2021 KittyHawk_CAMA Major Permit_Forms&SuppInfo

TOWN OF KITTY HAWK SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION

Prepared for:

The Town of Kitty Hawk

Prepared by:

Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409

Submitted to:

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office

May 2021

Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Contents
1 FORMS 1
1.1 Form DCM MP-1 1
1.2 Form DCM MP-2 5
1.3 Form DCM MP-3 8
2 Supplemental Information, per Forms DCM MP-1 and DCM MP-2 10
2.1 Per Form MP-1, Section 6a: Project Narrative 10
2.1.1 Project Scoping and History 10
2.1.2 Proposed Action 10
2.1.3 Construction Schedule 14
2.1.4 Borrow Areas and Sediment Analysis 19
2.1.5 Summary of Consistency with State Sediment Criteria 24
2.2 Per Form MP-1, Section 6d: A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties 27
2.3 Per From MP-2, Section 6f: Adjacent Riparian Owner Return Receipts 27
2.4 Per Form MP-1, Section 6h: Agent Authorization Form 29
2.5 Per Form MP-1, Section 6j: Ocean Hazard AEC Notice for Kitty Hawk 30
2.6 Permission Letter and Ocean AEC Hazard Notices from Adjacent Towns 32

Appendices
Appendix A: Work Plans
Appendix B: Professional Archaeological Assessment (Provided with Digital Copies Only)
Appendix C: Geotechnical Report (Provided with Digital Copies Only)
Appendix D: Survey Report (Provided with Digital Copies Only)

FORMS
Form DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06) North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information

Business Name
Town of Kitty Hawk
Project Name (if applicable)
Kitty Hawk Shoreline Protection Project

Applicant 1: First Name
Andy
MI

Last Name
Stewart

Applicant 2: First Name
N/A
MI

Last Name
N/A

If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.

Mailing Address
101 Veterans Memorial Drive
PO Box
549
City
Kitty Hawk
State
NC

ZIP
27949
Country
USA
Phone No.
252 - 261 - 3552 ext.      
FAX No.
252 - 261 - 7900

Street Address (if different from above)

City

State

ZIP
     -      

Email
[e-mail]




2. Agent/Contractor Information

Business Name
Coastal Protection Enigineering of North Carolina, Inc.

Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
Kenneth
MI
T
Last Name
Willson

Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
Brad
MI
A
Last Name
Rosov

Mailing Address
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
PO Box

City
Wilmington
State
NC

ZIP
28409      

Phone No. 1
910 - 399 - 1905 ext.      
Phone No. 2
      -       -       ext.      

FAX No.
N/A
Contractor #
Federal ID # 02-0623951

Street Address (if different from above)
N/A
City
N/A
State
N/A
ZIP
N/A -     


Email
[e-mail]

3. Project Location

County (can be multiple)
Dare            
Street Address
Oceanfront shoreline of Kitty Hawk, from the northern town limit to 120 ft. north of Kitty Hawk Pier, with tapers extending from 8 Sea Bass Circle (Southern Shores) to East Helga Steet
(Kill Devil Hills) and offshore waters
State Rd. #
N/A

Subdivision Name
N/A
City
N/A
State
NC
Zip
N/A -      

Phone No.
N/A -       -       ext.      
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
N/A,      ,      ,      ,      

a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
Pasquotank
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Atlantic Ocean

c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
Natural Manmade Unknown
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
Atlantic Ocean

e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
Yes No
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed work falls within.
Kitty Hawk


4. Site Description

a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
20,970 feet (Placement Project Limits)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
3,065,462 sq.f. (Placement Area); 51,0095,880 sq ft. (Borrow Area A)

c. Size of individual lot(s)
N/A,      ,      ,      
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or NWL (normal water level)
approx. 19.56' to MHW (1.18) NAVD88 NHW or NWL

e. Vegetation on tract
Typical beach and dune vegetation.

f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
The tract is contiguous to single and mulitfamily residential homes, business and commercial uses. The beachfront is utilized for recreational activities.

g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Single and multi-family residences, recreational beach uses.

h. How does local government zone the tract?
Low and medium density residential

i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
(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.

If yes, by whom?
Yes No NA
Tidewater Research

l. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a National Register listed or eligible property?
Yes No NA


m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site?

(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site?

(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach documentation, if available)
Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Primarily septic; there are no public sewers in Kitty Hawk.

o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Municipal

p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
None.


5. Activities and Impacts

a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use?
Commercial Public/Government
Private/Community

b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The Town of Kitty Hawk is focused on a long-term shoreline management program that will serve to sustain the beaches that support a significant portion of their local economy and maintains
the tax base of the Town. To this end, the Town proposes to nourish the oceanfront shoreline, with five years of advanced fill incorporated into the design.

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.
A hydraulic hopper dredge and/or cutterhead dredge and pipeline will be used to obtain and transport material from the offshore borrow area to the beach. A sand dike will be constructed
on the seaward side of the discharge area. The sand slurry will be discharged behind the temporary dike, and excess water will be directed parallel to the shoreline and around the edge
of the dike. Bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines will be used to shape the beach to the design profile. Three staging areas are proposed for the project.

d. List all development activities you propose.
The proposed action includes sand placement along 18,964 feet of Kitty Hawk and two approximately 1,000 foot tapers on the north and south end. The north taper (1,000 feet) would extend
into the Town of Southern Shores, terminating along the property at 8 Sea Bass Circle. The south taper (1,006 feet) would end at East Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills. Thus, the total
project length would span 20,970 feet. Sand will be obtained from an Outer Continental Shelf borrow area ("Borrow Area A") offshore Dare County using cutterhead and/or hopper dredges.
Material will be transported from the borrow area to the beach via submerged pipeline from a cutterhead dredge, or direct transport to a nearshore pump-out location via hopper dredge.
A temporary shore-parallel sand dike will be constructed in the discharge area to reduce turbidity of slurry within the nearshore. Material on the beach will be shaped and graded using
earth moving machines. Some of the material will be used to create a dune with a crest elevation of +18 NAVD88 along the entire project length. Sand fencing and vegetation will be placed
along the starter dune. Three staging areas will be located in the public parking lots at Byrd Street, Perry Street, and Helga Street.

e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both?
Maintenance of the 2017 Project

f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project?
1,578,533 (3,065,462 within fill area and 56,344 within staging areas)
Sq.Ft or Acres

g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public access way or other area that the public has established use of?
Yes No NA

h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
The discharged material will be obtained from Borrow Area A, located within federal waters offshore Dare County, which contains beach compatible material that complies with State Sediment
Criteria. The placement location is the oceanfront beach adjacent to the Town of Kitty Hawk, within the reach authorized in the design template

i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland?

