91-05 Town of Ocean Isle Beach

000'Y.00+A000-iOii H0000
Permit Class Permit Number
NEW 91-05
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and ��F Coastal Resources Commissio P
r
Vermtt JUL 0 5 2005
for AA����,,
X Major Development in an Area of'l:(f�Tn"AeJ t)CM
pursuant to NCGS I I3A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Shallotte Inlet and Atlantic Ocean,
east end of Ocean Isle Beach as requested in the permittee's application dated 1/11/05, AEC Hazard Notice
dated 2/7/05, and attached workplan.drawings (6), 1-6 of 6 dated 12/29/04 and Sheets 7 and 8 dated 2/18/05.
This permit, issued on June 28, 2005 , is subject to compliance with the application(where consistent
with the permit),all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Excavation
1) In order to protect colonial nesting waterbirds and juvenile shrimp and finfish populations, no
excavation or placement of sand on the beach shall be permitted between April 1 and November 15
of any year without the prior approval of the Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with
the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Wildlife Resources Commission.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that there may be additional timing restrictions placed on the
authorized project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Federal permit process.
Nothing in this State Permit overrides or supersedes any such Federal permit requirement.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. !/
arles S. Jones, Director
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval. 1V1Sion Of Coastal Management
All work must cease when the permit expires on This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
December 31, 2008
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal 24
Management Program. Signature of Permittee
NA004400000000000000

FAII
each Permit #91-05
Page 2 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
activities shall take place only within the areas indicated on the attached workplat
f drawings.
$ 3) Excavation shall not exceed —15' below the normal low water level. Overdredging is specifically
prohibited.
Beach Nourishment Activities
4) This permit authorizes beach nourishment activities to be carried out one (1) time along the entire reach
' of the requested project area. Any request to carry out additional activities within an area where
nourishment activities have been completed under this permit shall require additional authorization.
5) Prior to the initiation of any beach nourishment activity, the existing mean high water line shall be
surveyed and a copy provided to the Division of Coastal Management. If nourishment activity is not
initiated within sixty days (60) and/or there is a major shoreline change prior to the commencement of
beach nourishment, a new survey shall be required.
6) Prior to the initiation of any beach nourishment activity above the mean high water contour within the
limits of the permittee's jurisdiction, easements from all property owners must be obtained.
7) Only beach quality sand shall be used for beach nourishment purposes.
8) Should the dredging operations encounter sand deemed non-compatible with native grain size or sorting
characteristics of the native beach, the dredge operator shall immediately cease operation and contact the
Division of Coastal Management for consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries and Wildlife
Resources Commission. Dredge operations shall resume only after resolution of the issue of sand
compatibility.
9) The seaward nourishment limit must be conducted in accordance with the approved work plats labeled
"Typical Profiles" (Sheets 4-6 of 6), all datedl2/29/04. If the permittee and/or its consultant detects a
deviation from these profiles, the permittee shall cease operations and contact DCM to discuss remedial
actions.
10) Temporary dikes shall be used to retain and direct flow of material parallel to the shoreline to minimize
surf zone turbidities. The temporary dikes shall be removed and the beach graded in accordance with
a approved profiles upon completion of pumping activities.
11) In order to prevent leakage, dredge pipes shall be routinely inspected. If leakage is found and repairs
cannot be made immediately, pumping of material shall stop until such leaks are fixed.
f2)— -Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment shall be removed or shifted to a new section
and the area graded and dressed to final approved slopes.

�d!�4?4ii A•fi'i4449h09404i44000000940?4-0
Tewn of Ocean Isle Beach Permit #91-OS
Page 3 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
13) Land-based equipment necessary for beach nourishment work shall be brought to the site through
existing accesses. Should the work result in any damage to existing accesses, the accesses shall be
restored to pre-project conditions immediately upon project completion in that specific area.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the construction of any new access sites would require a
modification of this permit.
14) Where oceanfront development exists at elevations nearly equal to that of the native beach, a low
protective dune will be pushed up along the backbeach to prevent ponding and slurry from draining
towards the development.
15) Dune disturbance shall be kept to a minimum. Any alteration of existing dunes shall be coordinated
with the Division of Coastal Management as well as the pertinent property owner. All disturbed areas
must be restored to original contours and configuration and shall be revegetated immediately following
project completion in that specific area.
Endangered Species Protection
16) Only beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting, successful incubation and hatchling emergence
shall be used for beach nourishment purposes. Furthermore, sand of similar grain size to the existing
beach shall be used to reduce any changes in physical characteristics of the beach that may affect nest
survival.
17) Should any work take place within the sea turtle nesting period of May 1 st to November 15th, sea turtle
crawl and nest monitoring will take place each morning. Any necessary nest relocations will be
coordinated with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and carried out by qualified personnel
approved by the Wildlife Resource Commission prior to the construction of that project section.
18) Immediately after completion of the beach nourishment project, and prior to the next three sea turtle
nesting seasons, beach compaction shall be monitored and tilling shall be conducted as deemed
necessary by the Division of Coastal Management in coordination with appropriate review agencies.
19) Immediately after completion of any phase of the beach nourishment project, and prior to the next three
nesting seasons, monitoring shall be conducted to determine if escarpments are present that would affect
nesting sea turtles or public safety and access. If such escarpments are present, the permittee shall
coordinate with the Division of Coastal Management for necessary remediation.
f
Easement
20) Prior to the start of construction, the permittee must apply for and receive an Easement from the
~—'—D'epar�menf o Wdrrfiffi ron—s-Stage-FT6pe y ice as required un er .C.-C-.ST. r46T2(-eJ.
.040:.•,•.4•,:-S^!wr04?40440y.m4i1140000i00

oco+ool000n000n00000000000000
Town of Ocean Isle Beach Permit#91-05
T 5
Page 4 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
General
21) The pennittee and/or its contractor shall comply with all applicable U.S. Coast Guard regulations
22) The permittee and/or his contractor shall schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Division of
Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any dredging activities.
23) The authorized activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation.
24) The permittee shall obtain any necessary authorizations or approvals from the US Army Corps of
Engineers prior to initiation of the permitted activity. All conditions of this Federal approval shall be
adhered to.
25) The permittee and/or his contractor shall provide for proper storage and handling of all oils, chemicals,
hydraulic fluids, etc., necessary to carry out the project.
26) The N.C. Division of Water Quality has authorized the proposed project under General Water Quality
Certification No. 3400 (DWQ Project No. 050487), which was issued on 5/13/05. Any violation of the
Water Quality Certification shall also be considered a violation of this CAMA Permit.
27) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the Division of Coastal Management will regulate the removal of
existing sandbags and the placement of new sandbags in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H
.0308(a)(2)(F), or in accordance with any variances granted by the N.C. Coastal Resources
Commission.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
F

