compares. MAY Q 2 2016
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
(rovemor
�1
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FftOM:
1"
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
Georgette Scott
Stormwater Section
DEMLR - WiRO
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
ECEIVE
APR 20,m;
BY:_�_
Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(oncdenroov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
CAMA / D & F Application Review
Kay Picha
149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIM,,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: L,�' This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 DATE 46S_ !
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Nothing Compares, MAY 0 3 M6
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dnve Ent, Wilmington, NC 29405
910-7964215

v., I
A
t:a
Energy, Mineral &
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL OVALITY
July 12, 2016
Kay P. Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Drive
Randleman, NC 27317
Subject: EXEMPTION
Stormwater Project No. SW8160414
Picha Residence Sandbag Revetment Project
Brunswick County
Dear Ms. Picha:
PAT McCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
TRACY DAVIS
Director
On April 20, 2016, the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources received a copy of the CAMA Major Permit Application for the subject project.
Staff review of the plans and specifications on April 28, 2016 has determined that the
development activities proposed at this time will not pose a threat to surface water quality from
stormwater runoff. The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by
the Division as not posing a water quality threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject to
the stormwater management permittin requirements of 15A NCAC 214.1000, the stormwater
rules. By copy of this letter,,we are informing you that this project will not require a stormwater
management permit.
If the subject project disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater
runoff, then it is also subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
stormwater discharge requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater
discharge from projects meeting these criteria. All temporary built -upon area associated with the
construction of the project must be removed within 30 days of completion of the project, or when
it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact
Christine Hall at [phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
✓��5�-� RECEIVED
e. racy E. Davis, P.E., Director JUL 2 0 2016
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
GDS/cash:. \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2016 \160414 Exemption\2016 07 pePn(; 6 h'i H D CITY
cc: Theodore Sampson; Sampson Contracting, Inc.
Brunswick County Building Insppections
Heather Coats/Shaun Simpson-DCM WIRO
Wilmington Regional Office StormwaYer File
StamofNorth Carolina i Enwonmrnlal Qoality I Energy. Mineral and Land Resources
Wilmington Regiunal Office 1127 Cardinal Drive Wension I Wilmington.NC 28405
910 796 7215

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
fecre,ary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
RECEIVED
April 19, 2016 APR p q 2016
MEMORANDUM: DOA
STATE PROPERTY
TO: Tim Walton OFFICE
Dept of Administration
State Property Office
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa().ncdenraov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 WAM� UUA DATE
"d
Nothing Compares�.�
5- jl-aOl il,
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTCN, NC
MAY 16 2016
State of North Carolina [ Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
KATHRYNJOHNSTON
Secretary
State Property Office
ADMINISTRATION
May 11, 201627699
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ-Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405
FROM: Wanda Hilliard
Real Property Agent
Re: CAMA/DREDGE & Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant - Kay Picha
Private Use
The project may require Easements for crossing the creeks, marsh & State owned -land provided the applicant qualifies
for the easements. Please confirm that the proposed development and /or facilities are not located within the 1000'
USACE AIWW easement area.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NO
MAY 16 2016
Nothing Compares_
State of North Carolina I Administration I State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center 1116 W. Jones Street I Raleigh, INC 27699-1321
hht ://www.ncspo org 1919 807 4650 T 1919 7331431 F

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO.
Renee Gledhill -Early
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives & History
u APR 212016
PAT MCCRORY
(J"W~
D R. VAN DFR VAART
:�,mary
BRAXTON DAVIS
DOMW
a2 tta - 0719
1
,jCS � Zg,lfs
FROM Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext , Wilm NC 28405 heather. coats(7ncdenr.gov
Fax. [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 1Z 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
m-depth comments with supporting data is requested
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
u 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 theprojectfor reasons described in the attached comments
SIGNED � / - " t—u4a= DATE 3
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 0 6 2016
-i Nothing Compares'-.,._ APR 2 5 2016
SLa1.f Nmh CwahN IT,,, nlal cpmin, t anal M1Ll,�rynelwpf
121 CW& al 0r1w t v , A Ihnmgln,. NL 2 4h'S

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Shannon Jenkins
NC DMF
Shellfish Sanitation Section
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsanncdenr.00v
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 DATE Z j
Received
Nothing Compares�.� APR 81 2016
State of North Caroline I Environmental Quality I Coastal Maagement DC M
127 Cardinal Drive EM., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

1i14J, •1

r&
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Ben Hughes
NC DOT
Brunswick County
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secrelary
BRAXTON DAVIS
RECErm Director
APR 2 2 2016
NC DOT
D'STRICT 3
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats@ncdenrpov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA i D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 1Z 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 G'� � L ti rryl x, DATE I(�
RECEIVED
Z. em WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 02 2016
Nothing Compares�.�
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Et, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
Ilt-
r.r
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
L • I (,. 04, 2't. o f
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Maria Dunn
NCWRC
For WiRO
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Uireclar
APR 2U16
RECEIVED
/10/1111" ,
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsCaD-ncdenr.w
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY:
SIGNED
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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.
DATE
Nothing Compares!:-,
5 - lo- -ul
RECEIVED
®CM WILMINGTCN, NC
MAY 13 2016
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Habitat Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: May 10, 2016
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for Kay Picha, Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
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 is located at 149 Ocean
Isle West Blvd, in Ocean Isle Beach adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, Tubbs Inlet, and the AIW W. 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 proposes to add additional sandbags to an existing sandbag revetment. The request would
extend the sandbag height from 6' to 12' and the width to a maximum 45' base. Approximately 2,555 CY
of material is proposed to be removed from below MHW via a submersible pump attached to a long reach
excavator, though more may be required if erosion increases since the time of permit submittal. Prior to
the placement of the bags, a skid steer would be used to shape the profile of the proposed revetment area.
The NCWRC has reviewed the proposal and is concerned with the extension of the sandbag revetment
size and the more permanent aspect the structure would assume. We understand the use of sandbags to
protect immanently threatened structures, but do not view sandbag revetments as long term solutions to
control erosion issues along ocean front beaches. Removal of the bags or reduction in the size of the
structure should occur if other shoreline protection measures are implemented. In addition to the concern
with the permanent, habitat altering aspect of sandbags, the NCWRC generally requests an April 1 —
November 15 moratorium for beach development activities to minimize impacts to nesting shorebird and
sea turtle habitats. Obtaining beach compatible material from an upland source would further reduce
impacts to aquatic resources within the intertidal and subtidal areas of Tubbs Inlet However if it is
determined to be a permitable project by the NC Division of Coastal Management, we will not object to
[abitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 276KW"UVI[N"' U
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] MAY 13 2016
NC

CMDF_Kay Picha
Page 2
May 10, 2016
the sandbag revetment expansion nor request the activity adhere to the moratorium if the following is
included as permit a condition:
— To reduce the potential for any unintended impacts to nesting sea turtles and their nests, the
NCWRC requests that the work be expedited to the greatest extent possible. All work should be
conducted during the daytime only.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application. If you need further
assistance or additional information, please contact me at [phone] or at
maria.dunnna ncwildlife.org

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
/a
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Keith Dycus
LPO
Ocean Isle Beach
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(o)ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA I D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 1Z 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
/
V 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 DATE
RECVED
DCM WILMINGTGN, NC
�Nothtng Compares�� MAY U 9 2016
State of North Carolina ] Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

t+z
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OVALITY
April 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
DCM, Morehead City
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)ncdenr.00v
Fax: [phone] Kourler 0¢16-u
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coat at the address above by May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
%)'*' This agency has rAcomment 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 DATE
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAv 1 0 2016
nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Ill Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-196-7215
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
"CM- MHD CITY

1;a
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Heather Coats, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Speciali
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Kay Picha
5/10/2016
PAT MCCRORX
Govrmor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Se—tary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dlreclor
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
proposes enhance an existing sandbag structure. The surrounding waters'are classified as SA and SB,
and are open to shellfish harvest. The property is located at the western end of Ocean Isle adjacent to
Tubbs' Inlet.
The intertidal beach zone supports an important prey source for various fishes (ex. red drum
and flounder) as well as providing forage, nursery, and refuge areas for species such as kingfish
and pompano. -Oceanfront shoreline armoring has been well'documented to.degrade beach
surf zones by effecting erosion rates and sediment grain size which can result in a much
narrower surf zone, increase turbidity, and reduce abundance and diversity of benthic
r iacroinvertebrates (Deaton et al. 2010, Defeo et al. 2009, Pilkey and Wright 1988). The
placement of a shore -parallel, hardened, structure. like.a large sandbag revetment on an eroding
oceanfront beach has a likelihood of resulting insignificant losses to swash zone habitat:'
Erosive processes could undermine the structure itself, resulting in compromising
infrastructure, including sewer systems, which would, further degrade the surf zone habitat. For
these reasons the use of shore -parallel,. hardened structures has potential to result in
significant impacts to surf.zone.fish habitat.
There is concern that, when projects, increase the size and extent of a sandbag structure, that this
reduces the temporary status of the structure. In addition, information.presentad in the Ocean Isle
Beach 30-year management plan does not seem to identify nourishment status to the Tubbs' Inlet area,
further indicating that the sandbag structure may become permanent. Additional information tothe.
intent of the .Ocean 'Isle 30-year Management Plan's to nourish this area or other.management potential
for the Tubbs' Inlet area would greatly enhance the understanding of the temporal requirements of the
sandbag structure.
Contact Gregg Bodnar at [phone] ext. 213,or RrremQ [e-mail] with further questions
or concerns.:
Nothing Compares'
StateofNonh C=W I Env =enW Quality l Coastal lvlaoagemw
. 400Co=ecm Ave.1 hfomhmd City.Nonh CaroW28557
.. 252-808-2808

PAT MCCRORY
C6v gfor
rr
DONALD R. VAN DEK,VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Coastal .Management.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - Dbutor
MEMORANDUM:
TO; Heather Coats, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Speciali
Vim',.
SUBJECT: KayPicha
DATE:. 5/10/20t6 ,
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
proposes enhance an existing sandbag structure' The sureoundingwaters are classified as SA and SO,
and are open to shellfish harvest. The property is located at the westernend of Ocean Isle adjacent to
Tubbs' Inlet:
The intertidal beach zone supports an important prey source for various fishes (6c. red drum:
and flounder) as well as providing forage, nursery, and refu'ge.areas for species such, as kingf'ish.'.
and pompano :Oceanfront: shorelinearmoring has been we)I documented to,degrade-beach.,
surf zones by effecting erosion rates and sediment grain size which, can result in a much
narrower surf zone, increase turbidity, and reduce abundance and_diversity.of henthic'
macroinvertebrates(Deaton etal.'2010, Defeo etal. 2009,.Pilkey.and Wright 1988) ° The
placement of:a shore parallel, hardened structure like.a large sandbag revetment on.an ;eroding
oceanfront beach has.a Likelihood of resulting in signific'ant.losses. to s.""wash zone habitats .
Erosive processes could undermine the structure"itself, resulting in compromising
infrastructure, including sewer systems; which would further degrade the.surf zone habitat. For
these reasons 'the use of shore -parallel,. hardened.structures has:pptentlal to result m
significant impacts to surf:zone.fish habitat
There.is concern that, when projects increase the size. and extent of a sandtiag structure, that this .
reduces th.e i6mporary"statbs of the structure. In'addition, information:presented in the Ocean Isle
Beach 30-year management plan does. not seemto identify nourishrrtentstatus to the-Tubbe. Inlet area,
further'Indlcatingthat the sandbag structure may become permanent. Additional information to the:
intent of the Ocean Isle 30-year Management Plan% to nourish this area or other.mariagement potential
for the Tubbs' inlet 'are a would greatly'enhance the 'under'standing pf the temporal,'reymrerimentsoft he
sandbag structure..'
Cnotac Gregg Bodnar at(252) 60872808 ext. 213 or [e-mail] with further questions
or.concems. .: ...''
Nothing Compares
... ...
smro ofNm&C-1—i Eavho =.W Q-htylCoasWbbegemmf'.. .
.. ..400 Commerce Aw.J [vraeheed Ciry;NoMCmoliod28557' .. .. .
252-808-2g0g :. '..

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secmfary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dlrcnor
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal, B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Division of Marine Fisheries, NC. 639 pp.
Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Schoeman, D. S., Schlacher, T. A., Dugan, J., Jones, A., Lastra, M. and
Scapini, F. (2009). Threats to sandy beach ecosystems:'a review. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 81(j), 1-12.
Pilkey, O. H., & Wright Ill, H. L. (1988). Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 41-
64.
Nothing Compares
, . Stare ofNorth CasoEaa I Eaviroamentsl Quality I Coastal Mmegemeat
460 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, Noah Carolina 28557
- 252-808-2808:

0
Coats, Heather
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <Tyler.Crumbley@usace. army. mil>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:55 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Wilson, Debra; Coats, Heather; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Coburn, Chad
Subject: Picha Sandbag Additions (SAW-2007-03637-10 and SAW-2008-00414)
Mr. Sampson,
Thank you for speaking with me this morning. Per our conversation, this office would need some additional information
from you. According to the maps and plans provided with the application, the mean high waterline is below the
proposed sand bag placement area. You stated on the phone that this map is inaccurate and that you have an updated
survey with the correct location of the MHW. Please submit any updated mapping efforts.
Under the General Permit 80-0048, work authorized is limited to the reconstruction of primary dunes and the placement
of sandbags determined to be absolutely necessary to rectify an emergency situation as defined by North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission Regulations. The NCDCM in coordination with the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Regulatory Division, will make the decision whether an emergency exists. To this end, any photographic
evidence that you have to support the emergency determination would be appreciated.
We also discussed the need to coordinate the proposed project with the USFWS and other resource agencies since the
work being proposed falls within the habitats of species covered under the Endangered Species Act. Since your proposal
includes work outside the environmental windows for these species, the use of GP 80-0048 may be precluded.
Therefore this office may review your project proposal under GP 291 with a 30 day Federal Agency review time. After
the Federal review, it may be determined by one of the resource agencies that some sort of consultation will be
required regarding the possible impacts to the federally listed species.
This office will begin the processing of the proposal upon receipt of the supplemental material you and I discussed over
the phone.
Thank you for your time.
-Tyler
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
email: [e-mail]
"The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at: http:Hregulatory.usacesurvey.com/"

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
O�
Y MEMORANDUM: �R 6.noj �2 0 ,2018
A Ova,
TO: Heidi Cox 4lb
pt
Environmental Engineer�at�s4r
Public Water Supply
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatscDncdenr_go
v
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: T` 6 This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 &A _i DATE
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NO
APR 2 2 2016
Nothing Compares%
State of Noah Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ezt., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RECEIVE0/%CDENR/DWR
APR $ 0 2016
PAT MCCRORY�l/
GovernorR�
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
Water Quality Regional
April 19, 2016 operationsRional Office
WilmingtontIOR
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Chad Coburn
401 Wetlands
DWR-WiRO / BR Co.
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heathercoafsa(Dncdenr.4ov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Kay Picha
Project Location: 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and the AIWW,
in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to increase an existing sandbag revetment
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 May 12, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at [phone] when appropriate,
in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY:
L/0/ 4/GEC JSte d 061,06//6 CCC.
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
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 commentE
SIGNED DATE Flo/c6%l
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTCN, NC
JUN 0 7 2016
Nothing Compares% -
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
121 Cardinal Drive Ext, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 3, 2016
Ms. Kay Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Drive
Randleman, NC 27317
Subject Property: Picha Erosion Control
PAT MCCRORY
G ..k'mpr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Seervlam
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Brunswick County
DWR Project: 16-0389
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Picha,
Dinrtor
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
impact 0.033 acres (1,440 square feet) of open water in order to increase an existing sandbag
revetment to protect a single family home as described within your application received by the
Division on April 20, 2016, with additional information received on June 6, 2016. After reviewing
your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3900 (GC 3900).
You should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control,
Non -discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed
impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration
of the 404 Permit. This Certification can also be found on line at:
htt-o://portal.ncdenr.orWweb/wq/swp/ws/401/certsandT)ermits.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in
the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may
be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the'
conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the Certification. If you
change your project, you must notify the Division and you ma be requiredto submfi a new
application package with the appropriate fee. If the property rs sold,'the'new owner must be
given a copy of this approval letter and General Certification and is responsible fori comply" ng
C r'j
+ l7Mt1JILiv11NGFON', ytC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources JUN �{ 7 2016
1611 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

Picha 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard
Brunswick County
2016-0389
with all conditions. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be
issued in their name {15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502).
Any final construction plans for this project must include or reference the application and
plans approved by the Division under this authorization letter and certification. The
applicant will also be required to evaluate all acquired permits to assure that they are
consistent and all relative impacts are accounted for and shown on the construction plans.
[ 15A NCAC 02H .0502 (b) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (4)] The applicant shall require his
contractors (and/or agents) to comply With all of the terms of this Certification, and shall
provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 2B .0220. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices must be used to meet this standard. Turbidity curtains shall be used as
appropriate. Please notify this Office if any turbidity issues arise at 910.796.7215
4 This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding General Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance of the
Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life of the project,
regardless of the expiration of this Certification.
The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms 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 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 .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)]
6 Continuing Compliance:
The applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a
manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with 303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other
appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If the Division determines that such
standards or laws are not being met, including 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, than the Division may reevaluate and modify this General Water
Quality Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)]
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 0 7 2016

Picha 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard
Brunswick County
2016-0389
with all conditions. Any new owner must notify the Divisionand request the Certification be
issued in their name (15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502).
2 Any final construction plans for this project must include or reference the application and
plans approved by the Division under this authorization letter and certification. The
applicant will also be required to evaluate all acquired permits to assure that they are
consistent and all relative impacts are accounted for and shown on the construction plans.
[15A NCAC 02H .0502 (b) and 15A NCAC 02H.0506(4)) The applicant shall require his
contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terns of this Certification, and shall
provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 2B .0220. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices must be used to meet this standard. Turbidity curtains shall be used as
appropriate. Please notify this Office if any turbidity issues arise at 910.796.7215
This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding General Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance of the
Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life of the project,
regardless of the expiration of this Certification.
The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms 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 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 .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)]
6 Continuing Com 1p iance:
The applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a
manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other
appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If the Division determines that such
standards or laws are not being met, including 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, than the Division may reevaluate and modify this General Water
Quality Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)]
RECEIVED eFN ar
DCM WILMINGTON, NC j4
JUN 07 2016 ,

a
Picha 149 Ocian Isle West Boulevard
Brunswick County
2016-0389
All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a
hydrocarbon or chemical spill, the permittee/contractor shall immediately contact the
Division of Water Quality, between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington
Regional Office at 910.796.7215 and after hours and on weekends call taool 858-0368.
Management of such spills shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and
(c)(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f), and GS 143 Article 21A].
Fueling, lubrication and general equipment maintenance should not take place within 50
feet of a waterbody or wetlands to prevent contamination by fuel and oils. [15A NCAC
02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3) and 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f)].
This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the
Director, or DEQ staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property
during normal business hours 15A NCAC 02H.0502(e).
10 Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant and/or
authorized agent is required to return a completed certificate of completion form to the
NCDEQ DWR 401 and Buffers Unit North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 1617
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 within ten days of project completion. The
certification of completion is available at:
hLp://i)ortal.ncdenr.or web/wq/sm /ws/401/certsandpennita/apply/forms .
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as
authorized by this Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested.
This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B by
filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings
(hereby known as OAH). A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at
ham://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office at [phone] for information.
Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of this notice, a petition must be filed with the
OAH. 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 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, excluding official state holidays).
r
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTCN, NC
SUN 07 20%

Picha 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard
Brunswick County
2016-0389
The petition maybe faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS,
FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Resources under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Jennifer Burdette in the Central
Office in Raleigh at 919.807.6364 or Jennifer.Burdettena.ncdenr.sov or Chad Coburn in the
DWR Wilmington Regional Office at 910.796.7379 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ji gson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Enclosure: GC 3900
cc: Ted Sampson — Sampson Contracting, Inc., 125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, NC
27909
Tyler Crumbley - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Heather Coats — DCM Wilmington
WiRO
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 07 2016 rh ,

Picha 149 Ocean Isle West Boulevard
Brunswick County
2016-0389
The petition maybe faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service.
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS,
FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ:
Sarre M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Resources under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Jennifer Burdette. in the Central
Office in Raleigh at 919.807.6364 or Jermifer.Burdettena,ncderingov or Chad Coburn in the
DWR Wilmington Regional Office at 910.796.7379 or Chad.CobumQncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
J' gson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Enclosure: GC 3900
cc: Ted Sampson— Sampson Contracting, Inc., 125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, NC
27909
Tyler r Cnunbley _ USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
L Heether Coats ,0Clo M W miiigt
WiRO .
4PY.�
RECEIVED
VC
DCM1 WIEPAINGTON,
q 1
7

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DWR Project No:
Applicant:
Project Name:
PAT MCCRORY
f."iormur
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
4•elwon
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Dimetor
401 Water Quality Certification Issued Date:
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the DWR
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWR by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not
necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, . hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be
built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be
built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to
observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permitee hereby state that,
to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such
that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water
Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting
materials.
Signature:
Date:
IVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 07 2016
State of North Caroline I Fnvvunmental Quality I Wata Resources
1611 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

w*oF�q UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
f�� National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
�1}g5 of 26313th Avenue South
St Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
httplisero.nmfs.noaa.gov
June 6, 2016 F/SER47:KR/pw
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Kevin P. Landers Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Attention: Tyler Crumble
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the public notice for Action ID
No. SAW-2007-03637-10, dated May 24, 2016. The applicants, Kay and David Picha, request
authorization to expand a sandbag revetment to protect a single-family home from shoreline
erosion and coastal storms. The applicants' beachfront home is adjacent to Old Sound Creek and
abuts Tubbs Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County.
The annual erosion rate in the project area is 4.3 feet per year according to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). The project location is beyond the scope of
protective measures provided by shoreline or inlet management projects for the Town of Ocean
Isle Beach or the Town of Sunset Beach located to the west. The Wilmington District's initial
determination is the proposed project may affect essential fish habitat (EFH) or associated
fisheries managed by South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), the Mid -Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), or NMFS. As the nation's federal trustee for the
conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and diadromous fishery resources, the
NMFS provides the following comments and recommendations pursuant to the authorities of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act).
Description of the Proposed Project
The applicants propose to expand an existing sandbag revetment to address chronic erosion of
the oceanfront, inlet, and soundside shoreline adjacent to their residence. The existing revetment
is approximately 430 linear feet and conforms to the NCDCM standards (six feet high by 20 feet
wide). The revetment is being undercut by Tubbs Inlet as it migrates to the east and shoreline
erosion threatens the home and associated structures (e.g., decking, walkways, stairs). The
proposed expansion would abut the existing sandbag revetment extending an additional 25 feet
waterward, in a stair -stepped arrangement, for a total base width of 45 feet. The project includes
the addition of multiple layers of sandbags (approximately five feet wide width by 15 feet long)
and would be built to a crest height of 12 feet NGVD. The sandbags would be placed atop a
scour apron that would span the entire length of the project. The new sandbag revetment would
impact approximately 14,320 square feet of high ground area above mean high water (MHW).

The applicants intend to fill the sandbags with sand from Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. The
applicants would remove approximately 2,555 cubic yards of sand by means of submersible
pump attached to a long -reach excavator. The application does not include provisions to
monitor, maintain, or remove sandbags.
Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
Pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Act, the SAFMC designates EFH within the study area to
encompass intertidal flats, high salinity surf zones, and tidal inlets. Intertidal and subtidal
communities along the shoreline provide feeding, resting, and staging habitat for a variety of
commercially, recreationally, and ecologically important fish species[. While beachfront
shorelines are subject to erosion caused by storms and natural shoreline processes, the
beachfront, intertidal, and surf zone are nonetheless established seascape features providing
valuable habitat for fishery resources migrating between nearshore and offshore habitats as part
of their life cycle. Adverse environmental impacts within the project area will include
desiccation of benthic infaunal organisms, machinery crushing organisms, burial of habitat, and
physical damage to the intertidal and surf zone from placement of sandbags.
Long-term hydraulic effects from armoring the shoreline with sandbags could include increased
energy seaward of the armoring, reflected wave energy, dry beach narrowing, substrate
coarsening, beach steepening, changes in sediment storage capacity, loss of organic debris, and
downdrift sediment starvation2. The NMFS recommends that wherever possible, "soft"
approaches (such as beach nourishment, sand dune restoration, and vegetative plantings) be
considered and utilized as a preferred alternative. In many cases where sandbags or shoreline
hardening structures are used, erosion rates increase along adjacent areas resulting in increased
construction and maintenance activities for shoreline protection and leading to a cumulative
environmental impact on fisheries, habitat, and the shoreline hydrology.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFH
Conservation Recommendations for any federal action or permit which may result in adverse
impacts to EFH. Therefore, NMFS recommends the following to ensure the conservation of
EFH and associated fishery resources:
The NMFS recognizes that this application is an urgent request to protect a home and
associated infrastructure from erosion associated with migration of Tubbs Inlet. The use
of sandbags should only be considered as a temporary, emergency erosion control
Hackney, C., M. Posey, S. Ross, and A. Norris (editors). 1996. A Review and Synthesis of Data on Surf Zone
Fishes and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from Beach Renourishment. Prepared
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC. 119 pages.
z Hanson J., Helvey M., Strach R. editors. 2003. Non -fishing impacts to essential fish habitat and recommended
conservation measures. Long Beach (CA): National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Southwest Region.
Version 1. 75 pages.
Johnson, M., C. Boelke, and L. Chiarella,. 2008. Impacts to marine fisheries habitat from nonftshing activities in the
northeastern United States. Gloucester (MA): National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Northeast
Region. 322 pages.

structure. An alternatives analysis should be conducted and include avoidance and
minimization measures to evaluate the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
The applicant should include a detailed plan for removal of sandbags including
assurances to remove all components of the sandbag revetment thereby diminishing long-
term impacts that could result from sandbag structures remaining in the environment.
A monitoring and maintenance plan should be developed to prevent marine debris.
Sandbags often deteriorate or become damaged, littering coastal waters and beaches.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act and implementing regulation at 50 CFR
Section 600.920(k) require the Wilmington District to provide a written response to this letter
within 30 days of its receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30
days, in accordance with the "findings" with the Wilmington District, an interim response should
be provided to the NMFS. A detailed response then must be provided prior to final approval of
the action. The detailed response must include a description of measures proposed by the
Wilmington District to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity. If the
response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the Wilmington District
must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not following the
recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related questions or
comments to the attention of Dr. Ken Riley at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722, or at [phone].
/ for
cc: COE, [e-mail]
USFWS, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
F/SER4, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail]
Sincerely,
/ //
OcB VA
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OR
August 12, 2016
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2007-03637
Ms. Kay Picha
6956 Lorian Charter Drive
Randleman, North Carolina 27317
Dear Ms. Picha:
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit to expand an existing
sandbag revetment. The existing revetment is approximately 4681f and conforms to the 20ft by
6ft standard, but is being undercut by the moving inlet. The proposed expansion includes the
addition of multiple bag layers, with a base width of 45' and a crest height of 12' NGVD.
The expansion project is located in Ocean Isle Beach, at 149 Ocean Isle W Blvd., adjacent
to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Coordinates in Decimal Degrees are: 33.8755740 N and-78.477237 W.
Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the provisions and
objectives of the CAMA-Corps Programmatic Permit process (copy attached) for construction
activities that receive authorization from the State of North Carolina. Therefore, you may
commence construction activity in strict accordance with applicable State authorization, attached
Federal special conditions, and the final approved plan. Failure to comply with the State
authorization or conditions of the Federal permit could result in civil and/or administrative
penalties.
If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen or altered conditions or for
any other reason, plans revised to show the change must be sent promptly to this office and the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any such change or
alteration. Such action is necessary as revised plans must be reviewed and the authorization
modified. Your Department of the Army permit will expire on December 31, 2016.
RECEIVED
AUG 17 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

PA
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sn�
i
Tr Cnunbley
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosures:
Federal Special Conditions
CAMA permit
GP 291 conditions
USFWS Biological Opinion
Copies Furnished (w/enclosures):
Ted Sampson
Sampson Contracting, Inc.
125 Hunters Trail West
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Copies Furnished (w/o enclosures):
Dr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Dr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421

Ms. Debra Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
BOSN3 Mr. Scott McAloon
United States Coast Guard
Sector North Carolina Waterways Management
2301 E. Fort Macon Road
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Ms. Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Mr. Chad Coburn
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RECEIVED
AUG 17 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

4
Special Conditions
SAW-2007-03637
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(Terms and Conditions for All Species)
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus,
the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
htto://www.fws.gov/nc-es/Mammal/manatee p-uidelines.pdf.
2. Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other
debris must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.
3. Predator -proof trash can receptacles must be installed and maintained during
construction at all beach access points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential
for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots. All contractors conducting the work
must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All contractors and
their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and keeping the Action Area
free of trash and debris. See the Appendix in the attached Biological Opinion for examples of
suitable receptacles.
4. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material
must be removed and deposited off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If
removal of the structure is required during the period from May I to November 15, no work will
be initiated without prior coordination with the Corps and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential
presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey
must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots
are present. If shorebirds are present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the
early morning hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction
operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid antagonizing shorebirds while
allowing them to exit the area.
USACE Special and General Conditions
6. The pernrittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and sign o
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilitie ,N
For further information, the pernuttee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safe �tjy e �p�`° y
at [phone]. �`(i 6 t\ e
G`�
l
OG4

RECEIVED
s
AUG 17 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
7. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
8. 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove,
relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the
United States.
9. Approval of the structures is based on determinations that there would be no
obstruction to navigation. The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels.
Issuance of this permit should not be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps
to insure the structure will not be damaged by wave wash or vessel traffic.
10. The authorized structure and associated activity 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 pemuttee 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.
11. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities 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.
12. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing 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 excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
13. 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 Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
14. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants

except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing
activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
15. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.
16. 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 construction and maintenance of this project.
17. 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. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing
or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of
earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. 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).
18. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase
in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
19. 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.
20. Violations of these 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 District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within-24 hours of the pemuttee's discovery of the violation. -- —

Permit Class
NEW
(by CRC Variance)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit
Permit Number
89-16
RECEIVED
AUG 17 2016
for RQWcM H D C ITY
X Major Development in an Area of Envitonme
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Kay Picha, 6%5 Lorian Charter Drive, Randleman, NC 27317
Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Atlantic Ocean at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd,
Ocean Isle Beach as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/6/16, Incl. attached
1-3 of 3 all dated 3/28/ 16, and ABC Hazard Notice dated 4/2116.
This permit, issued on August 3, 2016 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) In keeping with the Variance granted by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) on July 12, 2016,
and the CRC Variance Order signed by the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the base width of the
authorized temporary erosion control structures shall not exceed a base width of 45 feet, and the
height shall not exceed a crest elevation of 12 feet NGVD. The overall width of the structure shall
not exceed 53 feet.
2) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, it is noted that since the original application, the rapidly
changing conditions on the property may require changes to the footprint of the revetment to be
constructed. Depending on the degree of erosion existing if and when construction begins, the
location of the oversized sandbag revetment may have to be shifted landward.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
i ins pemur acuon may oe appeateu oy me permrttee or om
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, 2019
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
of the
B&don C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

Kay Picha
ADDPPIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 89-16
Page 2 of 4
3) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by,
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, prior to the initiation of any activities authorized by this permit,
the permittee and a representative of the Division shall meet on site and agree to the location of the
oversized sandbag placement. The location of some of the bags may, but is not required to, be located at
the toe of the existing sandbag structure and may extend waterward of the mean high water line.
4) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the permittee shall be required to remove any bag(s) which falls
outside of the alignment with the sandbag revetment based on the location established during the
required on site meeting referenced in Condition No. 3 of this permit. This requirement can refer to
failure of the sandbag revetment, bags slumping out of alignment, or bags falling from the revetment. In
any case, the permittee agrees that such bags shall.be removed.
5) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the authorized oversized sandbag revetment may remain in place
for up to eight years from the date of issuance of this Permit.
6) Sandbags used to construct the temporary erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to
five feet wide and seven to 15 feet long when measured flat.
7) Soldier pilings and other types of devices to anchor the sandbags shall not be allowed.
8) Once the temporary erosion control structure is determined to be unnecessary due to relocation or
removal of the threatened structure, a storm protection project, a beach nourishment project or an inlet
relocation project, it shall be removed by the permittee within 30 days of official notification by the
Division of Coastal Management regardless of the time limit placed on the temporary erosion control
structure. However, removal of the authorized temporary erosion control structures shall not be required
if they are covered by dunes with stable and natural vegetation.
9) If the temporary erosion control structure becomes damaged, the pernrittee shall be responsible for the
removal of remnants of all portions of the structure(s).
10) There is the potential that work may occur during the sea rude nesting window which runs from May 1'
to November I P, or until the last known nest has hatched. To reduce the potential for any unintended
impacts to nesting sea turtles and their nests, should any work take place during the sea turtle nesting
window, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission requests that the work be expedited to the greatest
extent possible. All work shall.be conducted during the daytime only.
lqgG�1�°�°
PSG O G
O

Kay Picha Permit No. 89-16
Page 3 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
U.S. Army Corps of Enaineers MACE) Conditions
11) The permittee shall adhere to the following requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
a) The permittee shall implement the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), which were
determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be necessary and appropriate to minimize take
of piping plovers and red knots. Unless specifically addressed below, these RPMs are applicable for the
construction of the sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the fife of the permit If the
permittee is unable to comply with these RPMs, the permittee shall coordinate with the USACE, who will
then inform the USFWS why the RPM are not reasonable and prudent for the specific project or activity, and
who will request an exception under the biological opinion:
i) Prior to any construction, all derelict material or other debris must be removed from the beach.
ii) Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained at all beach access points used for the
project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots.
iii) In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed.
iv) All personnel involved in the construction process shall be aware of the potential presence of piping
plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area
of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present.
b) hi order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the permittee
shall comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and
outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non -discretionary.
Unless addressed specifically below, the terms and conditions are applicable for the construction of the
sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit.
i) Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other debris must be
removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.
ii) Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all beach access
points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping
plovers and red knots. All contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles
for the construction workers. All contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of
not littering and keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris. Contact the USFW for examples of
suitable receptacles.
iii) In the event the structure beginsto disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed and
deposited off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If removal of the structure is required
during the period from May 1 to November 15, no work will be initiated without prior coordination with
the USACE and the USFWS.
iv) All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential presence of piping
plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area
of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present If shorebirds are present in
the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning hours should allow those individuals
to move out of the area. Construction operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid
antagonizing shorebirds while allowing them to exit the area.
RECEIVE`
AUG 11 Z016

Kay Picha
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 89-16
Page 4 of 4
c) Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification
must be made to the USFWS Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the
USFWSs Ecological Services Field Office, and to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at
[phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of
specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury.
Jason Keith RECEIVED
C
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606 AUG 17 2016
[phone], extension 34
DrCM- MHD CITY
12) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatm, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at htto://www.fws.gov/nc-es/inammal/manatee_ guidelines.pdf.
Easement
13) An Easement from the Department of Administration's State Property Office may be required. The
permittee shall contact the State Property Office prior to the initiation of construction of any structures
authorized by this permit to determine if such an easement will be required. Any required easements shall
be obtained, and a copy provided to the Division of Coastal Management, prior to the construction of any
sandbags authorized under this permit.
General
14) In keeping with the Variance granted by the CRC on July 12, 2016, and the Variance Order signed by
the CRC Chairman on August 2, 2016, the permittee agrees to work towards a long-term solution to
address erosion on the site.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
NOTE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit. Contact
a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any such activity
for this determination.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed projects COE Action Id. No.
SAW-2007-03637-10.
NOTE: The NC Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project under General Water
Quality Certification No. 3900 (DWR Project No. 16-03.80) which was issued on 6/3/16.
NOTE: An application processing fee of $400 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also
satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water
Resources.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENMON OF: August 9, 2016
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2007-03637; Picha Sandbags
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Reference the application of Kay and David Picha to expand an existing sandbag
revetment. The proposed expansion project is located in Ocean Isle Beach, at 149 Ocean Isle W.
Blvd., adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County,
North Carolina. Coordinates in Decimal Degrees are: 33.8755740 N and-78.477237 W.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the
application and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following conditions be included in the State authorization:
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(Terms and Conditions for All Species)
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus,
the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
http://www.fws.izov/nc-es/mammal/manatee guidelines.pdf.
2. Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other
debris must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.
3. Predator -proof trash can receptacles must be installed and maintained during
construction at all beach access points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential
for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots. All contractors conducting the work
must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All contractors and
their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and keeping the Action Area