If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water?
Yes No NA

Yes No NA


j. Is there any mitigation proposed?
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
Yes No NA


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) –
(f) 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 work completed and proposed.

c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.

d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.

e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.

f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such owners have received a copy of the application
and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Karen Olivola Price (@ 18 Ocean Blvd.)
Phone No. 903-465-5202

Address 20 Silver Spur, Denison, TX 75021

Name BKS Investments, LLC (@ 0 Virginia Dare Trail)
Phone No. n/a

Address: P.O. Box 729, Manteo, NC 27954

Name
Phone No. n/a

Address n/a



g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA Major Permit #133-15 issued on December 1, 2015
     

Dept. of Army SAW Action ID #2014-02204 issued on May 25, 2015
     



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.


7. 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 February 24, 2021 Print Name Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.

Signature ___________________________

Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts

DCM MP-3 Upland Development


DCM MP-4 Structures Information



Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)

Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please
include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.

Access Channel (NLW or NWL)
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock Breakwater
Other (excluding shoreline stabilization)

Length
     
     
     
     
     
     
20,970’ fill area; 16,064.11’(borrow area A)

Width
     
     
     
     
     
     
414’ (fill area);
3,180.66 (borrow area A);

Avg. Existing Depth
     
     
     
     
NA
NA
-11.13 ft. to 19.56 ft. NAVD88 (existing grade within fill area);
-70 ft to -48 ft (borrow area A);


Final Project Depth
     
     
     
     
NA
NA
-10.69 ft. to 19.56 ft. NAVD88 (final grade within fill area);
-68 ft to -58.5 ft (borrow area A)



1. EXCAVATION This section not applicable

a.
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in cubic yards.
2,282,468 cy (estimated fill of 1,521,645 cy plus 50% to account for loss encountered during dredging and emergency storm repair)


b.
Type of material to be excavated.
Beach quality sand



c.
(i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide
the number of square feet affected.
CW       SAV       SB      
WL       None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
NA




d.
High-ground excavation in cubic yards.
None




2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL This section not applicable

a.
Location of disposal area.
Oceanfront shoreline of Kitty Hawk, from the northern town limit to 120 ft. north of Kitty Hawk Pier, with tapers extending from 8 Sea Bass Circle (Southern Shores) to East Helga Steet
(Kill Devil Hills) and offshore waters

b.
Dimensions of disposal area.
20,970 ft. by 414 ft.




c.
(i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
Easements pending
d.
(i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, where?
N/A



e.
(i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide
the number of square feet affected.
CW       SAV       SB      
WL       None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
Beach nourishment




f.
(i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
5,177,410 sq. ft. of fill will be placed from MHW to seaward toe-of-fill



3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 – Structures)

a.
Type of shoreline stabilization:
Bulkhead Riprap Breakwater/Sill Other: nourishment
b.
Length: 20,970 ft.
Width: 416.7 ft.

c.
Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 259 ft.


d.
Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 334 ft.



e.
Type of stabilization material:
Sand


f.
(i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount information.
--3.6 ft/yr based on monitoring conducted in May 2019 and June 2020 within the Project Area



g.
Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill       Riprap      
Breakwater/Sill       Other 5,177,410 sq. ft.
h.
Type of fill material.
sand



i.
Source of fill material.
Offshore Borrow Area






4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)

a.
(i) Will fill material be brought to the site? Yes No NA
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill

b.
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
CW       SAV       SB      
WL       None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:








5. GENERAL

a.
How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled?
A sand dike will be constructed seaward of the fill area during the placement of beach fill. This temporary structure will allow the sandy material to settle out before the water reenters
the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, the nourishment sand will be low in silt, which improves the retainment quality of the material.




b.
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hydraulic hopper and/or cutterhead pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end-loaders and other earth moving machines.






a.
How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled?
A sand dike will be constructed seaward of the fill area during the placement of beach fill. This temporary structure will allow the sandy material to settle out before the water reenters
the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, the nourishment sand will be low in silt, which improves the retainment quality of the material.




b.
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hydraulic hopper and/or cutterhead pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end-loaders and other earth moving machines.





c.
(i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
N/A




d.
(i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
N/A







February 24, 2021


Date
Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project


Project Name

Town of Kitty Hawk, c/o/ Andy Stewart

Applicant Name
Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering, Inc.

Applicant Signature /

Form DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)

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.
GENERAL UPLAND DEVELOPMENT

a.
Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or structures proposed.
None

b.
Number of lots or parcels.
None


c.
Density (give the number of residential units and the units per acre).
None

d.
Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads, ditches, etc.
Temporary staging areas at Byrd Street parking lot: 14,692 sq. ft. (0.32 ac.), construction access: 121 l.f.; Perry Street parking lot: 18,157 sq. ft.(0.42 ac.), construction access:
1136 l.f.;Helga Street parking lot: 23,495 sq ft (0.54 ac), construction access 70 l.f; construction access at Station 0+00: 210 l.f. NOTE: The staging areas at Byrd Street and Perry
Street are located on existing asphalt (impervious) parking lots.


e.
If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land-disturbing
activity begins.
(i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted:      

f.
List the materials (such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete) to be used for impervious surfaces.
None


g.
Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to be covered by impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular
driveways or parking.
No new impervious surfaces will be constructed

h.
Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also require a Stormwater Certification.
(i) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of Water Quality for review?
Yes No NA

(ii) If yes, list the date submitted: _____________

i.
Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
No new impervious surfaces will be constructed




j.
Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
None

k.
Have the facilities described in Item (i) received state or local approval?
Yes No NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.

l.
Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/ commercial effluent, “wash down” and residential discharges).

None

m.
Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater design?
Yes No NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.


l.
Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/ commercial effluent, “wash down” and residential discharges).

None

m.
Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater design?
Yes No NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.


m.
Describe proposed drinking water supply source (e.g., well, community, public system, etc.)
None

n.
(i) Will water be impounded? Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, how many acres?      


o.
When was the lot(s) platted and recorded?
N/A

p.
If proposed development is a subdivision, will additional utilities be installed for this upland development?
Yes No NA



February 24, 2021


Date
Town of Kitty Hawk, c/o John Stockton


Project Name
Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.


Applicant Name
/


Applicant Signature

Supplemental Information, per Forms DCM MP-1 and DCM MP-2
Per Form MP-1, Section 6a: Project Narrative
Project Scoping and History
The Town of Kitty Hawk is one of four towns within Dare County, including Duck, Southern Shores, and Kill Devil Hills, seeking to implement simultaneous shore protection projects to
help mitigate the threat of long-term erosion and storm damage which pose a continual threat to the oceanfront shoreline. The Town of Kitty Hawk is specifically focused on a long-term
shoreline management program. The Town’s stated purpose for implementing a beach nourishment project is threefold: 1) Reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure including NC
12, town roads between NC 12 and U.S. Highway 158, and utilities to storm-induced erosion; 2) Reduce flooding in many non-oceanfront areas throughout the Town during ocean overwash
conditions, including portions of Highway NC 12 and U.S. Highway 158; and 3) Reduce the vulnerability of homes within the Town that front the Atlantic Ocean and are exposed to wave
events during nor’easters and other large storm events as well as natural trends. Flooding is a major concern as it can render routes impassable which greatly limits the ability for
emergency personnel to respond. In order to accomplish these stated goals, the Town is taking steps to maintain its oceanfront beach and dune to a configuration that: 1) provides a
reasonable level of storm damage reduction; 2) provide a reasonable level of flood reduction; and 3) mitigates long term erosion that could threaten public and private development as
well as recreational opportunities and biological resources. 