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Mici-iad F.Easley,Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
June 29, 2005
Town of.Ocean Isle Reach
'flirce West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach,NC 28469
i)car Sir:
The enclosed hermit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act, and where applicable, the
State 17redge and bill Law, for you to proceed with your project proposal. Please sign both the original (buff-
colored form) and the copy. 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. Please retain the original(buff-colored
form),as it must be available on site when the project is inspected for compliance,
If you object to the permit or any or the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant to NCGS 113A-
l2 1.1 or 113-229.Yotir 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
(2.0) days of this decision on your permit. You should also be aware that if another qualified party submits a valid
objection to the issuance of this permit within twenty(2.0)days,the matter must be resolved prior to work initiation.
The Coastal Resources Commission makes the final decision on any appeal.
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, ume extensions, and future maintenance require
additional approved. I'lease 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 is to your benefit to be sure that he frilly 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.
Sincerely,
A,&
V, �,
Douglas V.Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Manager
l?nclostere
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet:www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Town of Ocean Isle Beach,East End Beach Nourishment Project
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE:Ocean Isle Beach:Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet,Brunswick County.
Photo Index-2000: 1-11, Grid P15..R22 1995: 1-11 Grid Q4..S12 1989: 1-20 Grid 112..K21
State Plane Coordinates-X: Y: ....will be forwarded..... Rover file:
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visits—Many visits; most recent 02/28/05 (J.G.)
Was Applicant Present-Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received—02/2/05
Office- Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan—Ocean Isle Beach
Land Classification From LUP-Developed
(B) AEC(s)Involved: EW,PT, OH, IRA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public/Private
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing—municipal
Planned -None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing—Sandbags, Houses
Planned -None
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 2 ft/yr,4.5 ft/yr
Source— 1998 Long Term Average Annual Erosion Rates
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A)Vegetated Wetlands
(B)Non-Vegetated Wetlands—
Shallow bottom and ebb tide delta 208,000 sf
Inter-tidal beach area disposal 720,000 sf
(C)Other-Upper beach disposal 360,000 sf
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 23.8 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SB/SA Open: Yes
8. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and deposit it
on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.

Ocean Isle Beach East End Beach Nourishment Project
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ocean Isle Beach is a south facing barrier island located in Brunswick County. It is situated between
Tubbs Inlet,to the west, and Shallotte Inlet to the east. The westward migration of the main channel of
Shallotte Inlet over the past several decades has continued to erode the east end of the island and threaten
the development on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. Sandbags have been placed along numerous
properties in attempts to postpone damage to structures, and portions of several roadways (East First,
Second, and Third Streets). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a beach nourishment project at
Ocean Isle Beach, but it begins west of the current inlet induced severe erosion area(tapers between
Charlotte Street and Shallotte Boulevard).
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to implement a municipal beach nourishment project that
would place approximately 135,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet onto the inlet
and ocean beaches above the low tide line at the east end, extending west to tie in with the federal beach
nourishment project. The sand would be taken from within the Corps' designated borrow area within
the inlet ebb channel/delta region of the inlet. The material would be pumped by hydraulic dredge to the
beach. The excavated materials would be pumped to the shorefront and bulldozers would be used to
grade the material to the design slope. Effluent would be directed towards the ocean behind a temporary
sand dike during project construction. The approximately 19 acre sand placement area measures
approximately 2,700 ft x 400 feet.
The project area is within the Ocean Hazard and Inlet Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern. The
1998 Long Term Average Annual Erosion Rate ranges from 2 feet per year at Charlotte Street to 4.5 feet
per year to the east. The erosion rate of the adjacent shoreline is wrapped around into the inlet hazard
area, although the actual erosion rate may actually be much higher.
In the project area, the NC Division of Water Quality classifies the Atlantic Ocean as SB, and the waters
of Shallotte Inlet as SA. The waters of Shallotte Inlet are OPEN for the harvest of shellfish. The project
area is not designated as Primary Nursery Area(PNA) by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The excavation of the ebb tide channel and delta area of Shallotte Inlet channel by hydraulic pipeline dredge
would disturb 208,000 sf of sandy, shallow bottom. The project would produce approximately 135,000
cubic yards of beach quality sand that would be placed on the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach. The
deposition of this material would disturb 827,640 feet(19 acres)of upper beach and inter-tidal zone along
2,700 linear feet of oceanfront shoreline.
Submitted by: Caroline Bellis Date: 3/10/05 Office: Wilmington

Recommendations for State Permit—Ocean Isle Beach East End Beach Nourishment Project
An area of concern is the combined effect of contiguous beach nourishment areas on Ocean Isle Beach.
Currently nearly all of the Brunswick County Beaches either have an existing beach nourishment project,a
proposed beach nourishment project, and or receive sand from the dredging of the Wilmington Harbor
channel.Although smaller than some of the other projects(and would not exceed the State's deposition rate
standard for small-scale beach nourishment projects(50 cy/LF)),the proposal would still contribute to the
physical and biological cumulative impacts of inlet dredging and beach nourishment in southeastern NC.
The Wilmington Regional Office has no objection to the issuance of a permit for the proposal if issued with
the following conditions:
DREDGE & FILL—EXCAVATION
1 Excavation will not exceed the permitted depth below the mean low/normal water level.
2 All appropriate conditions for biological resources moratoria are included as conditions of the
permit.
3 No vegetated wetlands/marsh grass will be excavated or filled.
4 The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or
vegetated wetlands is not authorized.
5 No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any vegetated wetlands/marsh or
surrounding waters outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the workplan drawing(s).
NOTE: The permittee's contractor is advised to contact the U.S. Coast Guard at(910)815-4895,ext.
108 to discuss operations and appropriate lighting, markers, etc. for all dredge equipment.
SAND DEPOSITION
1. All sand placed on the beach must be beach compatible with existing grain size and type. Sand to be used
for beach nourishment shall be taken only from those areas where the resulting environmental impacts will
be minimal.
2. During and after construction activities, a uniform, gradual slope will be maintained between the mean
high water and mean low water elevation contours so as not to endanger the public or interfere with the
public's use of the beach.
3. The activity must not significantly increase erosion on neighboring properties and must not have a
significant adverse effect on important natural or cultural resources.
4. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
5. The first line of stable natural vegetation (where it exists) is not to be filled over or disturbed. The
applicant may request that this line be staked in the field by a representative of the Division of Coastal
Management.

Recommendations for State Permit—Ocean Isle Beach East End Beach Nourishment Project
Page 2
6. The appropriate nourished areas must be planted with a suitable beach grass and fertilized after
completion of berm construction.
7. Any changes in the development plans will require a modification of this permit.
8. Development carried out under this permit must be consistent with all local requirements, AEC
Guidelines and local land use plans current at the time of authorization.
9. This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any other required state, local, or federal
authorizations.
10. The activity must not exceed the lateral bounds of the project as shown on the application drawings.
11. All appropriate conditions for biological resources moratoria are included as conditions of the permit.
Note: If materials of cultural significance, such as the remains of a beached shipwreck are encountered
during construction,work must move to another area and the Underwater Archaeology unit at 910 458-9042
as well as the District Engineer with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers at 910 251-4725 must be contacted
to assess the wreckage and determine the proper course of action.

Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
b. City,town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT Town of Ocean Isle Beach
a. Landowner: c. Street address or secondary road number
East end of S.R.I 144 and 1888
Name: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
Address: Three West Third Street jurisdiction? X Yes No
City: Ocean Isle Beach State: NC e. Name of body of water nearest project(e.g. river,
creek, sound,bay)Atlantic Ocean and Shallotte
Zip: 28469 Day Phone [phone] Inlet to the east of project
Fax: [phone]
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE OF
b. Authorized Agent: PROPOSED PROJECT
Name: J. W. Forman,Jr., P.E. a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
Coastal Science & Engineering building a home, motel, marina,bulkhead, pier, and
Address: P. O. Box 1643 excavation and/or filling activities). Dredging and
placement on beach of approximately 135,000 cubic
City: Morehead City State: NC yards of beach quality sand
Zip: 28557 Day Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
c. Project Name(if any) Ocean Isle Beach, East existing project,new work or both? Both
End Beach Nourishment
c. Will the project be for public,private or
commercial use? Public use
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT d. Give a brief description of purpose,use,methods
of construction and daily operations of proposed
a. County: Brunswick project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Dredging by hydraulic dredge
with material pumped to beach where it is dewatered
in controlled dikes and shaped with conventional
earth moving equipment.

Form DCM-MP-I
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
4. LAND AND WATER All residential units are served by municipal
CHARACTERISTICS sewer and treatment system operated by Town of
Ocean Isle Beach.
a. Size of entire tract Beach fill area— 19 AC+/-
n. Describe the location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or effluent, "wash down", and residential
NWL -10 to + 8 feet NGVD discharges). Discharge of dredge slurry on
beach and to ocean during dredging and filling
d. Soil types(s) and texture(s) of tract operations
medium to coarse sand on beach
o. Describe the existing drinking water supply
e. Vegetation on tract None source. Municipal system with well sources
f. Man-made features now on tract Existinl7 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
sand bags at end of Charlotte and Shallotte
Blvd., quarry stone and rubble on beach from In addition to the completed application form, the
collapsed structures following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only)
g. What is CAMA Land Use Plan land or other instrument under which the applicant
classification of the site? claims title to the affected properties. If the
applicant is not claiming to be owner of said
Conservation Transitional property, then forward a copy of the deed or
_X_Developed Community other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to
Rural Other carry out the project.
h. How is the tract zoned by local government? • An accurate dated work plat (including plan
Residential view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to a
scale in black ink on an 81/2" by 11" white
paper. (refer to Coastal Resources Commission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description).
applicable zoning? X Yes_No
Please note that original drawings are preferred
j. Has a professional archeological assessment and only high quality copies will be accepted.
been done for the tract?—Yes X No Blue line prints or other large plats are
If yes, by whom? acceptable only if an adequate number of quality
copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that
k. Is the project located in a National Register agency's use of larger drawings). A site or
Historic District or does it involve a National location map is a part of plat requirements and
Register listed or eligible property? must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency
Yes X No personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Yes X No
Coastal (marsh) No Other No
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? N/A
(attach documentation,if available)

Form DCM-MP-1
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is
necessary. 6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION TO
ENTER ON LAND
• A list of names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and I understand that any permit issued in response to
the signed return receipts as proof that such this application will allow only the development
owners have received a copy of the application described in the application. The project will be
and plats by certified mail. Such landowners subject to conditions and restrictions contained in
must be advised that they have 30 days in the permit.
which to submit comments on the proposed
project to the Division of Coastal Management. I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the
Upon signing this form, the applicant further proposed activity complies with the State of North
certifies that such notice has been provided. Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
Name see list of property owners in Narrative such program.
Address I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
Phone grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the
Name aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating
Address information related to this permit application and
Phone follow up monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
Name application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Address
Phone
This is the 11 day of January , 20 05
• A list of previous state or federal permits
issued for work on the project tract. Include Print Name —Debbie Smith Ma or
permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
Signature
N/A
Landowner or Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in proposed project.
oceanfront or inlet areas.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
• A check for$250 made payable to the DCM MP-3 Upland Development
Department of Environment, Health and DCM MP-4 Structures Information
Natural Resources (DEHNR) to cover the costs
of processing the application. DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
• A Statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
to 10). If the project involves the expenditures space provided at the bottom of each form.
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.

Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to the Joint Application for
CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure 1. EXCAVATION
to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project.
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
Describe below the purpose of proposed MHW or NWL in cubic yards. 135,000 cubic yards
excavation or fill activities. All values to be given
in feet.
b. Type of material to be excavated clean medium to
Average Final coarse sand
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access C. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
Channel 600 ft wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(MLW) or 5,200 ft 350 ft 10 ft 15 ft ( ) g q g
250 ft (SAV's)or other wetlands?_Yes X No
Canal N/A N/A N/A N/A d. Highground excavation in cubic yards
none
Boat
Basin N/A N/A N/A N/A 2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
Boat a. Location of disposal area Ocean beach of Ocean Isle,
Ramp N/A N/A N/A N/A p
west of Shallotte Inlet channel
Rock F b. Dimensions of disposal area Beach fill area approx
Groin N/A N/A 7. 2,700 feet long, 130 to 150 ft wide berm at el. +7 ,
total fill approx 400 feet wide at placement, see
t 1 f sheets 4,5 &6
Rock
Breakwater N/A N/A �yF
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
_Yes X No
Other If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
(Excluding owner. Disposal area is public beach
shoreline N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stabilization) d. Will disposal area be available for future
maintenance X Yes No
If yes,where? Same location if fill is required

Form DCM-MP-2 Ifyes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the water
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands None portion of fill placed to mean low tide el.
(marsh), SAV's or other wetlands? (2)Dimension of the fill area approx 2,700 feet long
Yes X No 130 to 150 ft wide berm at el. +7 . total fill
Wrox 400 feet wide at placement, see sheets 4.
f. Does the disposal area include any area in the 5 &6
water? Yes X No (3) Purpose of fill Beach Nourishment
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION NIA b. Will material be placed in coastal wetlands (marsh),
SAV's or other wetlands?
a. Type of shoreline stabilization Yes X No
Bulkhead Riprap
If yes,
b. Length (1) Dimensions of fill area
c. Average Distance waterward of MHW or NWL (2) Purpose of fill
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
5. GENERAL
e. Shoreline erosion during proceeding 12 months a. How will excavated material be kept on site and
erosion controlled? Material pumped to beach will be
(Source oflnfonw ion) controlled with temporary dikes to facilitate
settlement and retention of sand on beach
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below dredge)? Hydraulic dredge for dredging and
water level conventional earth moving
_equipment for shaping the
(1) �pmP fill on the beach
(2) Bulkhead backfill c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
h. Type of fill material If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
i. Source of Fill material
Ocean Isle-Beacb,East End Beach Nourishment
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ApplicrL
Project Name
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization) _,1�
Signature
a_ Will fill material be brought to the site?
X Yes No
Date