-2-
free of trash and debris. See the Appendix in the attached Biological Opinion for examples of
suitable receptacles.
4. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material
must be removed and deposited off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If
removal of the structure is required during the period from May 1 to November 15, no work will
be initiated without prior coordination with the Corps and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential
presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey
must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots
are present. If shorebirds are present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the
early morning hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction
operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid antagonizing shorebirds while
allowing them to exit the area.
USACE Special and General Conditions
6. The permittee must 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].
7. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
8. 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove,
relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the
United States.
9. Approval of the structures is based on determinations that there would be no
obstruction to navigation. The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels.
Issuance of this permit should not be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps
to insure the structure will not be damaged by wave wash or vessel traffic.
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

xE
10. The authorized structure and associated activity 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 reason other than safety.
11. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities 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.
12. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing 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 excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
13. 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 Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
14. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants
except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing
activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
15. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.
16. 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 construction and maintenance of this project.
17. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control n JR EIVED
necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and et an s outside
AUG 12 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

13
the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing
or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of
earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must
remain in full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statutes Chapter I I3A Article 4).
18. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase
in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
19. 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.
20. Violations of these 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 District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Since
Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center RECEIVED
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
AUG 12 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

-5-
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Dr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Mr. Chad Coburn
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Debbie Wilson
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

W1
PAT MCCRORY
Govetiaor
KATHRYNJOHNSTON
flce'
a -- -rt ' Of
Si
teprcpe� ADMINISTRAT10k.,
August ZZ,# 16
Sainpsori'C - dntrac , tmg,,Mq.
Ted .SAmpsqn-,.Pr6ject,Man . ager
:Marino'Coilstilictioeand Environmental Con-suliingServices
125 Hunters` nail West ,
Elizabetlicity,:NC 279.09
Re: Right of Entry:
'Kay Piclut-Efosidn Pipiect at149 Ocean Isle W.Boulevar&,Oqean Isle Beacb,,NC�
Dear Mi. Sampson:
Please consider this letter authoriiationfi I or Sampson Contracting, Inc to go upon State ownedJands for those purposes'se-t
CAMA pernift Atimber 94:46 (State Dredge andFill Pennit) issued on August,'3j'1016, specifically ibe:placement of new
,'as near as-pra ctical to existing sandbags for the.purpose of achieving -an elevation that will prevent the overtopping of the.
it'.and .6rbsibn 'of I propefty'W7atdd 'At, i4 Ocean Isie'Boutevard. i accepiance,of this ri :of entry,_evidenced by - the
-- — . _ $i . c, :, I . 1. Boulevard. 1 1 ;gy. 4h. .. -
This fight of entry is granted su . bject't6,a I I - I necessaly Federal, Sta�teand local pennits or,approvals required for iheyropos&d.
,y ...
project, includi'g, but not limited to; said CAMA PCITIitnutih.erli9-116.
The,. Stlat6ishall,-Also ,have the right to ii,runediatel . v terminateI this right I of entry without prior written:approval in the_event
Sainpsori!Cdfitractifig, Inc. violates'ttib terms, of this fight of entry.
:sincerely.
Tim Walton
Director
Nothing ;Cornpai es_
State,of NorthCarolina I Administeation: I State Property Office
1321 Mall Service'Center I II& W. JonesiStreet:l RaliH91% NC 276.9-1321
htM.jA6M.±gs q.6rq'I 419 901-4650 T'1919 7331431 F

V
SAMPSON CONTRACTINGINC.
Marine Construction And Environmental Consulting Services '
125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 27909 USA
Tel: [phone] — Fax: [phone]
[e-mail] www.sampsoncontracting.com
August 10, 2016
Wanda Hilliard
Real Property Agent
NC State Property Office
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Kay P. Picha; erosion control project; at 149 Ocean Isle W
Boulevard, in Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this afternoon, please accept this letter as a requestlapplication
for any easements that you may determine are necessary related to this project.
Based on our telephone conversation, it is my understanding that the need for any easement has not yet
been determined, and that should a determination be made that an easement(s) will be needed, it would
first have to be presented to the Council of State, which does not meet again until September. Further, it is
my understanding that by providing this easement request, you will be able to issue an authorization to
access the project area to facilitate the CAMA Permit authorized construction needed to address the
ongoing emergency situation.
Kindly issue the needed access authorization at the earliest possible moment so the needed construction
project can commence. Should the determination be made that an easement(s) will be needed, kindly
advise me what will be required in order to obtain the easement(s), and requirements/deadlines that must
be met to facilitate consideration of the matter by the Council of State.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Kay Picha
NC Division of Coastal Management
Sincerely,
Ted Sampson
Project Manager

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 1, 2016
Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Subject: Kay and David Picha
Action ID. No. SAW-2007-03637
Service Log Number 04EN2000-2016-F-0544
Dear Mr. Crumbley:
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based
on our review of the proposed expansion of an existing sandbag revetment located at 149 Ocean
Isle West Boulevard, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, NC, and its effects on piping
plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Your June 16, 2016 request for formal consultation was received on June 23, 2016.
This biological opinion is based on information provided in the May 24, 2016 email from your
office, the State Field Investigation Report, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
permit application, and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file at the Service's Raleigh Field Office. The Service has assigned Log
number 04EN2000-2016-F-0544 to this consultation.
The Service concurred on June 7, 2016 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
determination of not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) for the West Indian manatee, seabeach
amaranth, and the loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles.
Concurrence for manatees is based upon the Corps requirement to follow the Service's
"Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee." Concurrence for seabeach
amaranth and sea turtle species is based upon the lack of suitable habitat in the project area.
The Service appreciates the cooperation of the Corps during this consultation. We would like to
continue working with you and your staff regarding this project. Please note that.ispCE ED
AUG 0 8 M6
DCM- MHD CITY

y4, 2
biological opinion does not limit the Service's ability to provide comments on any future public
notices concerning this project. For further coordination please contact Kathy Matthews at (919)
856-4520, ext. 27. In future correspondence concerning the project, please reference FWS Log
No. 04EN2000-2016-F-0544.
Sincerely,
Gd� ete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: USFWS, Jacksonville, FL (Ann Marie Lauritsen) (via email)
USFWS, Hadley, MA (Anne Hecht) (via email)
USFWS, Pleasantville, NJ (Wendy Walsh) (via email)
NMFS, Pivers Island (via email)
NMFS, St. Peterburg, FL
NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
NCWRC, Washington, NC

BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Kay and David Picha
Ocean Isle Beach Sandbag Revetment
August 1, 2016
Corps Action ID No. SAW-2007-03637
USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2016-F-0544
RECEIVED
AUG 08 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Table of Contents
Acronyms......................................................................................................................................4
ConsultationHistory .....................................................................................................................6
BiologicalOpinion........................................................................................................................7
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................7
II. Description of the Proposed Action.....................................................................7
A. Location and project purpose....................................................................7
B. Project design..........................................................................................9
C. Project timing and duration......................................................................9
D. Conservation measures.............................................................................9
III. Piping Plover......................................................................................................10
A. Status of the species/critical habitat........................................................10
1) Species/critical habitat description.............................................10
2) Life history ..................................................................................12
3) Population dynamics...................................................................14
4) Status and distribution................................................................21
5) Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected ....... 46
B. Environmental Baseline..........................................................................46
1) Status of the species within the Action Area..............................47
2) Factors affecting the species environment within the
ActionArea.................................................................................48
C. Effects of the Action...............................................................................49
1) Factors to be considered.............................................................49
2) Analyses for effects of the action...............................................50
3) Species' response to a proposed action......................................51
D. Cumulative Effects.................................................................................51
IV. Red Knot.............................................................................................................52
A. Status of the species/critical habitat ............................................. Q 52
1) Species/critical habitat description.................................%A .......
v
2) Life history .................................................................. ... 52 �Q
2
V
Q

3) Population dynamics...................................................................55
4) Status and distribution................................................................57
5) Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected .......
68
B. Environmental Baseline..........................................................................69
1) Status of the species within the Action Area..............................69
2) Factors affecting the species environment within the
ActionArea.................................................................................69
C. Effects of the Action...............................................................................70
1) Factors to be considered.............................................................70
2) Analyses for effects of the action...............................................71
3) Species' response to a proposed action......................................72
D. Cumulative Effects.................................................................................72
V.
Conclusion..........................................................................................................72
Incidental Take Statement..................................................................................73
Amount or Extent of the Take............................................................................73
Effectof the Take...............................................................................................74
VI.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures.....................................................................75
VII.
Terms and Conditions.........................................................................................75
VII.
Reporting Requirements.....................................................................................76
IX.
Coordination of Incidental Take Statement with Other Laws,
Regulations, and Policies...................................................................................76
X.
Reinitiation - Closing Statement.........................................................................77
LiteratureCited...........................................................................................................................78
Appendix...................................................................................................................................104
RECEIVED
3 AUG U 8 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

Acronyms
Act
Endangered Species Act
BA
Biological Assessment
BO
Biological Opinion
CAFF
Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
CBRA
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CH
Critical Habitat
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and
Flora
Corps
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
CSDR
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
DPS
Distinct Population Segment
DTRU
Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit
F
Fahrenheit
FAC
Florida Administrative Code
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FR
Federal Register
GCRU
Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITP
Incidental Take Permit
LF
Linear Feet
MHW
Mean High Water
Q
MHWL
Mean High Water Line
�� so A,
MLLW
Mean Low Low Water
Q� �
MLW
Mean Low Water
o
4�q
4
Q

t
mtDNA
Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid
NCDCM
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
NCWRC
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NGMRU
Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRU
Northern Recovery Unit
NWR
National Wildlife Refuge
PBF
Physical and Biological Feature
PCE
Primary Constituent Element
PFRU
Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit
SAJ
South Atlantic Jacksonville
SAM
South Atlantic Mobile
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SF
Square Feet
U.S.C.
United States Code
U.S.
United States
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
5
RECEIVED
AUG U 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

CONSULTATION HISTORY
May 24, 2016 — By email, the Corps issued an Electronic public notice and request for comments
on the project.
May 26, 2016 — By phone, the Service informed the Corps of the need for formal consultation.
June 16, 2016 — By letter, the Corps requested initiation of formal consultation. The Service
received the letter on June 23, 2016.
June 24, 2016 — The Service initiated formal consultation. The date for the issuance of the
biological opinion was established as November 5, 2016.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) as to whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
This BO addresses piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa). The BO evaluates the effects of the proposed action, interrelated and interdependent
actions, and cumulative effects relative to the status of the species to arrive at a Service opinion
that the proposed action is or isn't likely to jeopardize species. Jeopardize the continued
existence of means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Description
The purpose of the proposed project is to protect a single family home located at 149 Ocean Isle
West Boulevard, on the west end of Ocean Isle Beach. The applicant is proposing to increase an
existing sandbag revetment to an oversized alignment to protect their home. As proposed, the
sand bag revetment would adjoin, or abut, the existing sandbag revetment located along the
property's shoreline on the west end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs
Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean. As designed, the sand bag revetment would consist of multiple
bag layers, with a base width of 45' and a crest height of 12' NGVD.
This BO addresses impacts to the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris
canutus rufa). The Action Area for direct impacts includes those sections of Ocean Isle Beach
and Tubbs Inlet where sandbag revetment construction, sand dredging, and earthen manipulation
will occur — approximately 4681f of shoreline. The Action Area for indirect impacts, however,
is much larger. Because piping plovers and red knots are highly mobile species, animals
influenced by direct project impacts may move great distances from the actual project site. The
range of these movements produced by the project constitutes the Action Area for indirect
impacts; for the purposes of this opinion it will be the entire length of Ocean Isle Beach and
Sunset Beach, and the inlet shoreline on either side of Tubbs Inlet.
The waters in the Action Area are classified as SB for adjacent Tubbs inlet and Atlantic Ocean
and as SA for adjacent Old Sound Creek by the NC Division of Water Resources. C1aAk E I V E D
7 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

K
waters are surface waters suitable for shellfishing for market purposes. Waters designated as
Class SA have specific water quality standards that must be met, as well as the water quality
standards assigned to both Class SB and SC waters. The waters are open to shellfish harvesting.
Figure 1. Action Area for direct impacts.
H
Action Area (not to scale)

B. Project Design
Traditional sandbags (i.e. each tan in color, 5 feet (ft) in width and 10 -15 ft in length) would be
installed along approximately 468 linear feet (If) of beach. The proposed sand bags would abut
the existing sandbag revetment and extend an additional 25 ft waterward, in a stair stepped
arrangement, for a total base width of approximately 45 ft. The proposed sandbag revetment
would increase the existing vertical dimension of the sandbags, with a proposed height of
approximately 12 ft NGVD. As proposed, the most landward sand bags would be installed
perpendicular to the shoreline against the existing dune escarpment. The revetment would then
stair step waterward, with the bags installed parallel to the shoreline along Old Sound Creek,
Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean. The sand bags would be placed atop a scour apron that
would span the entire length of the project. Based upon an approximate mean high water
boundary survey performed on March 31, 2016, it appears the proposed sand bag revetment
would be placed along an alignment that would extend from approximately 8 ft landward of the
approximate MHW line, in areas adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, to approximately I ft landward
of the approximate MHW line in areas adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. The
applicant has accounted for approximately 14,320 square feet (sf) of impacts above the
approximate MHW line, however, these numbers will likely change again prior to initiation of
the project due to the continuing easterly migration of the Tubbs Inlet channel. According to the
application package, the applicant intends to fill the sand bags with sand from below MHW
within the adjoining water bodies that are Tubbs Inlet and Old Sound Creek. As proposed, the
applicant would remove approximately 2,555 cubic yards (cy) of sand by means of a submersible
pump attached to a long reach excavator to fill the proposed bags. Prior to placement of the bags,
a skid steer would be used to shape the profile of the proposed revetment area.
C. Project Timing and Duration
The dredging of sand for sandbags and construction of the revetment is proposed to be conducted
upon approval, at any time of the year.
D. Conservation Measures
The Applicant has not proposed any conservation measures to reduce the potential impacts of the
proposed project on Federally -listed species.
RECEIVED
9 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

III. PIPING PLOVER
A. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat
1) Species/critical habitat description
Listing: On January 10, 1986, the piping plover was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes
watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range, including migratory routes outside of the
Great Lakes watershed and wintering grounds (USFWS 1985). Piping plovers were listed
principally because of habitat destruction and degradation, predation, and human disturbance.
Protection of the species under the ESA reflects the species' precarious status range -wide.
Three separate breeding populations have been identified, each with its own recovery criteria: the
northern Great Plains (threatened), the Great Lakes (endangered), and the Atlantic Coast
(threatened). Piping plovers that breed on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Canada belong to
the subspecies C. m. melodus. The second subspecies, C. m. circumcinctus, is comprised of two
Distinct Population Segments (DPS). One DPS breeds on the Northern Great Plains of the U.S.
and Canada, while the other breeds on the Great Lakes. Each of these three entities is
demographically independent. The piping plover winters in coastal areas of the U.S. from North
Carolina to Texas, and along the coast of eastern Mexico and on Caribbean islands from
Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas (Haig and Elliott -Smith 2004) (Figure 2).
10
o �
Q��

C. m eircinaar I lnkrHx
Gmal Plains DPS
Ulw- s DPS
C. m mek dui �Aiknlh'
%Ub%pecieu.
Breeding Range
Winbr Range
Figure 2. Distribution and range of piping plovers (base map from Haig and Elliott -Smith
2004). Conceptual presentation of subspecies and DPS ranges are not intended to convey precise
boundaries.
Piping plovers in the Action Area may include individuals from all three breeding populations.
Piping plover subspecies are phenotypically indistinguishable, and most studies in the
nonbreeding range report results without regard to breeding origin. Although a 2012 analysis
shows strong patterns in the wintering distribution of piping plovers from different breeding
populations (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012), partitioning is not complete and major information gaps
persist.
North Carolina is the only state where the piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap
and the birds are present year-round. Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal
beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping foredunes;
in blowout areas behind primary dunes (overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes; and in
RECEIVED
11 AUG 0 8 2016
DCA4MHp CITY

overwash areas cut into or between dunes. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for
feeding, and undisturbed flats with low dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting.
Piping plovers from the federally endangered Great Lakes population as well as birds from the
threatened populations of the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains overwinter on North
Carolina beaches. Piping plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April.
Following establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in
the sand, where the female lays her eggs. By early September both adults and young depart for
their wintering areas.
The Service has designated critical habitat for the piping plover on three occasions. Two of these
designations protected different piping plover breeding populations. Critical habitat for the
Great Lakes breeding population was designated May 7, 2001 (66 Federal Register [FR] 22938;
USFWS 2001a), and critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population was
designated September 11, 2002 (67 FR 57637; USFWS 2002). The Service designated critical
habitat for wintering piping plovers on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038; USFWS 2001b). Wintering
piping plovers may include individuals from the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains breeding
populations as well as birds that nest along the Atlantic Coast. There is no designated critical
habitat in the Action Area.
2) Life history
The piping plover is a small, pale sand -colored shorebird, about seven inches long with a
wingspan of about 15 inches (Palmer 1967). Cryptic coloration is a primary defense mechanism
for piping plovers where nests, adults, and chicks all blend in with their typical beach
surroundings.
Piping plovers live an average of 5 years, although studies have documented birds as old as 11
(Wilcox 1959) and 15 years. Plovers are known to begin breeding as early as one year of age
(Maclvor 1990; Haig 1992); however, the percentage of birds that breed in their first adult year
is unknown. Piping plover breeding activity begins in mid -March when birds begin returning to
their nesting areas (Coutu et al. 1990; Cross 1990; Goldin et al. 1990; MacIvor 1990; Hake
1993). Piping plovers generally fledge only a single brood per season, but may re -nest several
times if previous nests are lost. The reduction in suitable nesting habitat due to a number of
factors is a major threat to the species, likely limiting reproductive success and future
recruitment into the population (USFWS 2009). Q
o�,L
P�� p OKI
12
OG .

Plovers depart their breeding grounds for their wintering grounds between July and late August,
but southward migration extends through November. More information about the three breeding
populations of piping plovers can be found in the following documents:
a. Piping Plover, Atlantic Coast Population: 1996 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a);
b. 2009 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
(USFWS 2009);
c. 2003 Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) (USFWS
2003a);
d. Questions and Answers about the Northern Great Plains Population of Piping Plover
(USFWS 2002).
North Carolina is one of the only states in which piping plovers may be found year-round.
Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to
Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Data based on five rangewide mid -winter
(late January to early February) population surveys, conducted at 5-year intervals starting in
1991, show that total numbers have fluctuated over time, with some areas experiencing increases
and others decreases. Regional and local fluctuations may reflect the quantity and quality of
suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which vary over time in response to natural coastal
formation processes as well as anthropogenic habitat changes (e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of
shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also represent localized weather conditions (especially wind)
during surveys, or unequal survey coverage. Changes in wintering numbers may also be
influenced by growth or decline in the particular breeding populations that concentrate their
wintering distribution in a given area.
Breeding and wintering plovers feed on exposed wet sand in swash zones; intertidal ocean beach;
wrack lines; washover passes; mud, sand, and algal flats; and shorelines of streams, ephemeral
ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface (Coutu
et al. 1990; USFWS 1996a). They use beaches adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and
preening. Small sand dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within adjacent beaches provide
shelter from wind and extreme temperatures. Behavioral observations of piping plovers on the
wintering grounds suggest that they spend the majority of their time foraging and roosting
(Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990; Drake 1999a; 1999b, Maddock et al. 2009). Studies have shown
that the relative importance of various feeding habitat types may vary by site (Gibbs 1986; Coutu
et al. 1990; McConnaughey et al. 1990; Loegering 1992; Goldin 1993; Hoopes 1993). Feeding
activities may occur during all hours of the day and night (Stain and Burger 1994; Zonick
1997), and at all stages in the tidal cycle (Goldin 1993; Hoopes 1993). Wintering plovers
primarily feed on invertebrates such as polychaete marine worms, various crustaceans, fly larvae,
RECEIVED
13 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

beetles, and occasionally bivalve mollusks found on top of the soil or just beneath the surface
(Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan 1996).
Piping plovers exhibit a high degree of intra- and interannual wintering site fidelity (Nicholls and
Baldassarre 1990; Drake et al. 2001; Noel and Chandler 2008; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006).
However, local movements during winter are more common. In South Carolina, Maddock et al.
(2009) documented many cross -inlet movements by wintering banded piping plovers as well as
occasional movements of up to 11.2 mi by approximately 10 percent of the banded population.
Larger movements within South Carolina were seen during fall and spring migration.
Atlantic Coast plovers nest on coastal beaches, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier
islands, gently -sloped foredunes, sparsely -vegetated dunes, and washover areas cut into or
between dunes. Plovers arrive on the breeding grounds from mid -March through mid -May and
remain for three to four months per year; the Atlantic Coast plover breeding activities begin in
March in North Carolina with courtship and territorial establishment (Coutu et al. 1990;
McConnaughey et al. 1990). Egg -laying begins around mid -April with nesting and brood
rearing activities continuing through July. They lay three to four eggs in shallow, scraped
depressions lined with light colored pebbles and shell fragments. The eggs are well camouflaged
and blend extremely well with their surroundings. Both sexes incubate the eggs which hatch
within 30 days, and both sexes feed the young until they can fly. The fledgling period, the time
between the hatching of the chicks and the point at which they can fly, generally lasts 25 to 35
days.
Atlantic Coast and Florida studies highlighted the importance of inlets for nonbreeding and
breeding piping plovers. Almost 90 percent of roosting piping plovers at ten coastal sites in
southwest Florida were on inlet shorelines (Lott et al. 2009b). Piping plovers were among seven
shorebird species found more often than expected (p = 0.0004; Wilcoxon Test Scores) at inlet
locations versus non -inlet locations in an evaluation of 361 International Shorebird Survey sites
from North Carolina to Florida (Harrington 2008).
3) Population dynamics
The International Piping Plover Breeding Census is conducted throughout the breeding grounds
every 5 years by the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Recovery Team of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). The census is the largest known, complete avian species census. It is designed
to determine species abundance and distribution throughout its annual cycle. The 2011 survey
documented 2,391 breeding pairs, with a total of 5,723 birds throughout Canada and the U.S.
(Elliot -Smith et al. 2015). The 2011 International Piping Plover Census (IPPC) surveys
documented 43 wintering piping plovers at 36 sites along approximately 405 km of North v ��
�ECE�
14

Carolina shoreline, and 59 breeding plovers (Elliott -Smith et al. 2015). Midwinter surveys may
underestimate the abundance of nonbreeding piping plovers using a site or region during other
months. In late September 2007, 104 piping plovers were counted at the south end of Ocracoke
Island, North Carolina (National Park Service 2007), where none were seen during the January
2006 International Piping Plover Winter Census (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). Local movements of
non -breeding piping plovers and number of surveyor visits to the site may also affect abundance
estimates (Maddock et al. 2009; Cohen 2009).
The most consistent finding in the various population viability analyses conducted for piping
plovers (Ryan et al. 1993; Melvin and Gibbs 1996; Plissner and Haig 2000; Amirault et al. 2005;
Calvert et al. 2006; Brault 2007) indicates even small declines in adult and juvenile survival rates
will cause increases in extinction risk. A banding study conducted between 1998 and 2004 in
Atlantic Canada concluded lower return rates of juvenile (first year) birds to the breeding
grounds than was documented for Massachusetts (Melvin and Gibbs 1996), Maryland
(L.oegering 1992), and Virginia (Cross 1996) breeding populations in the mid-1980s and very
early 1990s. This is consistent with failure of the Atlantic Canada population to increase in
abundance despite high productivity (relative to other breeding populations) and extremely low
rates of dispersal to the U.S. over the last 15 plus years (Amirault et al. 2005). This suggests
maximizing productivity does not ensure population increases. However, other studies suggest
that survivability is good at wintering sites (Drake et al. 2001). Please see the Piping Plover 5-
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation for additional information on survival rates at wintering
habitats (USFWS 2009).
The 3,973 piping plover individuals tallied during the 2011 winter census account for 69 percent
of the known breeding birds recorded during that year's breeding census (Ferland and Haig
2002). About 89 percent of birds that are known to winter in the U.S. do so along the Gulf Coast
(Texas to Florida), while 8 percent winter along the Atlantic Coast (North Carolina to Florida).
The status of piping plovers on winter and migration grounds is difficult to assess, but threats to
piping plover habitat used during winter and migration identified by the Service during its
designation of critical habitat continue to affect the species. Unregulated motorized and
pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects, beach maintenance and
nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Conservation efforts at some
locations have likely resulted in the enhancement of wintering habitat.
Northern Great Plains Population
The Northern Great Plains plover breeds from Alberta to Manitoba, Canada and south to
Nebraska; although some nesting has occurred in Oklahoma (Boyd 1991). Currently the most
westerly breeding piping plovers in the U.S. occur in Montana and Colorado.
RECEIVED
15 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

The decline of piping plovers on rivers in the Northern Great Plains has been largely attributed to
the loss of sandbar island habitat and forage base due to dam construction and operation.
Nesting occurs on sand flats or bare shorelines of rivers and lakes, including sandbar islands in
the upper Missouri River system, and patches of sand, gravel, or pebbly -mud on the alkali lakes
of the northern Great Plains. Plovers do nest on shorelines of reservoirs created by the dams, but
reproductive success is often low and reservoir habitat is not available in many years due to high
water levels or vegetation. Dams operated with steady constant flows allow vegetation to grow
on potential nesting islands, making these sites unsuitable for nesting. Population declines in
alkali wetlands are attributed to wetland drainage, contaminants, and predation.
The Northern Great Plains population is geographically widespread, with many birds in very
remote places, especially in the U.S. and Canadian alkali lakes. Thus, determining the number of
birds or even identifying a clear trend in the population is a difficult task. The IPPC was
designed, in part, to help deal with this problem by instigating a large effort every five years in
which an attempt is made to survey every area with known or potential piping plover breeding
habitat during a two -week window (i.e., the first two weeks of June). The relatively short
window is designed to minimize double counting if birds move from one area to another. As a
major criterion for delisting, the 1988 recovery plan (and the 2006 Canadian Recovery Plan
(Environment Canada 2006)) uses the numbers from the IPPC.
Participation in the IPPC has been excellent on the Northern Great Plains, with a tremendous
effort put forth to attempt to survey areas during the census window (Elliot -Smith et al. 2009).
The large area to be surveyed and sparse human population in the Northern Great Plains make
annual surveys of the entire area impractical, so the IPPC provides an appropriate tool for
helping to determine the population trend. Many areas are only surveyed during the IPPC years.
Figure 3 shows the number of adult plovers in the Northern Great Plains (U.S. and Canada) for
all five IPPCs. The IPPC shows that the U.S. population decreased between 1991 and 1996, then
increased in 2001 and 2006. Combined with the numbers from Canada, the IPPC numbers
suggest that the population declined from 1991 through 2001, then increased almost 58%
between 2001 and 2006 (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). The 2011 breeding census count was
substantially lower than the count in 2006 (over 4,500 birds in 2006 and 2,249 in 2011) (Elliott -
Smith et al. 2015). It is unknown if the decrease in counts is an accurate accounting of the
piping plover population numbers, or if birds were not counted due to displacement from
flooding in the region that made traditional habitat unsuitable.

5000
4500
N
V
4000
O
m 3500
e
'EL 3000
'a
2500
a
w 2000
0
d 1500
a
1000
z
Soo
1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
International Census Year
—*--U.S. and Canada
Combined
--&—Prairie Canada
!—U.S. Northern
Great Plains
Figure 3. The number of adults reported for the U.S. and Canada Northern Great Plains during
the International Censuses from 1991 to 2011. Data from Elliott -Smith et al. 2009, Elliott -Smith
et al. 2015, Ferland and Haig 2002, Haig and Plissner 1993, Plissner and Haig 2000.
The increase in 2006 is likely due in large part to a multi -year drought across much of the region
starting in 2001 that exposed thousands of acres of nesting habitat. The Corps ran low flows on
the riverine stretches of the Missouri River for most of the years between censuses; allowing
more habitat to be exposed and resulting in relatively high fledge ratios (USACE 2008). The
Corps also began to construct habitat using mechanical means (dredging sand from the riverbed)
on the Missouri River in 2004, providing some new nesting and foraging habitat. The drought
also caused reservoir levels to drop on many reservoirs throughout the Northern Great Plains
(e.g. Missouri River Reservoirs (ND, SD), Lake McConnaughey (NE)), providing shoreline
habitat. The population increase may also be partially due to more intensive management
activities on the alkali lakes, with increased management actions to improve habitat and reduce
predation pressures. In 2011, the count was much lower, perhaps due to extreme flooding of
nesting habitat.
While the IPPC provides an index to the piping plover population, the design does not always
provide sufficient information to understand the population's dynamics. The five-year time
interval between IPPC efforts may be too long to allow managers to get a clear picture of what
the short-term population trends are and to respond accordingly if needed. As noted above, the
first three IPPCs (1991, 1996, and 2001) showed a declining population, while the fourth (2006)
indicated a dramatic population rebound of almost 58% for the combined U.S. and Canada
RECEIVED
17
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Northern Great Plains population between 2001 and 2006. The results for 2011 indicate a
similar grand population total as 2006, but a declining population in the U.S. The larger overall
population total in 2011 can be attributed to the larger numbers of plovers observed in the
Bahamas. With only five data points over 20 years, it is impossible to determine if and to what
extent the data reflects a real population trend versus error(s) in the 2011 census counts and/or a
previous IPPC. The 2006 IPPC included a detectability component, in which a number of pre -
selected sites were visited twice by the same observer(s) during the two -week window to get an
estimate of error rate. This study found an approximately 76% detectability rate through the
entire breeding area, with a range of between 39% to 78% detectability among habitat types in
the Northern Great Plains.
Great Lakes Population
The Great Lakes plovers once nested on Great Lakes beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Great Lakes piping plovers
nest on wide, flat, open, sandy or cobble shoreline with very little grass or other vegetation.
Reproduction is adversely affected by human disturbance of nesting areas and predation by
foxes, gulls, crows and other avian species. Shoreline development, such as the construction of
marinas, breakwaters, and other navigation structures, has adversely affected nesting and brood
rearing.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) sets a population goal of at least 150 pairs (300 individuals),
for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least 100 breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan
and 50 breeding pairs (100 individuals) distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states. The
Great Lakes piping plover population, which has been traditionally represented as the number of
breeding pairs, has slowly increased after the completion of the recovery plan between 2003 and
2013 (Figure 4) (Cuthbert and Roche 2007; Cuthbert and Roche 2006; Westbrock et al. 2005;
Stucker and Cuthbert 2004; Stucker et al. 2003; Cuthbert and Saunders 2013). The Great Lakes
piping plover recovery plan documents the 2002 population at 51 breeding pairs (USFWS
2003a). Monitoring efforts in years since have documented mostly increases with a few years of
decreases. The Great Lakes annual monitoring program is an intensive survey effort with nearly
daily monitoring of active breeding locations. The differences in the counts of breeding pairs
between 2009 and 2013 may be due to weather conditions or movement patterns of the birds, but
the reason for declines in the number of breeding pairs during those years is not known (Elliott -
Smith et al. 2015).
A single breeding pair discovered in 2007 in the Great Lakes region of Canada represented the
first confirmed piping plover nest there in over 30 years. The number of nesting pairs in Canada
increased to four in 2008, and to six in 2011.
j

80
70
50
a
0 40
Z 30
2C
1C
C
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Figure 4. Annual Breeding Pair Estimates for Great Lakes Piping Plovers (2003-2013). Data
from Cuthbert and Saunders 2013.
Atlantic Coast Population
The Atlantic Coast piping plover breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and
southeastern Quebec to North Carolina. Historical population trends for the Atlantic Coast
piping plover have been reconstructed from scattered, largely qualitative records. Nineteenth-
century naturalists, such as Audubon and Wilson, described the piping plover as a common
summer resident on Atlantic Coast beaches (Haig and Oring 1987). However, by the beginning
of the 20`h Century, egg collecting and uncontrolled hunting, primarily for the millinery trade,
had greatly reduced the population, and in some areas along the Atlantic Coast, the piping plover
was close to extirpation. Following passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat.
775; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) in 1918, and changes in the fashion industry that no longer exploited
wild birds for feathers, piping plover numbers recovered to some extent (Haig and Oring 1985).
Available data suggest that the most recent population decline began in the late 1940s or early
1950s (Haig and Oring 1985). Reports of local or statewide declines between 1950 and 1985 are
numerous, and many are summarized by Cairns and McLaren (1980) and Haig and Oring (1985).
While Wilcox (1939) estimated more than 500 pairs of piping plovers on Long Island, New
York, the 1989 population estimate was 191 pairs (see Table 4, USFWS 1996a). There was little
focus on gathering quantitative data on piping plovers in Massachusetts through the late 1960s
because the species was commonly observed and presumed to be secure. Howeverrgy�]?grss of
I1Gt6 ED
19 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

piping plover breeding pairs declined 50 to 100 percent at seven Massachusetts sites between the
early 1970s and 1984 (Griffin and Melvin 1984). Piping plover surveys in the early years of the
recovery effort found that counts of these cryptically -colored birds sometimes went up with
increased census effort, suggesting that some historic counts of piping plovers by one or a few
observers may have underestimated the piping plover population. Thus, the magnitude of the
species decline may have been more severe than available numbers imply.
Annual estimates of breeding pairs of Atlantic Coast piping plovers are based on multiple
surveys at most occupied sites. Sites that cannot be monitored repeatedly in May and June
(primarily sites with few pairs or inconsistent occupancy) are surveyed at least once during a
standard nine -day count period (Hecht and Melvin 2009). See Table 1 for data from the
International Piping Plover Breeding Surveys.
Table 1. Number of Breeding Pairs from the 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 International
Piping Plover Breeding Censuses (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Ferland and
Haig 2002; Haig et al. 2005; Elliott -Smith et al. 2009; Elliott -Smith et al. 2015).
Location
1991
1996
2001
20061
2011
Maine
18
57
48
34
33
New Hampshire
not surveyed
ns
7
3
4
Massachusetts
148
437
481
465
630
Rhode Island
22
45
46
63
86
Connecticut
30
20
23
36
26
New York
181
256
309
422
318
New Jersey
122
103
109
84
97
Delaware
5
4
5
9
8
Maryland
16
50
28
64
36
Virginia
131
72
106
157
179
North Carolina
30
34
21
41
59
U.S. Total
702
1,078
2,111
2,640
1,931
Canada
236
189
632
872
459
France
2
3
4
4
1
GRAND TOTAL
938
1,270
2,747
3,516
2,391
Since its 1986 listing under the ESA, the Atlantic Coast population estimate increased from
approximately 790 pairs to an estimated 2,391 pairs in 2011, and the U.S. portion of the
population more than tripled, from approximately 550 pairs to an estimated 1,931 pairs (Ij
20

and Melvin 2009, Elliott -Smith et al. 2015). Even discounting apparent increases in New York,
New Jersey, and North Carolina between 1986 and 1989, which likely were due in part to
increased census effort (USFWS 1996a), the population nearly doubled between 1989 and 2008.
The overall population growth pattern was tempered by periodic rapid declines in the Southern
and Eastern Canada Recovery Units. The eastern Canada population decreased 21 % in just three
years (2002-2005), and the population in the southern half of the Southern Recovery Unit
declined 68% in seven years (1995-2001). The 64% decline in the Maine population, from 66
pairs in 2002 to 24 pairs in 2008, following only a few years of decreased productivity, provides
another example of the continuing risk of rapid and precipitous reversals in population growth
(Hecht and Melvin 2009).
4) Status and distribution
Reason for Listing: Hunting during the 19`s and early 20t' centuries likely led to initial declines
in the species; however, shooting piping plovers has been prohibited since 1918 pursuant to the
provisions of the MBTA. Other human activities, such as habitat loss and degradation,
disturbance from recreational pressure, contaminants, and predation are likely responsible for
continued declines. These factors include development and shoreline stabilization. The 1985
final rule stated the number of piping plovers on the Gulf of Mexico coastal wintering grounds
might be declining as indicated by preliminary analysis of the Christmas Bird Count data.
Independent counts of piping plovers on the Alabama coast indicated a decline in numbers
between the 1950s and early 1980s. At the time of listing, the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department stated 30 percent of wintering habitat in Texas had been lost over the previous 20
years. The final rule also stated, in addition to extensive breeding area problems, the loss and
modification of wintering habitat was a significant threat to the piping plover.
Range -wide Trend: Five range -wide population surveys have been conducted for the piping
plover; the 1991 (Haig and Plissner 1992), 1996 (Plissner and Haig 1997), 2001, 2006 (Elliott -
Smith et al. 2009), and 2011 IPPCs. These surveys were completed to help determine the
species distribution and to monitor progress toward recovery. Data from these surveys were
provided in the previous pages.
Recovery Criteria
Delisting of the three piping plover populations may be considered when the following criteria
are met:
RECEIVED
21 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Northern Great Plains Population (USFWS 1988, 1994)
1. Increase the number of birds in the U.S. northern Great Plains states to 2,300 pairs
(Service 1994).
2. Increase the number of birds in the prairie region of Canada to 2,500 adult piping
plovers (Service 1988).
3. Secure long term protection of essential breeding and wintering habitat (Service
1994).
Great Ickes Population (USFWS 2003)
1. At least 150 pairs (300 individuals), for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least
100 breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs (100
individuals) distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states.
2. Five-year average fecundity within the range of 1.5-2.0 fledglings per pair, per
year, across the breeding distribution, and ten-year population projections indicate
the population is stable or continuing to grow above the recovery goal.
3. Protection and long-term maintenance of essential breeding and wintering habitat
is ensured, sufficient in quantity, quality, and distribution to support the recovery
goal of 150 pairs (300 individuals).
4. Genetic diversity within the population is deemed adequate for population
persistence and can be maintained over the long-term.
5. Agreements and funding mechanisms are in place for long-term protection and
management activities in essential breeding and wintering habitat.
Atlantic Coast Population (USFWS 1996a)
Increase and maintain for 5 years a total of 2,000 breeding pairs, distributed
among 4 recovery units.
Recovery Unit Minimum Subpopulation
Atlantic (eastern) Canada 400 pairs
New England 625 pairs
New York -New Jersey 575 pairs
Southern (DE -MD -VA -NC) 400 pairs
2. Verify the adequacy of a 2,000 pair population of piping plovers to maintain F
heterozygosity and allelic diversity over the long term. k
22