The first of these four towns to express interest in obtaining permits and implement a shore protection project was the Town of Kill Devil Hills which, along with the Town of Kitty Hawk,
was originally part of a federally authorized beach nourishment project within Dare County. However, due to shortfalls in federal funding, the project was never constructed and is not
anticipated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on September 14, 2011, the Town of Kill Devil Hills held an interagency scoping meeting in Washington, NC with representatives from
various state and federal agencies including the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), United State Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The purpose of the meeting was to present the scope of a proposed locally sponsored
shoreline protection project and to develop an agreed upon permitting approach and scope for the required environmental documentation. One outcome of the meeting was the decision to
develop a “Project Information Document” that would provide the USACE with a summary of the relevant existing environmental documentation and biological data that pertains to the proposed
Kill Devil Hills Shore Protection Project. The information provided within the document was to be used to assist the USACE in determining the appropriate environmental documenting requirements.
Following the submittal of the document, the USACE responded that due to the likelihood of determining a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI), an Environmental Assessment (EA)
would be the recommended approach regarding the required environmental documentation.

Following the 2011 interagency meeting, two other beach towns in Dare County (Kitty Hawk and Duck) expressed interest in pursuing their own shoreline protection projects in light of
continued erosion on their respective shorelines. Considering that all three towns were proceeding with similar nourishment projects, constructing these projects within the same year,
either concurrently or sequentially, would reduce mobilization costs to the towns. Subsequently, an additional interagency meeting was held on June 19, 2013 with representatives from
many of the same agencies to discuss proposed permitting and environmental documentation approaches for all three towns, (Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, and Duck). During the meeting
it was determined that each town should apply for their own set of permits and develop their own separate EAs. However, representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed that while individual EAs could be drafted for each of the three proposed projects, a single regional EFH assessment and a single
batched Biological Assessment (BA) could be submitted to satisfy consultation requirements with NMFS and USFWS (i.e., under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act, respectively)
for the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills.

Because the project involved the use of OCS borrow areas, which fall under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) jurisdiction, and placement of material on the beach, which falls
under the USACE’s jurisdiction, it was determined that BOEM and the USACE would act as joint-lead agencies for NEPA purposes and would prepare joint NEPA documents. BOEM and the USACE
agreed to participate in the required Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations; the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
consultation (Section 305); the National Historic Preservation Act Section (NHPA) Section 106 process; and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 307 consistency process.

In a letter from BOEM to the USACE dated December 2, 2014, the environmental documentation and permitting approach as described above was codified. It stated that lead agency in Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for potential impacts on protected species would be determined by jurisdiction. The BOEM was determined to be the lead agency and would consult
with NMFS concerning potential effects from dredging activities for species under their purview (i.e. swimming turtles and whales). The USACE was determined to be the lead agency and
consult with UFWS concerning effects from placement activities for species under their purview (i.e. nesting sea turtles). BOEM and the USACE consulted jointly with NMFS Habitat Conservation
Division on EFH and requested NMFS to assign conservation recommendations by jurisdiction. The USACE was the lead agency for the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106
and notified the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and relevant Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO). The USACE and BOEM worked together with the North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to ensure compliance with Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

Following the submittal of the three EAs, Department of Army (DA) Individual Permits were issued to each of the three towns for the 2017 beach nourishment event (SAW-2014-02202, SAW-2014-02203,
and SAW-2014-02204). Consultations with NMFS Protected Resource Division concluded with the issuance of Biological Opinion on May 16, 2016. Consultations with USFWS concluded with
the issuance of a Biological Opinion on November 4, 2015, respectively.
Consultation with NMFS Habitat Conservation Division in regard to EFH concerns resulted in a "no staffing" email with one recommendation. DCM issued Major Permits to each town as well
(Town of Duck, #132-15; Town of Kitty Hawk, #133-15; and Town of Kill Devil Hills, #134-15).

An additional interagency scoping meeting convened on January 31, 2017 to discuss the Town of Southern Shores' desire to place beach fill material within a limited area of the Town's
oceanfront shoreline. Due to the project's proximity to Kitty Hawk and their intention to construct the project in tandem with the other three beach town projects, regulatory agencies
determined the applicant should apply for their own separate CAMA Major permit and modify Kitty Hawk's existing DA Individual permit. During consultation with the federal partners,
the batched BA was also amended to include Southern Shore's project-specific information. DCM subsequently issued a CAMA Major Permit #59-17 to the Town of Southern Shores while the
DA issued a modification of the Town of Kitty Hawk's Individual Permit SAW-2014-02204.

In 2017, the four towns cost-shared and implemented a beach nourishment project that involved the placement of approximately 3.9 million (M) cubic yards of material over nearly 8.3 miles
of oceanfront shoreline. Material used for the project was obtained from two offshore borrow areas within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in federal waters. Great Lakes Dredge and
Dock performed the dredging work in 153 days using three (3) hopper dredges; the Liberty Island, Dodge Island and Padre Island. Dredging began on May 23, 2017, placing material at
the Town of Duck and was concluded on October 23, 2017 with nourishment at the Town of Kitty Hawk.

The beach fill design for the 2017 project at the Town of Kitty Hawk included a 10-foot wide dune at elevation +12.0 feet NAVD fronted by a 60-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD.
A main fill section was constructed covering 18,989 feet of shoreline beginning on the north at profile station 0+00, which is located approximately 120 feet north of the pier at the
Hilton Garden Inn, and ending on the south near station 189+87, which is located between East Sibbern Drive and East Arch Street. Since the Kitty Hawk project was constructed in conjunction
with Kill Devil Hills, only one taper on the north end of the main fill was constructed. Originally, the north taper was designed to extend 1,000 ft. into the Town of Southern Shores.
In January 2017, the Town of Southern Shores initiated the process to include the southern 1,500 ft. of its shoreline into the Kitty Hawk Project. Subsequently, an additional taper
was added to the northern end of the Southern Shores portion of the project. Thus, the Kitty Hawk with Southern Shores extension project included a total of 21,489 feet of shoreline
and included the placement of 1,765,619 cy of material within the Town of Kitty Hawk and 80,510 cy of material within the Town of Southern Shores.

After the completion of the 2017 nourishment event and based on interest expressed by all four beach towns to pursue an additional nourishment event in the future, an interagency meeting
convened on April 29, 2020 to discuss the permitting and environmental documentation approach that would be required for the future project. During the meeting, it was decided that
each town would pursue their own respective set of permits. In order to satisfy NEPA documentation requirements, however, it was decided that one collective EA would be developed and
would be inclusive of site-specific information for all four beach towns. It was also determined that the project-related actions, as presented during the scoping meeting, should be
covered by the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Opinion (SARBO) and the 2017 North Carolina Coastal Beach Sand Placement Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion
2017 North Carolina Coastal Beach Sand Placement Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion. As such, the issuance of a new biological opinion as part of the federal consultation process
with NMFS and USFWS are not anticipated.