OCEAN ISLE BEACH
EAST END BEACH NOURISHMENT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to place approximately 135,000 cubic yards of beach
quality sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet on some 2,700 linear feet of beach just west of
Shallotte Inlet. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach is located along the Atlantic Ocean coast of
Brunswick County, North Carolina between Shallotte Inlet and Tubs Inlet just north of the South
Carolina border. Ocean Isle Beach can be accessed by driving south from Wilmington, North
Carolina on U. S. Highway 17 past the Town of Shallotte to State Road 1184 and following S. R.
1184 south across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to the island Town. The project
site is located at the east end of the island along the ocean shoreline just west of the mouth of
Shallotte Inlet (see sheet 1 of 6).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Ocean Isle Beach project is an extension of a periodic re-nourishment being undertaken by
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, as part of the Brunswick
County Beaches project. The beach fill will cover approximately 19 acres of shoreline with sand
placed on the beach above the low tide line. The main fill portion of the project will contain
approximately 50 c.y. per linear feet of beach (95,000 c.y. total) and will include a flat berm at
elevation +7.0 (NGVD) initially placed 130 to 150 feet wide (see sheets 4 and 5 of 6) and
extending seaward to elevation —5.0 (NGVD) on a 1:20 slope. A transitional taper section 700
feet long will tie the main fill to the USACE taper at the west. Similarly, a taper 1000 feet long
will tie the main fill into the natural shoreline at the east end of the project (see sheet 3 of 6).
Each taper will contain approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand.
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 1 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application —Narrative
January 7, 2005

The USACE project includes placement of approximately 384,000 cubic yards of beach quality
sand dredged from the designated borrow area in Shallotte Inlet. The project is scheduled to
begin in February 2005 and is projected to require approximately four weeks to complete. The
Town proposes to gain a significant economic advantage by contracting with the dredging
contractor for the USACE project to complete the Town's project before demobilizing equipment
from the site.
The beach fill material will be dredged from a borrow area in Shallotte Inlet (see sheet 2 of 6)
that has been identified by the Corps of Engineers for the ongoing and future re-nourishment
projects on Ocean Isle Beach. The Town will monitor the material placed on the beach on a
daily basis to make sure that the best material available is used. Experience gained by the
dredging contractor on the USACE project will help place the dredge in areas of the borrow area
containing the best beach quality material.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The shoreline proposed for nourishment has experienced above average erosion resulting in
damage and condemnation of several oceanfront properties along 2"d and 3rd Streets (see sheet
2 of 6). At several locations, the surf extends beneath existing structures during extreme high
tide conditions. Sand bags have been paced at the ends of Shallotte Blvd and Charlotte Street
to protect streets and utility infrastructure from damage.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
No upland improvements, pavements, walkways or other impervious surfaces will be
constructed as part of the project. No stormwater management or additional stormwater
measures will be required for this project. A letter will be sent to the Division of Water Quality in
Wilmington describing the scope of the project.
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 2 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application- Narrative
January 7, 2005

METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
Dredging will be done by conventional hydraulic dredge with a temporary pipeline placed on the
ocean bottom up to the beach. The sand and water slurry will be confined on the beach to
permit settlement of sand and drainage of the water fraction back to the ocean. The settled
sand will be shaped on the beach using conventional earth moving equipment. The dredging
and fill operations will be on a 7 day per week basis and will only be shut down in order to
relocate the dredge in the borrow area, for weather conditions too extreme for the dredging
operations, or for maintenance and repair of pipelines or equipment.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The objective of the Town is to complete the project before the end of the moratorium period,
April 1, 2005. It is anticipated, that once work begins, approximately four days will be required
to complete the dredging and placement portion of the project. The contractor will require an
additional week to remove equipment and pipelines from the jobsite.
COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH ZONING AND CAMA LAND USE
PLAN
The property is within the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. The site is
classified "Developed" by the Town's CAMA Land Use Plan.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE N. C. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The beach nourishment work proposed will be financed with public funds but consist of less
than 200,000 cubic yards of total fill with fill dimensions 50 cubic yards per linear feet or less.
The project is classified as a small nourishment project by the N. C. Division of Coastal
Management and does not require review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 3 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application— Narrative
January 7, 2005

jar
i�oR1d0LCAO NAa"oZl
rkczD
;SOUITIfILGAROLINA rk
J
• Mfilrwira�tsary
131
RMapO 4.51318
1317
\` ^"t, +t'j•�,�iy+',fti'Y+1# .,yR:r _ \ ,}, _ x`tt1' - 1 MN 8.6'
\t .,. X:: I'-r,� tt t �' y�z�tr.y?�•. 1191
AF
\�` V-_. 191fl4 1t �"fi1� t�,k' f 1146
\\ gg 1147
•/ .I- { �k
— 1151 1235
Mtn f if
�� v:c �\ .; `.. r1149
MIAMIl�
a. 1� ` 1 1154 4: ! ! rJll oll@=
� r
i�
4 4 4 k'
119e - ---'' �•179 ,1ss � ;''i� °�s� � �571d1'U�a d' z4 ,,,,,�.f ,
904 p j r Sots Wand rti' $ ��we
a'r,` " '�
^� 1183 1185 1232 — tT 4
1247 ?�• 1.
IBk BCBChal@9
i�
f r
l hlJPI
fi11
.
C1r
-.�.•'_, ..... .>X.-. .�174 �Yu. ..._H �N.6=._ i•'�2mSF•x �ti�:. I ar ..3,�.°ad...... ............. ... .. ,....
DIRECTIONS From HWY 17: Take Hwy. 17. Turn south onto NC Hwy. 904. Follow Hwy 904 south
to Town of Ocean Isle Beach. Turn northeast onto East 1st Street and follow to the street end. Project
starts from Charlotte St. and extends northeast (-2,700 ft) ending at Shallotte Inlet.
Project Name: Prepared For:
Ocean Isle Beach Town of Ocean Isle Beach VICINITY MAP
East End Nourishment Plan 29 December 2004 Sheet 1 of 6