3. Achieve a 5-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in each of the
4 recovery units described in criterion 1, based on data from sites that collectively
support at least 90% of the recovery unit's population.
4. Institute long-term agreements to assure protection and management sufficient to
maintain the population targets and average productivity in each recovery unit.
5. Ensure long-term maintenance of wintering habitat, sufficient in quantity, quality,
and distribution to maintain survival rates for a 2,000-pair population.
Conservation Recommendations
Nonbreeding plovers from all three breeding populations (USFWS 2012)
1. Maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate wintering and coastal migration
habitat.
2. Protect wintering and migrating piping plovers and their habitat from human
disturbance.
3. Monitor nonbreeding plovers and their habitat.
4. Protect nonbreeding plovers and their habitats from contamination and
degradation from oil or other chemical contaminants.
5. Assess predation as a potential limiting factor for piping plovers on wintering and
migration sites.
6. Improve application or regulatory tools.
7. Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of nonbreeding plovers and
their habitat.
8. Conduct scientific investigations to refine knowledge and inform conservation of
migrating and wintering piping plovers.
Breeding Range
Northern Great Plains Population
The IPPC numbers indicate that the Northern Great Plains population (including Canada)
declined from 1991 through 2001, and then increased dramatically in 2006. This increase
corresponded with a multi -year drought in the Missouri River basin that exposed a great deal of
nesting habitat, suggesting that the population can respond fairly rapidly to changes in habitat
quantity and quality. Despite this improvement, we do not consider the numeric, distributional,
or temporal elements of the population recovery criteria achieved.
As the Missouri River basin emerged from drought and breeding habitat was inundated in
subsequent years after 2006, the population declined (See Figure 3). The management activities
carried out in many areas during drought conditions undoubtedly helped to maintain and increase
the piping plover population, especially to mitigate for otherwise poor reproductivWM IV E D
23
AUG 0 S 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

during wet years when habitat is limited. While the population increase seen between 2001 and
2006 demonstrates the possibility that the population can rebound from low population numbers,
ongoing efforts are needed to maintain and increase the population. In the U.S., piping plover
crews attempt to locate most piping plover nests and take steps to improve their success. This
work has suffered from insufficient and unstable funding in most areas.
Emerging threats, such as energy development (particularly wind, oil and gas and associated
infrastructure) and climate change are likely to impact piping plovers both on the breeding and
wintering grounds. The potential impact of both of these threats is not well understood, and
measures to mitigate for them are also uncertain at this time.
In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Northern Great Plains piping plover
population remains vulnerable, especially due to management of river systems throughout the
breeding range (USFWS 2009). Many of the threats identified in the 1988 recovery plan,
including those affecting Northern Great Plains piping plover population during the two-thirds of
its annual cycle spent in the wintering range, remain today or have intensified.
Great Lakes Population
The population has shown significant growth, from approximately 17 pairs at the time of listing
in 1986, to 66 pairs in 2013. The total of 66 breeding pairs represents approximately 44% of the
current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great Lakes population. Productivity goals,
as specified in the 2003 recovery plan, have been met over the past 5 years. During this time
period the average annual fledging rate has been 1.76, well above the 1.5 fledglings per breeding
pair recovery goal. A 2010 analysis of banded piping plovers in the Great Lakes, however,
suggests that after -hatch year (adult) survival rates may be declining (Roche et al. 2010).
Continued population growth will require the long-term maintenance of productivity goals
concurrent with measures to sustain or improve important vital rates.
Several years of population growth is evidence of the effectiveness of the ongoing Great Lakes
piping plover recovery program. Most major threats, however, including habitat degradation,
predation, and human disturbance remain persistent and pervasive. Severe threats from human
disturbance and predation remain ubiquitous within the Great Lakes. Expensive labor-intensive
management to minimize the effects of these continuing threats, as specified in recovery plan
tasks, are implemented every year by a network of dedicated governmental and private partners.
Because threats to Great Lakes piping plovers persist, reversal of gains in abundance and
productivity are expected to quickly follow if current protection efforts are reduced.
Emerging potential threats to piping plovers in the Great Lakes basin include disease, wind G`ve®
24
G o a ti0�6
®GM. M

turbine generators and, potentially, climate change. Type-E botulism in the Northern Lake
Michigan basin has resulted in several piping plover mortalities since 2000 (USFWS 2013c).
Future outbreaks in areas that support a concentration of breeding piping plovers could impact
survival rates and population abundance. Wind turbine projects, many of which are currently in
the planning stages, need further study to determine potential risks to piping plovers and/or their
habitat, as well as the need for specific protections to prevent or mitigate impacts. Climate
change projections for the Great Lakes include the potential for significant water -level decreases.
The degree to which this factor will impact piping plover habitat is unknown, but prolonged
water -level decreases are likely to alter habitat condition and distribution.
In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Great Lakes population remains at
considerable risk of extinction due to its small size, limited distribution and vulnerability to
stochastic events, such as disease outbreak (USFWS 2009). In addition, the factors that led to
the piping plover's 1986 listing remain present.
Atlantic Coast Population
Substantial population growth, from approximately 790 pairs in 1986 to an estimated 2,391 pairs
in 2011, has decreased the Atlantic Coast piping plover's vulnerability to extinction since ESA
listing. Thus, considerable progress has been made towards the overall goal of 2,000 breeding
pairs articulated in recovery criterion 1. As discussed in the 1996 revised recovery plan,
however, the overall security of the Atlantic Coast piping plover is fundamentally dependent on
even distribution of population growth, as specified in subpopulation targets, to protect a
sparsely -distributed species with strict biological requirements from environmental variation
(including catastrophes) and increase the likelihood of interchange among subpopulations.
Although the New England Recovery Unit has sustained its subpopulation target for the requisite
five years, and the New York -New Jersey Recovery Unit reached its target in 2007 (but dipped
below again in 2008), considerable additional growth is needed in the Southern and Eastern
Canada Recovery Units (recovery criterion 1).
Productivity goals (criterion 3) specified in the 1996 recovery plan must be revised to
accommodate new information about latitudinal variation in productivity needed to maintain a
stationary population. Population growth, particularly in the three U.S. recovery units, provides
indirect evidence that adequate productivity has occurred in at least some years. However,
overall security of a 2,000 pair population will require long-term maintenance of these revised
recovery -unit -specific productivity goals concurrent with population numbers at or above
abundance goals.
Twenty years of relatively steady population growth, driven by productivity gains, alfin.Kt:CEIVED
25 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

evidences the efficacy of the ongoing Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery program. However,
all of the major threats (habitat loss and degradation, predation, human disturbance, and
inadequacy of other (non -ESA) regulatory mechanisms) identified in the 1986 ESA listing and
1996 revised recovery plan remain persistent and pervasive. Severe threats from human
disturbance and predation remain ubiquitous along the Atlantic Coast. Expensive labor-intensive
management to minimize the effects of these continuing threats, as specified in recovery plan
tasks, are implemented every year by a network of dedicated governmental and private
cooperators. Because threats to Atlantic Coast piping plovers persist (and in many cases have
increased since listing), reversal of gains in abundance and productivity would quickly follow
diminishment of current protection efforts.
Finally, two emerging potential threats, wind turbine generators and climate change (especially
sea -level rise) are likely to affect Atlantic Coast piping plovers throughout their life cycle. These
two threats must be evaluated to ascertain their effects on piping plovers and/or their habitat, as
well as the need for specific protections to prevent or mitigate impacts that could otherwise
increase overall risks to the species.
In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Atlantic Coast piping plover remains
vulnerable to low numbers in the Southern and Eastern Canada (and, to a lesser extent, the New
York -New Jersey) Recovery Units (USFWS 2009). Furthermore, the factors that led to the
piping plover's 1986 listing remain operative rangewide (including in New England), and many
of these threats have increased. Interruption of costly, labor-intensive efforts to manage these
threats would quickly lead to steep population declines.
Nonbreeding Range
Piping plovers spend up to 10 months of their life cycle on their migration and winter grounds,
generally July 15 through as late as May 15. Piping plover migration routes and habitats overlap
breeding and wintering habitats, and, unless banded, migrants passing through a site usually are
indistinguishable from breeding or wintering piping plovers. Migration stopovers by banded
piping plovers from the Great Lakes have been documented in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia,
and North Carolina (Stucker and Cuthbert 2006). Migrating breeders from eastern Canada have
been observed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina (Amirault et al.
2005). As many as 85 staging piping plovers have been tallied at various sites in the Atlantic
breeding range (Perkins 2008 pers. communication), but the composition (e.g., adults that nested
nearby and their fledged young of the year versus migrants moving to or from sites farther
north), stopover duration, and local movements are unknown. In general, distance between
stopover locations and duration of stopovers throughout the coastal migration range rem
ewep
26 RGC D % 10\6
00. MNID Gxl�l

poorly understood.
Review of published records of piping plover sightings throughout North America by Pompei
and Cuthbert (2004) found more than 3,400 fall and spring stopover records at 1,196 sites.
Published reports indicated that piping plovers do not concentrate in large numbers at inland sites
and that they seem to stop opportunistically. In most cases, reports of birds at inland sites were
single individuals.
Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to
Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) reported that six
of 259 banded piping plovers observed more than once per winter moved across boundaries of
the seven U.S. regions. This species exhibits a high degree of intra- and inter -annual wintering
site fidelity (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990; Drake et al. 2001; Noel et al. 2005; Stucker and
Cuthbert 2006). Of 216 birds observed in different years, only eight changed regions between
years, and several of these shifts were associated with late summer or early spring migration
periods (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2009). Local movements are more common. In South Carolina,
Maddock et al. (2009) documented many cross -inlet movements by wintering banded piping
plovers as well as occasional movements of up to 18 km by approximately 10% of the banded
population; larger movements within South Carolina were seen during fall and spring migration.
Similarly, eight banded piping plovers that were observed in two locations during 2006-2007
surveys in Louisiana and Texas were all in close proximity to their original location, such as on
the bay and ocean side of the same island or on adjoining islands (Maddock 2008).
Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) found strong patterns (but no exclusive partitioning) in winter
distribution of uniquely banded piping plovers from four breeding populations (Figure 5). All
eastern Canada and 94% of Great Lakes birds wintered from North Carolina to southwest
Florida. However, eastern Canada birds were more heavily concentrated in North Carolina, and
a larger proportion of Great Lakes piping plovers were found in South Carolina and Georgia.
Northern Great Plains populations were primarily seen farther west and south, especially on the
Texas Gulf Coast. Although the great majority of Prairie Canada individuals were observed in
Texas, particularly southern Texas, individuals from the U.S. Great Plains were more widely
distributed on the Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
27 DCM- MHD CITY

MC
Figure 5. (from Gratto-Trevor et al. 2009, reproduced by permission). Breeding population
distribution in the wintering/migration range. Regions: ATLC=Atlantic (eastern) Canada;
ATLS=Atlantic South; GFS=Gulf Coast of southern Florida; GFN=Gulf Coast of north Florida;
AL --Alabama; MS/LA=Mississippi and Louisiana; TXN=northem Texas; and TXS=southern
Texas. For each breeding population, circles represent the percentage of individuals reported
wintering along the eastern coast of the U.S. from the central Atlantic to southern Texas/Mexico
up to December 2008. Each individual was counted only once. Grey circles represent Eastern
Canada birds, Orange U.S. Great Lakes, Green U.S. Great Plains, and Black Prairie Canada. The
relative size of the circle represents the percentage from a specific breeding area seen in that
winter region. Total number of individuals observed on the wintering grounds was 46 for
Eastern Canada, 150 for the U.S. Great Lakes, 169 for the U.S. Great Plains, and 356 for Prairie
Canada.
The findings of Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) provide evidence of differences in the wintering
distribution of piping plovers from these four breeding areas. However, the distribution of birds
by breeding origin during migration remains largely unknown. Until recently, the wintering
locations of the U.S. Atlantic Coast breeding population was relatively unknown, as was the
breeding origin of piping plovers wintering on Caribbean islands. A 2010 banding effort in the
Bahamas, led by Dr. Cheri Trevor-Gratto, indicated that the majority of piping plovers wintering
in the Bahamas are from the Atlantic breeding population (AFWA 2015). A 2014/2015 winter
census effort on five Bahamian islands located 657 piping plovers, 31 of which had
bands vG0
R`C`\
28
PSG
GM. MAII C`AN
O

identifying them as members of the U.S. or Canadian breeding population. Research efforts
indicate that around half of the Atlantic population of the endangered piping plovers winter
across the Bahamas for up to ten months each year. The majority (25%) of the plovers are in just
three locations — Andros Island, Joulter Cays and the Berry Islands (AFWA 2015). In September
2015, the Bahamian government established the 113,920-acre Joulter Cays National Park. This
large group of uninhabited islands and intertidal sand flats will continue to provide important
wintering habitat for piping plovers, red knots, and other shorebirds (Audubon 2015; BNT 2015).
Five rangewide mid -winter (late January to early February) IPPCs, conducted at five-year
intervals starting in 1991, are summarized in Table 2. Total numbers have fluctuated over time,
with some areas experiencing increases and others decreases. Regional and local fluctuations
may reflect the quantity and quality of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which vary over
time in response to natural coastal formation processes as well as anthropogenic habitat changes
(e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also represent localized
weather conditions (especially wind) during surveys, or unequal survey coverage. Changes in
wintering numbers may also be influenced by growth or decline in the particular breeding
populations that concentrate their wintering distribution in a given area.
Mid -winter surveys may substantially underestimate the abundance of nonbreeding piping
plovers using a site or region during other months. In late September 2007, 104 piping plovers
were counted at the south end of Ocracoke Island, North Carolina (NPS 2007), where none were
seen during the 2006 International Piping Plover January Winter Census (Elliott -Smith et al.
2009). Noel et al. (2007) observed up to 100 piping plovers during peak migration at Little St.
Simons Island, Georgia, where approximately 40 piping plovers wintered in 2003-2005.
Differences among fall, winter, and spring counts in South Carolina were less pronounced, but
inter -year fluctuations (e.g., 108 piping plovers in spring 2007 versus 174 piping plovers in
spring 2008) at 28 sites were striking (Maddock et al. 2009). Even as far south as the Florida
Panhandle, monthly counts at Phipps Preserve in Franklin County ranged from a mid -winter low
of four piping plovers in December 2006 to peak counts of 47 in October 2006 and March 2007
(Smith 2007). Pinkston (2004) observed much heavier use of Texas Gulf Coast (ocean -facing)
beaches between early September and mid -October (approximately 16 birds per mi) than during
December to March (approximately two birds per mi).
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Table 2. Results of the 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 International Piping Plover Winter
29

Censuses (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Ferland and Haig 2002; Haig et al.
2005; Elliott -Smith et al. 2009; Elliott -Smith et al. 2015).
Location
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
Virginia
not surveyed
(ns)
ns
ns
1
1
North Carolina
20
50
87
84
43
South Carolina
51
78
78
100
86
Georgia
37
124
Ill
212
63
Florida
551
375
416
454
306
-Atlantic
70
31
I11
133
83
-Gulf
481
344
305
321
223
Alabama
12
131
30
29
38
Mississippi
59
27
18
78
88
Louisiana
750
398
511
226
86
Texas
1,904
1,333
1,042
2,090
2,145
Puerto Rico
0
0
6
2
2
U.S. Total
3,384
2,416
2,299
3,357
2,858
Mexico
27
16
ns
76
30
Bahamas
29
17
35
417
1,066
Cuba
11
66
55
89
19
Other Caribbean
Islands
0
0
0
28
ns
GRAND
TOTAL
3,451
2,515
2,389
3,884
3,973
Percent of Total
International
Piping Plover
Breeding
Census
62.9%
42.4%
40.2%
48.2%
69.4%
Local movements of nonbreeding piping plovers may also affect abundance estimates. At
Deveaux Bank, one of South Carolina's most important piping plover sites, five counts at
approximately 10-day intervals between August 27 and October 7, 2006, oscillated from 28 to 14
to 29 to 18 to 26 (Maddock et al. 2009). Noel and Chandler (2008) detected banded Great Lakes
piping plovers known to be wintering on their Georgia study site in 73.8 ± 8.1 % of surveys ovek Q
three years. co
30 �� UG 0 810\6
OGM-
WAD G��

Abundance estimates for nonbreeding piping plovers may also be affected by the number of
surveyor visits to the site. Preliminary analysis of detection rates by Maddock et al. (2009)
found 87% detection during the mid -winter period on core sites surveyed three times a month
during fall and spring and one time per month during winter, compared with 42% detection on
sites surveyed three times per year (Cohen 2009 pers. communication).
The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons affected a substantial amount of habitat along the Gulf
Coast. Habitats such as those along Gulf Islands National Seashore have benefited from
increased washover events, which created optimal habitat conditions for piping plovers.
Conversely, hard shoreline structures put into place following storms throughout the species
range to prevent such shoreline migration prevent habitat creation (see Factors Affecting Species
Environment within the Action Area).
The Service is aware of the following site -specific conditions that benefit several habitats piping
plover use while wintering and migrating, including critical habitat units. In Texas, one critical
habitat unit was afforded greater protection due to the acquisition of adjacent upland properties
by the local Audubon chapter. In another unit in Texas, vehicles were removed from a portion of
the beach decreasing the likelihood of automobile disturbance to plovers. Removal of an exotic
plant that threatens to invade suitable piping plover habitat is occurring in a critical habitat unit
in South Florida. The Service and other government agencies remain in a contractual agreement
with the USDA for predator control within limited coastal areas in the Florida panhandle,
including portions of some critical habitat units. Continued removal of potential terrestrial
predators is likely to enhance survivorship of wintering and migrating piping plovers.
The status of piping plovers on winter and migration grounds is difficult to assess, but threats to
piping plover habitat used during winter and migration identified by the Service during its
designation of critical habitat continue to affect the species. Unregulated motorized and
pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects, beach maintenance and
nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Conservation efforts at some
locations have likely resulted in the enhancement of wintering habitat.
Threats to Piping Plovers
The three recovery plans stated that shoreline development throughout the wintering range poses
a threat to all populations of piping plovers. The plans further stated that beach maintenance and
nourishment, inlet dredging, and artificial structures, such as jetties, groins, and revetments,
could eliminate wintering areas and alter sedimentation patterns leading to the loss of nearby
habitat. Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization
projects, beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and ttygtIVED
31 AUG 0 S 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

areas.
Important components of ecologically sound barrier beach management include perpetuation of
natural dynamic coastal formation processes. Structural development along the shoreline or
manipulation of natural inlets upsets the dynamic processes and results in habitat loss or
degradation (Melvin et al. 1991). Throughout the range of migrating and wintering piping
plovers, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach maintenance and nourishment
activities, and seawall installations continue to constrain natural coastal processes. Dredging of
inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets and directly remove or affect ebb and flood tidal
shoal formation. Jetties, which stabilize an island, cause island widening and subsequent growth
of vegetation on inlet shores. Seawalls restrict natural island movement and exacerbate erosion.
As discussed in more detail below, all these efforts result in loss of piping plover habitat.
Construction of these projects during months when piping plovers are present also causes
disturbance that disrupts the birds' foraging efficiency and hinders their ability to build fat
reserves over the winter and in preparation for migration, as well as their recuperation from
migratory flights. In addition, up to 24 shorebird species migrate or winter along the Atlantic
Coast and almost 40 species of shorebirds are present during migration and wintering periods in
the Gulf of Mexico region (Helmers 1992). Continual degradation and loss of habitats used by
wintering and migrating shorebirds may cause an increase in infra -specific and inter -specific
competition for remaining food supplies and roosting habitats. In Florida, for example,
approximately 825 mi of coastline and parallel bayside flats (unspecified amount) were present
prior to the advent of high human densities and beach stabilization projects. We estimate that
only about 35% of the Florida coastline continues to support natural coastal formation processes,
thereby concentrating foraging and roosting opportunities for all shorebird species and forcing
some individuals into suboptimal habitats. Thus, intra- and inter -specific competition most
likely exacerbates threats from habitat loss and degradation.
Sand placement projects
In the wake of episodic storm events, managers of lands under public, private, and county
ownership often protect coastal structures using emergency storm berms; this is frequently
followed by beach nourishment or renourishment activities (nourishment projects are considers
"soft" stabilization versus "hard" stabilization such as seawalls). Berm placement and beach
nourishment deposit substantial amounts of sand along Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic beaches to
protect local property in anticipation of preventing erosion and what otherwise will be C
considered natural processes of overwash and island migration (Schmitt and Haines 2003).�!
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic coastal uU
processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats including those hatC
' Ir
32
J
Q
U

components that piping plovers rely upon. Although impacts may vary depending on a range of
factors, stabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and foraging
habitat in several ways. Front beach habitat may be used to construct an artificial berm that is
densely planted in grass, which can directly reduce the availability of roosting habitat. Over
time, if the beach narrows due to erosion, additional roosting habitat between the berm and the
water can be lost. Berms can also prevent or reduce the natural overwash that creates roosting
habitats by converting vegetated areas to open sand areas. The vegetation growth caused by
impeding natural overwash can also reduce the maintenance and creation of bayside intertidal
feeding habitats. In addition, stabilization projects may indirectly encourage further
development of coastal areas and increase the threat of disturbance.
Although benthic invertebrates are adapted to the coastal dynamics and erosion, transport, and
deposition of sediments, some natural sedimentation events can cause high mortality of benthic
invertebrates (Peterson 1985, Peterson and Black 1988). It is reasonable to expect that certain
beach filling activities could also cause high mortality of benthic invertebrates.
At least 668 of 2,340 coastal shoreline mi (29% of beaches throughout the piping plover winter
and migration range in the U.S.) are bermed, nourished, or renourished, generally for recreational
purposes and to protect commercial and private infrastructure (Table 3). However, only
approximately 54 mi or 2.31 % of these impacts have occurred within critical habitat. In
Louisiana, sediment placement projects are deemed environmental restoration projects by the
Service, because without the sediment, many areas would erode below sea level.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
33 DCM- MHD CITY

Table 3. Summary of the extent of nourished beaches in piping plover wintering and migrating
habitat within the conterminous U.S. From USFWS unpublished data (project files, gray
literature, and field observations).
Sandy beach
Sandy beach shoreline miles
Percent of sandy beach
State
shoreline miles
nourished to date (within
shoreline affected (within
available
critical habitat units)
critical habitat units)
North
3017
1175 (approximately 4.0)
39 (unknown)
Carolina
South
187'
56(0.6)
30 (0.32))
Carolina
Georgia
100
8(0.4)
8(0.40)
Florida
825 2
404 (6)
49 (0.72)
Alabama
53
12 (2)
23 (3.77)
Mississippi
1103>6
(0)
5 (0)
Louisiana
397'
Unquantified (usually
Unknown
restoration -oriented)
Texas
3674
65 (45)
18 (12.26)
Overall
2,340 (does not
>668 does not include
Total
include Louisiana)
Louisiana (58 in CH)
29% (>2.47% in CH)
Data from lwww.50states.com; Z Clark 1993; 3N.Winstead, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2008;
www.Surfrider.org; 5 H. Hall, USFWS, pers. comm. 2009, K. Matthews, USFWS, pers. comm. 2015; 6
partial data from Lott et al. (2009a); 7NOAA 1975.
Inlet stabilizationlrelocation
Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts are stabilized with jetties, groins, or by seawalls and/or adjacent industrial or residential
development. Using Google Earth© (accessed April 2009 and October 2014), Service's
biologists visually estimated the number of navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets
throughout the wintering range of the piping plover in the conterminous U.S. that have some
form of hardened structure. This includes seawalls or adjacent development, which lock the
inlets in place (Table 4).
RED
34
pUG��2016
DCM. MHp �1TY

Table 4. Number of hardened inlets by state. Asterisk (*) represents an inlet at the state line, in
which case half an inlet is counted in each state.
State
Visually estimated
number of navigable
mainland and barrier
island inlets per state
Number of hardened
inlets
% of inlets
affected
North Carolina
20
3.5* (+3 proposed)
17.5% (32.5%)
South Carolina
34
3.5*
10.3%
Georgia
26
2
7.7%
Florida
82
41
50%
Alabama
14
6
42.9%
Mississippi
16
7
43.8%
Louisiana
40
9
22.5%
Texas
1 17
10
58.8%
Overall Total
1249
82 (85 with proposed)
32.9% (34.1%)
Tidal inlet relocation can cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat; although less
permanent than construction of hard structures, effects can persist for years. Service biologists
are aware of at least seven inlet relocation projects (two in North Carolina, three in South
Carolina, two in Florida), but this number likely under -represents the extent of this activity.
Sand mining/dredging
Sand mining, the practice of extracting (dredging) sand from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the
nearshore zone, is a less expensive source of sand than obtaining sand from offshore shoals for
beach nourishment. Sand bars and shoals are sand sources that move onshore over time and act
as natural breakwaters. Inlet dredging reduces the formation of exposed ebb and flood tidal
shoals considered to be primary or optimal piping plover roosting and foraging habitat.
Removing these sand sources can alter depth contours and change wave refraction as well as
cause localized erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008). Exposed shoals and sandbars are also
valuable to piping plovers, as they tend to receive less human recreational use (because they are
only accessible by boat) and therefore provide relatively less disturbed habitats for birds. We do
not have a good estimate of the amount of sand mining that occurs across the piping plover
wintering range, nor do we have a good estimate of the number of inlet dredging projects that
occur. Most jettied inlets need maintenance dredging, but non -hardened inlets are often dredged
as well.
RECEIVED
35 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Groins
Groins (structures made of concrete, rip rap, wood, or metal built perpendicular to the beach in
order to trap sand) are typically found on developed beaches with severe erosion. Although
groins can be individual structures, they are often clustered along the shoreline. Groins can act
as barriers to longshore sand transport and cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008),
which prevents piping plover habitat creation by limiting sediment deposition and accretion.
These structures are found throughout the southeastern Atlantic Coast, and although most were
in place prior to the piping plover's 1986 ESA listing, installation of new groins continues to
occur. In North Carolina, there are two currently existing groins, at Fort Macon in Carteret
County and on Bald Head Island in New Hanover County. There are also two degraded
groin/jetty structures in Dare County, adjacent to the old location of the Cape Hatteras
lighthouse. Three other local governments in North Carolina are seeking authorization for
terminal groins (Ocean Isle Beach, Holden Beach, and Figure 8 Island).
Seawalls and revetments
Seawalls and revetments are vertical hard structures built parallel to the beach in front of
buildings, roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However, these structures
often accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the structure (Hayes
and Michel 2008), which can eliminate intertidal foraging habitat and adjacent roosting habitat.
Seawalls confine the wave energy and intensify the erosion by concentrating the sediment
transport processes in an increasingly narrow zone. Eventually, the beach disappears, leaving the
seawall directly exposed to the full force of the waves (Williams et al 1995). Physical
characteristics that determine microhabitats and biological communities can be altered after
installation of a seawall or revetment, thereby depleting or changing composition of benthic
communities that serve as the prey base for piping plovers. At four California study sites, each
comprised of an unarmored segment and a segment seaward of a seawall, Dugan and Hubbard
(2006) found that armored segments had narrower intertidal zones, smaller standing crops of
macrophyte wrack, and lower shorebird abundance and species richness. Geotubes (long
cylindrical bags made of high -strength permeable fabric and filled with sand) and sandbag
revetments are softer alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. We did not find
any sources that summarize the linear extent of seawall, revetment, and geotube installation
projects that have occurred across the piping plover's wintering and migration habitat. There
are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher
(approximately 3,04011), and another along Carolina Beach (approximately 2,0501f). A 4301f
sandbag revetment exists in the Action Area. In 2014/2015, a sandbag revetment was
constructed on over 1,800 If of shoreline at the north end of Topsail Island. The intertidal areas
and sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline downdrift of the
36 RE{�ENED
AUG � S 2016
DCM- MHp CITY

sandbag revetment has eroded significantly since installation. In 2016, the Town of North
Topsail also placed a sandbag revetment above the MHWL along the downdrift beach.
Exotic invasive vegetation
One identified threat to piping plover habitat, not described in the listing rule or recovery plans,
is the spread of coastal invasive plants into suitable piping plover habitat. Like most invasive
species, coastal exotic plants reproduce and spread quickly and exhibit dense growth habits,
often outcompeting native plant species. If left uncontrolled, invasive plants cause a habitat shift
from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or degradation of
piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and migration
periods.
Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia) is a woody vine introduced into the southeastern U.S. as a dune
stabilization and ornamental plant (Westbrooks and Madsen 2006). It currently occupies a very
small percentage of its potential range in the U.S. The species has been found on beaches in all
eight coastal counties in North Carolina and three counties in South Carolina. Small populations
have been found in Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Alabama. Based on this species'
tolerance for cold temperatures, it is expected to grow well in coastal environments from New
Jersey to Florida, and west to Texas. Task forces formed in North and South Carolina in 2004-
2005 have made great strides to remove this plant from their coasts. To date, over 800 sites in
North Carolina have been treated, with an additional 100 sites in need of treatment. Similar
efforts are underway in South Carolina and several hundred sites have been treated there (Suiter
2015 pers. comm.).
Unquantified amounts of crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium) grow invasively along
portions of the Florida coastline. It forms thick bunches or mats that may change the vegetative
structure of coastal plant communities and alter shorebird habitat. The Australian pine
(Casuarina equisetifolia) changes the vegetative structure of the coastal community in south
Florida and islands within the Bahamas. Shorebirds prefer foraging in open areas where they are
able to see potential predators, and tall trees provide good perches for avian predators.
Australian pines potentially impact shorebirds, including the piping plover, by reducing
attractiveness of foraging habitat and/or increasing avian predation. The propensity of these
exotic species to spread, and their tenacity once established, make them a persistent threat,
partially countered by increasing landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication
activities.
The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) changes the vegetative structure of the coastal
community in south Florida and islands within the Bahamas. Shorebirds prefer foraging in open
RECEIVED
37
AUG 0 9 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

areas where they are able to see potential predators, and tall trees provide good perches for avian
predators. Australian pines potentially impact shorebirds, including the piping plover, by
reducing attractiveness of foraging habitat and/or increasing avian predation. The propensity of
these exotic species to spread, and their tenacity once established, make them a persistent threat,
partially countered by increasing landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication
activities.
Wrack removal and beach cleaning or rock -picking
Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping
plovers (Drake 1999a; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and many other
shorebirds on their winter, breeding, and migration grounds. Because shorebird numbers are
positively correlated with wrack cover and biomass of their invertebrate prey that feed on wrack
(Tarr and Tarr 1987; Hubbard and Dugan 2003; Dugan et al. 2003), grooming will lower bird
numbers (Defreo et al. 2009). There is increasing popularity in the Southeast, especially in
Florida, for beach communities to carry out "beach cleaning" and "beach raking" actions. Beach
cleaning occurs on private beaches, where piping plover use is not well documented, and on
some municipal or county beaches that are used by piping plovers. Most wrack removal on state
and federal lands is limited to post -storm cleanup and does not occur regularly.
Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, fish, glass,
syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber
and Sons 2012). However, these efforts also remove accumulated wrack, topographic
depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping plovers. Removal
of wrack also eliminates a beach's natural sand -trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach.
In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is
removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may
be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007).
Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are
inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion
(Defreo et al. 2009).
Predation
The 1996 Atlantic Coast Recovery Plan summarized evidence that human activities affect types,
numbers, and activity patterns of some predators, thereby exacerbating natural predation on
breeding piping plovers. The impact of predation on migrating or wintering piping plovers
remains largely undocumented.
RECENED
OCM- MHO CIV

Recreational disturbance
Intense human disturbance in shorebird winter habitat can be functionally equivalent to habitat
loss if the disturbance prevents birds from using an area (Goss -Custard et al. 1996), which can
lead to roost abandonment and local population declines (Burton et al. 1996). Pfister et al.
(1992) implicate anthropogenic disturbance as a factor in the long-term decline of migrating
shorebirds at staging areas. Disturbance, i.e., beach driving, human and pet presence that alters
bird behavior, disrupts piping plovers as well as other shorebird species. Disturbance can cause
shorebirds to spend less time roosting or foraging and more time in alert postures or fleeing from
the disturbances (Johnson and Baldassarre 1988; Burger 1991; Burger 1994; Elliott and Teas
1996; Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Thomas et al. 2002), which limits the local abundance of piping
plovers (Zonick and Ryan 1995; Zonick 2000). Shorebirds that are repeatedly flushed in
response to disturbance expend energy on costly short flights (Nudds and Bryant 2000).
Shorebirds are more likely to flush from the presence of dogs than people, and birds react to dogs
from farther distances than people (Lafferty 2001a; 2001b; Thomas et al. 2002). Dogs off leash
are more likely to flush piping plovers from farther distances than are dogs on leash; nonetheless,
dogs both on and off leashes disturb piping plovers (Hoopes 1993). Pedestrians walking with
dogs often go through flocks of foraging and roosting shorebirds; some even encourage their
dogs to chase birds.
Beach driving and off -road vehicles can significantly degrade piping plover habitat (Wheeler
1979) or disrupt the birds' normal behavior patterns (Zonick 2000). The 1996 Atlantic Coast
recovery plan cites tire ruts crushing wrack into the sand, making it unavailable as cover or as
foraging substrate (Hoopes 1993; Goldin 1993). The plan also notes that the magnitude of the
threat from off -road vehicles is particularly significant, because vehicles extend impacts to
remote stretches of beach where human disturbance will otherwise be very slight. Godfrey et al.
(1980 as cited in Lamont et al. 1997) postulated that vehicular traffic along the beach may
compact the substrate and kill marine invertebrates that are food for the piping plover. Zonick
(2000) found that the density of off -road vehicles negatively correlated with abundance of
roosting piping plovers on the ocean beach. Cohen et al. (2008) found that radio -tagged piping
plovers using ocean beach habitat at Oregon Inlet in North Carolina were far less likely to use
the north side of the inlet where off -road vehicle use is allowed, and recommended controlled
management experiments to determine if recreational disturbance drives roost site selection.
Ninety-six percent of piping plover detections were on the south side of the inlet even though it
was farther away from foraging sites (1.8 km from the sound side foraging site to the north side
of the inlet versus 0.4 km from the sound side foraging site to the north side of the inlet; Cohen
et al. 2008).
RECEIVED
39 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Based on surveys with land managers and biologists, knowledge of local site conditions, and
other information, we have estimated the levels of eight types of disturbance at sites in the U.S.
with wintering piping plovers. There are few areas used by wintering piping plovers that are
devoid of human presence, and just under half have leashed and unleashed dog presence (Smith
2007; Lott et al. 2009b; Service unpubl. data 2009; Maddock and Bimbi unpubl. data). Table 5
summarizes the disturbance analysis results. Data are not available on human disturbance at
wintering sites in the Bahamas, other Caribbean countries, or Mexico.
Although the timing, frequency, and duration of human and dog presence throughout the
wintering range are unknown, studies in Alabama and South Carolina suggest that most
disturbances to piping plovers occurs during periods of warmer weather, which coincides with
piping plover migration (Johnson and Baldassarre 1988; Lott et al. 2009b; Maddock et al. 2009).
Smith (2007) documents varying disturbance levels throughout the nonbreeding season at
northwest Florida sites.
Table 5. Percent of known piping plover winter and migration habitat locations, by state, where
various types of anthropogenic disturbance have been reported.
Percent by State
Disturbance Type
AL
FL
GA
LA
MS
NC
SC
TX
Pedestrians
67
92
94
25
100
100
88
54
Dogs on leash
67
69
31
25
73
94
25
25
Dogs off leash
67
81
19
25
73
94
66
46
Bikes
0
19
63
25
0
0
28
19
ATVs
0
35
10
25
0
17
25
30
ORVs
0
21
0
25
0
50
31
38
Boats
33
65
100
100
0
78
63
44
Kite surfing
0
10
0
0
0
33
0
0
LeDee (2008) collected survey responses in 2007 from 35 managers (located in seven states) at
sites that were designated as critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. Ownership included
federal, state, and local governmental agencies and non -governmental organizations managing
national wildlife refuges; national, state, county, and municipal parks; state and estuarine
research reserves; state preserves; state wildlife management areas; and other types of managed
lands. Of 44 reporting sites, 40 allowed public beach access year-round and four sites were
closed to the public. Of the 40 sites that allow public access, 62% of site managers reported
>10,000 visitors during September -March, and 31 % reported > 100,000 visitors. Res use
lex l
40 AUG o a 2o�s
DCW MNp CITY

visitor activities on the beach included automobiles (at 8 1 % of sites), all -terrain vehicles (89%),
and dogs during the winter season (50%). Half of the survey respondents reported funding as a
primary limitation in managing piping plovers and other threatened and endangered species at
their sites. Other limitations included "human resource capacity" (24%), conflicting
management priorities (12%), and lack of research Q%).
Disturbance can be addressed by implementing recreational management techniques such as
vehicle and pet restrictions and symbolic fencing (usually sign posts and string) of roosting and
feeding habitats. In implementing conservation measures, managers need to consider a range of
site -specific factors, including the extent and quality of roosting and feeding habitats and the
types and intensity of recreational use patterns. In addition, educational materials such as
informational signs or brochures can provide valuable information so that the public understands
the need for conservation measures.
In sum, although there is some variability among states, disturbance from human beach
recreation and pets poses a moderate to high and escalating threat to migrating and wintering
piping plovers. Systematic review of recreation policy and beach management across the
nonbreeding range will assist in better understanding cumulative impacts. Site -specific analysis
and implementation of conservation measures should be a high priority at piping plover sites that
have moderate or high levels of disturbance and the Service and state wildlife agencies should
increase technical assistance to land managers to implement management strategies and monitor
their effectiveness.
Climate Change (sea -level rise)
Over the past 100 years, the globally -averaged sea level has risen approximately 10-25
centimeters (Rahmstorf et al. 2007), a rate that is an order of magnitude greater than that seen in
the past several thousand years (Douglas et al. 2001 as cited in Hopkinson et al. 2008). The
IPCC suggests that by 2080 sea -level rise could convert as much as 33% of the world's coastal
wetlands to open water (IPCC 2007). Although rapid changes in sea level are predicted,
estimated time frames and resulting water levels vary due to the uncertainty about global
temperature projections and the rate of ice sheets melting and slipping into the ocean (IPCC
2007; CCSP 2008).
Potential effects of sea -level rise on coastal beaches may vary regionally due to subsidence or
uplift as well as the geological character of the coast and nearshore (CCSP 2009; Galbraith et al.
2002). In the last century, for example, sea -level rise along the U.S. Gulf Coast exceeded the
global average, with averages as high as 0.32 inches per year, because those areas are subsiding
(USEPA 2014). Sediment compaction and oil and gas extraction compound tectonic subsidence
41 RECEIVED
AUG 08;2016
')CM- MHD CITY