The April 29, 2020 scoping meeting was attended by representatives of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) and met the requirement for requesting a pre-filing meeting under 40 CFR Part
121 for 401 Certifications in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete
to the best of my knowledge and belief. The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable
reasonable period of time.

Proposed Action
The proposed action is a one-time beach nourishment project that would include sand placement along a total of 20,970 feet (3.97 miles) of oceanfront shoreline. The main placement area
of the proposed project begins at the north town limit (baseline station 0+00) which is approximately 120 feet north of the Kitty Hawk Pier located at the Hilton Garden Inn. The main
placement area extends 18,964 feet along the entire length of the Kitty Hawk ocean shoreline ending at approximately the Kitty Hawk/Kill Devil Hills town limits (baseline station 189+00).
If the Kitty Hawk project is constructed as a stand-alone project, two taper sections would be included: a 1,000-foot taper on the north end and a 1,006-foot taper on the south end. The
north taper would extend into the Town of Southern Shores, terminating at 8 Sea Bass Circle. The south taper would end at E. Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills, which is located at baseline
station 199+00. The total fill area below MHW is 5,177,410 square feet (118.86 acres), and the total fill area above MHW is 3,065,462 square feet (70.37 acres), for a total disturbed
area of 8,242,872 square feet (189.23 acres). Complete plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the proposed project are provided in Appendix A.

The proposed design template consists of a berm of variable widths at elevation +6 feet NAVD88. A dune with a crest elevation of +18 feet NAVD88 and width of 25 feet will be provided
landward of the constructed berm along the entire length of the project by pushing some of the material into a pile. During the initial design of the Kitty Hawk project, the lack of
dune seaward of many of the ocean front houses combined with budgetary constraints precluded the design and construction of a robust dune aimed at providing specific storm damage reduction.
The design for the Kitty Hawk project entailed a 60-foot-wide berm and the establishment of a “starter dune”. The starter dune was constructed, and sand fencing was placed on the
dune to trap windblown sand and allow for its growth. As observed through site visits and beach profile surveys, the starter dune grew both vertically and horizontally between 2017
and 2020 and provides both flood mitigation and storm damage reduction.

The profile-based storm simulation model (SBEACH) was used to evaluate the existing level of storm protection and to evaluate alternative dune designs to determine the increased volume
of sand necessary to achieve a similar level of storm damage reduction that projects in Duck and Kill Devil Hills were designed to provide. This analysis, using data collected in June
2020, indicated that since the starter dune grew in response to the sand fencing and as the beach profile adapted following the
construction of the 2017 project, there has been a 44% reduction in the number of vulnerable structures that had been identified based on 2014 pre-project condition.

The majority of the structures indicated to be vulnerable based on the SBEACH analysis conducted with June 2020 conditions are in the northern portion of the project area with 51% of
the vulnerable structures located between baseline stations 0+00 (northern Town boundary) and 40+24 (located approximately 100 feet south of Bennet St.). There are additional small
clusters of structures identified as vulnerable in the central and southern end of Kitty Hawk, however the majority of vulnerable structures were located in the northern end. Regarding
impacts to US-12 (Virginia Dare Trail), the SBEACH simulations of the June 2020 conditions only show impacts to an approximately 1,400-foot portion of road from Kitty Hawk Road south.

In an effort to evaluate beach fill alternatives that could further decrease vulnerability of oceanfront structures and roads along the Town’s oceanfront, SBEACH was used to evaluate
various dune design alternatives and to evaluate various beach fill design cross-sections. The dune designs focused on augmenting or improving the level of protection currently provided
by the existing dunes along the project area. Designs were evaluated for their ability to mitigate design storm impacts to structures fronting the beach. The designs evaluated by
SBEACH include beach fill cross-sections based on June 2020 conditions with modified dune configurations. The alternative dune designs included a dune with crest elevation of +15.0
ft. NAVD88 and +18.0 ft. NAVD88. The modified dune configuration was constructed on top of the 2020 profile condition.

The SBEACH analysis of the +15 ft. and +18 ft. dune indicated a decrease in the number of oceanfront structures identified as vulnerable by approximately 23% and 66%, respectively.
Furthermore, both alternatives reduced the portions of HWY 12 shown to be vulnerable to the design storm to zero feet. Based on budgetary constraints and the need to maintain the previously
constructed project to maintain the established level of flood mitigation, the Town is proposing a design focused on optimizing the amount of reduction in vulnerable oceanfront structures
by augmenting portions of the project to establish a larger dune with crest height at 18 ft. NAVD88.

As mentioned above, the Town installed sand fencing and planted dune vegetation along the constructed dune following the 2017 nourishment event to trap windblown sand and encourage dune
growth. The Town will install sand fencing as needed and in accordance with either 15A NCAC 07K .0212 or 15A NAC 07H .0311(c). If sand fencing is to be installed under 15A NAC 07H
.0311(c), the Town will limit fencing installation to the face of the constructed dune and will complete the installation after October 31. Should sand fencing installation not conform
with the exemptions cited within 15A NCAC 07K .0212, the Town will apply for a permit modification.

Construction of the preferred design along with 5 years of advanced fill would require 1,521,645 cubic yards of fill material obtained from Borrow Area A. Actual volume dredged from
the borrow area will likely require up to an additional 20% to account for losses during dredging; therefore, the total estimated dredge volume is 1,825,974 cubic yards. The BOEM lease
request for excavating material from within Borrow Area A will include additional volume in the unlikely event a storm eroded the Towns' shoreline prior to the construction of the project.
In total, the amount of material that could be excavated from the borrow area would be 2,282,468 cy, or 50% more than the 1,521,645 cy of fill required by the preferred design and
advanced fill. Following
the construction of the2017 project, an after-dredge survey revealed that Borrow Area A still contained 12,829,500 cy of material, therefore this borrow area contains enough volume for
this project along with the other three towns' proposed projects.

Depending on several variables, including whether the project is constructed as a stand-alone project, available funding, time or contractor constraints, or any unforeseen limitations,
the applicant may build all or a portion of the proposed project. Currently, the adjacent Town of Kill Devil Hills is also seeking permits to allow the construction of a beach project
along the Town’s entire shoreline. Consequently, there is a possibility both the Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills projects could be constructed concurrently, which would eliminate the
need for the south taper of the Kitty Hawk project.

Material will be obtained from the borrow area using a hopper dredge, a cutterhead dredge, or a combination of the two. In the case of a cutterhead dredge, sand will be transported from
the borrow area to the beach as a slurry via pipeline; use of a hopper dredge would involve transport to a nearshore pump-out location, and subsequent pumping to the beach via pipeline.
A sand dike will be constructed on the seaward side of the discharge area. The sand slurry will be discharged behind the temporary dike, and excess water will be directed parallel to
the shoreline and around the edge of the dike. Once discharged onto the beach, the material will be shaped and graded using loaders, dozers, and other earth moving equipment.