t:1,181,000 ` r E: 190,100
};
r
o Holden Beach
A I C \�
V.
_•r� -�r Marsh
Marsh
CD
Marsh =
Ovp .' -e �: -f`� '
CD �� UUSAGE BL^ % i `�*, SHALLOTTE INLET
Ocean Isle Beach E.3rd . ��-
' BORROW AREA
a �
E 1s PRoJEGT A t 1 --- ----- ------------15 --
�� feet
0 linear
15--
I 2,7 U f I
a
--135 000 cy l50 cY�lf) I e
o --= ------ 20
o C ;
USACE Project o rn A f 1 a ri
o --------------- -------------
+ o 00 0 500 0 500 1,000 N
0
N: 52,000 0
r N:52,000 r
E:2,180,000 GRAPHIC SCALE (feet) E:2,190,100
Project Name: Prepared For: Datum: SPCSNAD 's3
Ocean Isle Beach Town of Ocean Isle Beach PROJECT AREA
OCEA1I��ISLE
East End Nourishment Plan �B'EACF 29 December 2004 Sheet 2 of 6

qN: 55,100 N: 55,100
E: 2,182,500 E: 2,185,100 `
CD Q �:•
n
m n
eggs®®/
Ocean Isle Bea GOP
ach ® /
USAGE E. I I r
®®®®® ® ` I:.• ' III jl
1 ►—
®®� ® -E.2nd'' t. I II 1 l
® — I
® I ,
CrJ _ "'. '
1 n. a fi
®®® 1. yi:. .,. . Ito
t I c
a er
1 II JECT AREA
. ( P 1
, . II ' PR 00 linear feet ICI 1
5 Pa 'on �_a-- 1 135 000 Y II
50 cY � 1
rake I Transition I � 1
II ~ 20,000 cy
li It (20 cy/ft) 1
1 II i 95,000 cy 1,000 ft 1
U 1 I II (95 cy/ft) II
II i 20,000 cy 1,000 ft I
II �1 (28.6
o cylft) I 8 m rn N
a 700 ft
N: 53,000 III 1 I S CD 200 0 200 400
E: 2,182,500 N -4
o cn
o o GRAPHIC SCALE (feet)
Project Name: "IX Prepared For: Datum: SPCSNAD '83
Ocean Isle Beach i� / Town of Ocean Isle Beach NOURISHMENT PLAN
OCEA11�' SLE
East End Nourishment Plan UkkH 29 December 2004 Sheet 3 of 6

Ocean Isle Station 15+00
20
Dec-04
15 ......-- ......... ------ =- - •.--•-• - - - USACE Fill (Transition) -
OIB Supplement Fill-Transition
Q10 --- -------- ------ ......Berm Crest.............. ------ ------ ------- --•--- ------
5 ---------------- ......-_-i- --•----- •------- US CE Fill (Transition) 75 cy/ft
A
Z Supplemental Fill Vol =-15 cy/ft
t1= Berm @+7 ft NGVD(BC@ 289 ft BQ
c0 --- Construction Slope @- 1 on 18
O
-5 ... .. ................... _._.... ...- .......
(D
W -10 ------ --•--- ..........------- .......... ------ ......... --•--- ------
-15 Profile Survey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science&Engineering ...:......... .....••-• --_.--...+----------
USACE Fig Volurue Based on Beach Renourishment Project Plan-
1FB No.M 12PM-04-B-O011(Mmington District-12 Nov 2004)
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance From USACE Baseline (ft)
Ocean Isle Station 10+00
20
Dec-04
15 -------- ......... --------- --------- ...................
- - - USACE Fill (Transition) -
OIB Supplement Fill
10 --- --- ---------=---------=---------= -
Supplemental Fill Vol =-80.0 cy/ft
t
C� 5 ------ -----
Z USACE Fill (Transition)_ -5.5 cy/ft
Berm @+7 ft NGVD (BC@ 195 ft BQ
0 = Construction Slope @ 1 on 20
o
-- ------ --•--- ------ ------- - ------ ------
N
W -10 ------ ------ ------ ------ -----• ------ ----- ----------- ------ ------
-1 5 ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ...... -----• •----•• -....................
ProfAe Surrey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science 8 Englneering
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance From USACE Baseline (ft)
Project Name: Prepared For:
Ocean Isle Beach Town of Ocean Isle Beach TYPICAL PROFILES
East End Nourishment Plan 29 December 2004 Sheet 4 of 6

Ocean Isle Station 15+00
20
Dec-04
15 -------- ---------=--------- --------- --------- - - - USACE Fill (Transition)
OIB Supplement Fill-Transition
- ------`--------- -•------- ------------------- ---•-- ....... ..•••. ------- ------10
^ BC=Benn Crest
5
;_______ :___________ _______ ________ USACE Fill (transition)- 75 cy/ft
Z ti Supplemental Fill Vol=-15 cy/ft
Berm @+7 ft NGVD(BC@ 289 ft BQ
0 -F Construction Slope @- 1 on 18
0
-5 --------=--------- -------- -- --- ---- --•----- ------ ......... ------
a
LJ.I -10 ......... �--------- -------- --------- -- --t---------,-------
-15 Profile Survey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science&Engineering ._•------ -------------•---.. ..........
USA CE Fig Volume Based on Beach Renourishment Project Plan-
IFB No.M 12PM-04-B-0017(Mmington District-12 Nov 2004)
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance From USACE Baseline (ft)
Ocean Isle Station 10+00
20
Dec-04
15 -------- --------- --------- -------------------- ------ - - - USACE Fill (Transition)
OIB Supplement Fill
10 - -------------=-------------------------------------
=
R Supplemental Fill Vol = -80.0 cy/ft
- -- = .:... . .. .......
z 5 '` USACE Fill (Transition)_ 5.5 cy/ft
Berm @+7 ft NGVD(BC@ 195 tt BQ
c
0 -------- •--• 3.4.--------?- �--------Construction Slope @— 1 on 20 .........
o
--------=--------- ----
------------------ ------------------- --------
a�
- -------- --------- --------- -------- --------}----- ------- ......... ..........
w 10
-1 5 - = = - =------------------------------:=---------=--------- -------- -------
Profile Survey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science&Engineering
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance From USACE Baseline (ft)
Project Name: Prepared For:
Ocean Isle Beach Town of Ocean Isle Beach TYPICAL PROFILES
East End Nourishment Plan 29 December 2004 Sheet 5 of 6