(Penland and Ramsey 1990; Morton et al. 2003; Hopkinson et al. 2008). Low elevations and
proximity to the coast make all nonbreeding coastal piping plover foraging and roosting habitats
vulnerable to the effects of rising sea level. Sea -level rise was cited as a contributing factor in
the 68% decline in tidal flats and algal mats in the Corpus Christi area (i.e., Lamar Peninsula to
Encinal Peninsula) in Texas between the 1950s and 2004 (Tremblay et al. 2008). Mapping by
Titus and Richman (2001) showed that more than 80% of the lowest land along the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts was in Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina, where 73.5% of all wintering
piping plovers were tallied during the 2006 IPPC (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009).
Inundation of piping plover habitat by rising seas could lead to permanent loss of habitat if
natural coastal dynamics are impeded by numerous structures or roads, especially if those
shorelines are also armored. Without development or armoring, low undeveloped islands can
migrate toward the mainland, pushed by the overwashing of sand eroding from the seaward side
and being re -deposited in the bay (Scavia et al. 2002). Overwash and sand migration are
impeded on developed portions of islands. Instead, as sea -level increases, the ocean -facing
beach erodes and the resulting sand is deposited offshore. The buildings and the sand dunes then
prevent sand from washing back toward the lagoons, and the lagoon side becomes increasingly
submerged during extreme high tides (Scavia et al. 2002), diminishing both barrier beach
shorebird habitat and protection for mainland developments.
Modeling for three sea -level rise scenarios (reflecting variable projections of global temperature
rise) at five important U.S. shorebird staging and wintering sites predicted loss of 20-70% of
current intertidal foraging habitat (Galbraith et al. 2002). These authors estimated probabilistic
sea -level changes for specific sites partially based on historical rates of sea -level change (from
tide gauges at or near each site); they then superimposed this on projected 50% and 5%
probability of global sea -level changes by 2100 of 34 cm and 77 cm, respectively. The 50% and
5% probability sea level change projections were based on assumed global temperature increases
of 2° C (50% probability) and 4.7° C (5% probability). The most severe losses were projected at
sites where the coastline is unable to move inland due to steep topography or seawalls. The
Galbraith et al. (2002) Gulf Coast study site, Bolivar Flats, Texas, is a designated critical habitat
unit known to host high numbers of piping plovers during migration and throughout the winter;
e.g., 275 individuals were tallied during the 2006 IPPC (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). Under the
50% likelihood scenario for sea -level rise, Galbraith et al. (2002) projected approximately 38%
loss of intertidal flats at Bolivar Flats by 2050; however, after initially losing habitat, the area of
tidal flat habitat was predicted to slightly increase by the year 2100, because Bolivar Flats lacks
armoring, and the coastline at this site can thus migrate inland. Although habitat losses in some
areas are likely to be offset by gains in other locations, Galbraith et al. (2002) noted that time
lags may exert serious adverse effects on shorebird populations. Furthermore, even if piping
RECEIVED
42
AUG 0 8 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

plovers are able to move their wintering locations in response to accelerated habitat changes,
there could be adverse effects on the birds' survival rates or reproductive fitness.
Table 6 displays the potential for adjacent development and/or hardened shorelines to impede
response of habitat to sea -level rise in the eight states supporting wintering piping plovers.
Although complete linear shoreline estimates are not readily obtainable, almost all known piping
plover wintering sites in the U.S. were surveyed during the 2006 IPPC. To estimate effects at the
census sites, as well as additional areas where piping plovers have been found outside of the
census period, Service biologists reviewed satellite imagery and spoke with other biologists
familiar with the sites. Of 406 sites, 204 (50%) have adjacent structures that may prevent the
creation of new habitat if existing habitat were to become inundated. These threats will be
perpetuated in places where damaged structures are repaired and replaced, and exacerbated
where the height and strength of structures are increased. Data do not exist on the amount or
types of hardened structures at wintering sites in the Bahamas, other Caribbean countries, or
Mexico.
Table 6. Number of sites surveyed during the 2006 winter IPPC with hardened or developed
structures adjacent to the shoreline.
State
Number of sites
surveyed during the
2006 winter Census
Number of sites with
some armoring or
development
Percent of sites
affected
North Carolina
37 (+2)*
20
51
South Carolina
39
18
46
Georgia
13
2
15
Florida
188
114
61
Alabama
4 (+2)*
3
50
Mississippi
16
7
144
Louisiana
25 (+2)*
9
33
Texas
78
31
40
Overall Total
406
204
50
An asterisk (*) indicates additional piping plovers sites not surveyed in the 2006 Census.
Sea -level rise poses a significant threat to all piping plover populations during the migration and
wintering portion of their life cycle. Ongoing coastal stabilization activities may strongly
influence the effects of sea -level rise on piping plover habitat. Improved understanding of how
sea -level rise will affect the quality and quantity of habitat for migrating and wintering piping
plovers is an urgent need.
RECEIVED
43 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Storm events
Although coastal piping plover habitats are storm -created and maintained, the 1996 Atlantic
Coast Recovery Plan also noted that storms and severe cold weather may take a toll on piping
plovers, and the 2003 Great Lakes Recovery Plan postulated that loss of habitats such as
overwash passes or wrack, where birds shelter during harsh weather, poses a threat.
Storms are a component of the natural processes that form coastal habitats used by migrating and
wintering piping plovers, and positive effects of storm -induced overwash and vegetation removal
have been noted in portions of the wintering range. For example, Gulf Islands National Seashore
habitats in Florida benefited from increased washover events that created optimal habitat
conditions during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, with biologists reporting piping plover
use of these habitats within six months of the storms (Nicholas 2005 pers. communication).
Hurricane Katrina (2005) overwashed the mainland beaches of Mississippi, creating many tidal
flats where piping plovers were subsequently observed (Winstead 2008). Hurricane Katrina also
created a new inlet and improved habitat conditions on some areas of Dauphin Island, Alabama
(LeBlanc 2009 pers. communication). Conversely, localized storms, since Katrina, have induced
habitat losses on Dauphin Island (LeBlanc 2009 pers. communication).
Noel and Chandler (2005) suspect that changes in habitat caused by multiple hurricanes along
the Georgia coastline altered the spatial distribution of piping plovers and may have contributed
to winter mortality of three Great Lakes piping plovers. Following Hurricane Ike in 2008, Arvin
(2009) reported decreased numbers of piping plovers at some heavily eroded Texas beaches in
the center of the storm impact area and increases in plover numbers at sites about 100 mi to the
southwest. However, piping plovers were observed later in the season using tidal lagoons and
pools that Ike created behind the eroded beaches (Arvin 2009).
The adverse effects on piping plovers attributed to storms are sometimes due to a combination of
storms and other environmental changes or human use patterns. For example, four hurricanes
between 2002 and 2005 are often cited in reference to rapid erosion of the Chandeleur Islands, a
chain of low-lying islands in Louisiana where the 1991 IPPC tallied more than 350 piping
plovers. Comparison of imagery taken three years before and several days after Hurricane
Katrina found that the Chandeleur Islands lost 82% of their surface area (Sallenger et al. 2009
unpublished), and a review of aerial photography prior to the 2006 Census suggested little piping
plover habitat remained (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). However, Sallenger et al. (2009
unpublished) noted that habitat changes in the Chandeleurs stem not only from the effects of
these storms but rather from the combined effects of the storms, long-term (>1,000 years)
diminishing sand supply, and sea -level rise relative to the land.
AUG 0 g Z016
44
DCM- MHD
CITY

Other storm -induced adverse effects include post -storm acceleration of human activities such as
beach nourishment, sand scraping, and berm and seawall construction. Such stabilization
activities can result in the loss and degradation of feeding and resting habitats. Storms also can
cause widespread deposition of debris along beaches. Removal of debris often requires large
machinery, which can cause extensive disturbance and adversely affect habitat elements such as
wrack. Another example of indirect adverse effects linked to a storm event is the increased
access to Pelican Island (LeBlanc 2009 pers. communication) due to merging with Dauphin
Island following a 2007 storm (Gibson et al. 2009).
In sum, storms can create or enhance piping plover habitat while causing localized losses
elsewhere in the wintering and migration range. Available information suggests that some birds
may have resiliency to storms and move to unaffected areas without harm, while other reports
suggest birds may perish from storm events. Significant concerns include disturbance to piping
plovers and habitats during cleanup of debris, and post -storm acceleration of shoreline
stabilization activities, which can cause persistent habitat degradation and loss.
Summary of Threats
Habitat loss and degradation on winter and migration grounds from shoreline and inlet
stabilization efforts, both within and outside of designated critical habitat, remain a serious threat
to all piping plover populations. Modeling strongly suggests that the population viability is very
sensitive to adult and juvenile survival. Therefore, while there is a great deal of effort extended
to improve breeding success, to improve and maintain a higher population over time, it is also
necessary to ensure that the wintering habitat, where birds spend most of their time, is secure.
On the wintering grounds, the shoreline areas used by wintering piping plovers are being
developed, stabilized, or otherwise altered, making it unsuitable. Even in areas where habitat
conditions are appropriate, human disturbance on beaches may negatively impact piping plovers'
energy budget, as they may spend more time being vigilant and less time in foraging and
roosting behavior. In many cases, the disturbance is severe enough, that piping plovers appear to
avoid some areas altogether. Threats on the wintering grounds may impact piping plovers'
breeding success if they start migration or arrive at the breeding grounds with a poor body
condition.
RECEIVED
45 AUG 0 S 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Table 7 lists biological opinions since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that
have been issued for adverse impacts to piping plovers.
HABITAT
OPINIONS
Critical Habitat
Habitat
Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO
n/a
12,600 if
(2.4 mi)
Fiscal Year 2015: 5 BOs
Approx. 33.49 acre,
70,268 If
or 2,2001f
(13.3 mi)
Fiscal Year2016 (to date): 4 B
Approx. 6,000 ]f
178,519 IfOs
(33.8 mi)
Total: 10 BOs
Approx. 33.49 ac or
261,387 if
approx. 8,200 If
(49.5 mi)
5) Analysis of the species likely to be affected
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect wintering and migrating piping plovers
and their habitat from all breeding populations, and breeding piping plovers from the Atlantic
Coast breeding population using the Action Area. The Atlantic Coast and northern Great Plains
breeding populations of piping plover are listed as threatened, while the Great Lakes breeding
population is listed as endangered. All wintering populations of piping plover are listed as
threatened. Potential effects to piping plover include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat
in the Action Area and attraction of predators due to food waste from the construction crew.
Plovers face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are present year-round on the
wintering and nesting grounds. Proposed impacts to the shoreline may also result in loss or
degradation of suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover.
B. Environmental Baseline
North Carolina barrier beaches are part of a complex and dynamic coastal system that q
continually respond to inlets, tides, waves, erosion and deposition, longshore sediment tramp ��
46
O G\�
N
00M, M

and depletion, fluctuations in sea level, and weather events. The location and shape of the
coastline perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Winds move sediment across the dry
beach forming dunes and the island interior landscape. The natural communities contain plants
and animals that are subject to shoreline erosion and deposition, salt spray, wind, drought
conditions, and sandy soils. Vegetative communities include foredunes, primary and secondary
dunes, interdunal swales, sand pine scrub, and maritime forests.
During storm events, overwash across the barrier islands is common, depositing sediments on the
bayside, clearing vegetation and increasing the amount of open, sandflat habitat ideal for
shoreline dependent shorebirds. However, the protection or persistence of these important
natural land forms, processes, and wildlife resources is often in conflict with long-term beach
stabilization projects and their indirect effects, i.e., increases in residential development,
infrastructure, and public recreational uses, and preclusion of overwash which limits the creation
of open sand flats preferred by piping plovers.
1) Status of the species within the Action Area
In North Carolina, piping plovers may be observed during every month of the year. Nesting
pairs are most likely to be seen on Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores, where
up to 97% of the breeding individuals and breeding pairs have been recorded each year.
Between 2009 and 2015, piping plovers have been documented on Ocean Isle Beach during the
migration and breeding season (www.ncpaws. org, accessed May 26, 2016). Please see Table
8 for data from the NCWRC database. One wintering piping plover was observed on Ocean Isle
in February, 2011.
Table 8. Breeding piping plover observations on Ocean Isle
Year
Ocean Isle
2015
1
2014
1
2013
NR
2012
NR
2011
9 (March)
2010
NR
2009
2
NR = not reported
47
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

2) Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area
A number of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action
Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along
the coastline for the near future.
Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from public access points, beachfront, and nearby
residences.
Sand nourishment: The beaches of Ocean Isle are regularly nourished with sand from Shallotte
Inlet. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter
coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas.
Inlet dredging activities alter the sediment dynamics on adjacent shorelines and stabilize these
dynamic environments; beach disposal of dredge material further alters the natural habitat
adjacent to inlets. Estuarine dredging of navigational channels can alter water circulation
patterns and sediment transport pathways, as well as increase the frequency and magnitude of
boat wakes; sound -side sand or mud flats may be impacted by increased erosion rates as a result.
Beach scraping or bulldozing can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune
gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of
beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches
up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and
maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach
scraping or bulldozing has been frequent on North Carolina beaches in recent years, in response
to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities
primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been
constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function
like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash.
Sandbags and revetments are vertical structures built parallel to the beach in front of buildings,
roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However, these structures often
accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the structure (Hayes and
Michel 2008), which can eliminate piping plover habitat. Geotubes (long cylindrical bags made
of high -strength permeable fabric and filled with sand) and sandbag revetments are softer
alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. There are two existing rock revetments
along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 If), and another along
Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). A 430 If sandbag revetment already exists in the
48 G
or'M^ M

project area. A sandbag revetment at least 1,800 if long (with a geotube in front of a portion)
was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags were
recently added to protect a parking lot downdrift of the revetment.
C. Effects of the Action
This section is an analysis of the beneficial, direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on
migrating, wintering, and breeding piping plovers within the Action Area. The analysis includes
effects interrelated and interdependent of the project activities. An interrelated activity is an
activity that is part of a proposed action and depends on the proposed activity. An
interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action.
1) Factors to be considered
The proposed project will occur within habitat used by migrating and wintering piping plovers
and construction will occur during a portion of the migration and winter seasons. Long-term and
permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat. Short-term and temporary
impacts to piping plovers could result from project work disturbing roosting plovers and loss of
currently occupied foraging areas.
Proximity of the action: Construction of the revetment would occur within and adjacent to
foraging and roosting breeding habitats for migrating or wintering piping plovers.
Distribution: Project construction activities that may impact migrants and the wintering
population of piping plovers would occur along the western end of Ocean Isle Beach and in
Tubbs Inlet.
Timing: The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating and
wintering piping plovers. Piping plovers and red knots may be present year-round in the Action
Area; however, the timing of sandbag revetment construction activities will likely occur during
the migration and wintering period (July to May).
Nature of the a ect: The effects of the project construction include a permanent loss of foraging
and resting habitat, and a long-term decreased rate of change that may preclude habitat creation.
A decrease in the survival of piping plovers on the migration and winter grounds due to the lack
of optimal habitat may contribute to decreased survival rates, decreased productivity on the
breeding grounds, and increased vulnerability to the three populations.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
49 DCM- MHD CITY

Duration: Sandbag revetment construction will be a one-time activity. However, the effects of
covering suitable foraging and roosting habitat will be long-term, for the life of the sandbag
revetment. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact migrating, wintering, and
breeding plovers in subsequent seasons. The habitat will be unavailable to wintering plovers
during the construction period, and for several years after. The mean linear distance moved by
wintering plovers from their core area is estimated to be approximately 2.1 mi (Drake et al.
2001), suggesting they could be negatively impacted by temporary disturbances anywhere in
their core habitat area. Erosion and loss of habitat down -drift of the revetment may increase after
project completion and have long term -impacts.
Disturbance frequency: Disturbance from sandbag revetment construction activities will occur
once.
Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during
portions of the piping plover migration and wintering seasons. The Action Area encompasses an
area in the nesting and wintering range of the piping plover; however, the overall intensity of the
disturbance is expected to be minimal. The severity of direct impacts is likely to be slight, as
plovers located within the Action Area are expected to move outside of the construction zone
due to disturbance; therefore, no plovers are expected to be directly taken as a result of this
action.
2) Analyses for effects of the action
Beneficial effects: There are no beneficial effects expected for piping plover from the proposed
action.
Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or
its habitat. The construction window will extend through one or more piping plover migration
and winter seasons. Since piping plovers can be present on these beaches year-round,
construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated
habitats. Heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., trucks and bulldozers operating on Action Area
beaches, the placement of the sandbag revetment along the beach, and dredging) may adversely
affect piping plovers in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of normal activities such
as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek
available habitat elsewhere.
50

Dredging of sand can occasionally result in the removal of emergent shoals. In these cases, the
dredging activities would result in a complete take of that habitat. However, this take could be
either temporary or more permanent in nature depending upon the location of future shoaling
within the inlet.
Indirect effects: The proposed project includes dredging and sandbag revetment installation
along approximately 4681f of shoreline to protect man-made infrastructure. Indirect effects
include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal foraging, roosting, and nesting
habitat, and erosion and loss of habitat downdrift of the revetment.
3) Species' response to a proposed action
The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting
proximity to roosting and foraging habitat. Disturbance also reduces the time migrating
shorebirds spend foraging (Burger 1991). Pfister et al. (1992) implicate disturbance as a factor
in the long-term decline of migrating shorebirds at staging areas. While piping plover migration
patterns and needs remain poorly understood and occupancy of a particular habitat may involve
shorter periods relative to wintering, information about the energetics of avian migration
indicates that this might be a particularly critical time in the species' life cycle.
D. Cumulative Effects
This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of future State,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered
in this biological opinion. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization and beach
renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would
impact the existing beachfront development.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
51 DCM- MHD CITY

IV. RED KNOT
A. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat
1) Species/critical habitat description
On December 11, 2014, the Service listed the rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) (or red knot)
as threatened throughout its range (79 FR 73706). The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird
about 9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters (cm)) in length. The red knot migrates annually
between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the
Southeast U.S. (Southeast), the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego
at the southern tip of South America. During both the northbound (spring) and southbound (fall)
migrations, red knots use key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed. Red knots migrate
through and overwinter in North Carolina. The term "winter" is used to refer to the nonbreeding
period of the red knot life cycle when the birds are not undertaking migratory movements. Red
knots are most common in North Carolina during the migration season (mid -April through May
and July to Mid -October), and may be present in the state throughout the year (Fussell 1994;
Potter et al. 1980). Wintering areas for the red knot include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and
Chile, the north coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of
Tamaulipas through Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast U.S. from Florida to North Carolina
(Newstead et al. 2013; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers of knots winter in the Caribbean, and
along the central Gulf coast, the mid -Atlantic, and the Northeast U.S. Little information exists on
where juvenile red knots spend the winter months (USFWS and Conserve Wildlife Foundation
2012), and there may be at least partial segregation of juvenile and adult red knots on the
wintering grounds. There is no designation of critical habitat for red knot.
2) Life history
Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom,
traveling up to 19,000 mi (30,000 km) annually between breeding grounds in the Arctic Circle
and wintering grounds. Red knots undertake long flights that may span thousands of miles
without stopping. As they prepare to depart on long migratory flights, they undergo several
physiological changes. Before takeoff, the birds accumulate and store large amounts of fat to fuel
migration and undergo substantial changes in metabolic rates. In addition, leg muscles, gizzard (a
muscular organ used for grinding food), stomach, intestines, and liver all decrease in size, while
pectoral (chest) muscles and heart increase in size. Due to these physiological changes, red knots
arriving from lengthy migrations are not able to feed maximally until their digestive systems
regenerate, a process that may take several days. Because stopovers are time -constrained, red /,Q
knots require stopovers rich in easily -digested food to achieve adequate weight gain (Niles eto4 6
G�
52 �!v J%
R
4 1
4i

2008; van Gils et al. 2005a; van Gils et al. 2005b; Piersma et al. 1999) that fuels the next
migratory flight and, upon arrival in the Arctic, fuels a body transformation to breeding condition
(Morrison 2006). Red knots from different wintering areas appear to employ different migration
strategies, including differences in timing, routes, and stopover areas. However, full segregation
of migration strategies, routes, or stopover areas does not occur among red knots from different
wintering areas.
Major spring stopover areas along the Mid- and South Atlantic coast include Rio Gallegos,
Peninsula Valdds, and San Antonio Oeste (Patagonia, Argentina); Lagoa do Peixe (eastern
Brazil, State of Rio Grande do Sul); Maranhao (northern Brazil); the Virginia barrier islands
(U.S.); and Delaware Bay (Delaware and New Jersey, U.S.) (Cohen et al. 2009; Niles et al. 2008;
Gonzalez 2005). Important fall stopover sites include southwest Hudson Bay (including the
Nelson River delta), James Bay, the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, the Mingan
Archipelago, and the Bay of Fundy in Canada; the coasts of Massachusetts and New Jersey and
the mouth of the Altamaha River in Georgia, U.S.; the Caribbean (especially Puerto Rico and the
Lesser Antilles); and the northern coast of South America from Brazil to Guyana (Newstead et
al. 2013; Niles 2012; Niles et al. 2010; Schneider and Winn 2010; Niles et al. 2008; Antas and
Nascimento 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992; Spaans 1978). However, large and small
groups of red knots, sometimes numbering in the thousands, may occur in suitable habitats all
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Argentina to Canada during migration (Niles et al.
2008).
Some red knots wintering in the Southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean migrate north along the
U.S. Atlantic coast before flying overland to central Canada from the mid -Atlantic, while others
migrate overland directly to the Arctic from the Southeastern U.S. coast (Niles et al. 2012).
These eastern red knots typically make a short stop at James Bay in Canada, but may also stop
briefly along the Great Lakes, perhaps in response to weather conditions (Niles et al. 2008;
Morrison and Harrington 1992). Red knots are restricted to the ocean coasts during winter, and
occur primarily along the coasts during migration. However, small numbers of rufa red knots are
reported annually across the interior U.S. (i.e., greater than 25 mi from the Gulf or Atlantic
Coasts) during spring and fall migration —these reported sightings are concentrated along the
Great Lakes, but multiple reports have been made from nearly every interior State (eBird.org
2012).
Long-distance migrant shorebirds are highly dependent on the continued existence of quality
habitat at a few key staging areas. These areas serve as stepping stones between wintering and
breeding areas. Conditions or factors influencing shorebird populations on staging areas control
much of the remainder of the annual cycle and survival of the birds (Skagen 2006; International
Wader Study Group 2003). At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire
RECEIVED
53
AUG 08 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

populations may use a single migration staging site to prepare for long flights. Red knots show
some fidelity to particular migration staging areas between years (Duerr et al. 2011; Harrington
2001).
Habitats used by red knots in migration and wintering areas are similar in character, generally
coastal marine and estuarine (partially enclosed tidal area where fresh and salt water mixes)
habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments. In North America, red knots are
commonly found along sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, shallow
coastal impoundments and lagoons, and peat banks (Cohen et al. 2010; Cohen et al. 2009; Niles
et al. 2008; Harrington 2001; Truitt et al. 2001). The supra -tidal (above the high tide) sandy
habitats of inlets provide important areas for roosting, especially at higher tides when intertidal
habitats are inundated (Harrington 2008).
The red knot is a specialized molluscivore, eating hard -shelled mollusks, sometimes
supplemented with easily accessed softer invertebrate prey, such as shrimp- and crab -like
organisms, marine worms, and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs (Piersma and van Gils
2011; Harrington 2001). Mollusk prey are swallowed whole and crushed in the gizzard (Piersma
and van Gils 2011). Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal conditions, as red knots rarely
wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) deep (Harrington 2001). Due to bill
morphology, the red knot is limited to foraging on only shallow -buried prey, within the top 0.8 to
1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Gerasimov 2009; Zwarts and Blomert 1992).
The primary prey of the rufa red knot in non -breeding habitats include blue mussel (Mytilus
edulis) spat (juveniles); Donax and Darina clams; snails (Littorina spp.), and other mollusks,
with polychaete worms, insect larvae, and crustaceans also eaten in some locations. A prominent
departure from typical prey items occurs each spring when red knots feed on the eggs of
horseshoe crabs, particularly during the key migration stopover within the Delaware Bay of New
Jersey and Delaware. Delaware Bay serves as the principal spring migration staging area for the
red knot because of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs (Clark et al. 2009; Harrington 2001;
Harrington 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992), which provide a superabundant source of
easily digestible food.
Red knots and other shorebirds that are long-distance migrants must take advantage of seasonally
abundant food resources at intermediate stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next non-stop,
long-distance flight (Clark et al. 1993). Although foraging red knots can be found widely
distributed in small numbers within suitable habitats during the migration period, birds tend to
concentrate in those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available from yeaao
year. ••`� A�
V� C' CGS
54

3) Population dynamics
In the U.S., red knot populations declined sharply in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to
excessive sport and market hunting, followed by hunting restrictions and signs of population
recovery by the mid-1900s (Umer and Storer 1949; Stone 1937; Bent 1927). However, it is
unclear whether the red knot population fully recovered to its historical numbers (Harrington
2001) following the period of unregulated hunting. More recently, long-term survey data from
two key areas (Tierra del Fuego wintering area and Delaware Bay spring stopover site) both
show a roughly 75 percent decline in red knot numbers since the 1980s (Dey et al. 2011; Clark et
al. 2009; Morrison et al. 2004; Morrison and Ross 1989; Kochenberger 1983; Dunne et al. 1982;
Wander and Dunne, 1982).
For many portions of the knot's range, available survey data are patchy. Prior to the 1980s,
numerous natural history accounts are available, but provide mainly qualitative or localized
population estimates. No population information exists for the breeding range because, in
breeding habitats, red knots are thinly distributed across a huge and remote area of the Arctic.
Despite some localized survey efforts, (e.g., Niles et al. 2008), there are no regional or
comprehensive estimates of breeding abundance, density, or productivity (Niles et al. 2008).
Counts in wintering areas are useful in estimating red knot populations and trends because the
birds generally remain within a given wintering area for a longer period of time compared to the
areas used during migration. This eliminates errors associated with turnover or double -counting
that can occur during migration counts. Harrington et al. (1988) reported that the mean count of
birds wintering in Florida was 6,300 birds (t 3,400, one standard deviation) based on 4 aerial
surveys conducted from October to January in 1980 to 1982. Based on these surveys and other
work, the Southeast wintering group was estimated at roughly 10,000 birds in the 1970s and
1980s (Harrington 2005a).
Based on resightings of birds banded in South Carolina and Georgia from 1999 to 2002, the
Southeast wintering population was estimated at 11,700 t 1,000 (standard error) red knots.
Although there appears to have been a gradual shift by some of the southeastern knots from the
Florida Gulf coast to the Atlantic coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, population estimates for
the Southeast region in the 2000s were at about the same level as during the 1980s (Harrington
2005a). Based on recent modeling using resightings of marked birds staging in Georgia in fall,
as well as other evidence, the Southeast wintering group may number as high as 20,000 (B.
Harrington pers. comm. November 12, 2012), but field survey data are not available to
corroborate this estimate.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
55
DCM- MHD CITY

Beginning in 2006, coordinated red knot surveys have been conducted from Florida to Delaware
Bay during 2 consecutive days from May 20 to 24 (Table 9). This period is thought to represent
the peak of the red knot migration. There has been variability in methods, observers, and areas
covered. From 2006 to 2010, there was no change in counts that could not be attributed to
varying geographic survey coverage (Dey et al. 2011); thus, we do not consider any apparent
trends in these data before 2010.
Table 9. Red knot counts along the Atlantic coast of the U.S., May 20 to 24, 2006 to 2012
(A. Dey pers. comm. October 12, 2012; Dey et al. 2011).
,SfaW.�`
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
New Jersey
7,860
4,445
10,045
16,229
8,945
7,737
23,525
Delaware
820
2,950
5,350
5,530
5,067
3,433
Maryland
nr
nr
663
78
5
83
139
Virginia
5,783
5,939
7,802
3,261
8,214
6,236
8,482
North
Carolina
235
304
1,137
1,466
1,113
1,868
2,832
South
Carolina
nr
125
180
10
1,220
315
542
Georgia
796
2,155
1,487
nr
260
3,071
1,466
Florida
nr
nr
868
800
41
nr
10
Total
15,494
15,918
27,532
21,844
25,328
24,377
40,429
nr = not reported
Because red knot numbers peak earlier in the Southeast than in the mid -Atlantic (M. Bimbi pers.
comm. June 27, 2013), the late -May coast -wide survey data likely reflect the movement of some
birds north along the coast, and may miss other birds that depart for Canada from the Southeast
along an interior (overland) route prior to the survey window. Thus, greater numbers of red
knots may utilize Southeastern stopovers than suggested by the data in Table 9. For example, a
peak count of over 8,000 red knots was documented in South Carolina during spring 2012 (South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2012). Dinsmore et al. (1998) found a mean of 1,363
(±725) red knots in North Carolina during spring 1992 and 1993, with a peak count of 2,764
birds.
6TI

4) Status and distribution
Reason for listing: The Service has determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of
both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the
breeding grounds; reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing
frequency and severity of asynchronies ("mismatches") in the timing of the birds' annual
migratory cycle relative to favorable food and weather conditions.
Range -Wide Trends:
Wintering areas for the red knot include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north
coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through
Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast U.S. from Florida to North Carolina (Newstead et al.
2013; L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers of knots
winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast (Alabama, Mississippi), the mid -
Atlantic, and the Northeast U.S. Calidris canutus is also known to winter in Central America
and northwest South America, but it is not yet clear if all these birds are the rufa subspecies.
In some years, more red knots have been counted during a coordinated spring migration survey
than can be accounted for at known wintering sites, suggesting there are unknown wintering
areas. Indeed, geolocators have started revealing previously little-known wintering areas,
particularly in the Caribbean (Niles et al. 2012; L. Niles pers. comm. January 8, 2013).
The core of the Southeast wintering area (i.e., that portion of this large region supporting the
majority of birds) is thought to shift from year to year among Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina (Niles et al. 2008). However, the geographic limits of this wintering region are poorly
defined. Although only small numbers are known, wintering knots extend along the Atlantic
coast as far north as Virginia (L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2006),
Maryland (Burger et al. 2012), and New Jersey (BandedBirds.org 2012; H. Hanlon pers. comm.
November 22, 2012; A. Dey pers. comm. November 19, 2012). Still smaller numbers of red
knots have been reported between December and February from Long Island, New York,
through Massachusetts and as far north as Nova Scotia, Canada (eBird.org 2012).
Recovery Criteria
A Recovery Plan for the red knot has not yet been completed. It will be developed, pursuant to
Subsection 4(f) of the ESA, in the near future.
57 AUG 0 b f016
DCM- MHD CITY

Threats to the Red Knot
Within the nonbreeding portion of the range, red knot habitat is primarily threatened by the
highly interrelated effects of sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, and coastal development.
Lesser threats to nonbreeding habitat include agriculture and aquaculture, invasive vegetation,
and beach maintenance activities. Within the breeding portion of the range, the primary threat to
red knot habitat is from climate change. With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the
breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps
contract. Arctic freshwater systems —foraging areas for red knots during the nesting season —
are particularly sensitive to climate change. For more information, please see the proposed and
final rules and supplemental documents on the Internet at httpJ/www.regulations.gov (Docket
Number FWS—R5—ES-2013—W97).
Climate Change & Sea Level Rise
The natural history of Arctic -breeding shorebirds makes this group of species particularly
vulnerable to global climate change (Meltofte et al. 2007; Piersma and Lindstrom 2004; Rehfisch
and Crick 2003; Piersma and Baker 2000; ZSckler and Lysenko 2000; Lindstrom and Agrell
1999). Relatively low genetic diversity, which is thought to be a consequence of survival
through past climate -driven population bottlenecks, may put shorebirds at more risk from
human -induced climate variation than other avian taxa (Meltofte et al. 2007); low genetic
diversity may result in reduced adaptive capacity as well as increased risks when population
sizes drop to low levels.
In the short term, red knots may benefit if warmer temperatures result in fewer years of delayed
horseshoe crab spawning in Delaware Bay (Smith and Michaels 2006) or fewer occurrences of
late snow melt in the breeding grounds (Meltofte et al. 2007). However, there are indications
that changes in the abundance and quality of red knot prey are already underway (Escudero et al.
2012; Jones et al. 2010), and prey species face ongoing climate -related threats from warmer
temperatures (Jones et al. 2010; Philippart et al. 2003; Rehfrsch and Crick 2003), ocean
acidification (NRC 2010; Fabry et al. 2008), and possibly increased prevalence of disease and
parasites (Ward and Lafferty 2004). In addition, red knots face imminent threats from loss of
habitat caused by sea level rise (NRC 2010; Galbraith et al. 2002; Titus 1990), and increasing
asynchronies ("mismatches") between the timing of their annual breeding, migration, and
wintering cycles and the windows of peak food availability on which the birds depend (Smith et
al. 2011; McGowan et al. 2011; Meltofte et al. 2007; van Gils et al. 2005a; Baker et al. 2004).P
� '= 0
With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the red knot's breeding grounds are expected toh' %
change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract, but this process rrr
Off'
Om

take decades to unfold (Feng et al. 2012; Meltofte et al. 2007; Kaplan et al. 2003). Ecological
shifts in the Arctic may appear sooner. High uncertainty exists about when and how changing
interactions among vegetation, predators, competitors, prey, parasites, and pathogens may affect
the red knot, but the impacts are potentially profound (Fraser et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2012;
Meltofte et al. 2007; Ims and Fuglei 2005).
For most of the year, red knots live in or immediately adjacent to intertidal areas. These habitats
are naturally dynamic, as shorelines are continually reshaped by tides, currents, wind, and
storms. Coastal habitats are susceptible to both abrupt (storm -related) and long-term (sea level
rise) changes. Outside of the breeding grounds, red knots rely entirely on these coastal areas to
fulfill their roosting and foraging needs, making the birds vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss
from rising sea levels. Because conditions in coastal habitats are also critical for building up
nutrient and energy stores for the long migration to the breeding grounds, sea level rise affecting
conditions on staging areas also has the potential to impact the red knot's ability to breed
successfully in the Arctic (Meltofte et al. 2007).
According to the NRC (2010), the rate of global sea level rise has increased from about 0.02 in
(0.6 mm) per year in the late 19a' century to approximately 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year in the last
half of the 20th century. The rate of increase has accelerated, and over the past 15 years has been
in excess of 0.12 in (3 mm) per year. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that sea level would "likely"
rise by an additional 0.6 to 1.9 ft (0.18 to 0.59 meters (m)) by 2100 (NRC 2010). This projection
was based largely on the observed rates of change in ice sheets and projected future thermal
expansion of the oceans but did not include the possibility of changes in ice sheet dynamics (e.g.,
rates and patterns of ice sheet growth versus loss). Scientists are working to improve how ice
dynamics can be resolved in climate models. Recent research suggests that sea levels could
potentially rise another 2.5 to 6.5 ft (0.8 to 2 m) by 2100, which is several times larger than the
2007 IPCC estimates (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). However, projected rates of sea level rise
estimates remain rather uncertain, due mainly to limits in scientific understanding of glacier and
ice sheet dynamics (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). The amount of sea level change varies
regionally because of different rates of settling (subsidence) or uplift of the land, and because of
differences in ocean circulation (NRC 2010). In the last century, for example, sea level rise along
the U.S. mid- Atlantic and Gulf coasts exceeded the global average by 5 to 6 in (13 to 15, cm)
because coastal lands in these areas are subsiding (USEPA 2013). Land subsidence also occurs
in some areas of the Northeast, at current rates of 0.02 to 0.04 in (0.5 to 1 mm) per year across
this region (Ashton et al. 2007), primarily the result of slow, natural geologic processes (NOAA
2013). Due to regional differences, a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise in global sea level by the end of this
century would result in a relative sea level rise of 2.3 ft (0.7 m) at New York City, 2.9 ft (0.9 m)
at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) at Galveston, Texas (U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) 2009). Table 10 shows that local rates of sea 1�9the
59 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

range of the red knot over the second half of the 20th century were generally higher than the
global rate of 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year.
Table 10. Local sea level trends from within the range of the red knot (NOAA 2012)
Station
Mean Local Sea Level Trend
(min per year)
Data Period
Pointe-Au-P6re, Canada
-0.36 ± 0.40
1900-1983
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
2.61 ±0.20
1932-2006
Cape May, New Jersey
4.06 ± 0.74
1965-2006
Lewes, Delaware
3.20 ± 0.28
1919-2006
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Virginia
6.05 ± 1.14
1975-2006
Beaufort, North Carolina
2.57 ± 0.44
1953-2006
Clearwater Beach, Florida
2.43 ± 0.80
1973-2006
Padre Island, Texas
3.48 ± 0.75
1958-2006
Punto Deseado, Argentina
-0.06 ± 1.93
1970-2002
Data from along the U.S. Atlantic coast suggest a relationship between rates of sea level rise and
long-term erosion rates; thus, long-term coastal erosion rates may increase as sea level rises
(Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010). However, even if such a correlation is borne out,
predicting the effect of sea level rise on beaches is more complex. Even if wetland or upland
coastal lands are lost, sandy or muddy intertidal habitats can often migrate or reform. However,
forecasting how such changes may unfold is complex and uncertain. Potential effects of sea level
rise on beaches vary regionally due to subsidence or uplift of the land, as well as the geological
character of the coast and nearshore (U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2009b;
Galbraith et al. 2002). Precisely forecasting the effects of sea level rise on particular coastal
habitats will require integration of diverse information on local rates of sea level rise, tidal
ranges, subsurface and coastal topography, sediment accretion rates, coastal processes, and other
factors that is beyond the capability of current models (CCSP 2009b; Frumhoff et al. 2007;
Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999).
Because the majority of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts consist of sandy shores, inundation alone is
unlikely to reflect the potential consequences of sea level rise. Instead, long-term shoreline
changes will involve contributions from inundation and erosion, as well as changes to other
coastal environments such as wetland losses. Most portions of the open coast of the U.S. will be
subject to significant physical changes and erosion over the next century because the majority of
coastlines consist of sandy beaches, which are highly mobile and in a state of continual chtVD
(CCSP 2009b). G- J�j
60
� G
�P
O