There are three staging areas proposed for the project. and a construction corridor by which machinery can access the beach. These staging areas include the existing paved parking lots
at Perry Street and Byrd Street and include a construction access corridor to the beach (Appendix A, Sheets 5 and 10). The third staging area at Helga Street is located adjacent to
the beach (Appendix A, Sheet 3). One additional construction access corridor will be located just north of the Kitty Hawk pier at Station 0+00 extending from the public parking lot
at the Hilton Garden Inn onto the beach (Appendix A, sheet 10).

A number of measures will be employed to avoid or minimize the risk to biological and natural resources within the project area. These measures are described in Table 1. below.

Table 1. Conservation/Monitoring measures implemented to avoid or minimize environmental risks

Conservation/Monitoring Measure

Borrow Area Design
The size and shape of the borrow areas have been designed such that a minimum number of turns will be required by the hopper dredge, which increases dredge efficiency and reduces the
potential for sea turtle entrainment.


Dredge Type
Construction of the project will be accomplished using cutterhead suction dredges, trailing suction hopper dredges, or a combination of the two. To minimize impacts from hopper dredging,
the project will follow the standard hopper dredging conditions outline in the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion.

Dredge Positioning
Navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time dredge positioning and digging functions
to allow color display of dredge shape, physical feature data as found in background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from hydrographic data collection
software described above. The software will also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual dredging operations.

Dredge anchors will not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with
real time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated.


Dredge Positioning
Navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time dredge positioning and digging functions
to allow color display of dredge shape, physical feature data as found in background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from hydrographic data collection
software described above. The software will also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual dredging operations.

Dredge anchors will not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with
real time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated.

Pipeline Positioning
The pipeline alignment along the beach will be placed to avoid potential piping plover habitat or sea turtle nests. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the USACE.
As-built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report.

Pipeline Observations
Observations and assessments of the pipeline during construction will be performed to avoid pressurized leaks from the pipeline couplings or other equipment that may result in sediment
plumes, siltation and/or elevated turbidity levels. The Towns, along with the associated engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a mechanism to cease dredge and
fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected in the event that a substantial leak is detected (leaks resulting in turbidity that exceed state water quality standards).
The contractor will cease dredge and placement activities until an appropriate repair of the affected equipment has been completed.

Construction Observations
Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation and contract administration
will be periodically performed seven days/week, approximately twelve hours/day during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random
nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in
beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager will coordinate with the field
observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump-out location will be made for quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC) of the material being placed on the beach. The construction
contractor will provide observations 24 hours per day during construction.

Sediment Compatibility
The Sediment Criteria Rule provides beneficial guidelines for both grain size and percent weight of calcium carbonate. However, other important characteristics such as organic content,
heavy mineral content and color are not addressed. These aspects of the beach material will be considered. Maintaining adherence to this sediment criteria rule for material placed on
the beach will reduce adverse impacts to the beach invertebrate community and would also reduce effects to sea turtle nest construction and incubation of the eggs. Multiple daily observations
of the active placement locations will be made for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. The individual will collect a representative sub-surface (6 in. below grade) grab
sediment sample at not less than 200-foot intervals along the newly constructed berm to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample
will be archived with the date, time, and location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria.
If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain size, wet Munsell color, and content
of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand evaluations will be provided within the Engineer’s daily inspection reports and submitted to USACE and DCM for verification. Following
construction, compaction of placed fill material will be inspected by the Town, the Engineer or his duly authorized representative in coordination with the DCM and USACE. Compaction
monitoring will begin after the material has been graded and dressed to the final slope and a period of time will be allowed for finer particles to be washed away and final settling
of the material to occur prior to compaction monitoring. If the fill material appears to have a higher degree of compaction than that which is acceptable additional testing such as
cone penetration testing will be considered. After subsequent testing, if it is determined that tilling is necessary to reduce compaction based on consultation with the appropriate
agencies, the contractor will till the beach to a minimum depth of 36 inches throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen the compaction of the placed material. Beach tilling
will only be performed as a result of an identified compaction problem based on agency consultation. Beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would ensure that project
impacts on sea turtle nesting are minimized.


Sediment Compatibility
The Sediment Criteria Rule provides beneficial guidelines for both grain size and percent weight of calcium carbonate. However, other important characteristics such as organic content,
heavy mineral content and color are not addressed. These aspects of the beach material will be considered. Maintaining adherence to this sediment criteria rule for material placed on
the beach will reduce adverse impacts to the beach invertebrate community and would also reduce effects to sea turtle nest construction and incubation of the eggs. Multiple daily observations
of the active placement locations will be made for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. The individual will collect a representative sub-surface (6 in. below grade) grab
sediment sample at not less than 200-foot intervals along the newly constructed berm to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample
will be archived with the date, time, and location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria.
If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain size, wet Munsell color, and content
of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand evaluations will be provided within the Engineer’s daily inspection reports and submitted to USACE and DCM for verification. Following
construction, compaction of placed fill material will be inspected by the Town, the Engineer or his duly authorized representative in coordination with the DCM and USACE. Compaction
monitoring will begin after the material has been graded and dressed to the final slope and a period of time will be allowed for finer particles to be washed away and final settling
of the material to occur prior to compaction monitoring. If the fill material appears to have a higher degree of compaction than that which is acceptable additional testing such as
cone penetration testing will be considered. After subsequent testing, if it is determined that tilling is necessary to reduce compaction based on consultation with the appropriate
agencies, the contractor will till the beach to a minimum depth of 36 inches throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen the compaction of the placed material. Beach tilling
will only be performed as a result of an identified compaction problem based on agency consultation. Beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would ensure that project
impacts on sea turtle nesting are minimized.

Escarpments
Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for
greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of any escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be coordinated
with the NCWRC, USFWS and the USACE. The likelihood of escarpment formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach design that closely resembles the native beach in terms of berm elevation,
sediment size, and sediment sorting characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of +6 ft. NAVD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the
ranges required by the North Carolina State Sediment Criteria.

Water Quality
During construction, shore parallel berms will be constructed on the beach to reduce nearshore turbidity impacts. These berms are designed such that the slurry will run parallel to
shore, allowing sediment to settle out before the water is returned to the ocean. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor. The contractor will be
responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the state water quality standards. Measures that could be taken to subsequently reduce
turbidity include moving the dredge to a different location, or asking the contractor to extend the berm, which would allow more time for fines to settle out before the water flows
back into the ocean.


Water Quality
During construction, shore parallel berms will be constructed on the beach to reduce nearshore turbidity impacts. These berms are designed such that the slurry will run parallel to
shore, allowing sediment to settle out before the water is returned to the ocean. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor. The contractor will be
responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the state water quality standards. Measures that could be taken to subsequently reduce
turbidity include moving the dredge to a different location, or asking the contractor to extend the berm, which would allow more time for fines to settle out before the water flows
back into the ocean.