Ocean Isle Station -5+00 (East)
20
-Dec-04
15 - -------- ---------------------------------------- ------ --------
01B Supplement Fill
10 ---------- ------- -------------------- --------- ---------
5 . ........ ......... ...N.. Supplemental Fill Vol=-20.0 cytft
z Berm @ +7 ft NGVD (BC@-370 ft BQ
Construction Slope @- 1 on 20
0 ......... .......... ---------
O
-5 ---------- --------- --------------------
> ----------
LU
10 ----------
-------------------------­----------------------- --------- -------------------------------
-15 ----------
----------.......... --------- --------- --------- ----------:-----------..........
Prolite Survey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science 8 Engineering
20 . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... .........
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Distance From USACE Baseline (ft)
Ocean Isle Station 10+00 East
20 -
15 ----------------- ------- ---------....... -------- -------4:-------- Dec-04
-----
Ocean isle Beach
10 - --- Supplement Nourishment --------
> Project Limit- East End
5 ........ ------- ........ ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- ---------------- --------
z
End Nourishment Taper
0 --------- ------
0
-5 ----------------L.....
U.1
10 ------- ------ -------- ----------- ----------
---
-15 ----------------- ................ ....... -------- ------- ........ ................. ....... --------
Proffb Survey 6 Dec 2004 by Coastal Science&Engineering
-20 1......... ...................... ...... ... ...... ....... ...... .........
-800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Distance From USACE. Baseline (ft)
Project Name: Prepared For.
Ocean Isle Beach Town of Ocean Isle Beach TYPICAL PROFILES
East End Nourishment Plan
29 December 2004 Sheet 6 of 6

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Town of Ocean Isle Beach County: Brunswigk
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 02/02/05
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: YES To Be Forwarded:lV prel'it"au "Y
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached:No To Be Forwarded: Yes ��
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Caroline Bellis DISTRICT OFFICE: Wilmington
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED IN RALEIGH: FEE REC'D:$
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 03%/7I o,S END OF NOTICE DATE:
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D: DEED REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO: h�ti�,c ON: a tJ/O s
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: 150 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE: STATE DUE DATE:
FEDERAL DUE DATE: 1-P FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT ON
AGENCY DATECOMIvtENTS OBJECTIONS: NOTES
RETURNED YES NO
Coastal Management-Regional Representative
Coastal Management-LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section
Division of Water Quality 5r
Storm Water Management(DWQ)
State Property Office 3—Division of of Archives&History
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways ? Z yw y
Wildlife Resources Commission
Division.of Water Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Submerged Lands(DMF)

Permit#
mm Coordinator_: ~Y
MAILING DISTRIBUTION:
V Agent: el",e- Cp— �
DC'.M Field Offices:
Elizabeth City
Morehead Cit
Washington✓
Wilmingto
US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE):
Washington; Mike Bell(NCDOT)
Bill Biddlecome(NCDOT)
Raleigh Bland
Wilmington: Dave Timpy(NCDOT)
Henry Wicker
Others:
Cultural Resources: Renee Gledhill-Earl
Environmental Health: Terry Pierce /
Marline Fisheries: Mike Street✓/
NCDOT: Ken Pace e
Shellfish Sanitation: Patty Fowler
State Property Office: Joseph Hendersos�'
Water Quality: Cyndi Karoly(for non-DOT
John Hennessy(NCDOT) 11
Water Resources: John Sutherland on�s��'
Wildlife Resources: Maria Tripp 0— \
B� .�ul y`7
David Cox(NCDOT)
Travis Wilson(NCDOT) /
FAXING.DISTRIBUTION:
Pennitce
Agent
DCM Field Offices:
Elizabeth City(252/264-3723)
Morehead City(252/247-3330)
Washington(252/948-0478)
Wilmington(910/350-2004)
US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE):
Washington: Mike Bell(NCDOT) � +
Bill Biddlecome(NCDOT)
Raleigh Bland(252/975-1399)
Wilmington: Dave Timpy(NCDOT)
Henry Wicker(910/251-4025)
CAMA Major Permit Process Manual _ Page 70 of 70

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
September 27, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID 200500360
Town of Ocean Isle Beach / $E P 3 0 2005
Attn: Ms. Debbie Smith, Mayor
Three West Third Street Morehead City DCM
Ocean Isle Beach,North Carolina 28469
Dear Mayor Smith:
Enclosed is a Department of the Army permit authorization to place approximately
135,000 cubic yards of sand dredged from the Shallotte Inlet on approximately 2, 700
linear feet of beach adjacent to the inlet, on the west side of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County,North Carolina. The Corps is issuing this permit in response to your written
request of January 12, 2005, and the ensuing administrative record.
Any deviation in the authorized work will likely require modification of this permit. If
a change in the authorized work is necessary, you should promptly submit revised plans to
the Corps showing the proposed changes. You may not undertake the proposed changes
until the Corps notifies you that your permit has been modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and special conditions are important. Your
failure to comply with these conditions could result in a violation of Federal-law.- Certain
significant conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2008.
b. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits to your
worksite as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and conditions.
You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence and
complete work.

-2-
You should address all questions regarding this authorization to Mr. Henry Wicker,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, at [phone].
Sincerely,
40 L
John E. Pulliam, Jr.
Colonel,U.S. Army
District Engineer
Enclosures
Copy Furnished with enclosures:
Chief, Source Data Unit
NOAA/National Ocean Service
ATTN: Sharon Tear N/CS261
1315 East-West Hwy., Rm 7316
Silver Spring,MD 20910-3282
Copies Furnished with special conditions and plans:
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section Mr. Doug Huggett
61 Forsyth Street Division of Coastal Management
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Pete Benjamin 400 Commerce Avenue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Morehead City,North Carolina 28557
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726 Mr. David Rackley
Raleigh,North Carolina 27636-3726 National Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Mr. Ron Sechler Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort,North Carolina 28516

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), all conditions of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality 401 Certification and the North Carolina.Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major
Permit are incorporated as part of the Department of the Army permit. Therefore,they are not
listed as special conditions.
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)prior to implementation.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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(919) 733-5083,
Ext. 526 or(800) 662-7956 and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
5. The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing prior to beginning the work authorized by
this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by this permit.
6. 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 riot be used.
7. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide
each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this
project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project
8. 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).
9 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
waterway to its former conditions. If the permittee fails to comply with this direction, the
Secretary or his representative may restore the waterway, by contract or otherwise, and recover
the cost from the permittee.
12. 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.
13. 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. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal,
relocation, or alteration. The permittee shall notify NOAA/NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Chief Source Data Unit N CS261, 1315 E West HWY- RM 7316, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3282 at least two weeks prior to beginning work and upon completion of work.
14. 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.
2