By altering coastal geomorphology, sea level rise will cause significant and often dramatic
changes to coastal landforms including barrier islands, beaches, and intertidal flats (CCSP
2009b; Rehfisch and Crick 2003), primary red knot habitats. Due to increasing sea levels, storm -
surge -driven floods now qualifying as 100-year events are projected to occur as often as every 10
to 20 years along most of the U.S. Atlantic coast by 2050, with even higher frequencies of such
large floods in certain localized areas (Tebaldi et al. 2012). Rising sea level not only increases
the likelihood of coastal flooding, but also changes the template for waves and tides to sculpt the
coast, which can lead to loss of land orders of magnitude greater than that from direct inundation
alone (Ashton et al. 2007).
Red knot migration and wintering habitats in the U.S. generally consist of sandy beaches that are
dynamic and subject to seasonal erosion and accretion. Sea level rise and shoreline erosion have
reduced availability of intertidal habitat used for red knot foraging, and in some areas, roosting
sites have also been affected (Niles et al. 2008). With moderately rising sea levels, red knot
habitats in many portions of the U.S. would be expected to migrate or reform rather than be lost,
except where they are constrained by coastal development or shoreline stabilization (Titus et al.
2009). However, if the sea rises more rapidly than the rate with which a particular coastal system
can keep pace, it could fundamentally change the state of the coast (CCSP 2009b).
Climate change is also resulting in asynchronies during the annual cycle of the red knot. The
successful annual migration and breeding of red knots is highly dependent on the timing of
departures and arrivals to coincide with favorable food and weather conditions. The frequency
and severity of asynchronies is likely to increase with climate change. In addition, stochastic
encounters with unfavorable conditions are more likely to result in population -level effects for
red knots now than when population sizes were larger, as reduced numbers may have reduced the
resiliency of this subspecies to rebound from impacts.
For unknown reasons, more red knots arrived late in Delaware Bay in the early 2000s, which is
generally accepted as a key causative factor (along with reduced supplies of horseshoe crab eggs)
behind red knot population declines that were observed over this same timeframe. Thus, the red
knot's sensitivity to timing asynchronies has been demonstrated through a population -level
response. Both adequate supplies of horseshoe crab eggs and high -quality foraging habitat in
Delaware Bay can serve to partially mitigate minor asynchronies at this key stopover site.
However, the factors that caused delays in the spring migrations of red knots from Argentina and
Chile are still unknown, and we have no information to indicate if this delay will reverse, persist,
or intensify. Superimposed on this existing threat of late arrivals in Delaware Bay are new
threats of asynchronies emerging due to climate change. Climate change is likely to affect the
reproductive timing of horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay, mollusk prey species at other stopover
sites, or both, possibly pushing the peak seasonal availability of food outside of the windows
61 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

when red knots rely on them. In addition, both field studies and modeling have shown strong
links between the red knot's reproductive output and conditions in the Arctic including insect
abundance and snow cover. Climate change may also cause shifts in the period of optimal arctic
conditions relative to the time period when red knots currently breed.
Shoreline stabilization
Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota
(life forms), especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced
habitat area for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources, as has been
documented in California (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan and Hubbard 2006). In Delaware Bay, hard
structures also cause or accelerate loss of horseshoe crab spawning habitat (CCSP 2009b; Botton
et al. in Shuster et al. 2003; Botton et al. 1988), and shorebird habitat has been, and may continue
to be, lost where bulkheads have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to
directly eliminating red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird
habitats by interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard
stabilization is installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually
assured (Rice 2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact red knots. Where they
are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of red knot habitat
lost as sea levels continue to rise.
In a few isolated locations, however, hard structures may enhance red knot habitat, or may
provide artificial habitat. In Delaware Bay, for example, Botton et al. (1994) found that, in the
same manner as natural shoreline discontinuities like creek mouths, jetties and other artificial
obstructions can act to concentrate drifting horseshoe crab eggs and thereby attract shorebirds.
Another example comes from the Delaware side of the bay, where a seawall and jetty at
Mispillion Harbor protect the confluence of the Mispillion River and Cedar Creek. These
structures create a low energy environment in the harbor, which seems to provide highly suitable
conditions for horseshoe crab spawning over a wider variation of weather and sea conditions
than anywhere else in the bay (G. Breese pers. comm. March 25, 2013). Horseshoe crab egg
densities at Mispillion Harbor are consistently an order of magnitude higher than at other bay
beaches (Dey et al. 2011), and this site consistently supports upwards of 15 to 20 percent of all
the knots recorded in Delaware Bay (Lathrop 2005). Notwithstanding localized red knot use of
artificial structures, and the isolated case of hard structures improving foraging habitat at
Mispillion Harbor, the nearly universal effect of such structures is the degradation or loss of red
knot habitat.
62
DAM'

Sand Placement
Where shorebird habitat has been severely reduced or eliminated by hard stabilization structures,
beach nourishment may be the only means available to replace any habitat for as long as the hard
structures are maintained (Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001), although such habitat will persist
only with regular nourishment episodes (typically on the order of every 2 to 6 years). In
Delaware Bay, beach nourishment has been recommended to prevent loss of spawning habitat
for horseshoe crabs (Kalasz 2008; Carteret al. in Guilfoyle et al. 2007; Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1998), and is being pursued as a means of restoring shorebird
habitat in Delaware Bay following Hurricane Sandy (Niles et al. 2013; USACE 2012). Beach
nourishment was part of a 2009 project to maintain important shorebird foraging habitat at
Mispillion Harbor, Delaware (Kalasz pers. comm. March 29, 2013; Siok and Wilson 2011).
However, red knots may be directly disturbed if beach nourishment takes place while the birds
are present. On New Jersey's Atlantic coast, beach nourishment has typically been scheduled for
the fall, when red knots are present, because of various constraints at other times of year. In
addition to causing disturbance during construction, beach nourishment often increases
recreational use of the widened beaches that, without careful management, can increase
disturbance of red knots. Beach nourishment can also temporarily depress, and sometimes
permanently alter, the invertebrate prey base on which shorebirds depend. In addition to
disturbing the birds and impacting the prey base, beach nourishment can affect the quality and
quantity of red knot habitat (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002). The
artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots, as a
steeper beach profile is created when sand is stacked on the beach during the nourishment
process. In some cases, nourishment is accompanied by the planting of dense beach grasses,
which can directly degrade habitat, as red knots require sparse vegetation to avoid predation. By
precluding overwash and Aeolian transport, especially where large artificial dunes are
constructed, beach nourishment can also lead to further erosion on the bayside and promote
bayside vegetation growth, both of which can degrade the red knot's preferred foraging and
roosting habitats (sparsely vegetated flats in or adjacent to intertidal areas). Preclusion of
overwash also impedes the formation of new red knot habitats. Beach nourishment can also
encourage further development, bringing further habitat impacts, reducing future alternative
management options such as a retreat from the coast, and perpetuating the developed and
stabilized conditions that may ultimately lead to inundation where beaches are prevented from
migrating (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002).
The quantity and quality of red knot prey may also be affected by the placement of sediment for
beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried
during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of
additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene
RECEIVED
63 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

2002). By means of this vertical burrowing, recolonization from adjacent areas, or both, the
benthic faunal communities typically recover. Recovery can take as little as 2 weeks or as long
as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001).
Although many studies have concluded that invertebrate communities recovered following sand
placement, study methods have often been insufficient to detect even large changes in abundance
or species composition, due to high natural variability and small sample sizes (Peterson and
Bishop 2005). Therefore, uncertainty remains about the effects of sand placement on invertebrate
communities and how these impacts may affect red knots.
Dredging/sand mining
Many inlets in the U.S. range of the red knot are routinely dredged and sometimes relocated. In
addition, nearshore areas are routinely dredged ("mined") to obtain sand for beach nourishment.
Regardless of the purpose, inlet and nearshore dredging can affect red knot habitats. Dredging
often involves removal of sediment from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone,
directly impacting optimal red knot roosting and foraging habitats (Harrington in Guilfoyle et al.
2007; Winn and Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2006). These ephemeral habitats are even more
valuable to red knots because they tend to receive less recreational use than the main beach
strand. In addition to causing this direct habitat loss, the dredging of sand bars and shoals can
preclude the creation and maintenance of red knot habitats by removing sand sources that would
otherwise act as natural breakwaters and weld onto the shore over time (Hayes and Michel 2008;
Morton 2003). Further, removing these sand features can cause or worsen localized erosion by
altering depth contours and changing wave refraction (Hayes and Michel 2008), potentially
degrading other nearby red knot habitats indirectly because inlet dynamics exert a strong
influence on the adjacent shorelines. Studying barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina,
Fenster and Dolan (1996) found that inlet influences extend 3.4 to 8.1 mi (5.4 to 13.0 km), and
that inlets dominate shoreline changes for up to 2.7 mi (4.3 km). Changing the location of
dominant channels at inlets can create profound alterations to the adjacent shoreline (Nordstrom
2000).
Reduced food availability
Commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs has been implicated as a causal factor in the decline of
the rufa red knot, by decreasing the availability of horseshoe crab eggs in the Delaware Bay
stopover (Niles et al. 2008). Notwithstanding the importance of the horseshoe crab and Delaware
Bay, other lines of evidence suggest that the rufa red knot also faces threats to its food resources
throughout its range.
64 � TO
ID&

During most of the year, bivalves and other mollusks are the primary prey for the red knot.
Mollusks in general are at risk from climate change -induced ocean acidification (Fabry et al.
2008). Oceans become more acidic as carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves in
the ocean. The pH (percent hydrogen, a measure of acidity or alkalinity) level of the oceans has
decreased by approximately 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times, which is equivalent to a 25
percent increase in acidity. By 2100, the pH level of the oceans is projected to decrease by an
additional 0.3 to 0.4 units under the highest emissions scenarios (NRC 2010). As ocean
acidification increases, the availability of calcium carbonate declines. Calcium carbonate is a key
building block for the shells of many marine organisms, including bivalves and other mollusks
(USEPA 2012; NRC 2010). Vulnerability to ocean acidification has been shown in bivalve
species similar to those favored by red knots, including mussels (Gaylord et al. 2011; Bibby et al.
2008) and clams (Green et al. 2009). Reduced calcification rates and calcium metabolism are
also expected to affect several mollusks and crustaceans that inhabit sandy beaches (Defeo et al.
2009), the primary nonbreeding habitat for red knots. Relevant to Tierra del Fuego -wintering
knots, bivalves have also shown vulnerability to ocean acidification in Antarctic waters, which
are predicted to be affected due to naturally low carbonate saturation levels in cold waters
(Cummings et al. 2011).
Blue mussel spat is an important prey item for red knots in Virginia (Karpanty et al. 2012). The
southern limit of adult blue mussels has contracted from North Carolina to Delaware since 1960
due to increasing air and water temperatures (Jones et al. 2010). Larvae have continued to recruit
to southern locales (including Virginia) via currents, but those recruits die early in the summer
due to water and air temperatures in excess of lethal physiological limits. Failure to recolonize
southern regions will occur when reproducing populations at higher latitudes are beyond
dispersal distance (Jones et al. 2010). Thus, this key prey resource may soon disappear from the
red knot's Virginia spring stopover habitats (Karpanty et al. 2012).
Reduced food availability at the Delaware Bay stopover site due to commercial harvest and
subsequent population decline of the horseshoe crab is considered a primary causal factor in the
decline of the rufa subspecies in the 2000s (Escudero et al. 2012; McGowan et al. 2011; CAFF
2010; Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; Gonzalez et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2004; Morrison
et al. 2004), although other possible causes or contributing factors have been postulated (Fraser
et al. 2013; Schwarzer et al. 2012; Escudero et al. 2012; Espoz et al. 2008; Niles et al. 2008).
Due to harvest restrictions and other conservation actions, horseshoe crab populations showed
some signs of recovery in the early 2000s, with apparent signs of red knot stabilization (survey
counts, rates of weight gain) occurring a few years later. Since about 2005, however, horseshoe
crab population growth has stagnated for unknown reasons. Under the current management
framework (known as Adaptive Resource Management, or ARM), the present horseshoe crab
harvest is not considered a threat to the red knot because harvest levels are tied §rIV ED
65 AUG 0 S 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

populations via scientific modeling. Most data suggest that the volume of horseshoe crab eggs is
currently sufficient to support the Delaware Bay's stopover population of red knots at its present
size. However, because of the uncertain trajectory of horseshoe crab population growth, it is not
yet known if the egg resource will continue to adequately support red knot populations over the
next 5 to 10 years. In addition, implementation of the ARM could be impeded by insufficient
funding for the shorebird and horseshoe crab monitoring programs that are necessary for the
functioning of the ARM models. Many studies have established that red knots stopping over in
Delaware Bay during spring migration achieve remarkable and important weight gains to
complete their migrations to the breeding grounds by feeding almost exclusively on a
superabundance of horseshoe crab eggs. A temporal correlation occurred between increased
horseshoe crab harvests in the 1990s and declining red knot counts in both Delaware Bay and
Tierra del Fuego by the 2000s. Other shorebird species that rely on Delaware Bay also declined
over this period (Mizrahi and Peters in Tanacredi et al. 2009), although some shorebird declines
began before the peak expansion of the horseshoe crab fishery (Botton et al. in Shuster et al.
2003).
Hunting
Legal and illegal sport and market hunting in the mid -Atlantic and Northeast U.S. substantially
reduced red knot populations in the 1800s, and we do not know if the subspecies ever fully
recovered to its former abundance or distribution. Neither legal nor illegal hunting are currently a
threat to red knots in the U.S., but both occur in the Caribbean and parts of South America.
Hunting pressure on red knots and other shorebirds in the northern Caribbean and on Trinidad is
unknown. Hunting pressure on shorebirds in the Lesser Antilles (e.g., Barbados, Guadeloupe) is
very high, but only small numbers of red knots have been documented on these islands, so past
mortality may not have exceeded tens of birds per year. Red knots are no longer being targeted in
Barbados or Guadeloupe, and other measures to regulate shorebird hunting on these islands are
being negotiated. Much larger numbers (thousands) of red knots occur in the Guianas, where
legal and illegal subsistence shorebird hunting is common. About 20 red knot mortalities have
been documented in the Guianas, but total red knot hunting mortality in this region cannot be
surmised. Subsistence shorebird hunting was also common in northern Brazil, but has decreased
in recent decades. We have no evidence that hunting was a driving factor in red knot population
declines in the 2000s, or that hunting pressure is increasing. In addition, catch limits, handling
protocols, and studies on the effects of research activities on survival all indicate that
overutilization for scientific purposes is not a threat to the red knot.
Threats to the red knot from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes exist in parts of the Caribbean and South America. Specifically, legal
illegal hunting does occur. We expect mortality of individual knots from hunting to continue
66 VO<e; ,0S,
__AA?G
r
�G

the future, but at stable or decreasing levels due to the recent international attention to shorebird
hunting.
Predation
In wintering and migration areas, the most common predators of red knots are peregrine falcons
(Falco peregrinus), harriers (Circus spp.), accipiters (Family Accipitridae), merlins (F.
columbarius), shorteared owls (Asio flammeus), and greater black -backed gulls (Larus marinus)
(Niles et al. 2008). Other large are anecdotally known to prey on shorebirds (Breese 2010). In
migration areas like Delaware Bay, terrestrial predators such as red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and
feral cats (Felis catus) may be a threat to red knots by causing disturbance, but direct mortality
from these predators may be low (Niles et al. 2008).
Although little information is available from the breeding grounds, the long-tailed Jaeger
(Stercorarius longicaudus) is prominently mentioned as a predator of red knot chicks in most
accounts. Other avian predators include parasitic jaeger (S. parasiticus), pomarine jaeger (S.
pomarinus), herring gull and glaucous gulls, gyrfalcon (Falcon rusticolus), peregrine falcon, and
snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus). Mammalian predators include arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and
sometimes arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos) (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007). Predation
pressure on Arctic -nesting shorebird clutches varies widely regionally, interannually, and even
within each nesting season, with nest losses to predators ranging from close to 0 percent to near
100 percent (Meltofte et al. 2007), depending on ecological factors. Abundance of arctic
rodents, such as lemmings, is often cyclical, although less so in North America than in Eurasia.
In the Arctic, 3- to 4-year lemming cycles give rise to similar cycles in the predation of shorebird
nests. When lemmings are abundant, predators concentrate on the lemmings, and shorebirds
breed successfully. When lemmings are in short supply, predators switch to shorebird eggs and
chicks (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; Meltofte et al. 2007; USFWS 2003b; Blomqvist et al.
2002; Summers and Underhill 1987).
Recreational disturbance
In some wintering and stopover areas, red knots and recreational users (e.g., pedestrians, ORVs,
dog walkers, boaters) are concentrated on the same beaches (Niles et al. 2008; Tarr 2008).
Recreational activities affect red knots both directly and indirectly. These activities can cause
habitat damage (Schlacher and Thompson 2008; Anders and Leatherman 1987), cause shorebirds
to abandon otherwise preferred habitats, and negatively affect the birds' energy balances. Effects
to red knots from vehicle and pedestrian disturbance can also occur during construction of
shoreline stabilization projects including beach nourishment. Red knots can also�yt�d�b�
motorized and nonmotorized boats, fishing, kite surfing, aircraft, and research activities
67 pCM. MHD CITY

al. 2008; Peters and Otis, 2007; Harrington 2005b; Meyer et al. 1999; Burger 1986) and by beach
raking or cleaning.
Table 11 lists biological opinions since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area
that have been issued for adverse impacts to red knots.
OPINIONS
HABITAT
Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO
12,600 If
(2.4 mi)
Fiscal Year 2015: 5 BOs
70,268 If
(13.3 mi)
Fiscal Year 2016 (to date): 4 BOs
178,519 If
(33.8 mi)
261,387 If(49.5
Total: 10 BOs
mi)
5) Analysis of the species likely to be affected
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots and
their habitat. Potential effects to red knots include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat in
the Action Area and in the updrift and downdrift portions of Ocean Isle Beach.
m

B. Environmental Baseline
1) Status of the species within the Action Area
Data provided by the NCWRC (www.ncpaws.org, accessed May 26, 2016) indicate that red
knots have been observed on Ocean Isle Beach and in Tubbs Inlet in the past several years,
including 11 red knots that were observed in the Action Area in 2009. See Table 12.
Table 12. Number of red knot observations between 2009 and 2012 on Ocean Isle Beach and in
Tubbs Inlet.
Year
Ocean Isle
Tubbs Inlet
(Action Area)
2009
NR
11
2010
NR
NR
2011
23
NR
2012
112
NR
NR = not reported
2) Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area
A number of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action
Area.
Sand nourishment: The beaches of Ocean Isle are regularly nourished with sand from Shallotte
Inlet. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter
coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas.
Inlet dredging activities alter the sediment dynamics on adjacent shorelines and stabilize these
dynamic environments; beach disposal of dredge material further alters the natural habitat
adjacent to inlets. Estuarine dredging of navigational channels can alter water circulation
patterns and sediment transport pathways, as well as increase the frequency and magnitude of
boat wakes; sound -side sand or mud flats may be impacted by increased erosion rates as a result.
Historically, there has been a Federal navigation project in Shallotte Inlet, and the Corps dredges
the inlet quite often. In some cases, the inlet is dredged using a sidecast dredge. In an unknown
number of dredging events, the sediment has been placed on Ocean Isle using pipelines.
Beach scraping or bulldozing can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune
gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of
69 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches
up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and
maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach
scraping or bulldozing has been frequent on North Carolina beaches in recent years, in response
to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities
primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been
constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function
like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash.
Sandbags and revetments are vertical structures built parallel to the beach in front of buildings,
roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However, these structures often
accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the structure (Hayes and
Michel 2008), which can eliminate red knot habitat. Geotubes (long cylindrical bags made of
high -strength permeable fabric and filled with sand) and sandbag revetments are softer
alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. There are two existing rock revetments
along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 If), and another along
Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). A 430 If sandbag revetment already exists in the
project area. A sandbag revetment at least 1,8001f long (with a geotube in front of a portion)
was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags were
recently added to protect a parking lot downdrift of the revetment.
C. Effects of the Action
This section is an analysis of the beneficial, direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on
migrating and wintering red knots within the Action Area. The analysis includes effects
interrelated and interdependent of the project activities. An interrelated activity is an activity
that is part of a proposed action and depends on the proposed activity. An interdependent
activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action.
1) Factors to be considered
The proposed project will occur within habitat used by migrating and wintering red knots and
construction will occur during a portion of the migration and winter seasons. Long-term and
permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat. Short-term and temporary
impacts to red knots could result from project work disturbing roosting red knots and removing
or degrading currently occupied foraging areas.
Proximity of action: Installation of the sandbag revetment will occur within and adjacent to red
knot roosting and foraging habitat.
70 G���I
VO
t,0 'o%
W

Distribution: Project construction activities that may impact migrants and the wintering
population of red knots on Ocean Isle would occur along the shoreline on the west end of Ocean
Isle and in Tubbs Inlet.
Timing: The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating and
wintering red knots.
Nature of the effect: The effects of the project construction include a temporary or permanent
reduction in foraging habitat, a long term decreased rate of change that may preclude habitat
creation, and increased recreational disturbance. A decrease in the survival of red knots on the
migration and winter grounds due to the lack of optimal habitat may contribute to decreased
survival rates, decreased productivity on the breeding grounds, and increased vulnerability to the
population.
Duration: Construction of the sandbag revetment will be a one-time activity, which may take
several months to complete. Therefore, direct effects are expected to be short-term in duration.
Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact migrating and wintering red knots in
subsequent seasons after construction.
Disturbance frequency_ Disturbance from construction activities will be short term, lasting
several months.
Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during
portions of the red knot migration and winter seasons.
2) Analyses for effects of the action
Beneficial effects: There are no anticipated beneficial effects to the red knot from the project.
Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or
its habitat. The construction window will extend into one or more red knot migration and winter
seasons. Heavy machinery and equipment may adversely affect migrating and wintering red
knots in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of normal activities such as roosting and
foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek available habitat
elsewhere. Burial and suffocation of invertebrate species will occur from the construction
activity. Impacts will affect the 4681f of shoreline.
Indirect effects: The proposed project includes construction of a sandbag revetment along 4681f
of shoreline to protect man-made infrastructure. Indirect effects include loss of foraging and
71 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

resting habitat, reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats (coastal marine and
estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments) and erosion of foraging and
resting habitat downdrift of the sandbag revetment.
3) Species' response to a proposed action
The proposed project will occur within habitat that is used by migrating and wintering red knots.
Since red knots can be present on these beaches almost year-round, construction is likely to
occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated habitats. Short-term and
temporary impacts to red knot activities could result from project work occurring on the beach
that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat. Long-term impacts could include a hindrance
in the ability of migrating or wintering red knots to recuperate from their migratory flight from
their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for
migration. Long-term impacts may also result from changes in the physical characteristics of the
beach from the placement of the sandbag revetment.
D. Cumulative Effects
This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of future State,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered
in this biological opinion. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization and beach
renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would
impact the existing beachfront development.
V. CONCLUSION
Piping Plovers
Construction will occur and/or will likely have an effect on 4681f of shoreline. After reviewing
the current status of the northern Great Plains, Great Lakes, and Atlantic Coast wintering piping
plover populations, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed
activities, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that implementation of
these actions, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the piping
plover.
Red Knot
Construction will occur and/or will likely have an effect on 4681f of shoreline. After reviewing
the current status of the migrating and wintering red knot populations, the environmental
72 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 Z016
DCM- MHD CITY

baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, and the cumulative effects, it
is the Service's biological opinion that implementation of these actions, as proposed, is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the red knot.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take
of endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take
that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA provided that such taking
is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
The measures described below in Sections VI and VII are non -discretionary, and must be
implemented by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued
to the Applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a
continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps
(1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the Applicant to
adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that
are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse.
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the action
and its impacts on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)].
AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE
It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of piping plovers and red knots that
could be migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any one point in time and
place during project construction. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from construction of
the sandbag revetment within the Action Area would affect the ability of an undetermined
number of piping plovers and red knots to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat during any
given year. RECEIVED
73 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified amount of piping plovers and
red knots along 4681f of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by piping plovers and red
knots, could be taken in the form of harm and harassment as a result of this proposed action;
however, incidental take of piping plovers and red knots will be difficult to detect for the
following reasons:
(1) harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the
following year; and
(2) dead plovers and red knots may be carried away by waves or predators.
The level of take of these species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because:
(1) piping plovers and red knots migrate through and winter in the Action Area;
(2) the placement of the sandbag revetment is expected to affect the coastal morphology
and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and
creation of additional recovery habitat; and
(3) a reduction of food base will occur for the life of the project.
The Service has reviewed the biological information and other information relevant to this
action. The take is expected in the form of harm and harassment because of: (1) decreased
fitness and survivorship of plovers and red knots due to loss and degradation of foraging and
roosting habitat and (2) decreased fitness and survivorship of plovers and red knots attempting to
migrate to breeding grounds due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat.
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
Piping Plovers
In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take
is not likely to result in jeopardy to the piping plover species. Incidental take of piping plovers is
anticipated to occur during construction of the sandbag revetment and for the life of the project.
Take will occur on migrating and overwintering habitat along 4681f of shoreline.
Red Knot
In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take
is not likely to result in jeopardy to the red knot species. Incidental take of red knots is
anticipated to occur during construction of the sandbag revetment and for the life of the project.
Take will occur on migrating and overwintering habitat along 4681f of shoreline.
74 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

VI. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of piping plovers and red knots. Unless specifically addressed
below, these RPMs are applicable for the construction of the sandbag revetment and for any
maintenance activities for the life of the permit. If the Applicant is unable to comply with the
RPMs and Terms and Conditions, the Corps as the regulatory authority may inform the Service
why the RPM or Term and Condition is not reasonable and prudent for the specific project or
activity and request exception under the biological opinion.
1. Prior to any construction, all derelict material or other debris must be removed from the
beach.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained at all beach access
points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators
of piping plovers and red knots.
3. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be
removed.
4. All personnel involved in the construction process shall be aware of the potential
presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual
survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers
and red knots are present.
VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Corps must comply with
the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and outline
required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non -discretionary.
Unless addressed specifically below, the terms and conditions are applicable for the construction
of the sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit.
1. Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other
debris must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at
all beach access points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for
attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots. All contractorp�du�g tj�}p�ork
75 AUG 0 S 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All
contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and
keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris. See the Appendix for examples of
suitable receptacles.
3. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be
removed and deposited off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If
removal of the structure is required during the period from May 1 to November 15, no
work will be initiated without prior coordination with the Corps and the Service.
4. All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential
presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual
survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers
and red knots are present. If shorebirds are present in the work area, careful movement of
equipment in the early morning hours should allow those individuals to move out of the
area. Construction operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid
antagonizing shorebirds while allowing them to exit the area.
VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification
must be made to the Service's Ecological Services Field Office identified above and to the
NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in
the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or
injury.
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone], extension 34
IX. COORDINATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT WITH OTHER
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
The Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird for prosecution under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 USC S 703-712), if such take is in
compliance with the terms and conditions specified herein. Take resulting from activities that tv®
76
RECE`�
AUG � g 1016
DGM-
MNO C��o9

are not in conformance with the Corps permit or this biological opinion (e.g. deliberate
harassment of wildlife, etc.) are not considered part of the proposed action and are not covered
by this incidental take statement and may be subject to enforcement action against the individual
responsible for the act.
X. REINITIATION NOTICE — CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR
§402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency
involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the
agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not
considered in this opinion or the project has not been completed within five years of the issuance
of this biological opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes
an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing
such take must cease pending reinitiation.
For this biological opinion, the incidental take will be exceeded when the construction of a
sandbag revetment along 4681f of beach extends beyond the project's authorized boundaries.
Incidental take of an undetermined number of piping plovers and red knots has been exempted
from the prohibitions of section 9 by this opinion.
RECEJVE®
AUG 082016
77 ACM_ NjHD CITY

LITERATURE CITED
Amirault, D.L., F. Shaffer, K. Baker, A. Boyne, A. Calvert, J. McKnight, and P. Thomas. 2005.
Preliminary results of a five year banding study in Eastern Canada — support for
expanding conservation efforts to non -breeding sites? Unpublished Canadian Wildlife
Service report.
Anders, F.J., and S.P. Leatherman. 1987. Disturbance of beach sediment by off -road vehicles.
Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 9:183-189.
Antas, P.T.Z., and I.L.S. Nascimento. 1996. Analysis of red knot Calidris canutus rufa banding
data in Brazil. International Wader Studies 8:63-70.
Arvin, J.C. 2009. Hurricane shifts plover populations. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory's Gulf
Crossings. Vol. 13, No.1.
Ashton, A.D., J.P. Donnelly, and R.L. Evans. 2007. A discussion of the potential impacts of
climate change on the shorelines of the northeastern USA. Unpublished report prepared
for the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment, Union of Concerned Scientists, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, Available at
<http://www.georgetownclimate.org/resources/a-discussion-of-the-potential-impacts-of-
cli mate -change -on -the -shorelines -of -the -northeast>.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015. Protecting the Piping Plover and other
Shorebirds in the Bahamas. Report on Accomplishments 2014-2015. Available at
<http://www.fishwildlife.org/frles/SouthemW ingsReportMarch2Ol5.pdf>.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for
horseshoe crab. Fishery management report no. 32, Available at
<htip://htip://www.asmfc.org>.
Audubon Society. 2012. Solving the Piping Plover Puzzle. Available at
hgps://www.audubon.org/magazine/november-december-2012/solving-i)iping-plover-
uzzle.
Audubon Society. 2015. New Bahamas National Park will Protect Migratory Piping Plovers,
Red Knots, Other Atlantic Coast Birds. Available at <
https://www.audubon.org/news/new-bahamas-national-park-will-protect-migratory-
piping-plovers-red-knots-other>.
Bahamas National Trust. 2015. BNT Congratulates the Government on Protecting the
Bahamas' Future. 9/2/2015 Press Release. Available at <
Protecting -The -Bahamas -Future>.
in
OG��

Baker, A.J., P.M. Gonzdlez, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, d.N. de Lima Serrano, P.W. Atkinson, N.A.
Clark, C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, G. Aarts, and et al. 2004. Rapid population decline in
red knots: Fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and late arrival in Delaware
Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 271(1541):875-882.
Bandedbirds.org. 2012. Bandings and resightings, Available at <hU://www.bandedbirds.orp>.
Barber, H. and Sons. 2012. Beach cleaning equipment and beach cleaning machines.
http://www.hbarber.con/CleanersBeach_Cleaning_Equipment.httnl. Accessed August
30, 2012.
Bent, A.C. 1927. Life histories of North American shore birds: Order Limicolae (Part 1).
Smithsonian Institution U.S. National Museum Bulletin (142):131-145.
Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American Shorebirds. U.S. Natural Museum Bulletin
146:236-246.
Bibby, R., S. Widdicombe, H. Parry, J. Spicer, and R. Pipe. 2008. Effects of ocean acidification
on the immune response of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis. Aquatic Biology 2:67-74.
Billes, A., J.-B. Moundemba, and S. Gontier. 2000. Campagne Nyamu 1999-2000. Rapport de
fin de saison. PROTOMAC-ECOFAC. 111 pages.
Bimbi, M. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of September 12, and November 1, 2012. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office.
Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of January 31, June 27, and July 2, 2013. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office,
Charleston, SC.
Bimbi, M. 2015. Biologist. Conference Call April 16, 2015. Discussion of red knot preferred
prey items in South Carolina, and recent studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal
conference call on research priorities for the red knot.
Blomqvist, S., N. Holmgren, S. Akesson, A. Hedenstrom, and J. Pettersson. 2002. Indirect
effects of lemming cycles on sandpiper dynamics: 50 years of counts from southern
Sweden. Oecologia 133(2):146-158.
Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1988. Beach erosion and geochemical factors:
Influence on spawning success of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus ) in Delaware
Bay. Marine Biology 99(3):325-332.
RECEIVED
79 AUG 08 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1994. Site selection by migratory shorebirds in
Delaware Bay, and its relationship to beach characteristics and abundance of horseshoe
crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs. The Auk 111(3):605-616.
Bowman, M.L. and Dolan, R. 1985. The relationship of Emerita talpoida to beach
characteristics. J. Coastal Res. 1, 151-163.
Boyd, R.L. 1991. First Nesting Record for the Piping Plover in Oklahoma. The Wilson Bulletin
103(2): 305-308.
Brault, S. 2007. Population Viability Analysis for the New England population of the Piping
Plover (Charadrius melodus). Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, January 2007. 34 pp.
Breese, G. 2010. Compiled by Gregory Breese from notes and reports. Unpublished report to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Shorebird Technical Committee.
Breese, G. 2013. Project Leader. E-mails of March 11, 12, 25, and April 26 and 29, 2013. US
Fish & Wildlife Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project. Smyrna, Delaware.
Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activities on shorebirds in two coastal bays in the
Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130.
Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:39-52.
Burger, J. 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping
plover (Charadrius melodus). Estuaries 17:695-701.
Burger, J., L.J. Niles, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, and C. Gordon. 2012. Migration and over -
wintering of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) along the Atlantic coast of the United
States. The Condor 114(2):1-12.
Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebirds numbers of
disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at
Hartlepool, Cleveland. Biological Conservation 77:193-201.
Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding Biology and Behaviour of the Piping Plover (Charadrius
melodus) in Southern Nova Scotia. M.S. Thesis, Dalhousie University.
Cairns, W.E. and I.A. McLauren 1980. Status of the Piping Plover on the East Coast of North
America: A summary of our recent knowledge of this Blue -listed species. American
Birds 34(2): 206-208.
ovGQ
V
80 ocz� O G\\,
OG�I

Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Shaffer, R. Elliott, A. Hanson, J. McKnight, and P.D. Taylor.
2006. Population assessment of an endangered shorebird: the Piping Plover (Charadrius
melodus melodus) in eastern Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology — Ecologie et
conservation des olseaux 1(3): 4.
Camfield, F.E. and C.M. Holmes. 1995. Monitoring completed coastal projects. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 9:169-171.
Clark, K.E., L.J. Niles, and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds in
Delaware Bay. The Condor 95:694-705.
Clark, K.E., R.R. Porter, and J.D. Dowdell. 2009. The shorebird migration in Delaware Bay.
New Jersey Birds 35(4):85-92.
Clark, R.R. 1992. Beach Conditions in Florida: A Statewide Inventory and Identification of the
Beach Erosion Problem Areas in Florida. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design
Memorandum 89-1. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and
Shores.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, volumes I and II. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cohen, J. B., J. D. Fraser, and D. H. Catlin. 2006. Survival and site fidelity of piping plovers on
Long Island, New York. Journal of Field Ornithology 77:409-417.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and R.A. Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology
of piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds 31:472-479.
Cohen, J. 2009. Electronic mail dated 15 and 16 January 2009 from Jonathan Cohen, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, to Anne Hecht, USFWS.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, B.D. Watts, and B.R. Truitt. 2009. Residence
probability and population size of red knots during spring stopover in the mid -Atlantic
region of the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):939-945.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, and B.R. Truitt. 2010. The effect of benthic prey
abundance and size on red knot (Calidris canutus) distribution at an alternative migratory
stopover site on the US Atlantic Coast. Journal of Ornithology 151:355-364.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and
status report on the red knot Calidris canutus in Canada. COSEWIC, Gatineau, QC,
Available at <
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual—sara/files/cosewic/sr—calidris—canutus_e.pdf>.
81 RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna [CAFF]. 2010. Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010
— Selected indicators of change. CAFF, Akureyri, Iceland, Available at
<http://www.caff.iLpublications/view document/ 162-arctic-biodiversity-trends-2010-
selected-indicators-of-change.
Coutu, S.D., J.D. Fraser, J.L. McConnaughy, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover
distribution and reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished
report to the National Park Service.
Cross, R.R. 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
Cross, R.R. 1996. Breeding Ecology, Success, and Population Management of the Piping
Plover (Charadrius melodus) at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia. M.A.
Thesis, The College of William and Mary.
Cummings, V., J. Hewitt, A. Van Rooyen, K. Currie, S. Beard, S. Thrush, J. Norkko, N. Barr, P.
Heath, N.J. Halliday, and et al. 2011. Ocean acidification at high latitudes: Potential
effects on functioning of the Antarctic bivalve Laternula elliptica. PLoS ONE
6(1):e 16069.
Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2006. Piping plover breeding biology and management in
the Great Lakes, 2006. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East
Lansing, MI.
Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2007. Estimation and evaluation of demographic parameters for
recovery of the endangered Great Lakes piping plover population. Unpublished report
submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
Cuthbert, F.J., and S. Saunders. 2013. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the
Great Lakes, 2013. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing,
MI.34 pp.
Dean, C. 1999. Against the tide: the battle for America's beaches. Columbia University Press;
New York, New York.
Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D.S. Schoeman, T.A. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and
F. Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 81:1-12.
Dey, A., L. Niles, H. Sitters, K. Kalasz, and R.I.G. Morrison. 2011. Update to the status of the
red knot Calidris canutus in the Western Hemisphere, April, 2011, with revisions toji®
14, 2011. Unpublished report to New Jersey Department of Environmental Proteb
Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program. GV O �O�co ,k
Ai �`
82 PSNV G 4*9
G
QG

Dey, A. 2012. Principal Zoologist. E-mails of August 9, 13, 20; October 12, 29; November 19;
and December 3, 2012. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Fish and Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program. Millville, NJ.
Diez, C. E. 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources.
Dinsmore, S.J., J.A. Collazo, and J.R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of
shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks Wilson Bulletin 110:171-181.
Drake, K.R. 1999a. Movements, habitat use and survival of wintering piping plovers. M.S.
Thesis. Texas A&M University -Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 82 pp.
Drake, K. R. 1999b. Time allocation and roosting habitat in sympatrically wintering piping
and snowy plovers. M. S. Thesis. Texas A&M University -Kingsville, Kingsville,
TX. 59 pp.
Drake, K.R., J.E. Thompson, K.L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and
survival of non -breeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103(2):259-267.
Duerr, A.E., B.D. Watts, and F.M. Smith. 2011. Population dynamics of red knots stopping over
in Virginia during spring migration. Center for Conservation Biology technical report
series. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, CCBTR-11-
04, Williamsburg, VA.
Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 2003. The response of
macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed
sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 25-40.
Dugan and Hubbard. 2006. Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed sandy
beaches. Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Winter.
Volume 74, No. 1.
Dunne, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1982. 1982 aerial shorebird survey of the
Delaware Bay endangered species. New Jersey Birds 9:68-74.
eBird.org. 2014. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web
application]. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at
http://www.ebird.org/.
eBird.org. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application].
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at http://www.ebird.org/.
RECEIVED
83 AUG 08 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Elliott, L.F. and T. Teas. 1996. Effects of human disturbance on threatened wintering
shorebirds. In fulfillment of Texas Grant number E-1-8. Project 53. 10 pp.
Elliott -Smith, E., Haig, S.M., and Powers, B.M. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping
Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426, 332 p.
Elliott -Smith, E., Bidwell, M., Holland, A.E., and Haig, S.M. 2015. Data from the 2011
International Piping Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 922. 296 pp.
Available at http://dx.dbi.org/10.3133/ds922.
Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.
Nature, Volume 436(4), pp. 686-688.
Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus
circumcinctus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment
Canada, Ottawa.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Coastal Zones and sea level rise. Accessed on 29
January 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index/html.
Escudero, G., J.G. Navedo, T. Piersma, P. De Goeij, and P. Edelaar. 2012. Foraging conditions
`at the end of the world' in the context of long-distance migration and population declines
in red knots. Austral Ecology 37:355-364.
Espoz, C., A. Ponce, R. Matus, O. Blank, N. Rozbaczylo, H.P. Sitters; S. Rodriguez, A.D. Dey,
and L.J. Niles. 2008. Trophic ecology of the red knot Calidris canutus rufa at Bahia
Lomas, Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Wader Study Group Bulletin 115(2):69-76.
Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on
marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414-432.
Farley, R. 2009. Phone conversation on 11 February 2009 between Robert Farley, Planning and
Landscape Architecture, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and Patricia Kelly,
USFWS, Panama City, Florida, Field Office regarding status of beach vitex on northwest
Florida beaches.
Farrell, J.G., and C.S. Martin. 1997. Proceedings of the Horseshoe Crab Forum: Status of the
resource. University of Delaware, Sea Grant College Program, Newark, Delaware.
Feng, S., C. He, Q. Hu, R.J. Oglesby, and S. Jeong. 2012. Evaluating observed and projected
future climate changes for the Arctic using the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification.
Climate Dynamics 38:1359-1373.
Fenster, M., and R. Dolan. 1996. Assessing the impact of tidal inlets on adjacent barrier island
shorelines. Journal of Coastal Research 12(1):294-310.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Critically eroded beaches in Florida.
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/BEACHES/publications/pdf/CritEroRpt09.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2010. Climate change and sea -level rise in Florida: An
update of "The effects of climate change on Florida's ocean and coastal resources".
FOCC, Tallahassee, FL, Available at
http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_and_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf
Fraser, J.D., S.M. Karpanty, J.B. Cohen, and B.R. Truitt. 2013. The red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa) decline in the western hemisphere: Is there a lemming connection? Canadian
Journal of Zoology 91:13-16.
Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting
climate change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, impacts, and solutions. Synthesis report of
the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS), Cambridge, MA.
Fussell, John. O. III. 1994. A Birder's Guide to Coastal North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press. 540 pages.
Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002.
Global climate changes and sea level rise: Potential loss of intertidal habitat for
shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173-183.
Gaylord, B., T.M. Hill, E. Sanford, E.A. Lenz, L.A. Jacobs, K.N. Sato, A.D. Russell, and A.
Hettinger. 2011. Functional impacts of ocean acidification in an ecologically critical
foundation species. Journal of Experimental Biology 214:2586-2594.
Gerasimov, K.B. 2009. Functional morphology of the feeding apparatus of red knot Calidris
canutus, great knot C. tenuirostris and surfbird Aphriza virgate. In International Wader
Study Group Annual Conference, September 18-21, 2009, International Wader Study
Group, Norfolk, UK.
Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report to
Maine Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Topsham, Maine.
Gibson, M., C.W. Nathan, A.K. Killingsworth, C.Shankles, E. Coleman, S. Bridge, H. Juedes,
W. Bone, and R. Shiplett. 2009. Observations and implications of the 2007
amalgamation of Sand -Pelican Island to Dauphin Island, Alabama. Geological Society of
America. Paper No. 20-10, Southeastern Section - 58`h Annual Meeting. Volume 41,
No.1, p. 52.
m

Godfrey, P.J., S.P. Leatherman, and P.A. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off -road vehicles on coastal
ecosystems. Pages 581-599 in Coastal Zone '78 Symposium on Technical,
Environmental Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management.
Vol. II, San Francisco, California.
Goldin, M.R., C.Grifftn, and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human
disturbance, and management of piping plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National
Recreational Area, New York, 1989. Progress report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
Goldin, M.R. 1993. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) management, reproductive ecology,
and chick behavior at Goosewing and Briggs Beaches, Little Compton, Rhode Island,
1993. The Nature Conservancy, Providence, Rhode Island.
Gonzalez, P.M. 2005. Report for developing a red knot status assessment in the U.S.
Unpublished report by Fundacion Inalafquen, Rio Negro, Argentina.
Gonzalez, P.M., A.J. Baker, and M.E. Echave. 2006. Annual survival of red knots (Calidris
canutus rufa) using the San Antonio Oeste stopover site is reduced by domino effects
involving late arrival and food depletion in Delaware Bay. Homero 21(2):109-117.
Goss -Custard, J.D., R.T. Clarke, S.E.A. le V. dit Durell, R.W.G. Caldow, and B.J. Ens. 1996.
Population consequences of winter habitat loss in migratory shorebird. II. Model
predictions. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:337-351.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche,
and F. Shaffer. 2009. Winter distribution of four different piping plover breeding
populations. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp.
Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche,
and F. Shaffer. 2012. Connectivity in piping plovers: do breeding populations have
distinct winter distributions? Journal of Wildlife Management 76:348-355.
Green, M.A., G.G. Waldbusser, S.L. Reilly, K. Emerson, and S. O'Donnell. 2009. Death by
dissolution: Sediment saturation state as a mortality factor for juvenile bivalves.
Limnology and Oceanography 54(4):1037-1047.
Greene, K. 2002. Beach nourishment: A review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC
Habitat Management Series # 7. ASMFC, Washington, DC., Available at
<http://www.asmfc.org//publications/habitat/beachNourishment.0
Griffin, C.R. and S.M. Melvin. 1984. Research plan on management, habitat selection, and
population dynamics of piping plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Univer
Massachusetts. Research proposal submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Corner, Massachusetts.
o� G
Off'
Fri
of

Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2006. Summary of first
regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast.
ERDC/EL TR-06-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at
ham://www.fws. ovg /raleigh/pdfs/ES/tre106-10.12df>.
Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2007. Summary of second
regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the north Atlantic coast.
ERDC/EL TR-07-26. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at
<ht!p://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474358>.
Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover. In The Birds of North America, No. 2 (A. Poole, P.
Stettenheim, & F. Gill, eds). Philadelphia: The academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 17 pp.
Haig, S.M., and E. Elliott -Smith. 2004. Piping Plover. In A. Poole (eds.), The Birds of North
America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of
North American Online database:
ham://bna.birds.comell.edu/BNA/account/Pipin&_ Plover/.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1985. The distribution and status of the piping plover throughout
the annual cycle. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:334-345.
Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1987. The piping plover. Audubon Wildlife Report. Pp. 509-519.
Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Piping Plovers: Results and
Implications of the 1991 International Census. The Condor 95:145-156.
Haig, S.M., and C.L. Ferland, F.J.Cuthbert, J.Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A.Hecht, and
N.McPhillips. 2005. A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in
piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(l): 160-173.
Hake, M. 1993. 1993 summary of piping plover management program at Gateway NRA Breezy
Point district. Unpublished report. Gateway National Recreational Area, Long Island,
New York.
Hanlon, H. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cape
May National Wildlife Refuge. Cape May Court House, NJ.
Harrington, B.R. 2008. Coastal inlets as strategic habitat for shorebirds in the southeastern
United States. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E25. Vicksburg,
MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer.
87 OC AUG 0 8 2016
M 44
Nl) CITY

Harrington, B.A. 1996. The flight of the red knot: A natural history account of a small bird's
annual migration from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America and back. W. W.
Norton & Company, New York.
Harrington, B.A. 2001. Red knot (Calidris canutus). In A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds. The birds of
North America, No. 563, The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Harrington, B.A. 2005a. Unpublished information on red knot numbers and distribution in the
eastern United States: Based largely on ongoing projects and manuscripts under
development at the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources.
Harrington, B.A. 2005b. Studies of disturbance to migratory shorebirds with a focus on
Delaware Bay during north migration. Unpublished report by Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.
Harrington, B.A., J.M. Hagen, and L.E. Leddy. 1988. Site fidelity and survival differences
between two groups of New World red knots (Calidris canutus). The Auk 105:439-445.
Harrington, B. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 12, 2012. Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA.
Hayes, M.O. and J. Michel. 2008. A coast for all seasons: A naturalist's guide to the coast of
South Carolina. Pandion Books, Columbia, South Carolina. 285 pp.
Hecht, A., and S. M. Melvin. 2009. Expenditures and effort associated with recovery of
breeding Atlantic Coast piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1099-1107.
Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve.
Network, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.
Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging
ecology and chick survival. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
Hopkinson, C.S., A.E. Lugo, M. Alber, A.P. Covich, and S.J. Van Bloem. 2008. Forecasting
effects of sea -level rise and windstorms on coastal and inland ecosystems. Frontiers in
Ecology and Environment 6:255-263.
Hubbard, D.M. and J.E. Dugan. 2003. Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern
California. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 58, 41-54.
Humiston and Moore Engineers. 2001. "Naples Beach Erosion Control Project 1-Year Post JVO
Construction Monitoring Report." Prepared for The City of Naples, Florida.
�ykiG o�ti G�
88

Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact
of climate change. BioScience 55(4):311-322.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New
York, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(editors). Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.
International Wader Study Group. 2003. Wader Study Group Workshop 26 September 2003 -
Are waders world-wide in decline? Reviewing the evidence. Wader Study Group Bulletin
101/102:8-41.
Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2009. ISSG Global Invasive Species Database: Impact
information for Vitex rotundifolia. Accessed November 11, 2010:
http://www.issg.org/database/sMies/impact info asp?si=1110&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN
Johnson, C.M. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1988. Aspects of the wintering ecology of piping plovers
in coastal Alabama. Wilson Bulletin 100:214-233.
Jones, S.J., F.P. Lima, and D.S. Wethey. 2010. Rising environmental temperatures and
biogeography: Poleward range contraction of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L., in the
western Atlantic. Journal of Biogeography 37:2243-2259.
Kalasz, K. 2008. Delaware shorebird conservation plan. Version 1.0. Delaware Natural Heritage
and Endangered Species Program Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental Control, Smyrna, DE.
Kalasz, K. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of February 8, and March 29, 2013. Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware Shorebird Project. Dover, DE.
Karpanty, S.M., J.D. Fraser, J.B. Cohen, S. Ritter, B. Truitt, and D. Catlin. 2012. Update of red
knot numbers and prey counts in Virginia using ground survey methods. Unpublished
report to the Delaware Bay Technical Committee and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, Department Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
89 'q`Qi /l
col- , O
Oc4f V l0/6
'M
yo C/T

Kaplan, J.O., N.H. Bigelow, P.J. Bartlein, T.R. Christiansen, W. Cramer, S.M. Harrison, N.V.
Matveyeva, A.D. McGuire, D.F. Murray, I.C. Prentice, and et al. 2003. Climate change
and Arctic ecosystems H: Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future
projections. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D17):8171.
Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America's
Shoreline. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Kochenberger, R. 1983. Survey of shorebird concentrations along the Delaware bayshore.
Peregrine Observer spring 1983. New Jersey Audubon Publications.
Komar, P.D. 1983. Coastal erosion in response to the construction of jetties and breakwaters.
Pages 191-204 in Komar, P.D. (editor). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and
Erosion. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: Seasonality, habitat use and
disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962.
Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological
Conservation 101:315-325.
Lamont, M.M., H.F. Percival, L.G. Pearlstine, S.V. Colwell, W.M. Kitchens, and R.R. Carthy.
1997. The Cape San Blas ecological study. U.S. Geological Survey -Biological
Resources Division. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical
Report Number 57.
Lathrop, R.G.,Jr. 2005. Red knot habitat in Delaware Bay: Status and trends. Unpublished report
by the Department of Ecology, Evolution & Natural Resources, Center for Remote
Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
LeBlanc, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 29 January 2009 from Darren LeBlanc, USFWS,
Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City,
Florida, Field Office regarding habitat changes along Alabama coast from hurricanes.
LeDee, O.E. 2008. Canaries on the coastline: estimating survival and evaluating the relationship
between nonbreeding shorebirds, coastal development, and beach management policy.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. 73 pp.
Leonard, L.A., T.D. Clayton, and O.H. Pilkey. 1990. An analysis of replenished beach design
parameters on U.S. East Coast barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research 6(1):15-36.
Lindstr6m, A., and J. Agrell. 1999. Global change and possible effects on the migration and
reproduction of Arctic -breeding waders. Ecological Bulletins 47:145-159.
90
G�

Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology, foraging ecology and behavior on
Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Lott, C.A., P.A. Durkee, W.A. Gierhart, and P.P. Kelly. 2009a. Florida coastal engineering and
bird conservation geographic information system (GIS) manual. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Engineer
Research and Development Center, Technical Report, 42 pp.
Lott, C.A., C.S. Ewell Jr., and K.L. Volansky. 2009b. Habitat associations of shoreline -
dependent birds in barrier island ecosystems during fall migration in Lee County, Florida.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development
Center, Technical Report. 103 pp.
MacIvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of piping
plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts.
Maddock, S. B. 2008. Wintering piping plover surveys 2006 2007, East Grand Terre, LA to
Boca Chica, TX, December 20, 2006 — January 10, 2007, final report. Unpublished
report prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Edmonton,
Alberta. iv + 66 pp.
Maddock, S., M. Bimbi, and W. Golder. 2009. South Carolina shorebird project, draft 2006 —
2008 piping plover summary report. Audubon North Carolina and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 135 pp.
Manning, L.M., C.H. Peterson, and M.J. Bishop. 2014. Dominant macrobenthic populations
experience sustained impacts from annual disposal of fine sediments on sandy beaches.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 508:1-15.
McConnaughey, J.L., J.D. Fraser, S.D. Coutu, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover
distribution and reproductive success on Cape Lookout National Seashore. Unpublished
report to National Park Service.
McGowan, C.P., J.E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Lyons, D.R. Smith, K.S. Kalasz, L.J. Niles, A.D.
Dey, N.A. Clark, P.W. Atkinson, and et al. 2011. Demographic consequences of
migratory stopover: Linking red knot survival to horseshoe crab spawning abundance.
Ecosphere 2(6):1-22.
RECEIVED
91 AUG 08 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Meltofte, H., T. Piersma, H. Boyd, B. McCaffery, B. Ganter, V.V. Golovnyuk, K. Graham, C.L.
Gratto-Trevor, R.I.G. Morrison, E. No], and et al. 2007. Effects of climate variation on
the breeding ecology of Arctic shorebirds. Meddelelser om Gr0nland, Bioscience 59.
Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen, Available at
<httn://www.worldwaders.org,/dokok/literature/125/effects of climate on arctic shorebi
rds mog biosci 59 2007.pdf>.
Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin, and L.H. MacIvor. 1991. Recovery strategies for piping plovers in
Managed coastal landscapes. Coastal Management 19: 21-34.
Melvin, S.M. and J.P Gibbs. 1996. Viability analysis for the Atlantic coast population of piping
plovers. Appendix E (Pages 175-186) in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts.
Meyer, S.R., J. Burger, and L.J. Niles. 1999. Habitat use, spatial dynamics, and stopover ecology
of red knots on Delaware Bay. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Endangered and
Nongame Species Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ.
Morrison, R.I.G., and R.K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South
America in two volumes. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada.
Morrison, R.I.G., K. Ross, and L.J. Niles. 2004. Declines in wintering populations of red knots in
southern South America. The Condor 106:60-70.
Morrison, R.I.G. 2006. Body transformations, condition, and survival in red knots Calidris
canutus travelling to breed at Alert, Ellesmere Island, Canada. Ardea 94(3):607-618.
Morrison, R.I.G., and B.A. Harrington. 1992. The migration system of the red knot Calidris
canutus in the New World. Wader Study Group Bulletin 64:71-84.
Morton, R.A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: With emphasis on the southeastern United
States. USGS Open File Report 03-337. U.S. Geological Survey Center for Coastal and
Watershed Studies, St. Petersburg, FL, Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-
337/pdf.html>.
Morton, R., G. Tiling, and N. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot -spot wetland loss in the Mississippi
delta plain. Environmental Geosciences 10:71-80.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. 2012. Linear mean sea level (MSL)
trends and standard errors in mm/yr, Available at
<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sitrends/msltrendstable.htm>.
�Q
92
Cyr
�Cr

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios
for the U.S. national climate assessment. Part 1. Climate of the northeast U.S. NOAA
technical report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA, Washington, DC, Available at
ham•//scenarios globalchange o� v/report/regional-climate-trends-and-scenarios-us-
national-climate-assessment-part- I -climate-northeast>.
National Park Service. 2007. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 annual piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, North Carolina.
National Research Council. 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: Engineering
Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990b. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, Available at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=12782>.
Neal, W.J., O.H. Pilkey, and J.T. Kelley. 2007. Atlantic coast beaches: a guide to ripples,
dunes, and other natural features of the seashore. Mountain Press Publishing Company,
Missoula, Montana. 250 pages.
Newstead, D.J., Niles, L.J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Burger, J. & Fitzsimmons, O.N. 2013.
Geolocation reveals mid-continent migratory routes and Texas wintering areas of Red
Knots (Calidris canutus rufa). Wader Study Group Bull. 120(1): 53-59.
Nicholas, M. Electronic mail dated 8 March 2005 from Mark Nicholas, Gulf Islands National
Seashore, Gulf Breeze, Florida to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field
Office providing documentation of Great Lakes piping plover sightings post -hurricane.
Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama.
Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat selection and interspecific associations of
piping plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. M.S. Thesis.
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
RECEIVED
93 AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Niles, L.J., Burger, J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Minton, C.D.T., Gonzalez, P.M., Baker, A.J.,
Fox, J.W. and Gordon, C. 2010. First results using light level geolocators to track Red
Knots in the Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new
details of migration pathways. Wader Study Group Bull. 117(2): 123-130.
Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E.
Clark, N.A. Clark, and C. Espoza. 2008. Status of the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in
the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 36:1-185.
Niles, L.J. 2010. Blog - a rube with a view: Delaware Bay update 5/28/10-The importance of
good habitat, Available at <http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2010/5/29/delaware-
bay-update-52810-the-importance-of-good-habitat.html>.
Niles, L.J. 2012. Blog - a rube with a view: Unraveling the Texas knot, Available at
<http://arubewithaview.com/2012/05/01 /unraveling -the -texas -knot/>.
Niles, L.J., J. Burger, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, B. Harrington, K. Iaquinto, and M.
Boatman. 2012. Migration pathways, migration speeds and non -breeding areas used by
northern hemisphere wintering red knots Calidris canutus of the subspecies rufa. Wader
Study Group Bull. 119(2): 195-203.
Niles, L. 2013. Consulting Biologist/Leader. E-mails of January 4, 8, and 25, and March 15,
2013. International Shorebird Project, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey.
Greenwich, NJ.
Niles, L., L. Tedesco, D. Daly, and T. Dillingham. 2013. Restoring Reeds, Cooks, Kimbles and
Pierces Point Delaware Bay beaches, NJ, for shorebirds and horseshoe crabs.
Unpublished draft project proposal.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2005. Report on migrating and wintering Piping
Plover activity on Little St. Simons Island, Georgia in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2007. Seasonal abundance of nonbreeding piping
plovers on a Georgia barrier island. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:420-427.
Noel, B. L., and C. R. Chandler. 2008. Spatial distribution and site fidelity of non -breeding
piping plovers on the Georgia coast. Waterbirds 31:241-251.
Nordstrom, K.F. 2000. Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. Q
Nordstrom, K.F., and M.N. Mauriello. 2001. Restoring and maintaining naturally-functioninlW
landforms and biota on intensively developed barrier islands under a no -retreat ti V
alternative. Shore & Beach 69(3):19-28. o
94
V

Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, A.H.F. Klein, D.J. Sherman, and P.A. Hesp. 2006. Offshore
aoelian transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. Journal of Coastal
Research. Volume 22., No. 5. pp1260-1267.
Nudds, R.L. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. The energetic cost of short flight in birds. Journal of
Experimental Biology 203:1561-1572.
Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The Shorebirds of North
America. Viking Press, New York. 270 pp.
Patrick, L. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of August 31, and October 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Southeast Region. Panama City, FL.
Penland, S., and K. Ramsey. 1990. Relative sea level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico:
1908-1988. Journal of Coastal Resources 6:323-342.
Perkins, S. 2008. Perkins, S. 2008. "South Beach PIPLs", 29 September 2008. electronic
correspondence (30 September 2008) NEFO.
Peters, K.A., and D.L. Otis. 2007. Shorebird roost -site selection at two temporal scales: Is human
disturbance a factor? Journal of Applied Ecology 44:196-209.
Peterson, C.H., and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach
nourishment. BioScience 55(10):887-896.
Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D'Anna, and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting
beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating
upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338:205-
221.
Peterson, C.H., and L. Manning. 2001. How beach nourishment affects the habitat value of
intertidal beach prey for surf fish and shorebirds and why uncertainty still exists. Pages 2
In Proceedings of the coastal ecosystems & federal activities technical training
symposium, August 20-22, 2001, Available at <http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/ecoconf/ppeterson%20abs.pdf>.
Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O'Neel. 2008. Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions
to 21st-century sea -level rise. Science 321(5894):1340-1343.
Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on
shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biol. Conserv. 60:115-126.
Philippart, C.J.M., H.M. van Aken, J.J. Beukema, O.G. Bos, G.C. Cadde, and R. Dekker. 2003.
Climate -related changes in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Limnology and
Oceanography 4&6RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016 95
DCM- MHD CITY

Piersma, T., and A.J. Baker. 2000. Life history characteristics and the conservation of migratory
shorebirds. Pages 105-124 In L.M. Gosling, and W.J. Sutherland, eds. Behaviour and
Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Piersma, T., and A. Lindstr6m. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global
environmental change. Ibis 146 (Suppl.1):61-69.
Piersma, T., G.A. Gudmundsson, and K. Lilliendahl. 1999. Rapid changes in the size of different
functional organ and muscle groups during refueling in a long-distance migrating
shorebird. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(4):405-415.
Piersma, T., and J.A. van Gils. 2011. The flexible phenotype. A body -centred integration of
ecology, physiology, and behavior. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press; Washington, D.C.
Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright M. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research,
Special Issue 4:41-64.
Pilkey, Jr., O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Warless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, and B.L.
Gruver. 1984. Living with the East Florida Shore. Duke University Press, Durham,
North Carolina.
Plant, N.G. and G.B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between nearshore processes and beach
morphology near a seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 183-200.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census Report to U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems
Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 231pp.
Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 2000. Status of the broadly distributed endangered species: results
and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool. 78: 128-
139.
Pompei, V. D., and F. J. Cuthbert. 2004. Spring and fall distribution of piping plovers in North
America: implications for migration stopover conservation. Report the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Possardt, E. 2005. Personal communication to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press. 402 pages.
01

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A Semi -Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea -Level Rise. Science
315: 368-370.
Rehfisch, M.M., and H.Q.P. Crick. 2003. Predicting the impact of climatic change on Arctic -
breeding waders. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:86-95.
Rice, T.M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline stabilization to avoid and minimize
adverse environmental impacts. Unpublished report prepared for the USFWS, Panama
City Ecological Services Field Office, Available at
htta//www.fws.¢ov/charieston/pdf/PIPIJBMPs%20For%20Shoreline%20Stabilization%
20To%20Avoid%20And%20Minimize%20Adverse%20Environmental%201mpacts.pdf.
Roche, E. A., J. B. Cohen, D. H. Catlin, D. L. Amirault-Langlais, F. J. Cuthbert, C. L. Gratto-
Trevor, J, Felio, and J. D. Fraser. 2010. Range -wide piping plover survival: correlated
patterns and temporal declines. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1784-1791.
Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catlin, D.L. Amirault, F.J. Cuthbert, C.L. Gratto-Trevor,
J, Felio, and J.D. Fraser. 2009. Range -wide estimation of apparent survival in the piping
plover. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan.
Sallenger, A.H. Jr., C.W. Wright, P. Howd, and K. Doran. 2009 in review. Barrier island failure
modes triggered by Hurricane Katrina: implications for future sea -level -rise impacts.
Submitted to Geology.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty,
M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G.
Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries
25:149-164.
Schlacher, T.A., and L.M.C. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts caused by off -road vehicles
(ORVs) to sandy beaches: Spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier
island. Journal of Coastal Research 24:234-242.
Schmidt, N.M., R.A. Ims, T.T. Hoye, O. Gilg, L.H. Hansen, J. Hansen, M. Lund, E. Fuglei, M.C.
Forchhammer, and B. Sittler. 2012. Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing
lemming cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279:4417-4422.
Schmitt, M.A. and A. C. Haines. 2003. Proceeding of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources
Conference April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.
97

Schneider, T.M., and B. Winn. 2010. Georgia species account: Red knot (Calidris canutus).
Unpublished report by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources
Division, Nongame Conservation Section, Available at
<http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accoun
ts/birds/calidris_canutus.pdf>.
Schwarzer, A.C., J.A. Collazo, L.J. Niles, J.M. Brush, N.J. Douglass, and H.F. Percival. 2012.
Annual survival of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) wintering in Florida. The Auk
129(4):725-733.
Schweitzer, S.H. 2015. 2015 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina.
Unpublished report. 6 pp.
Schweitzer, S., and M. Abraham. 2014. 2014 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Commission. 6 pp.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr., R.B. Barlow, and J.H. Brockmann editors. 2003. The American horseshoe
crab. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Siok, D., and B. Wilson. 2011. Using dredge spoils to restore critical American horseshoe crab
(Limulus polyphemus) spawning habitat at the Mispillion Inlet. Delaware Coastal
Program, Dover, DE.
Skagen, S.K. 2006. Migration stopovers and the conservation of Arctic -breeding Calidridine
sandpipers. The Auk 123:313-322.
Smith, B.S. 2007. 2006-2007 Nonbreeding shorebird survey, Franklin and Wakulla Counties,
Florida. Final report to the USFWS in fulfillment of Grant #40181-7-J008. Apalachicola
Riverkeeper, Apalachicola, Florida. 32 pp.
Smith, D.R., and S.F. Michels. 2006. Seeing the elephant: Importance of spatial and temporal
coverage in a large-scale volunteer -based program to monitor horseshoe crabs. Fisheries
31(10):485-491.
Smith, D.R., N.L. Jackson, K.F. Nordstrom, and R.G. Weber. 2011. Beach characteristics
mitigate effects of onshore wind on horseshoe crab spawning: Implications for matching
with shorebird migration in Delaware Bay. Animal Conservation 14:575-584.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2012. Interim performance report,
October 1, 2011-September 30, 2012, South Carolina USFWS Project E-1, Segment 34
(1711AP00805). Q
Spaans, A.L. 1978. Status and numerical fluctuations of some North American waders alonpy4
Surinam coast. Wilson Bulletin 90:60-83. V V
0
98
Q�

Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers
(Charadrius melodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587
Stone, W. 1937. Bird studies at Old Cape May: An ornithology of coastal New Jersey. Dover
Publications, New York.
Stucker, J.H. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2004. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the
Great Lakes, 2004. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing,
MI.
Stucker, J.H., and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Distribution of non -breeding Great Lakes piping plovers
along Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines: 10 years of band resightings. Final Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Stucker, J.H., F.J. Cuthbert and C.D. Haffner. 2003. Piping plover breeding biology and
management in the Great Lakes, 2003. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, East Lansing, MI.
Suiter, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 2 February 2009 from Dale Suiter, USFWS, Raleigh,
North Carolina Field Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office
on February 2, 2009 regarding status of beach vitex and control measures along the North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia coast.
Summers, R.W., and L.G. Underhill. 1987. Factors related to breeding production of Brent
Geese Branta b. bernicla and waders (Charadrii) on the Taimyr Peninsula. Bird Study
34:161-171.
Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs. 1990. Beach response to the presence of a seawall. Shore and
Beach, April 1990:11-28.
Tanacredi, J.T., M.L. Botton, and D. Smith. 2009. Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs.
Springer, New York.
Tarr, J.G., and P.W. Tarr. 1987. Seasonal abundance and the distribution of coastal birds on the
northern Skeleton Coast, South West Africa/Nimibia. Madoqua 15, 63-72.
Tarr, N.M. 2008. Fall migration and vehicle disturbance of shorebirds at South Core Banks,
North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Tebaldi, C., B.H. Strauss, and C.E. Zervas. 2012. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm
surges along US coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032.
eeCElVED
99 AUG 0 8 2016
D
CM_ MND CITY

Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 1999. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea -
level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic coast. Open -file report 99-593. U.S.
Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at<httR://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/0t99-
593/>.
Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 2000. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea -
level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Open -file report 00-179.
U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-179/>.
Thomas, K., R.G. Kvitek, and C. Bretz. 2002. Effects of human activity on the foraging
behavior of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Biological Conservation 109:67-71.
Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: Modeled
elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climatic Research 18:205-228
Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and barrier islands: Case study of Long Beach
Island, New Jersey. Coastal Management 18:65-90.
Terchunian, A.V. 1988. I Pting coastal armoring structures: can seawalls and beaches coexist?
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4:65-75.
Tremblay, T.A., J.S. Vincent, and T.R. Calnan. 2008. Status and trends of inland wetland and
aquatic habitats in the Corpus Christi area. Final report under CBBEP Contract No. 0722
submitted to Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, Texas General Land Office, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Truitt, B.R., B.D. Watts, B. Brown, and W. Dunstan. 2001. Red knot densities and invertebrate
prey availability on the Virginia barrier islands. Wader Study Group Bulletin 95:12.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Missouri River recovery program: least tern and piping
plover: endangered and threatened species. USACE, Omaha District, Paper 68.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Project factsheet: Delaware Bay coastline, DE & NJ,
Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, NJ, Available at
<http://www.ngp.usace.anny.mil/Missions/Factsheets/FactSheetArticIe View/tabid/4694/
Article/6442/delaware-bay-coastline-de-nj-reeds-beach-and-pierces-point-nj.asax
U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea -level rise: A focus on the
Mid -Atlantic Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment
product 4.1. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Available at
<http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/san4-l-final-report-all.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 19, 2014. Impacts on Coastal Resources.
Available at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Coastal zones and sea level rise.
K11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. United States List of Endangered Native Fish and
Wildlife. Federal Register 35(199):16047.
'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for
the piping plover. Federal Register 50:50726-50734.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery plan for piping plovers (Charadrius melodus)
of the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South
Dakota, and Twin Cities, Minnesota.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Revised Draft - Recovery plan for piping plovers -
Breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Twin Cities, MN. 99 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast
Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Final determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes
breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register 66:22938-22969.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Final determination of critical habitat for wintering
piping plovers. Federal Register 66:36037-36086.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final designation of critical habitat for the Northern Great
Plains breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register. 67:57637-57717.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Delaware Bay shorebird -horseshoe crab assessment
report and peer review. ASMFC, Arlington, VA, Available at
<ht�t ://digitaimedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/1418>.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the
National Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Geologic Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Role in Climate Change.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering
population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. Federal Register
74:23476-23524.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Abundance and productivity estimates — 2010 update:
Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp.
101