West Indian Manatee and Whale Monitoring
During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the “Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee” created by the USFWS. Full-time NMFS-certified
endangered species observers will be present on the hopper dredge(s) to alert dredge operators of any whales or manatees in the area. In the event a whale or manatee is spotted, the
ship’s captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or injury to the marine mammals. Vessel operators will abide by the 10 kt (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions in any Dynamic
Management Areas (DMAs) that may be established while underway. Operators will abide by NMFS Southeast Region marine mammal viewing guidelines and maintain 50 yds. from sea turtles
and dolphins and 100 yds. from whales. Vessel operators will also follow the restricted vessel approach of 500 yds. established for North Atlantic right whales. Participation in the
Right Whale Early Warning System is required; therefore, dredging within right whale critical habitat from December through March will follow the protocol established within the Early
Warning System (NMFS, 1995).

Sea Turtle Monitoring and Relocation Trawling
Risk of entrainment will be reduced by use of a sea turtle deflector on the dredge's draghead. Every effort will be made to keep the dredge pumps disengaged when the hopper dredge dragheads
are not firmly on the bottom. Also, the rotating cutterhead will not be lifted from the sediment surface during operations. Additionally, full-time NMFS-certified protected species
observers will be present on the hopper dredge to document any sea turtle activity and monitor turtle takes through screening of inflow and/or outflow. Dredging operations will abide
by the terms and conditions deemed necessary to minimize hopper dredging impacts to sea turtles set forth in the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO).

On the beach, artificial lighting used during nighttime construction activities will be angled or shielded to reduce deterrence of sea turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation. A
sea turtle nest monitoring and avoidance/relocation plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable
of the beach construction operations.

Should hopper dredges be utilized, the proposed project may employ relocation trawling as a means to reduce the potential for entrainment. If relocation trawling is implemented, standard
relocation trawling conditions will be observed as set forth by NMFS, including specification for trawl time, handling, holding conditions, take and release and any tagging, etc.

A sea turtle nest monitoring plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. Dare County is included in surveys conducted by Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T),
the volunteer organization which performs systematic surveys of the northern Outer Banks from the Virginia border to the southern tip of Nags Head. Surveys are performed throughout
the nesting season (May through August), and include daily morning patrols to mark and protect newly laid nests, as well as monitoring during incubation period and emergence. These
surveys have been performed since 1981. Because the proposed project includes nourishment during the summer months (nesting season), monitoring will be needed to identify, and subsequently
avoid burial or excavation of, existing nests during construction. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach construction operations. In addition
to monitoring surveys, nest relocation will be implemented by highly trained individuals and in coordination with the appropriate agencies.


Sea Turtle Monitoring and Relocation Trawling
Risk of entrainment will be reduced by use of a sea turtle deflector on the dredge's draghead. Every effort will be made to keep the dredge pumps disengaged when the hopper dredge dragheads
are not firmly on the bottom. Also, the rotating cutterhead will not be lifted from the sediment surface during operations. Additionally, full-time NMFS-certified protected species
observers will be present on the hopper dredge to document any sea turtle activity and monitor turtle takes through screening of inflow and/or outflow. Dredging operations will abide
by the terms and conditions deemed necessary to minimize hopper dredging impacts to sea turtles set forth in the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO).

On the beach, artificial lighting used during nighttime construction activities will be angled or shielded to reduce deterrence of sea turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation. A
sea turtle nest monitoring and avoidance/relocation plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable
of the beach construction operations.

Should hopper dredges be utilized, the proposed project may employ relocation trawling as a means to reduce the potential for entrainment. If relocation trawling is implemented, standard
relocation trawling conditions will be observed as set forth by NMFS, including specification for trawl time, handling, holding conditions, take and release and any tagging, etc.

A sea turtle nest monitoring plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. Dare County is included in surveys conducted by Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T),
the volunteer organization which performs systematic surveys of the northern Outer Banks from the Virginia border to the southern tip of Nags Head. Surveys are performed throughout
the nesting season (May through August), and include daily morning patrols to mark and protect newly laid nests, as well as monitoring during incubation period and emergence. These
surveys have been performed since 1981. Because the proposed project includes nourishment during the summer months (nesting season), monitoring will be needed to identify, and subsequently
avoid burial or excavation of, existing nests during construction. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach construction operations. In addition
to monitoring surveys, nest relocation will be implemented by highly trained individuals and in coordination with the appropriate agencies.

Bird Monitoring
Although a project-specific bird monitoring plan will not be developed, existing programs established by the State, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and other entities are anticipated
to continue monitoring piping plovers, rufa red knots, and other bird species along portions of the Outer Banks in Dare County.

In addition, all personnel involved in the construction process along the beach will be trained to recognize the presence of piping plovers and red knots prior to the initiation of beach
construction. Personnel will be provided photos of each species, which will be required to be kept at the construction site for quick reference. A contractor representative authorized
to stop or redirect work will conduct a shorebird survey prior to 9:00 am each day of sand placement activities. The survey will cover the work area and any locations where equipment
is expected to travel. The contractor will note any observance of red knots or piping plovers and submit observations to the USACE Wilmington District Office the next calendar day.


Construction Schedule
The inclement weather typically encountered during the winter months offshore the northern outer banks makes dredging difficult and often reduces dredging efficiencies, especially when
cutterhead dredges are used. Elevated sea states poses a substantial safety risk to crews and equipment, while weather-related down times raise costs and reduce efficiency. As such,
the Town proposes a year-round construction window with a high likelihood that construction would occur during the calmer and safer summer months. A year-round construction window would
provide the contractor the most flexibility and provide a safer and more economical work environment. To allow for the greatest scheduling flexibility, no start and end date will be
specified; rather, this will remain at the discretion of the contractor, and will be based on equipment availability and weather conditions. The Kitty Hawk project could be constructed
independently, or concurrently with the other three towns' projects. Based on estimated production rates, the Kitty Hawk project will likely require approximately 2.5 months if constructed
independently. If all four projects are constructed concurrently, the entire project would likely be completed within 5 months. These timeframes are
based on the production rates for hopper dredges achieved during the 2017 multi-town project and the 2010-2011 Nags Head project.
Borrow Areas and Sediment Analysis
Beach quality sand will be dredged from Outer Continental Shelf borrow areas using a self-contained ocean-certified hopper dredge, a cutterhead pipeline dredge, or a combination of the
two. The borrow area, "Borrow Area A" was previously used during the 2017 Dare County Multi-Beach Nourishment project and is located entirely within federal waters, i.e. seaward of
the Three Nautical Mile Line, placing it under the BOEMs jurisdiction (Appendix A, sheets 1 and 2).