For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
at(910) 772-2191.
15. All dredging will be conducted by hydraulic pipeline dredge. No hopper dredges are
permissible with this authorization.
16. No dredged material will be placed at any time in waters outside the permitted beach
nourishment disposal area.
17. All material used for the beach nourishment must be compatible and clean and free of
any pollutants except in trace quantities.
18. No nourishment material will be obtained in areas outside of the designated borrow as
depicted in the attached plan.
19. The contractors name,phone number, and address, including a field contact name and
number, will be submitted to the Wilmington District prior to any work.
20. Only beach quality sand shall be used for beach nourishment purposes. The new beach
nourishment material will be sampled daily to ensure that only beach compatible material will be
placed on the beach. If during the sampling process non-beach compatible material is or has
been placed on the beach all work will stop and the Corps will be notified to determine the
appropriate plan of action.
21. Sediment analysis must be provided to Henry Wicker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington,North Carolina 28402, on a weekly basis to verify the
compatibility of the material. This analysis will include, but not limited to the location of the
sample station, shell percentage, silt/clay content, and grain size.
22. Dredging surveys must be provided to our office on a weekly basis. These surveys will
include the width and depth of the survey area that has been dredged. All dredging dimensions
will be restricted to the area designated in the application.
For Threatened and Endangered Species:
23. In a letter dated July 21, 2005 (enclosed),the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a
copy of the February 2001 Biological Opinion (BO) for the Federal Ocean Isle Beach Project
and stated that the Service was utilizing this BO for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's project and
providing a separate and project specific Incidental Take Statement. In this letter the Service
stated that the reasonable and prudent measures (pp.36-37) and terms and conditions (pp.38-45)
in the BO (attached) are required to be performed and adhered to as a condition of this permit to
3

address endangered species concerns. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach will be responsible for
implementing the reasonable and prudent measures (pp.36-37) and terms and conditions (pp.38-
45) in the BO for their project.
24. If submerged cultural resources are encountered during the operation, the District
Engineer will be immediately notified so that coordination can be initiated with the Underwater
Archeology Unit (UAU) of the Department of Cultural Resources. In emergency situations, the
permittee should immediately contact Mr. Chris Southerly at(910/458-9042), Fort Fisher, so that
a full assessment of the artifacts can be made.
25. Construction time frame will be restricted to November 16 to March 31. No work will
occur outside this time period. All activity, including mobilization efforts is restricted from the
beach and inlet shorelines prior to November 16. Upon completion of work, all equipment,
including pipelines, must be removed by March 31.
26. No deep ruts will be left on the beach upon completion of the project.
27. No activity may cause a hazard to navigation.
28. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, it should be
reported to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at(919) 733-5083,Ext. 526 or(800) 662-7956
and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will
be followed.
29. A representative of the Corps of Engineers will periodically and randomly inspect the
work for compliance with these conditions. Deviations from these procedures may result in
cessation of work until the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the Corps.
30. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or
unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future
Federal activities initiated on behalf of the general public.
c. Damages to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the
authorized activity.
d. Design and construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
4

e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of
this permit.
31. The permittee will comply with all U.S. Coast Guard regulations for dredging operations.
You will immediately contact Mr. John Walters of the U.S. Coast Guard, at [phone] or
iwalters(a,,LANTD5.uscg.mil, once a construction timeline has been confirmed. Contact with the
U.S. Coast Guard will initiate the Local Notice for Mariners procedures to ensure all safety
precautions for aids to navigation are implemented. You will notify our office when this
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard has been commenced and updates will be provided to
our office.
32. A pre-construction meeting must be held with our office prior to conducting the work to
ensure the contractor fully understands the conditions of this permit. Participates may include,
but not limited to, representatives from N.C. Division of Coastal Management,N.C. Division of
Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission, and U.S. Coast Guard.
33. This Department of the Army permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,
State or local authorizations required by law.
34. This permit authorizes beach nourishment activities to be carried out along the entire
reach of the requested project area. Any request to carry out additional activities within the area
where nourishment activities have been completed under this permit will require additional
authorization.
5

eNT Op
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
'?CH 3 18Raleigh,North Carolina 27636-3726 JUL 2 5 2005
July 21, 2005
a
Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington,North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID #200500360,Beach Construction, Town of Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County,North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter revises the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
expressed in our letter of July 15, 2005,regarding the District Engineer's determination
of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) of 1973, as
amended(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). That letter stated that the February 19, 2001 Biological
Opinion (BO) and Incidental Take Statement for the federal Ocean Isle Beach Project
would be amended to include the additional 2,700 linear feet of beach habitat address in
the Public Notice issued on January 24, 2005.
By this letter the Service provides a BO for the subject project with a separate and
project-specific Incidental Take Statement. To expedite the processing of the Department
of the Army(DA)permit,we have attached the February 2001 BO. The extent of
incidental take anticipated for this project is approximately 0.5 miles of beach habitat.
The reasonable and prudent measures (pp. 36-37) and terms and conditions (pp. 38-45)
must be conditions of the DA permit.
All Service recommendations unrelated to section 7 remain the same. If you have
questions regarding these comments,please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext.
27 or by e-mail at<howard—[e-mail]>.
AS* cere
ete in
col alp Ecolo Services Supervisor
Attachment

"T°f Tti United States Department of the Interior
N 6 O
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office 1��C IV F-
A�.
�. Ae Post Office Box 33726
ARCH 3 10 Raleigh,North Carolina27636-3726 JUL 2 5 2005
July 15, 2005
'OIV.OF C ,. .T
Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Morehead Cj� �,, '
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington,North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID # 200500360, Beach Construction, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter responds to your request of May 5, 2005, for comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on information provided by Coastal Science&Engineering (CS&E) of
Columbia, South Carolina. This information, dated April 21, 2005, relates to the subject PN,
issued on January 24, 2005, and the comments of the Service sent to you by letter dated March
18, 2005. The CS&E letter provides additional information regarding the proposed work and
responses to the concerns of the Service related to the issuance of a Department of the Army
(DA) permit. These comments, as well as our March letter, are submitted in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with
404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review(33 CFR 320.4) in relation
to the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the
District Engineer's determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The applicant, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), applied for a DA permit to place
approximately 135,000 cubic yards (yd3) of sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet on approximately
2,700 linear feet of beach. The proposed work would be done in conjunction with the periodic
sediment placement on Ocean Isle by the Corps using material dredged from Shallotte Inlet.
This larger project, known as the Ocean Isle Beach Project,would place 384,000 yd3 of material
along the main beachfront of the island. The proposed work, designated the East End Beach
Nourishment, was outlined in a Narrative Description of Project(NDP) in the PN.
Our March 2005 review led us to conclude that the DA permit should not be issued for the
proposed work. Critical information regarding the nature of the material to be placed on the
beach was not available. Such information is not only important for sea turtle nesting, but also
affects the ability of beach macroinvertebrates to re-colonize the area. Beach macroinvertebrates
provide an important food resource for migratory shorebirds and nearshore fishes.