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping
Plover in its Coastal Migration and Wintering Range in the Continental United States.
East Lansing, Michigan. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/EastLansing/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). 78 FR
60024-60098. Docket FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097 (September 30, 2013). Available at
www.regulations.gov.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. Supplement to
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa
Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) [FWS—R5—ES-2013—AY17].
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013c. Preventing the Spread of Avian Botulism in Piping
Plovers. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/insider3/Octoberl3Story4.htm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. 2012.
Cooperative agreement. Project title: Identify juvenile red knot wintering areas.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Available at
<http://Iibrary.globalchange.gov/2009-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-
states>.
Umer, C.A., and R.W. Storer. 1949. The distribution and abundance of shorebirds on the North
and Central New Jersey Coast, 1928-1938. The Auk 66(2):177-194.
van Gils, J.A., P.F. Battley, T. Piersma, and R. Drent. 2005a. Reinterpretation of gizzard sizes of
red knots world-wide emphasis overriding importance of prey quality at migratory
stopover sites. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272:2609-2618.
van Gils, J.A., A. Dekinga, B. Spaans, W.K. Vahl, and T. Piersma. 2005b. Digestive bottleneck
affects foraging decisions in red knots (Calidris canutus). II. Patch choice and length of
working day. Journal of Animal Ecology 74:120-130.
Ward, J.R., and K.D. Lafferty. 2004. The elusive baseline of marine disease: Are diseases in
ocean ecosystems increasing? PLoS Biology 2(4):542-547.
Webster, P., G. Holland, J.Cur y, and H. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number,
duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science Vol. 309: pp. 1844-1846.
Westbrock, M., E.A. Roche, F.J. Cuthbert and J.H. Stucker. 2005. Piping plover breeding
biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2005. Report submitted to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI.
102

Westbrooks, R.G., and J. Madsen. 2006. Federal regulatory weed risk assessment beach vitex
(Vitex rotundifolia L.f.) assessment summary. USGS Biological Research Division,
Whiteville, North Carolina, and Mississippi State University, GeoResources Institute.
5pp.
Wheeler, N.R. 1979. Effects of off -road vehicles on the infauna of Hatches Harbor, Cape Cod
National Seashore. Unpublished report from the Environmental Institute, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. UM-NPSCRU Report No. 28. [Also submitted
as a M.S. Thesis entitled "Off -road vehicle (ORV) effects on representative infauna and a
comparison of predator -induced mortality by Polinices duplicatus and ORV activity on
Mya arenaria at Hatches Harbor, Provincetown, Massachusetts" to the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.]
Wilcox, L. 1939. Notes on the life history of the piping plover. Birds of Long Island 1: 3-13.
Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76: 129-152.
Williams, S.J., K. Dodd, and K.K. Gohn. 1995. Coasts in Crisis. U.S Geological Survey
Circular 1075. 32 pp.
Winstead, N. 2008. Letter dated 8 October 2008 from Nick Winstead, Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Museum of Natural Science to Patty Kelly, USFWS,
Panama City, Florida Field Office regarding habitat changes in Mississippi from
hurricanes and estimates of shoreline miles of mainland and barrier islands.
Zockler, C., and I. Lysenko. 2000. Water birds on the edge: First circumpolar assessment of
climate change impact on Arctic breeding water birds. World Conservation Press,
Cambridge, UK, Available at <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/biodiversity-series-
11 114.html>.
Zonick, C. 1997. The use of Texas barrier island washover pass habitat by piping plovers and
other coastal waterbirds. National Audubon Society. A Report to the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp.
Zonick, C.A. 2000. The winter ecology of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) along the
Texas Gulf Coast. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
Zonick, C. and M. Ryan. 1996. The ecology and conservation of piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) wintering along the Texas Gulf Coast. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. 1995 Annual report. 49pp.
Zwarts, L., and A.M. Blomert. 1992. Why knot Calidris canutus take medium-sized Macoma
balthica when six prey species are available. Marine Eulogy Progress Series 83:113-
128. Zc, ejVcCD
AUG 488 2016
OCM. MH0 cn. ,
103

Appendix
EXAMPLES OF PREDATOR PROOF TRASH RECEPTACLES
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
104
DCM- MHD CITY

Y
w
Example of predator proof trash receptacle at Gulf Islands National Seashore. Lid must be tight
fitting and made of material heavy enough to stop animals such as raccoons.
105
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Example of trash receptacle anchored into the ground so it is not easily turned over.
Example of predator proof trash receptacle at Perdido Key State Park. Metal trash can is stored
inside. Cover must be tight fitting and made of material heavy enough to stop animals such as
raccoons.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Example of trash receptacle must be secured or heavy enough so it is not easily turned over.
106

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343
REP YTO
ATrEmONOF June 16, 2016
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
SAW-2007-03637-Picha Sandbag Proposal
Mr. Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor
c/o: Ms. Kathryn Mathews, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
Please reference your receipt, concurrence, and non -concurrence letter dated June 7, 2016 for the
proposal by Kay and David Picha to expand an existing sandbag revetment. The project is located at 149
Ocean Isle W Blvd., adjacent to Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick
County, North Carolina.
In response to your June 7, 2016 letter, concurring with our determinations of possible effects on
nesting sea turtles and seabeach amaranth, through permit conditions, this office will require that the
applicant follow the Service's "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee."
In addition to the requests for the conditions discussed above, your letter did not concur with the effects
determination ofNLAA for the red knot and piping plover. We therefore, request initiation of formal
consultation pursuant to 50 C.F.R. part 402.12 and 402.13 for the possible effects to Piping Plover and
Red Knot. Your letter stated that no additional information was required for this process and that is
appreciated.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Tyler Crumbley at the letterhead
address, by telephone at 910-251-4170 by fax at 910-2514025, or by email at:
[e-mail].
Si cerel ,
So
McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

—2—
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. Debra Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Chad Coburn
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
NCWRC-NCDEQ Office
Attn: Ms. Maria Dunn, NE Permit Coordinator
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 28479
Mr. Kenneth Riley
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

F;1
Huggett, Doug
From: Huggett, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:50 PM
To: 'Bill Forman'
Cc: Goebel, Christine A
Subject: RE: Picha CAMA Permit, Denial and variance, Ocean Island
Rf
I'm afraid we can't say what our staff position will be at this point. Our staff positions are developed in response to the
positions of the petitioners on the variance criteria - therefore we can't really begin to discuss our final position until the
variance request is filed and we have a chance to go over it and talk amongst ourselves.
Hope this makes sense.
Doug
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits and Federal Consistency Section North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 212
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Forman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 5:33 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: Picha CAMA Permit, Denial and variance, Ocean Island
Doug,
Thanks for talking with me today about the subject project. One more question.
Do you think that the DCM staff will support a variance request for a large bag installation. I'm sure that is not an easy
question to answer. We are just looking to determine the level of support or resistance we might expect, if any.
Again, thanks for your help.
Bill Forman
ARENDELL ENGINEERS
James W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E.
President
105 N. 10th Street, Suite 4
Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.arendeIlengineers.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution
or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

Huggett, Doug
From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Huggett, Doug; Goebel, Christine A
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Federal Comments for sandbag placement, Tubbs Inlet
FYI. Tyler said this is the last of the ACE comments
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7302 office
[e-mail]-
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.
-----Original Message -----
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 7:42 AM
To: Coats, Heather <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Federal Comments for sandbag placement, Tubbs Inlet
-----Original Message -----
From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Robin Wiebler - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>; Fritz Rohde - NOAA Federal
<fritz. rohde @ noa a.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Federal Comments for sandbag placement, Tubbs Inlet
Dear Tyler,
The NMFS has reviewed the detailed response provided in reference to EFH Conservation Recommendations for
expansion of a sandbag revetment for Action ID No. SAW-2007-03637-10, dated May 24, 2016. The applicants response

is acceptable to the NMFS. The NMFS appreciates the applicant's commitment to monitoring, maintenance, and
removal of sandbags as required.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Best regards,
-Ken
Kenneth Riley, Ph.D.
Fishery Biologist
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516
Office: 252-728-9750 <tel:[phone]> I Cell: 252-864-6193 <tel:[phone]> I Email: [e-mail]
<m a i Ito: ke n. ri I ey@ n o a a.gov>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
Pace and Ken,
Below is the response that the Applicant's Agent (Ted Sampson) sent last week. Please review and let me know
if you find these responses satisfactory. I can either write a return letter with an official response, or do what we
normally do and handle it via email, but I wanted to have it worked out first.
Thankyou.
-Tyler
Relative to the NMFS comments:
No provisions to monitor, maintain or remove: NC DCM standard comments to address these matters are
anticipated, and so long as they are in line with the typical provisions we are accustomed to see in similar projects, the
applicant should have no problem, and this matter can be adequately addressed.
Dessication of benthic infaunal organisms, machinery crushing of organisms, burial of habitat, physical damage
to intertidal & surf zone from sandbags: These potential impacts are virtually identical to the impacts associated with the
NC DCM General Permit for Emergency sandbags, and the Corps' authorization of such emergency permits with these
associated impacts.
Recommendation for "soft" measures as alternatives: Beach nourishment is not allowed by NC DCM in inlet
areas. Sand Dune restoration is not applicable to this situation. The existing sandbag stabilized dune is being undercut by
the deep tidal channel that has migrated up against the existing sandbag revetment --any dune restoration would
disappear into the inlet as fast as it could be placed due to the 4-time daily tidal currents. Vegetative Plantings --have

little if any shoreline stabilization effect. They can trap sand that is moving by aeolian transport and thereby help build a
protective dune. But, when there is no dry sand beach, as is the case here, vegetative plantings have no benefit outside
of the aesthetic.
Relative to the NMFS recommendations:
Consider only temporary emergency erosion control: By the very nature of the permit that is sought, it is only
allowed by NC DCM as a temporary measure. The permit requested is anticipated to be temporary in nature. In this
instance, a hard, specified date for removal is probably not appropriate because of the nature of the migration of Tubbs
Inlet. These sandbags should be viewed as temporary until such time as the forces of nature come together to reverse
the direction of the migration of Tubbs Inlet, or until such time as man-made efforts, such as channel realignment brings
a degree of stability to this shoreline. Studying the history of the migration of Tubbs Inlet, it appears that the migration
direction was to the west (toward Sunset Beach) until around 1966 when a Corps project (or perhaps a Corps authorized
project) moved the natural channel along the shoreline of Sunset Beach into the middle of the Inlet. Is the Corps
prepared to now take similar actions to prevent the encroachment of the Inlet upon Ocean Isle Beach with channel
relocation, as it did to provide relief to Sunset Beach? This could address both the concerns for shoreline protection
impacts and the temporary nature of the project proposed by the Pichas.
Recommendation for alternatives analysis, including avoidance & minimization: This was addressed succinctly in
the Permit application. In essence, the do nothing alternative results in the loss of the Picha property and Town of Ocean
Isle Beach utilities, to be followed by the steady loss of additional residential property and utilities to the east of the
Picha property. Stabilizing the Inlet by the dredging of a central tidal/navigation channel is beyond the purview of the
Picha's to request, and the amount of inlet area and habitat impacted by such action would be greatly increased when
compared to the current Permit request. Seeking a hard, rock revetment or groin is something that NC DCM rules and
law do not allow for owners of private property, and associated impacts would be similar to the proposed Permit, but
have the drawback of being permanent. Avoidance of all impacts is not practicable, if the property, and the neighboring
properties/utilities are to be protected. Avoidance of many impacts are built-in the requested Permit, in that there is no
request to reclaim land lost to the inlet, and cost and practicality of building an enlarged sandbag revetment requires
the building of the smallest structure that be projected to provide the needed results, and this excludes attempting to
fill-in the deep tidal channel that has since the time of this application now migrated up against and under the existing
sandbag revetment. Minimization of impacts has long been built into the process that the applicant has followed to
provide protection for their property. The existing sandbags were installed only incrementally, under a series of
separately issued General Permits. The impacts associated with the currently requested Permit are already minimized by
seeking a size of the alignment no greater than that seen by the NC CRC to be appropriate in other situations where a
nominal 6-ft by 20-ft is found to be insufficient. Given the difficulty and length of time needed to obtain a Variance and
Corps agreement for an enlarged sandbag revetment, it is necessary to seek a footprint for the needed protection for
the full length of the shoreline, especially in light of the dynamic and changing nature of where Tubbs Inlet will
concentrate its erosive forces. This means that a full 45-ft by+12 NAVD alignment may not be constructed initially along
the entire shoreline --limiting the width of the alignment initially to the areas where erosion forces are concentrated.
This is what was initially envisioned when the Permit application was made. However, given the very lengthy Permit and
Variance process that we are experiencing, more and more of the shoreline is in need of immediate, full protection. Still,
if at the time of construction commencement we find that there are segments that do not require the full enlarged
revetment, these will be constructed to a smaller initial footprint to minimize impacts.
Relative to Detailed Plan for Removal, Including all Components: Such removal is required by existing NC DCM
rules, and is typically made part of the Permit conditions, and applicant would likely have no objection to such typical
conditions.
Relative to, Monitoring & Maintenance Plan to Prevent Marine Debris: Applicant already monitors and
maintains the existing sandbag revetment which has included the removal of already failed or failing sandbags.
Applicant intends to continue with this active monitoring, maintenance and removal of marine debris. If this needs to be
formalized, that can be done.
-Tyler

Tyler Crumbley, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] <tel:[phone]> <tel:[phone] <tel:[phone]>>
Fax: [phone] <tel:[phone]> <tel:[phone] <tei:910-251-4025> >
email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
"The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us
ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
Blockedhttp://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/ <Blockedhttp://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/> "

Huggett, Doug
From: Davis, Braxton C
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:07 PM
To: ted sampson
Cc: Goebel, Christine A
Subject: RE: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Ted,
Since your June 10 letter, I understand that you, Mr. Wright and Mr. Foreman have been in close contact with
DCM staff and our DEQ attorney, Christy Goebel, as we are all working on this... I also understand that the US
Fish and Wildlife Service has requested additional information and/or a Biological Assessment in association
with the Corps of Engineers permit for this project. Since the federal review process is still ongoing, we will be
unable to proceed with an emergency hearing of the Coastal Resources Commission this coming Friday, June
24. However, assuming that the federal review process concludes in time, and that the CRC chairman agrees,
we will hold a place for you on the July CRC meeting agenda (July 12), as long as the permit review process is
complete by July 5, and stipulated facts and the variance petition are finalized by July 7, so that we can get the
package out to the CRC for review by July 8 at the very latest.
I hope this helps,
Braxton
Braxton C. Davis
Director
NC Divisions of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8013 Marine Fisheries Office
252 808 2808 x202 Coastal Management Office
Braxton. Davisna ncdenr.00v
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: ted sampson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:33 AM
To: Davis, Braxton C
Subject: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Braxton,
On 10 June I emailed you a letter concerning the emergency situation at the Picha property in Ocean Isle Beach,
along with additional supplemental photo documentation of the situation. I have not heard back from you, and
am wondering if anything is transpiring to try to expedite this process.
With best regards,
Ted Sampson

Huggett, Doug
From: Bill Forman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:25 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Subject: RE: Picha CAMA Permit, Denial and variance, Ocean Island
Doug,
Thanks for your reply. I expected you to reply as such. What we were looking for was a "testing -the -waters reply". I
certainly would not expect to hold you to any commitment or opinion. We are trying to relay to the Pichas what we are
up against.
Bill Forman
ARENDELL ENGINEERS
James W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E.
President
105 N. 10th Street, Suite 4
Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.arendellengineers.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution
or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
-----Original Message -----
From: Huggett, Doug [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:50 PM
To: Bill Forman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goebel, Christine A <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Picha CAMA Permit, Denial and variance, Ocean Island
im
I'm afraid we can't say what our staff position will be at this point. Our staff positions are developed in response to the
positions of the petitioners on the variance criteria - therefore we can't really begin to discuss our final position until the
variance request is filed and we have a chance to go over it and talk amongst ourselves.
Hope this makes sense.
Doug

Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits and Federal Consistency Section North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 212
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Forman [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 5:33 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: Picha CAMA Permit, Denial and variance, Ocean Island
Doug,
Thanks for talking with me today about the subject project. One more question.
Do you think that the DCM staff will support a variance request for a large bag installation. I'm sure that is not an easy
question to answer. We are just looking to determine the level of support or resistance we might expect, if any.
Again, thanks for your help.
Bill Forman
ARENDELL ENGINEERS
James W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E.
President
105 N. 10th Street, Suite 4
Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.arendeliengineers.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information forthe use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution
or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

Huggett, Doug
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:05 AM
To: Huggett, Doug
Cc: Coats, Heather
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Picha draft RPMS and Terms and Conditions
Doug,
I had Kathy send me what she anticipates being in the T&Cs for the Picha project.
This should help you in your planning.
Let me know if you need anything else.
-Tyler
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthews, Kathryn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:00 AM
To: Crumbley, Tyler SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Picha draft RPMS and Terms and Conditions
VI. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and appropriate to minimize
take of piping plovers and red knots. Unless specifically addressed below, these RPMs are applicable for the
construction of the sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit. If the Applicant is
Unable to comply with the RPMs and Terms and Conditions, the Corps as the regulatory authority may inform the
Service why the RPM'orTerm and Condition is not reasonable and prudent for the specific project or activity and
request exception under the biological opinion.
1. Prior to any construction, all derelict material or other debris must be removed from the beach.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained at all beach access points used for the project
construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots.
3. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed.

4. All personnel involved in the construction process shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and
red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to
determine if piping plovers and red knots are present.
VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Corps must comply with the following terms and
conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements.
These terms and conditions are non -discretionary. Unless addressed specifically below, the terms and conditions are
applicable for the construction of the sandbag revetment and for any maintenance activities for the life of the permit.
1. Prior to any construction, all derelict coastal armoring geotextile material and other debris must be removed from
the beach to the maximum extent possible.
2. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all beach access points
used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers and red knots. All
contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All
contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and keeping the Action Area free of
trash and debris. See the Appendix for examples of suitable receptacles.
3. In the event the structure begins to disintegrate, all debris and structural material must be removed and deposited
off -site immediately upon coordination with the Service. If removal of the structure is required during the period from
May 1 to November 15, no work will be initiated without prior coordination with the Corps and the Service.
4. All personnel involved in the construction activity shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red
knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to
determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. If shorebirds are present in the work area, careful movement of
equipment in the early morning hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations
shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid antagonizing shorebirds while allowing them to exit the area.
Vill. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification must be
made to the Service Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the Service's Ecological
Services Field Office identified above and to the NCWRC at [phone]. Care should be taken in handling sick or

injured individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or
injury.
Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone], extension 34
Kathy Matthews
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Raleigh Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] x27
Email [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Huggett, Doug
From: Davis, Braxton C
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Cc: Lopazanski, Mike
Subject: RE: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Thanks Doug, that's very helpful.
Braxton C. Davis
Director
NC Divisions of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8013 Marine Fisheries Office
252 808 2808 x202 Coastal Management Office
Braxton. Davis(a)ncdenr.00v
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Huggett, Doug
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 2:03 PM
To: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lopazanski, Mike <[e-mail]>; Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Braxton
I have not had much time to look into this, but here is what I can offer after a short review.
Mr. Sampson in his letter used the example of Topsail Reef to support his assertion that his client is being treated
unfairly. To back this up he indicates that the Topsail Reef denial was issued in 9 days. This is not correct. The
emergency permit for topsail reef was applied for on May 3, 2012 and issued on May 4, 2012. The permit included an
allowance for the construction of a normal -sized sandbag revetment (there were no bags on the site at that time), with
the requested over -sized bags conditioned out. The applicant then obtained a variance for the construction of the
oversized bags.
In the case of the Picha's, they already have sand bags, and want to construct additional oversized bags. There is no
way that this can be issued and the oversized bags conditioned out as was done on Topsail Reef— a denial is necessary
before the applicant can pursue a variance. And, as we have discussed in the past, there are no procedures in CAMA
that allow for an emergency denial. With this in mind, we are running through the standard major permit review, and
we are waiting on the Corps to weigh in before we take final action.
I would also like to point out that while the Picha case (already have sandbags, want a permit to build bigger/more bags)
is not all that similar to Topsail Reef, it is very similar to the case of Barry Golob in Oak Island, who in 2014 also wanted
to add additional bags to an existing revetment. In that case, we also ran a standard major permit review leading to the

issuance of a denial. In that case, coordination of USACE/USFWS issues stretched the processing time for the denial to
86•days. We certainly anticipate being able to issue the Picha denial in less time than that.
I hope this gives you some information that can be used to respond to these issues. If you need any additional
information, please feel free to let me know.
Doug
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits and Federal Consistency Section
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
doug.huggett@ ncdenr.gov
[phone] ext. 212
From: Davis, Braxton C
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:32 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <doug.huggett ncdenr.gov>
Subject: FW: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Braxton C. Davis
Director
NC Divisions of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8013 Marine Fisheries Office
252 808 2808 x202 Coastal Management Office
Braxton. Davis(a)ncdenr.00v
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: ted sampson fmailto:tedswampsampson([e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:38 AM
To: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>; Lopazanski, Mike <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bromby, Craig A <[e-mail]>; Goebel, Christine A <[e-mail]>; Clark Wright
<[e-mail]>; yogi <[e-mail]>; Bill Forman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Picha Major Permit Application and Variance Petition
Braxton, Mike,
Please find attached my letter concerning the emergency situation at the Picha property in Ocean Isle Beach,
along with additional supplemental photo documentation of the situation.
I respectfully request that you find a means to accelerate this process, given the dire nature of the emergency.
With best regards,
Ted Sampson

CAMA;/;, DREDGEi,'&'FILL
C9EN'ERAL,. PERMIT Previous,permit
�]NeW OModlflcation ` LIComplete.Reissue ❑PartlaliReissue Date,previous permit issued
As authorized by.the State ofNorth Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the'Cdastal Resources'Commisslon.in an area of environmental concermpursuantto'-I SA NCAC V///
i / z"l- o
_ _ ❑ Rules attached..
E ppllcanttName`r f(/t/� t C' Iv¢�> Project'Location: County / %' LI /✓S /.diC'
�Address� l%�i �7 LDQI��/�//j�li /'r't�' 1��f • . Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s) //� �J(j a�/✓
�Clty//tt/7712'TLI/�Ya� t h State_�z F i
Phone #r�) f i 7 C7 D Fax'# (✓���w�"/%��li//�o Subdivision /J� //SCE
uthorizedrAgent Y�I// /�y/%� E2 -.�s CIryC�(L�fi7i/S! /%'/'A ZIP 2ef�9
L ~dtW ❑BW ElPTA ❑ES ❑PTS Phone # 67-56)44/e.2 SZD RIver'Basin. L(_i
Affected r]OEN 'YJHHF 'fjlH 0UBA ❑N/A 9 Arne
AEC(s): Adj. Wtr. Body l/.ih�5 /���r r 22 at. (hat /man /unkn) i
❑ PWS DEC,
ORW: ,yes P.NA yes / no. Crit.Hab. yes ( no: -Closest Maj, Wtr Body -,4 % / Aa6%/!'. U"YY"'+�%Q-�
Type,of Project/«Activity 610C;2tl 6Ple'C/-5,?&1,-)///�'n %o ,//%G/� C %' 7 ( f' fl�?7 O� i
�FC/�/br✓ �iy� Ll%-1.7 -, / / 5Y/�"C Te 2f- '(Scale:,/
Pier (dock) length I
'Platfotm(s)_
Fingerpier(s)�
Groin length.
number
.Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max. distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubicyards
'Boat ramp
-Boathouse/ Boatlift
„ - r
sl(„
ishoreline Length
,SAV -hot yes no_
'Sandbags:,notsure x e no
Uiforatorlum:,
;Photos pyas no
'.Walver Attached. ye !noi
41
TT
U
L
I
ru
P'
41-
jj�
O
�f
x
1\r
,e
A building permit may be'.req med by; ❑ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
�n i {/'�1 ,n
Notes/ Specfal•Condltlons L�%I( —4-r"y //C f1- /� f I/%2f)-V� j J Jail /y h' V 1 S-/" zlto•' le 1,,? 7C' lYreMA1111%%;,.
.W0/1/' ,41l '7,9
9Y/fFrl_,_ - rA-7r /J7—/ /V
/LJi
{gentor Applicant Panted Name! 'E Permk !gceds Ignature.
igna/ture *r`P.leaseread'co t-mpllancestatementonback'ofpermitrr Issuing DakeJ - Ezpiratlon Uate. �1
'.t3 "a., �Y � �C� I -/ t
' • cal Plannin urisdlction,- r' RbJenfilc Name E 3
\pplication Fee(s)i., Check#' .. L° �g1.. -

3mla
S W
e�ll�
l� b"190itY13Glh9y�
f
-. jac a moskll�f;

05)02/2009 15:05 FAX 0458-?22 11I158EVIET COM81
82/1.4!2009 21:12 9155957835 KAY PICA
r'- •,, �041i001
PAGE 01
A-W<kC'HMr RIPAPJAN PROPIMT l 01VNER S`7/['E1' �%�EJI�'T
I hereby om elf^j that I own property adjacent to '_ 0/qyf 4_ �cf _2" r4 Is
(NamN of Prro erty Owner)
pr%" Iocated at, n xi . L s 4 C b i u
(Lot,Plak, Road, em)
on ,vr�c lv6 s J��n 1.0ot. st_ a� ,N.C.
p 1 � atarrbbodyLQ� 4 (Town andlor CZty)
He has devribed to the as shown blow, die development he is proposing at Ihaf ao,:a90n,
snd, I have no objcoduns to his proposal.
DESCRIMON AND/OR 1I RA`4i ING OF PROVOSED ID>B;VELOM-2 T
(ro he ffled in by IndivWual prapodug develapmaat)
---�----�---__...--v__—`.___^�_•._.._. _ � /LA4ni S.�—t1 i l +� <c ICJ s �t�{{��•
�•Lt s � wt ,� i3 ,n U 1., tir S S`lg�na4�ura �j �
Print or Type Name
Talophona Number
Data:
`�10 �5`15-'1V3e

I ; '
SANDBAG REMOVAL NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
_,.-lt. VA
give permission to
A - to act as
lny agent in my behalf in obtaining a CAMA General Permit to place
sandbags as a temporary erosion control structure in fi-ont of my
property at 17 U%� c• �, n.: �l-. ; l << ;,� : c, { t-,l ,.: to
have read the
specifications in BA 711-1700 and understand that the sand
bags may remain in place for up to �K"years after the date of
permit approval. I understand that I will be responsible for removing
the sandbags within 30 days after that period or at any time that they are
determined by DCM staff or its agent to be unnecessary due to
relocation or removal of the structure. I will also be responsible for
removing any damaged sandbags during the period they are authorized
to be in place.
I also understand that the removal of the sandbags shall not be
required if at the specified date for temoval they are determined by
DCM staff to be covered by dunes with vegetation sufficient to be
considered stable and natural.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:.. ('},
DATE: s. - C7-

' A ©CAM,''POREDG W 2F1LL.
LPERAERMIT evcus,permlt
6w,: LModificaonOcompliteAelswelOPartialReissue. Date:previcusipermit issued
;
ules,a ched.
r/ '-d' ocation: Coun Aag,I,� ve�
pplicantiMah e� �Pr6jectt
'Addr'
ess, �19 Street-Address/�Stat6,RoAd/ Ldt /-A/
`City' nC1h zu 41! -
zy :Subdivision:
Wt mp:�2
Adtfio�d �ft C'* 4:2 U!
AffectedOjCW� EIEW, 0 PTA EIES- 0 PTS Phone*
;
%-.. D OE, , A•f DHHr PJH 0 1 LIM C1 N/A: :Adj;',Wtrf;B6c1'.- CaL/man,lunk6j.
�Ioipwsi! OFC:
GlosesvH# Mr.-Sody ro �y
.•',ORW: yesflTNA, yei-lCnq�-,) •CHCHabi �yesflkn6,
1plati
I.
Ting
Gr.
Boal
I t B'Om
'Shor
I SAV.
Sand
7' of 1 1
,(Sceile:,,/
o.
r
h
1,
I - L J
mp)ir(s)
i lavh�—
Indnibbr
avg distance-,offshorb,
max dista'nce'offs'ho'r,
L-4
channeb
cubic:i
1 _j
, il w/4
mmp�f
h3ulld6ing
—
J
1
J
J
�!fna.Ungth
lnoisve- yes nor
i�gs:. not'sum fyesf �r?o I
orlum:,
)S: yes�
jos>, An�
-A-i
;Notes/[Speclil&hditions, (,I)v �O e S- /2-11- m n"L 2'Mej(j
A
L
N,hme
I AI gI6,r,'AP&nt Printed d�-I .�
-PermitOR
is tu ",Plewe rilaocomp,'R
qcg!!6temen - it ori back of permlt
Ip-
�IgsulhgDal
kCh'eck#,,'
1L:6Ca1PinJ
MsIn, yules,
�:Explmtlorfl)ate, 41
tjon

------. •- - --- -- - _ --
i 1�`; fJ[i 7.C�4`.;43GSei: ... W.:L tyU51i•It:r r�=aui, .�.A F 02
07 Ol-."M 110576pass KFSV F1(-44
q, h 517 5 r'1 t7 3
iiI
l"U wiiom lx lsv,'y CC7NCERN;
my agent in 1'7
sandbags as a
Property at -"�
to
�p�tii Crm��iz�a l l�i�c•�.41, ,s. ,�___tb act as
ob inkn M- a CAA!Ger,eral Permit to place
ero3o.n control structure in front 9fmy
have. read lhi�
specifications in 15A qCAC1,,.H-1700 and understand that Vic sand
bags may remain In place frSr'up to _• _._ Years'after the date of
permit approval. T understandi that I will be responsible for removing
the sartdbags'witbiix yU d�.•ys Ifter that period or at arn. time that they are.
determined by DC:M staff or #s agent to be unaze.essan dine to
relocarkin or removal of•the structure, I will atsv be responsible for
nnnloving an), cianxeiged sandbags during the period they arc, aut.horired
to be in place. j
I also understand that th1 xemoval of the sandbags shall not be
required ifat the spceif'sed date forremoval they are detemiined 1iy
DC.M staff`: to be covered by dilnes,vith vegetation sufficient. to be
c:ons,idcred stable and natural. )
MITHCJI}.li.ED STGNATURfi: _.- _% f � ./� f pc✓i
1
I
1

Its MA/ ©DREDGE WFILL. _ GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit,# 1/9 1
+ DNeW ©Modification, - ❑Complete'Reissue❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued: /PI d Z
:As authorized by the State. o6North.Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources r� ��/
and theiCoastal:Resoturces'Commission in•an area,ofenvironmental'concern,pursuantto 15A NCAC ! /"! 6 ©ROles attached:
AppllcantlName /� Pl' [ 7 � Project Locadon:, County _[i ✓r�//��< _
Address in r% 6 SV G O R / d' �i/� l <n �rt Street Address/ State' Road/ : Lot #(s) / y�f%c A,r7
"City )p dl Np .� s att; iV G-ziP L /,ii 7 � J t✓�' c
Subdivision _
I 'Authonzed;Agent
City�r r lJr �Sl a 16P9c% ZIPS% E //�
( ❑CW DEW 10PTTAA DES ElPTS Phone# (i_) :Riven Basln".G el/ rs7 rr'i .J
Affected ©.O1CA' �HHF D-IH ❑UBA 'ON/A'
! AEC(s): :Adh_ Wtc. Body �✓ _% l t Pra ✓ [ a) man lunkn)
❑.PWsi. ❑FC: G�/l/C �%!F_'1�rJ
I CIOsest'Mal. Wtr. Body
yes/ro P,NA� Yes Crit.Hab. .yes,/'no'�
Type of , Project/• Activity -
Pier
Platfo
Huge
Groin
Bulk)
Baslt
'Boat
Boat
Bea(
Otfi
.Shor
SAV
'Sand
;Mora
Phot
W
d
N
dock)length �.--pt
lengtft. t-. �-•._.,,,.ems U r� { I fI��
number
r
I.
ead/Popraplength
avg distance offshore I I L... _,.i
max distance offshore I I J_
,channel
cublgydrds
ramp)
Louse/ Boatllft
i Bulldozing
rf S/J.7r�v/rIP -rV Iji �lr 4 /yr urrh RSr. �..
-/ (�//�Gl -:X
eline Length,
notsure .yes: '_(no
bags not -sure ;yes. .00. T ��
mw
torlum .
n: yes _ 1 -�
os C. 'no - _I t I
rAttached' ' es 'nog-1- �— 1 - I'�
n
a
e L r-'ff
'Abulltlingpermlcmay6elrequi'redby: 11(P/r).✓,y.f�r//)r
Notes/,Special Conditions. (1,/4 )nC4;.) //s,
y"we d a //!t1l%rr n.
/r
ff (Scale: / Q ),
i—, IT
I
+ t
4 I
1
t �
El See,noteon backregardin&Ri4er Basin rules.
l%// I L 1 /
'r I � f �� n perml nature ofOcer's Signature
'Agent orApP icant Printed. ame - g .P R %✓rf S.//•✓
/Q .- L
✓ ' >i�. .•Iss In Date -Ex Imtio�o.
Sig a Peasereadcompliancestatementonbackofpermit. - g /27% .r'
t��c0 /r�n��aAr�j zU%
�V
Check# suocal PlanningJurlsdictlon'. Rover Flle Namo
_APPlicatlon Eee(s),�__.,�__..._—_._.�.�.._ ..—.. w___.__�.�."._.__._..�.-
is
n
a
e L r-'ff
'Abulltlingpermlcmay6elrequi'redby: 11(P/r).✓,y.f�r//)r
Notes/,Special Conditions. (1,/4 )nC4;.) //s,
y"we d a //!t1l%rr n.
/r
ff (Scale: / Q ),
i—, IT
I
+ t
4 I
1
t �
El See,noteon backregardin&Ri4er Basin rules.
l%// I L 1 /
'r I � f �� n perml nature ofOcer's Signature
'Agent orApP icant Printed. ame - g .P R %✓rf S.//•✓
/Q .- L
✓ ' >i�. .•Iss In Date -Ex Imtio�o.
Sig a Peasereadcompliancestatementonbackofpermit. - g /27% .r'
t��c0 /r�n��aAr�j zU%
�V
Check# suocal PlanningJurlsdictlon'. Rover Flle Namo
_APPlicatlon Eee(s),�__.,�__..._—_._.�.�.._ ..—.. w___.__�.�."._.__._..�.-
is

;aA/O'DREDGE&•FILL !/ .�"t:,: m:4 ,f;l!.b'
uENERAL PERMIT Previous permit #
r MA. eW ClModlflcatioo' ' O'Complete Reissue ❑ Partial `Reissue Date prevlous permit issued:
As authorized by the State of North.Carolina. Department of Environment and,Natural Resources 2
1 and the CoastaliRd'sources,Commisslomin an areaofenvironmental concern;pursuantto-l5A NCAC N, Z l% 0
LyKules attached.
+Applicant'7Name �%f ,.i� c' hl /n;�t � 1 TT _ Project Location: County ��+Zra,J �V Ly) C:
Address {� % �O S /j / P ✓ C" /kli !� i JJ� Street Address/ State Road/tot:#(s)'
cty %'n,�rl Nnl A ✓ State_ ZIP./ G✓r's
Fax #,(_')'• Subdivision' / ��
Au[horized;Agent City )C a,,J - !4 •e �JF2,/j
pCW OEW, ❑PTA'" OES_ ❑PTS Phone#
Onn y River'Bazin Gr/ , 1-,)-
Affected
+AECs: 'OEA. lQ.HHF 9:IH ,O UBA, •ON/A Acl.Wtr:+Bod,r+//"ie �(Pf1✓ aD
O ❑ PWS IOFG- l y (hat ')man /unkn)
+ ORW: yes'(,�no
1
A '
Type,of P'rojectl
Pler;(dock) length_
Platform(s)
iFinger. pler(s)_
,Groin length,_
P.NA yes/
number -
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
' max distance offshore_
+ Basin, channel"
cubic yards
' Boat ramp.
1 iBoathouset Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing'
—
'�Otfiet�/
Crit.Hab. ,yes /.no- ClosestlMaj: WtcBody-/%)`ff�/" �« lyc-, 1ti
c
(Scale:/
p
I I I ' f
J , 1
L J J
a
711
I L
1 t
I SAVC not sure; yes, n% I. I
'Sandbags notsure yes. no .---+—�' [1 I•1- I f~f
1 'Moratorium .n/a+ y, es no y I r"'�� �� I•`"
I
Phi r
'otos: as �.no
WaiverAttache&. es no
A"building,permitmay berequired by;.�>/�,✓/�(pq�,f
Notes/ SoeclaIrConditions. Ctia/A All
l- I
2
Agent or Ap licantprinte Name
Sign Cure *ii` Please read compliance statement onback of permit**
+ f
Application Feels). ;Check #1
t
. I
I
'❑See note on back regarding. River Basinrules:)cyg
TermitOfftceF'sS ignature !' yy A, A 6✓+ 1,,s-r -
^Issui gDat -r� Expirztlon Date:
i
Local Planninglurisdictidn Rover File Name. -���

s
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
give permission to
to act as
my agen in my beh if in obtaining a CAMA General Permit to place
sandbags as a temporary erosion control structure in front of my
property at 1 y I r-O
have read,the
specifications in 1 SA NCAC 7H-1700 and understand that the sand
bags may remain in place for up to _;L_ years after the date of
permit approval. I understand that I will be responsible for removing
the sandbags within 30 days after that period or at any time that they are
determined by DCM staff or its agent.to be unnecessary due to
relocation or removal of the structure. I will also be responsible for
removing any damaged sandbags during the period they are authorized
to be in place.
I also understand that the removal of the sandbags shall not be
required if at the specified date for removal they are determined by
DCM staff to be covered by dunes with vegetation sufficient to be
considered stable and natural.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: Q;
DATE: Q o C

SAMPSON CONTRACTING, INC.
Marine Construction And EnEironmental Consulting SerOCes
125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 27909 USA 1
Tel: [phone] — Fax: [phone]
[e-mail] www.sampsoncontracting.com f
June 10, 2016
Braxton Davis, Director
Mike Lopazanski, Acting Assistant Director
NC Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Re: Picha Major Permit Application; oversized
sandbag revetment; Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Dear Messrs. Davis and Lopazanski:
It has now been 57 days since a Major Permit Application was submitted to address the
immediate threat to the Picha property in Ocean Isle Beach. At this point we are still awaiting a
Permit denial so that we may pursue a Variance petition for Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) authorization to increase the size of the existing sandbag revetment as needed to address
the imminent threat from rapid migration of Tubbs Inlet.
I am writing now in an attempt to emphasize to you the dire nature of this emergency situation,
and to provide additional photographic documentation of the immediate threat that faces the
Picha property. I would also like to emphasize again the extent of this emergency that was
provided with the Permit application.
This emergency does not just threaten the Picha property, but also the water, sewer, fire main,
electrical, and other utilities provided for the west end of Ocean Isle Beach. These utilities are
located within the road right-of-way that extends through the Picha property.
In addition, this emergency threatens the entire west end of Ocean Isle Beach, in that a loss of the
Picha property to Tubbs Inlet will not be the end to the emergency. The formation of the tidal
deltas has configured the tidal channel so that it must bend sharply at the northwest extreme of
the Picha property in order to find a path to the ocean through which the tidal prism is emptied
on each ebb tide. This very sharp turn in the tidal channel in this location concentrates the
erosive forces of the ebb tide currents upon the Old Sound Creek side of the west end of Ocean
Isle Beach. This means that utilities for the west end of the island are likely to be taken away by
the migrating Inlet first, followed closely by the residential homes near the very west end of the
island.
I wish to emphasize again that this Permit application does not seek to simply address the
"normal" imminent threat of the ocean encroaching upon residential property, which usually
arises after a long gradual process, sometimes correlated with prevailing erosion rates, if not
exacerbated by the occurrence of a significant storm. This Permit application seeks to address the
dynamic nature of property located adjacent to an inlet, where significant erosive forces are
concentrated upon the property by the strong tidal currents that occur 4 times each day.