Coastal Protection Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina (CPE) conducted a comprehensive sand search using a systematic methodology involving three sequential phases of investigation.
Phase I involves a comprehensive desktop study that examined previously collected information within the geologic context of the investigation area in order to identify features with
the highest potential of containing project compatible sand. Results of jetprobe investigations of several shoal features offshore Dare County by CPE in 2013 as part of a feasibility
study for the Town of Kill Devil Hills were also considered during this phase. Details of the findings of Phase I can be found in the full geotechnical report (Appendix C, beginning
on page 15) Surveying, sampling and analysis of the Kitty Hawk native beach was also conducted during Phase I. In keeping with the requirements set forth in the North Carolina State
Sediment Criteria, CPE performed shore-perpendicular topographic and bathymetric surveys of the native beach to determine the beach profile. The locations of the profiles surveyed by
CPE were based off a data set previously collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Each profile was surveyed from a point 150 ft. landward of the vegetation
line seaward out to an elevation no less than -25 ft. NAVD88. Of the profiles surveyed, characterization of the Kitty Hawk native beach was generated from samples collected along five
generally evenly spaced profiles within the Kitty Hawk project area: 0+00, 50+00, 110+00, 160+00 and 210+00 (Appendix C, page 13, Figure 7).

As required by the State Sediment Criteria, samples were taken at 13 locations along each of the 5 sampling profiles, including: the dune, toe of dune, mid-berm, berm crest, mean high
water, mean tide level, mean low water, trough, bar crest and at -12.5, -15.0, -17.5 and -20.0. In total, CPE collected a total of 65 samples within the proposed project area in Kitty
Hawk. The composite summary and grain size analysis results are displayed in Table 1 of this project narrative. Additionally, the results of sediment analyses for each sediment sample
can be found within the Beach Composite Summary Tables provided in Appendix 4 of the attached Appendix C.

Along with ensuring compatibility of the sand characteristics, the State Sediment Criteria also require quantification of clasts (rocks and shell) greater than 3-inches in diameter present
on the native beach. As such, CPE conducted a pre-construction survey in June 2020 to determine the background levels of clasts (rocks) greater than 3-inches that exist along the Town
of Kitty Hawk's oceanfront beach between MLW and the frontal toe of the dune. Per the updated State Sediment Criteria language, the number of 3-inch clasts were quantified within five
(5) 10,000 sq ft.2 sections along the beach. Results identified 16 clasts greater than 3-inches within the survey area. The criteria stipulate that borrow area material greater than
3-inches in diameter that is placed in the project area is considered incompatible if it is more than twice the background level that existed
on the native beach before the project began. Since the June 2020 survey, the State has updated their guidance again and now also require a survey, using the same methodology described
above, to determine the total number of sediments greater than or equal to one inch in diameter. Although this survey has not been conducted at this time, the applicant will perform
it prior to the implementation of the proposed project.

Information gathered during the Phase I archival literature studies regarding the geological setting of the project area give no indication that hardbottom habitats are present within
or in the vicinity of the borrow area. Additionally, previous geotechnical and geophysical investigations conducted by the USACE have not indicated the presence of hardbottoms in the
area. Finally, analysis of the sidescan sonar data acquired by CPE for the present project indicated no presence of hardbottom habitats or consolidated rock exposures or outcroppings
within or in the vicinity of the borrow areas.

Phase II investigations involved reconnaissance level geophysical surveys in order to 1) define the extent of sediment layers identified during Phase I research of past jetprobe data
and historic vibracore and surface sediment data; 2) develop a vibracore plan to be implemented during Phase III investigations, and 3) identify potential environmental or cultural
resources for avoidance during Phase III vibracore investigations.

Results of the geotechnical investigations, including geophysical (sonar) surveys, vibracores, hydrographic surveys, archaeological resource surveys and sand compatibility analyses,
were performed to develop the final borrow area designs. Design considerations for the proposed borrow areas included:

Construction of the project may be accomplished using a hopper or cutterhead dredge
Location of sufficient sand to construct the four proposed beach nourishment projects for the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, and Kill Devil Hills
Beach compatible sand with similar mean grain size and sorting of the project beaches
Avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas such as hardbottom, seagrass beds, etc.
Avoidance of potentially significant cultural resources
Avoidance of nearshore impacts due to wave refraction over borrow areas

The proposed design cuts for Borrow Area A are displayed in sheets 16 and 17 of Appendix A. Borrow Area A has been divided into seven different design cuts with cut depths ranging from
-58.5 to -68.0 ft. (Figure 1). The sediment compatibility analysis, as discussed in section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, determined that the offshore borrow material in Borrow Area A meets the
compatibility requirements established by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) prior to the 2017 nourishment event. It is the position of the applicants engineering
consultant that the previous sediment compatibility analysis (Table 1) remains valid for Borrow Area A. Through correspondence with Division of Coastal Management staff, the applicant
was notified that DCM has some concerns about the compatibility of the material in areas previously dredged. Cuts A3, A4, and A5 have been identified as portions of the borrow area
not previously dredged during the 2017 construction project. Collectively these three cuts contain 5,153,700 cy of material. Given concerns expressed by DCM staff regarding sediment
compatibility of portions of the borrow area previously dredged, the applicant requests DCM consider conditioning the permit to require the
applicant to conduct updated bathymetric surveys and sediment sampling of portions of the borrow area previously dredged (Cuts A1, A2, A6, and A7) to evaluate the potential for infilling
and sediment compatibility, prior to construction of the project. The additional bathymetric surveys and sediment sampling would need to demonstrate sediment compatibility of any sediment
that has infilled previously dredged areas. It is the applicant’s intent to conduct such surveys and sediment sampling/analysis during the months of April and May of 2020. In order
to maintain the project schedule, the applicant has determined that permit decisions need to be made prior to August 2021. The recommended course of action would allow for DCM to continue
its permit review while providing the applicant time to conduct the further investigations, which would be incorporated into bidding documents prior to the project being advertised
for bid.

Table 1. Results of the compatibility analyses performed for Borrow Area A and C. Allowable limits for the Town of Kitty Hawk native beach are defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312.
Parameter
Kitty Hawk Native Beach
Allowable Limits
Borrow Area A

Wet/Dry Munsell Color
5/7
n/a
5/6

Mean Grain Size (mm)
0.38
n/a
0.36

Sorting (Phi)
1.41
n/a
1.47

Silt (%) (<0.0625mm)
0.94
5.94
0.83

Granular (%)
(2mm < and < 4.76mm)
6.38
11.38
1.42

Gravel (%) (>4.76mm)
1.64
6.64
0.47

Carbonate
2.0
17.0
1.0



/
Figure 1. Map of Borrow Area A, showing preliminary design cuts and estimated volumes.

To determine project impacts on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) carried out a background literature review and supervised a cultural
resource investigation of the proposed borrow areas. The resulting cultural resource report compiled by TAR is provided in Appendix B. A registered archaeologist from TAR identified
9 magnetic anomalies in the vicinity of Area A, 4 of which were considered potentially significant (Appendix A, sheet 12). As a result, three buffer areas were established within Borrow
Area A – two are located within the borrow area and one is located partially outside the western perimeter (Appendix A, sheet 12). These areas will be avoided during dredging. Cultural
resource investigations also identified shipwreck fragments in proximity to Station 139+50 and 288+50. The contractor will exercise all available precautions to avoid damage to any
shipwreck fragments. Beach fill material will be used to cover these fragments and to minimize any impacts, the submerged pipeline will not come within 100m of them.