When the tidal channel of an inlet is at some distance from the adjacent property, the effects
upon the shoreline are reduced as the tidal flow can spread out across the breadth of the inlet and
tidal velocities upon the shorelines are much reduced. However, when the tidal channel is
immediately up against the adjacent shoreline, that shoreline experiences the maximum
velocities of the tidal flow, greatly increasing the erosive effects.
The rapid migration of the tidal channel of Tubbs Inlet toward the Picha property, now to the
point where it is virtually up against the westernmost portion of the existing sandbag revetment,
presents a significant threat. For this threat, time is very much more of the essence than for the
"normal" imminent threats of erosion for which a General Permit has been provided in the CRC
Rules to facilitate virtually immediate response to the threat.
In an emergency case such as this, where property requires protection beyond that provided for
the `normal" cases along the coast, a property owner is required by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) to first seek a major Permit, then must receive a denial of that Permit, and
then must enter into the process for a variance. When the emergency and imminent threat are
greatly increased, the ability to obtain the needed and required Permit is greatly retarded. Such
built-in administrative delays are inappropriate and call for fast action on the part of DCM, and
efforts to find innovative ways to accelerate this process.
It appears that such efforts have been made in the past by DCM to accelerate the Permit
processing in response to similar emergencies. In one case, nearly parallel to this one, a Permit
was issued pursuant to a Variance within 34 days for a shoreline already protected with a
sandbag revetment previously authorized by General Permits. I am at a loss to understand why
the Picha emergency, has not received similar treatment.
In the case involving the Topsail Reef Homeowners Association, DCM was able to find a way to
move the process much faster into and through the Variance process. In that case the timeline
was as follows:
4/25/2012 Permit application submitted to DCM's District Manager Wilson.
5/04/2012 Final Permit Decision (denial of enlarged sandbag alignment)
5/10/2012 Acknowledgement of receipt of Variance Petition and request for hearing by CRC
5/24/2012 Emergency meeting of CRC to hear Variance Petition
5/29/2012 Permit for enlarged sandbag alignment issued pursuant to CRC granting of
Variance
In the case of the Topsail Reef, a means was found to reach a Permit denial decision within 9
days of Permit application submittal, at which time the applicants could begin meeting with the
DCM attorney to establish an agreed set of Stipulated Facts and prepare the Variance Package.
Within 29 days, the Variance was being heard by the CRC. Within 34 days, the Permit needed
for the emergency work was issued.
To now be at 55 days since the submittal of the Permit application, and we still do not have even
a Permit denial, suggests that DCM has chosen to follow new or different procedures that no
longer take into account the nature of the emergency faced by the Permit applicant.

This delay in the processing of this Permit application has resulted in the loss of much of the
work area that is needed in order to reinforce the existing sandbag revetment, making the
construction work to provide the needed erosion protection much more difficult, more costly,
and less safe. I am attaching a series of recent photos that show the current extent of erosion, the
loss of area in which to work, and in which to construct an enlarged sandbag revetment.
Gentlemen, this is a pressing emergency, and I urge you to do whatever is possible to expedite
the Permit review and Variance petition process. Many thanks, in advance, for making this
project a priority for all involved.
Sincerely,
s
i"
Theodore J. Sampson
cc: Craig Bromby
Christy Geobel

Ni
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 24, 2016
Sampson Contracting, Inc.
Mr. Ted Sampson
125 Hunters Trail West
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Dear Mr. Sampson:
PAT MCCRORY
Govamor
DONALD R..VAN DER VAART
sxx+ary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is with reference to your application, acting as agent for Ms. Kay Picha, for a Coastal
Area Management Act Major Development permit to undertake development activities at
property adjacent to Tubbs Inlet, at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd., in Ocean Isle, Brunswick County.
Although processing of the application is nearing completion, additional time is needed for this
office to complete the review and make a decision on your request. Therefore, it is necessary
that the standard review time be extended. An additional 75 days is provided by G.S.113A-122(c)
which would make September 10, 2016, the new deadline for reaching a decision on your
request. However, we expect to take action prior to that time and will do so as soon as possible.
In the interim, if you have any question on the status of your application, do not hesitate to
contact me by phone [phone] or e-mail at: [e-mail].
cc: Wilmington Files
Doug Huggett
Sincerely,
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Nothing Compares;
RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
Gavemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART N.'
secretory
Environmental
Quality
April 19, 2016
Sampson Contacting, Inc.
125 Hunters Trail West,
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Dear Mr. Sampson:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for Mrs. Kay Picha, for State
approval for development at the property located at 149 Ocean Isle W. Blvd. adjacent to the Old Sound Creek, Tubbs Inlet, and
the Atlantic Ocean, in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, in Brunswick County. It was received complete on 04/13/16, and appears to
be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is 06/27/16. 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 April 13, 2016, 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 property owner, developer, and project
designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-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 this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would
be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way fronting your property, or at a point along the
road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. 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,
A-��2-
Sean Farrell
Field Representative
Enclosure
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM Debra Wilson, DCM
Heather Coats, DCM Keith Dycus, Town of Ocean Isle Beach LPO
Tyler Crumbley, ACOE Kay Picha, applicant
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
nothing Compares- -
State of North Camlina I Envlmnmental QuaiRy DCM- M H D CITY
1601 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 276WI601
919-707-8600

Nt)'1'IC1:
T
n
uCAMA
exis
Wes
PERMIT
PP 1 E �
pplican proposes
eROJECT: so
Al , in cean s e eac
APPLICANT:
Kay Picha
6965 Lorian Charter Dr.
Randleman, NC 27317
Agent: Ted Sampson [phone]
to increase an
1111111111-r
11C
runsWick County.
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
NC Div. of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Sean Farrell, Field Representative
910=796=7424

ldz
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 19, 2016
[e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Major Public Notice Combo:
• Picha / Brunswick Co.
• Forehand / Pender Co.
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
Kyle & Heather: Please publish the attached Notice in the Thursday, April 21, 2016 issue.
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, 910-796-7226. Paying by credit card
to the attention of Luke Skiera, (Ref acct # 796-7215).
Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me
at our Wilmington office.
cc:
Heather Coats - WiRO
Doug Huggett -MHC
Tyler Crumbley — USACE
Michele Walker- DCM
Sincerely,
Shaun K. Simpson
Permitting Support & Customer A stance
Nothing Compares��
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 7;'S
State of North Carolina I Enviroomentel Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

0
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 applications were submitted for development permits in
Areas of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On April 13, 2016, Kay Picha
proposed to increase an existing sandbag revetment at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd, adjacent to
Tubbs Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, and on April
14, 2016, Brian Forehand proposed to expand an existing docking facility at 2103 Washington
Acres Rd, adjacent to Horn Creek and the AIWW, in Hampstead, Pender County. The
applications can be examined or copied at the office of Sean Farrell (Picha) or Debbie Wilson
(Forehand), N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127
Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7215) 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 May 12, 2016 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
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
Nothing Compares.`
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

MAJOR PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Kay Picha / $400 #7328 / Brunswick Co.
.19
DCM %
DWQ
Development Type
Fee
14300160143510009316256253
2430016024351000952341
I. Private, non-commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$250
100%
$250
0%
$0
II. Public or commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$400
100%
$400
0%
$0
III. For development that involves the filling
and/or excavation of up to 1 acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas, determine if A,B, C,
or D below applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$250
100%
$250
0%
$0
III(B). Public or commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$400
100%
$400
0%
$0
III(C). If General Water Quality Certification No.
3490 (see attached) could be applied, but DCM
staff determined that additional review and written
DWQ concurrence is needed because of
concerns related to water quality or aquatic life:
$400 /
60%
$240
40%
$160
III(D). If General Water Quality Certification No.
3490 see attached cannot be applied:
$400
60%
$240
40%
$160
IV. Development that involves the filling and/or
excavation of more than one acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas:
$475
60%
$285
40%
$190
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

DENR CAMA Daily Check Log for NRRO
Date
Dam
Depoalm
CM k
Receipt or
Reeeivetl
tl Check Fmm ama
Name of Permit Holder Vantlnr
Cheek Number amount
P it Number/Commenm
ReNndRaallocamtl
NOTES
4/14 016' 'Sam son Contmctin Inc.
Key Plcha I PNC Baft 7326 OOAO ma Iles 149 Dcean Isle W Blvd DIB Br
SF rot. 1645D
IDWQ split tee 1 240
L
LV
�
�
U
N
0—
W
2
U
N
O
�
Q
U
Q

Division of Coastal Management
Agency Form For Permit Applications
I, Ka Picha owner of the property located at:
(property owner)
142 Qcean Isle West
(property location/address)
Ocean Isle Beach. NC 28469
(property locatioWaddress)
do hereby authorize: Ted Sampson of SAMPSON CONTRACTING, INC.,
and/or Yogi Harper of Erosion Control Specialists of NC, Inc.
to act as my agent for the purpose of obtaining any needed environmental Permits,
including NC Coastal Area Management Act permits, NC Dredge and Fill Act permits,
NC DENR permits, US Army Corps of Engineers permits, and/or any local, or county
building and environmental permits, that may be needed for the proposed development at
the above -indicated property, which entails:
Erosion control and shoreline stabilization of the property.
(describe the proposed development for which permits are being sought)
This agency authorization is limited to the specific activities described above, and will
expire on:
April 30,2017
(date on which agency authorization expires)
(Property Owner Information)
�) ignature)
Kay Picha
(printed name of owner)
(Title: officer of core. owner or trustee)
A ri16 2 16
(date)
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
6965 Lorian Charter Drive
(Mailing Address)
Randleman NC 27317
(City, State, Zip Code)
336 674 8176
(Telephone Number)
r7ECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

m
.. -
S
S
CHOpFTc6§a0
USE
r
m
PoQ'
®
0449
07
C.ff, d Feb
$0.00
o
(Endoers mte He.'Md)
$0.00
Posonsk
""
0
ReaWcted Delivery Fee
O
(BMorsement RegWred)
-I-rotelPoete9e&
F..;G4/1i/2U1ti
m
=
Robert and Sharon Bell
0
186 Heimatsweg Road
Chapin, SC 29036 —
-------- ......... _
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016
G

SAMPSON CONTRACTING, INC.
Marine Construction And Emironmental Consulting Services
125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 27909 USA
Tel: [phone] — Fax: [phone]
00, [e-mail] www.sampsoncontracting.com
CERTIFIED MAIL, — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Robert and Sharon Bell
186 Heimatsweg Road
Chapin, SC 29036
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bell:
V&
April 7, 2016
Re: Kay P. Picha; erosion control project; at 149 Ocean Isle W
Boulevard, in Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Our company has been retained by a neighboring property owner of yours, Kay P. Picha, to make
application for the needed permits and conduct the intended work along the shoreline of their property.
Mrs. Picha proposes to enlarge the existing sandbag revetment to address the encroachment of the tidal
channel of Tubbs Inlet onto the existing sandbag revetment. This channel is now within 35-ft of the
sandbag revetment, and has migrated 48-ft closer to the existing sandbag revetment over the course of the
past 4 months. When this tidal channel migrates to the base of the existing sandbag revetment, the
existing revetment will become undermined and negate its existing protective value.
One of the permits that the Pichas are required to obtain to authorize this project is a CAMA Permit from
the NC Division of Coastal Management. As an adjacent riparian property owner to the Picha property,
the CAMA Permit process requires that we notify you of this proposed development by Certified Mail.
This notification provides you with the opportunity to advise the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management of any comments you may have concerning the proposed work. CAMA Rules allow 30 days
from the date of this notification in which to comment.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Permit Application package, with supporting drawings, for the
proposed project.
We request that you kindly review this enclosure, and if you have any questions we request that you
contact us, so that we may have the opportunity to further clarify the project and/or alleviate any of your
concerns.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ted Sampson
Project Manager
Encl: (1) Picha Major Permit Application Package
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WIL.MINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

is
.� 1 �. •I. l a�::'.
�.1'I.. •. .'1' i_. 1 �I _1�.'.
1:141 `,.1 .: r
:._
'1 )�ll.t
�ii I

'Vt
0
B[,BwwfaY Cnia,tr Ra9lcfvz of 0tsdc
Iawt 13311M Book 211�1
06/22/2006 12:25:3ias k-ct� 5Wq
NET )PM
a TOTALla—m—TpI_
RECA—CKAWT-'a-CKSD29'i
CASH_ REF —BY
)Nu TaAabic ConadrndioB)
Tow by _.
v<,IBNM
Nail dWberaacaad'mB to ___
lhk Emirs. yeas Moored b,
0tkfdewnPkw f n fl. lwi,'
NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
'r111S GELD roads) 13 W day ofdoaw, 2W6, by PP3 bww.n
Da id W. PkW I Kay K PlchA
0063L claaawsu
Rendlarnaa. NC ]2JIT-'IE]]
tog is ILaknrfae .n. wore. w.'. .wo. Ufa m ink..M1rnn n(Waa,c ..'a' v.1
'Ili deaapw Ga1eW ad Grnt- a d harnn stall w.!ude nid pruto, dash hh6. naecesw,s, erd assrRm, and awfl bwkae
ringWP. Waal, wavWine. hminim «rower as rryaireW by [nnwv.
W'ITNI:SSCT13, doe na Granlas, lie a raloabla c«Bld.ui. pa a by do Gmn¢c, dw rtnabn of wbiob is )..bY adso,skd6ed, bas and
by thew,,awmt does Arent bolasin, ae.B and cannq onw the Gatti. in r- oiwpk, -111Wl-neat lot w parcel of band nilcued in the
Cil aC,____. 3Bunswick COwdY.NoM Caroliru aM nwrc padiwlulY described v frllnw:
Bsin/ all of LP 10 an an, Oder and Virgin Williwnson los"as bk Trva Saldwiaoo. as sboxa an map roared 1--otod w
k3ap Bank Z of page 16. in rM Sistrovkk Cnan,y Reginry.
Ibis aaal,ldn[P I1 Wait p attWml W N-Wh CalahN (kMdl SImmG $ Do` 3"13.11e) anal o brrarded - d"t- Me
...r br the r Ililery aM m vet talk axcluairelY in,hn Grant..
The path inahoa, wwr assiod b'Grardd'by inswm.t a.oadad ba Ikak_ Pyle
A rnap shOst, sot abaehwrihal Vi%aty is ra,aaed In Plea Bmk 1. otoo 16.
TO HAVf AND TO 1101.0 THE 44nvald W P Paw' of land dad WI Phihaa and ,gpamu«es ahawo baldnarot ro de
Gnu. In to, suopk.
And an, Graw« wwtuna with ilia Gmnhe, rhd Gonna" has done noda-9 to bnp+k such Wk w Grauaur r-eircd. CAW Oamlur will
,saran and dafwd the lick n6innt the knfd cklma of all Vr a elaion, tf, uMer and Onough Granuw, r cunl Sv the
eeagviona hrnafl«slated.
lhla ro drc pwpary hattiwbosx deacnbed is wb).t to Ili folk,sing vacuptions:
e:,snrem..,esmul«u. ngnu4r+ar arr wandm.aa,aes u... ro.ara a.,a,rr yea.
H C. Ba.Wm Fwm Ne,BC I W:
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 1 2 2016

I mt t 337105 Book 2414Page: 1082
4 mlI<up wWu. dIW Wtr..al 1.W MdplhewM.h.ueOy
M
8f4 AUP Gk0 dCl roUNtY. yqy''"�/�
_—tMALL) P. JOH. •vamn wl[g6KdvtQXCwW.wre N.IW.m.Jb IW
IW.rAM PUli IwW.m c...vwnm.8!•vw^d 4lruiY do •^ NIq f.LL^Ii
/id4FAOCi}BY, NtNM iA.1...r n.w.wwnmlm.v.•+Y.Iw��:aN avc
-: : O-,cmuo6ni Emim. JA1
1.Nw.n PMY N W C..^b W 1bY.M1s14.Knb M1
de.duCY ..r eama r YY M .m .11mnkw Wr Y Y Be..Wr N
• nau C...R.. upne-, W wl q
.uWM e.b tl.0 .w u W .n el He <orlw.Me. lEe O.q.lq YMrI....yW I. W er q N
hWe..N wW .lp In <wPonn wr W .need q,�_ m is __ ev.<un.
w1Wr.r Ww.w.mY.l m.d m m.t nm_a.r N
WK KNOtd I. h [once lW luu[veal.MtW tt[tlh.n e[ tlYJ [e�n<M.I l4 d.t W tlu ud I. Je Baak..d P.tl[ Ww. w K<fiN
wm kmr
or otta..
n c. en ti.: ram. rdo.do ron
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016

I
-
k
IS
>-
z
LU _�
U
u
W o
> nl
W c�
W Z
U
w ¢
W a
Ir
�
U
o

SAMPSON CONTRACTING, INC.
Marine Construction And Environmental Consulting Services
125 Hunters Trail West, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 27909 USA
Tel: [phone] — Fax: [phone]
[e-mail] www.sampsoncontracting.com
April 7, 2016
Debra Wilson
District Manager
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 27405
Re: Kay P. Picha; Major Permit Application for shoreline protection
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Please accept this letter and the enclosed documents as the required application for CAMA and NC
Dredge and Fill permits for the proposed development.
The purpose for this permit request is to allow the owners to conduct additional shoreline protection along
the Atlantic Ocean, Tubbs Inlet, and Old Sound Creek. The existing shoreline protection, while currently
adequate to resist the erosive effects of ocean waves and storms, is in imminent threat of becoming
undermined by the migration of the Tubbs Inlet tidal channel.
Please find as part of this request the Major Permit Application Forms, and supporting documents
(including a check for the application fee) identified in the list of enclosures below. Copy of letter to the
Riparian Property Owner is a part of those enclosures, which requires documentation of delivery.
Provided herein are the Postal Receipts for Certified Delivery ("green card" return receipts will be
provided separately once returned by the Post Office).
I would like to emphasize that time is of the essence in processing this Permit request. The current rate of
migration of the Tubbs Inlet tidal channel is expected to severely limit the ability to perform the needed
work within the next month. Tbis tidal channel migration rate is expected to start undermining the
existing sandbag revetment within 3 months. Once the existing alignment becomes undermined, it will be
extremely difficult, if not impossible to perform the work needed to keep the existing residential
structures from being lost to the inlet.
It is recognized that this Permit application cannot be granted under the existing Rules of the Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC), and we intend to move as quickly as possible to have a Variance request
considered by the CRC.
We respectfully request your expeditious denial of this permit request on the basis of its non-conformance
with what may be permitted under the existing Rules of the CRC; this expeditious denial is needed to
facilitate the hearing of the intended Variance request by the CRC at the earliest possible moment.
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- NAND CITY

... — � � .. �� . , , s ,,� � � � - ,
,� . .
�� . ;.. ,
�. ,; ... .
;'
;s • � �,��, -,�. ,�, �. �.. �. ��
;.,' ..
c � � r -�. .�y, �, ., - . ,- ,i� ,5i.i,
i
.. . , ' . i�'. . , �,1'
n � � � �.
f.. � n � .i, ` li .-
.. ., .a. ,. .. :c � ... ., .. � .. '�
1. d .. .. ,n i. �.'. � r i :):' 'vFl ��� J.Y
�J i Ul � 1 ail:.
.. � i.I� � � i� .�� � _ .� �. .. U! �. p_ � i.
'! i.
f^ a. I� ) � ... ��. (� t i
s
.. � i'.�
I
(��
tl
i. ` .`'

Many thanks for everything you can do to immediately process this request and facilitate dealing with the
current emergency situation.
Sincerely,
Ted Sampson
Encl:
(1) DCM MP-1 Application for Major Development Permit
(2) DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill
(3) SAMPSON CONTRACTING Drawing No. 04-032516-001, Sheet 1, titled Picha Erosion
Control, Site Overview
(4) SAMPSON CONTRACTING Drawing No. 04-032516-001, Sheet 2, titled, Picha Erosion
Control, Revetment Close -Up
(5) SAMPSON CONTRACTING Drawing No. 04-032516-001, Sheet 3, titled, Picha Erosion
Control, Sandbag Revetment Cross Section and Plan View
(6) Project Narrative
(7) Vicinity Map
(8) Deed from David W. Picha to Kay P. Picha
(9) Riparian Property Owner Notification Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Bell (with attached certified letter
receipt)
(10) Agency Authorization Form, Kay Picha to Ted Sampson of Sampson Contracting, Inc.
(11) SAMPSON CONTRACTING, Inc. Check # 7328, to NC DENR in amount of $400 for Permit
Application Fee
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 2016
DCPA- AHD CITY RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APR 12 2016

NC Division of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application Computer Sheet
AEC: Atlantic Ocean Vr —
Cdaits Fee: $400#7328
Applicant: Kay Plcha
Agent/Contractor: Sampson Contracting, Inc.
Project Site County: Brunswick
Staff. Sean Farrell
District. M7lmhrgten
Project Name: Picha Erosion Control
Rover File: n/a
River Basin:
L
Initial date of application submittal: 4-12-16
Date application 'received as complete' in the Field office:
Permit Authorization: CAMA PDredge & Fill Both
SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION
ORW: ❑Yes IKNo IPNA: ❑Yes Wo
Photos Taken: Yes V9 No❑
Setback Required (riparian): []Yes NNo
Critical Habitat: ❑Yes ❑No WNot Sure
15 foot waiver obtained: ❑Yes ®No
Hazard Notification Returned:
P$Yes ❑No
SAV: Yes jPNo []Not Sure
Shell Bottom: ❑Yes ❑No V Not
Temporary Impacts: EYes No
Sure
Sandbags: MYes ❑No ❑ Not Sure
Did the land use classification come
Mitigation Required (optional):
from county LUP: []Yes WNo
❑Yes ;?No
Moratorium Conditions:
Environmental Assessment Done:
Length of Shoreline:
❑Yes ;�JNo []NA
[]Yes [ANo ❑NA
,k- q 6 $ FT
Shellfish Area Designation:
Project Descri tion: (code)
Development Area: (code)
Open -or- Closed
O,OH aueS 1-1 l00
SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4)
❑ Future Water Supply (FWS)
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
El Swamp Waters (SW)
El High Quality Waters (HQ"
❑ Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
WETLANDSIMPACTED
❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional
❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.)
❑ (SS) Glasswort (Salicomia sp.)
wetlands)
El (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense)
❑ (SA) Salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina
❑ (SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina
altemiflora)
cynosuroides)
❑ (DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis
(SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus
(TY) Cattail (Typha sp.)
spicata)
sp.)
❑ (JR) Black needlerush (Juncos
❑ (SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina
roemerianus)
patens)
APPLICATION FEE
❑ No fee required - $0.00
El III(A) Private w/ D&F up to 1 acre; 3490
El III(D) Priv. public or comm wl 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
❑ IV Any development involving D&F of
permit - $100
permit - $250
more than 1 acre - $475
Permit Transfer - $100
❑ III(B) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1
D Express Permit - $2000
acre; 3490 can be applied - $400
RECEIVED -
El Major development extension request -
It. Public or commerciaUno dredge
$100
and/or fill - $400
❑ I. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250
❑ III(C) Priv. public or oomm w /D&F to 1
acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs
DWQagreement -$4W
DCM- MHD CITY
I

Kay Picha
Date: 4-12-16
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
9J
N/A
New g
Man ❑�
Replace
❑ Y ON
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
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
temp impacts)
impact amount)
ternp impacts)
amount
/
(7
Dredge ❑ Fill Both ElOther El�'b
I 3 U O
n I goo
1-79 00
MWS6
Dredge 99 Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
��
` 1
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
2 2
2016
Dredge [IFill ❑ Both [IOther [IR
Dredge ❑ Fig ❑ Both ❑ other ❑
C M- M
D CITY
919-733-2293 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 10112106

Old Sound Creek
60-Ft Street & Utility
Easement
First Line
0 10 20ffiNi"M—esii
SCALE: 1 IN = 50 FT
Atlantic
Ocean
Irn
I Im
Bell Property I topetrJ
P Im
roe
I�
Ic
I t�
ty / Formerly:
Williamson Trust Property
Now: j
Sj Washout Per Brunswick Co. Tax Office /
X�ateo 12612p
scoto16 es
oW tpW
Vo
4'
°6'
4'
.. 43 / ' � Tubbs Inlet voW
4' '20 i ateM as Z 2
/ .4' , �, 1TZ p =17 j \ / / to 17J�31
/
i 4 d6, .13' �� / - /
/ l'%
AP. 211 2016 / / atet
VoW �'Oooa
Est €u i / - /
Approximately 300' to MHW
of Sunset Beach Sandbar
Oceanfront Setback
O Landward Extent Of
c� Ocean Erodible AEC
07
f�
� / V
Picha Prope
i
M JAIII
Existing 6' x 20' Sandbag Alignment
O O O Existing Subsurface Rock Revetment
Proposed Oversized 12' NGVD x 49 Sandbag
Alignment
Existing Remnant Riprap Groin
Property Lines
— — - Mean High Water
......... First Line of Vegetation
— — . - Oceanfront Setback
— — Landward Extent of Ocean Erodible AEC
— Approximate Mean Low Low Water
9' Water Depth in Channel at Low Tide 3/25/2016
1) Elevation contours from Coastal Science & Engineering,
PLLC drawings dated 1/1109 and 1113109. These oonlouni
have been altered by subsequent erosion control
construction and shifting sands in Old Town Creek and
Tubbs Inlet. Elevation contours above the top of existing
sandbags remain as indicated. Elevation of majority of
developed property is approximately +8'NAVD88.
1) Drawings derived from field observations, Brunswick Co.
GIS, Coastal Science & Engineering, PLLC drawings
dated 1/11/09 and 1/13109, and Boney & Associates, Inc.
drawing dated 5123/94.
2) Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
3) Copyright © 2016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, oraltered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Picha and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEQ, US Army
n1*103 o o
PE STp I SAWSON
RECxE i ED
>r,!iL Plil!"dam i did, ,=IG'
APR %E2016 _/'.
125 Hunters Trail west
Eliza th Clty. NC 2790!
TTmL -
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
DMWRIo=E:
SITE OVERVIEW
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 1 OF 3

V
60-Ft Street & Utility \ N
Easement
First Line of
Oceanfront Setback
Landward Extent Of
Ocean Erodible AEC
N
i
0s �\
t0
O'er 'c-Q
\ \\ \ \
6
Old Sound Creek
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SCALE: 1 IN = 30 FT
Pic"rope
10, ffi: Who ' 11
011 PINK
� '�-,�ENV
�:�'•%/.=ice?,=%% %/I=�1' ��
Bell Property
APR 2 2 2016
Existing 6' x 20' Sandbag Alignment
O O O Existing Subsurface Rock Revetment
Proposed Oversized 12' NGVD x 45' Sandbag
Alignment
Existing Remnant Riprap Groin
Property Lines
— — - Mean High Water
......... First Line of Vegetation
— • — - Oceanfront Setback
— — • Landward Extent of Ocean Erodible AEC
— Approximate Mean Low Low Water
9' Water Depth in Channel at Low Tide 3/25/2016
Elevation contours from Coastal Science & Engineering,
PLLC drawings dated 111109 and 1113/09. These contour.
have been altered by subsequent erosion control
construction and shifting sands in Old Town Creek and
Tubbs Inlet. Elevation contours above the top of existing
sandbags remain as indicated. Elevation of majority of
developed property is approximately +8'NAVD88.
1) Drawings derived from field observations, Brunswick Co.
GIS, Coastal Science & Engineering, PLLC drawings
dated 1/11109 and 1/13109, and Boney & Associates, Inc.
drawing dated 5123/94.
2) Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
3) Copyright ©2016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, or altered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Fiche and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEQ, US Army
IsM969t•I
n n" SAWSON CONTRACTING, INC.
APR 12 2016 V�v I
125 NUMere Trail Weat
Elizabeth C N :299e9
MUECrT
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
REVETMENT CLOSE-UP
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 2 OF 3

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF OVERSIZED SANDBAG REVETMENT
25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Lateral Distance in Feet
PLAN VIEW OF OVERSIZED SANDBAG REVETMENT
® Proposed Shoreline Parallel Sandbag
(6-ft by 15-ft flat)
Existing Shoreline Parallel Sandbag
(5-ft by 15-ft flat)
Proposed Shoreline Perpendicular Sandbag
(5-ft by 10-ft flat)
1744 9 Existing Shoreline Perpendicular Sandbag
�25�25� (5-ft by 10-ft flat)
Property Lines
APR 2.2 2016
DCVO- MHD
Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
Copyright © 2016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected bythe copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, or altered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Picha and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEQ, US Army
Corps of Engineers for Permit processing purposes.
➢ n"p SAMPSONCONNTRACrING,INC
i
APR i-2 2016
125 Hunters Trail West
EI[taUeth Cl me 279e9
➢ROIECr nn w.
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
SANDBAG REVETMENT
CROSS SECTION AND PLAN VIEW
Aslndicated DRANM -'
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 3 OF 3
SCALE: 1 IN = 50 FT

0 10 20®
SCALE: 1 IN = 50 FT
60-Ft Street & Utility
Easement
Atlantic
Ocean
First Line of Vegetation '1 i
Old Sound Creek I
Oceanfront Setback `*
1 irn
Landward Extent Of Bell Property
Ocean Erodible AEC
6. m7
Pid1a Properly / Formerly: /
Williamson Trust Property '
Now:
Washout Per Brunswick Co. Tax Office
Al Al A J—
\ Vd�
8' 10,
°4 �3' / ' Tubbs Inlet
/ °8
/ 4'
RECFtVE®
APP//2 2 2016
DC / MHD CITY/
/ Approximately 300' to MHW
/ t ` of Sunset Beach Sandbar '
® Existing & x 20' Sandbag Alignment
O O O Existing Subsurface Rods Revetment
Proposed Oversized 12' NGVD x 46 Sandbag
Alignment
tI o Existing Remnant Riprap Groin
Property Lines
Mean High Water
......... Pest Line of Vegetation
Oceanfront Setback
— — Landward Extent of Ocean Erodible AEC
Approximate Mean Low Low Water
9' Water Depth in Channel at Low Tide 3125/2016
NOTES
Elevation contours from Coastal Science & Engineering,
PLLC drawings dated 1/1/09 and 1/13109. These oontou
have been altered by subsequent erosion control
oonstruction and shifting sands in Old Town Creek and
Tubbs Inlet. Elevation contours above the top of existing
sandbags remain as indicated. Elevation of majority of
developed property is approximately +8' NAVD88.
1) Drawings derived from field observations, Brunswick Co.
GIS, Coastal Science & Engineering, PLLC drawings
dated 1/11/09 and 1113/09, and Boney & Associates, Inc
drawing dated 5123194.
2) Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
3) Copyright® 2016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, or altered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Picha and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEQ, US Army
n n" W&SON CONTRACTING, INC.
RECEIVED
CM WILMINGTON, IJC
APR 12 2016
125 Hunters Tra11 Waal
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
SITE OVERVIEW
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 1 OF 3

60-Ft Street & Utility
Easement
�^ Q
0
tP
t0
AIXF
r�
do
Old Sound Creek
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SCALE: 1 IN = 30 FT
APR 2 2 2016
N DCM- MHD CITY
First Line of Vegetation
Oceanfront Setback
Landward Extent Of
Ocean Erodible AEC
i
/
/
Pich roperty
Bell Property
I
��OWN
=
�• tee: w .�Mtn
r
® Existing 6' x 2(Y Sandbag Alignment
0�09 Existing Subsurface Rock Revetment
®,
Proposed Oversized 12' NGVD x 46 Sandbag
Alignment
Existing Remnant Riprap Groin
Property Unes
— — -
Mean High Water
......... First Life of Vegetation
Oceanfront Setback
— — Landward Extent of Ocean Erodi AEC
— Approximate Mean Low Low Water
9' Water Depth in Channel at Low Tide 3125016
Elevation contours from Coastal Science & Engineering,
PLLC drawings dated 1/1/09 and 1/13109. These contDu
have been altered by subsequent erosion control
construction and shifting sands in Old Town Creek and
Tubbs Inlet. Elevation contours above the top of existing
sandbags remain as indicated. Elevation of majority of
developed property is approximately +8'NAVD88.
1) Drawings derived from field observations, Brunswick Co.
GIS, Coastal Science & Engineering, PLLC drawings
dated 1 /11 /09 and 1/13/09, and Boney & Associates, Inc.
drawing dated 5/23/94.
2) Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
3) Copyright 02016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, or altered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Picha and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEC, US Army
n nSA11i "CONTRAMNG, INC
.EiVED
- 1� JJr
rv1 WILMINGTON, N
APR 12 2016
125 Xuntao Tram Wwt
a VM40 =E
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
REVETMENT CLOSE-UP
. •,o. As
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 2 OF 3

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF OVERSIZED SANDBAG REVETMENT
0 New Backfill
Z
_ Underlayment
(D - _ -
0)
Ll_-- > -
C - - Existing Soil-': -
-
(D
w -
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Lateral Distance in Feet
PLAN VIEW OF OVERSIZED SANDBAG REVETMENT
01
® Proposed Shoreline Parallel Sandbag
(5-ft by 15-ft flat)
® Existing Shoreline Parallel Sandbag
(5-ft by 15-ft flat)
Proposed Shoreline Perpendicular Sandbag
(5-ft by 10-ft flat)
445744449 Existing Shoreline Perpendicular Sandbag
5�25�d� (5-ft by 10.ft flat)
Property Lines
RECENED
APR 2 2 2016
DCM- MHD CITY I
.f`rayow
1) Drawing is for permitting purposes only and not
construction.
2) Copyright ® 2016 Sampson Contracting, Inc. All rights
reserved. This material is the property of Sampson
Contracting, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws
of the United States and other countries. It may not be
reproduced, distributed, or altered in any fashion by any
entity without the express written consent of Sampson
Contracting, Inc. Written consent is hereby granted to
Kay and Dave Picha and Erosion Control Specialists.
Written consent is hereby granted to NC DEQ, US Army
Corps of Engineers for Permit processing purposes.
R41
vssr""a SAMPSON CONrRACMG,INC
r r iVED
:'C l "i'LMINGTON, 14C
APR 1 2 2016
125 Nun Troll Wa
EIIa h CKV. NC
PRo18cT TIS[E'
PICHA EROSION CONTROL
SANDBAG REVETMENT
CROSS SECTION AND PLAN VIEW
As Indicated °R"°rs"ONOi
04 - 032516 - 001
SHEET 3 OF 3
SCALE: 1 IN = 50 FT