Summary of Consistency with State Sediment Criteria
Provided below is a summary of how each criterion stipulated in 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill Standards have been adhered to. Those criteria not considered applicable
to the project, such as those pertaining to projects utilizing a borrow area located in a maintained navigation channel, have been omitted.

Table 2. Statement of consistency with each criterion within the 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill Standards, and location of information within the supporting documentation.
Section (15A NCAC 07H .0312)
Description
Statement of Consistency:

(1)(c)
Topographic and Bathymetric Surveys
Shore-perpendicular bathymetric and topographic surveys of the beach, were conducted in April 2014 and May 2015 along transects spaced approximately 1,000 ft apart within the project
area. Please refer to Dare County, NC Duck - Kitty Hawk - Kill Devil Hills 2015 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Report (Appendix D) for a description of methodology and cross section
plots.

(1)(d)
Beach Sediment Sampling Locations
13 sediment samples were collected from 5 representative beach profiles along the project area, spaced no more than 5,000 ft. apart. Samples were taken from each of the morphodynamic
zones specified: 1 sample was collected at MLW and 6 samples were collected both seaward and landward of the MLW. Please refer to Beach Characterization section under Phase 1 Investigations
in Appendix C: Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report

(1)(e)
Values for four (4) Sediment Grain Size Categories (Individual Samples)
Mechanical seive analysis was performed on each of the samples. The percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories (fine, sand, granular, and gravel) for each individual
sample is provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix
C).

(1)(f)
Composite Values for four (4) sediment grain Size Categories
Composite values of the percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories were developed. Please refer to the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in
Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). Summary values can also be found in the text of the report on Page 16

(1)(g)
Percent Calcium Carbonate
Carbonate analysis was performed on a composite sample of all sediment samples along each of the 5 profiles. Please refer to the Profile Line Composite Summary Table in Appendix 4
of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). Summary values can also be found in the text of the report on Page 16

(1)(h)
Total Number of Clasts > 3 inches (76 mm) in diameter
In June 2020, as per the updated State Sediment Criteria language, CPE conducted a survey to quantify the number of 3-inch clasts within five (5) 10,000 sq ft.2 sections along the beach.
Results identified 17 clasts greater than 3-inches within the survey area.


 


(2)(c)
Seafloor Bathymetry and Sonar Imagery
Over the course of two surveys (June 2014 and October 2014) seafloor surveys were conducted such that 100 percent coverage of each submarine borrow area was obtained. Both single beam
bathymetry and high resolution sides scan sonar imagery were collected. Please refer to descriptions of the Phase II Investigations and Phase III Investigations in the Comprehensive
Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). More specifically, figures 21 and 22 show the bathymetric coverage of the borrow areas and figures 27 and 28 show the
sidescan mosaic of the area verifying 100% coverage.

(2)(d)
Geophysical imaging of seafloor subsurface (Subbottom Survey)
Over the course of two surveys (June 2014 and October 2014) geophysical imaging of the seafloor subsurface was used to characterize each submarine borrow area. A sub-bottom profiler
was used to survey tracklines spaced approximately 30-m apart, which greatly exceeds the state standard. Please refere to Phase II Investigations and Phase III Investigations in the
Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). More specifically, figures 16 and 17 show the tracklines along which data were collected. Also refer to
Appendix 9 of Appendix C.

(2)(e)
Vibracore Spacing, Number, and Recovery Depth
Sediment sampling of Borrow Area A and C used a 271B Alpine Pneumatic vibracore, configured to collect undisturbed sediment cores up to 20 ft. in length. Material is fed into a 3 inch
diameter plastic core liner, which is split and sampled. Vibracores were collected at 1,000-foot spacing. 51 vibracores were collected within Borrow Area A for an average acreage
per core of 23. Refer to figures 21 and 22 in the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C) for spacing of vibracores within each borrow area. All
vibracores within a given borrow area cut section penetrated and recovered material from below the proposed cut depth (i.e. all vibracores within a section marked cut to -65 ft. recovered
material from at least a depth of -65 ft.) Please refer to Figures 21 and 22 and the vibracore logs in Appendix 11 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report
(Appendix C) to verify depths recovered.

(2)(g)
Grain size analysis of individual vibracore samples and borrow area composites
Mechanical seive analysis was performed on each of the samples. The percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories (fine, sand, granular, and gravel) for each individual
sample is provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 16 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report. Weighted
composite values of the percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories were developed for each core and ultimately composite values were developed for each borrow area. These
composites are also provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 16 of the Report. Summary values for each borrow area are provided in Table
6 of the report?


(2)(h)
Vibracore calcium carbonate composites
Carbonate analysis was performed on each vibracore sample. A weighted percent calcium carbonate value was computed for each vibracore. These values were used to determine the weighted
percent calcium carbonate composite value for Borrow Area A and C. Please refer to the Cumulative Percents and Computed Distributions table in Appendix 16 of the Report (Appendix
C) for individual sample percentage and weighted composite vibracore percentage. Please refer to the Composite Data Table in Appendix 16 of the Report for weighted composite vibracore
and borrow area percentage. Summary values for each borrow area can also be found in the text of the Report in Table 6.

 

(3)(b)
Fine-Grained Size Sediment Compatibility
The average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization
plus five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative, and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report.

(3)(c)
Granular Size Compatibility
The average percentage by weight of granular sediment in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization
plus five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative, and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C).

(3)(d)
Gravel Size Compatibility
The average percentage by weight of gravel in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus
five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C).

(3)(e)
Calcium Carbonate Compatibility
The average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization
plus 15 percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C).

 

(4)(a)
Sediment Excavation Depths
All vibracores within a given borrow area cut section penetrated and recovered material from below the proposed cut depth (i.e. all vibracores within a section marked cut to -65 ft.
recovered material from at least a depth of -65 ft.).



Per Form MP-1, Section 6d: A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties
The Town is currently in the process obtaining the necessary easements to construct the project.
Per From MP-2, Section 6f: Adjacent Riparian Owner Return Receipts
Adjacent riparian owner notifications were sent via certified mail. Return receipts have not been received but will be provided to DCM when received. The receipts showing the package
was sent via Certified Mail is included below.

Per Form MP-1, Section 6h: Agent Authorization Form
/

Per Form MP-1, Section 6j: Ocean Hazard AEC Notice for Kitty Hawk
/

/

Permission Letter and Ocean AEC Hazard Notices from Adjacent Towns

/

/

/

/

Appendix A: Work Plans

Appendix B: Professional Archaeological Assessment

Appendix C: Geotechnical Report

Appendix D: Survey Report