2
The Service expressed concern about the direct, immediate loss of both subtidal and, especially,
intertidal estuarine habitats, due to dredging and disposal. The responses of CS&E state that the
proposed work would create "larger intertidal and subtidal areas for the food sources to colonize
and for the birds and fish to forage." This response appears limited to a consideration of the sand
placement area. The subtidal area from which the sediment would be removed would have an
increased depth. The greater depth can influence primary productivity and species composition
of benthic organisms. The areas mined for beach construction can refill with decomposed
organic matter that is silty and anaerobic; hydrogen sulfide level may increase, and eventually,
the area may become anoxic (Greene 2002,p. 12). Some areas may never recover from these
dredging events (Greene 2002, p. 12). The Service remains concerned about the adverse
environmental impact of sand removal from Shallotte Inlet.
The intertidal zone in the sand placement area would not necessarily provide a larger habitat for
beach infauna that serve as a major food resource for coastal birds and fish. The NDP states that
the dredged material would be contoured to slope from the top of the berm at seven feet above
the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD), approximately mean sea level, to five feet below
the NGVD at a slope of 1:20. The slope of the existing beach is not given. It is likely that
profile equilibration, a process leading to an equilibrium profile or equilibrated profile (National
Research Council [hereafter NRC] 1995,p. 84), would lead to an intertidal area that is similar to
the pre-construction shape as a result wave action and the character of the sediment.
The Service was concerned that the placement of the incompatible dredged material on the beach
could reduce the habitat value of the beach by significantly altering the physical characteristics,
especially grain size characteristics, of the beach. The CS&E responses state that sand dredged
from the inlet is "expected" to have a similar grain-size, color, and mineralogy as the existing
beach. This expectation is based, in part, on the "Sand Compatibility Analysis" done by the
Corps of Engineers in 1997 for the larger, Ocean Isle Beach Project which forms a part of
Brunswick County Beaches Project. The analysis is provided as Appendix B in the CS&E
responses.
While the summary table given by CS&E on page five indicates some similarity between the
beaches of Ocean Isle and material in Shallotte Inlet, the text discussion of the compatibility for
11 sample sites in the inlet(Section 4.1.1,pp. B-3 and B-11) suggests some potential problems.
Core samples from Shallotte Inlet consisted"primarily of gray or tan poorly graded sand with
little silt content." Some sand layers contained"pockets of clay and some contained gravel sized
shell." The silt content for the composite of the samples was 5.6%. Compared to the native
beach material, the core sample material from Shallotte Inlet was "coarser, shellier, contains
more clay and silt, and contains more gravel sized shell." The report noted that the samples were
taken at the "very edge" of the shoal." More extensive sampling by other methods was
considered "likely to yield samples more closely resembling the native beach material." The
CS&E responses also note that the 1994 samples were taken from the edge of the shoal,but
express confidence that the Corps data provide a"reasonable description of the borrow area
material."
Overall, the Service does not find the compatibility report provided by CS&E to provide
sufficient support that material taken from the inlet would be compatible with the native beach.
The CS&E responses state (p. 8)that"further study of the borrow area sediment may be justified
to gain a more detailed representation of the sediments, identify areas of the shoal where the

3
sediments meet the strictest criteria for beach-fill material, and establish constraints in the
contract documents requiring the dredging contractor to use the areas identified." This statement
is similar to our March 2005 recommendation that the applicant work with the Corps to
designate a specific area that would be used for the proposed 2,700 linear feet of the East End
Project. Once this area is designated, systematic sampling could be undertaken to establish the
physical characteristics of the sediment. If sediment analysis has been undertaken in conjunction
with the Ocean Isle Beach Project, such data could be used to designate the area set aside for the
2,700 linear feet of shoreline considered in this PN. These data would need to be compared to
the historic characteristics of the native beach. The Service again recommends that the DA
permit require the designation of a specific area of Shallotte Inlet for the East End project and the
adequate sampling be conducted for a new sand compatibility analysis.
The January 2005 NDP stated that the Town would monitor the material placed on the beach on
a daily basis to ensure that the best material would be used. Our March comments supported this
effort, but requested that additional details should be provided on this monitoring. Such
information would include: (1)how the monitors would assess the quality of the material as the
water-slurry mixture is placed on the beach; (2) the criteria for stopping the placement if
incompatible material starts to arrive at the beach; and, (3)procedures, if any, for replacing
incompatible material with compatible material. The CS&E responses do not address these
issues. The Service reiterates our recommendation that any DA permit should require a plan for
the proposed monitoring effort with details of the three points given above, and a contingency
plan too be implemented if incompatible material is placed on the beach.
Special Status Species
Our March letter states that several federally protected species required consideration by the
Corps in the section 7 determination for the DA permit. These included the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus),piping plover(Charadrius melodus), sea turtles,primarily the loggerhead
(Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas), and seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus).
These are the same species addressed in the Service Biological Opinion (BO) issued on February
19, 2001, for the larger Ocean Isle Beach Project. That BO contained reasonable and prudent
measures as well as terms and conditions which led to our determination that the level of
anticipated take resulting from the placement of material dredged from Shallotte Inlet on the
beaches of Ocean Isle was not likely to result in jeopardy to these species. Since the work
considered in the subject PN would constitute an eastward extension of, and occur either
immediately before or after, that project, many of same protective measures which led to our no
jeopardy determination are applicable to your section 7 determination for this DA permit.
Among the species considered, the manatee is the least likely to be affected by the work. Our
March letter noted the proposed schedule for beach construction (February and March) was not
likely to adversely affect manatee. However, one aspect of the terms and conditions within our
February 2001 BO was that all personnel associated with the project that manatees may be
present in the project area, primarily during the months June through October, and the need to
avoid any harm to these endangered mammals. The Corps will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be informed
that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatees.
Since the proposed work would be accomplished by the same contractor,the DA permit should

4
state that the same protective measures for the manatee employed in the larger Ocean Isle Project
should be applied to the smaller East End Project. This could be reinforced by a permit
condition requiring the implementation of the Service guidelines entitled"Precautions for
General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North
Carolina." These guidelines address all types of in-water construction, except blasting, and
should produce little, if any, additional expense. The guidelines are intended mainly to ensure
that construction personnel are informed that manatees may occur in the work area,that work
should cease if a manatee approaches the work area, work should not resume until the manatee
leaves the work area, and procedures for reporting the death or injury of a manatee. These
guidelines are available on our web site at<http://nc-
es.fws.gov/mammal/manatee guidelines.pdf5.
Regarding seabeach amaranth, the CS&E responses note that beach construction can create
habitat for seabeach amaranth and that certain projects can result in increased number of plants.
Such population increases are site-specific and should not be expected in every beach
construction project. While the plant does respond well to habitat disturbances, the number of
plants is ultimately dependent on seed sources. If plants are buried by other beach construction
projects, seeds may not be able to disperse and an increase in these plants may not occur.
However,the proposed winter work schedule is best for this threatened plant. The terms and
condition in the February 2001 BO required surveys if any portion of the sediment disposal
project or tilling operation occurs during the period April 1 through September 30. Plant surveys
should be initiated prior to sediment disposal and/or tilling activities. If plants are discovered in .
areas where they may be affected by sediment disposal, construction activities, and/or tilling, the
plants should be protected by an adequate buffer zone. The protected area should not identify
the plants to protect them from collectors,but should be of adequate size to prevent adverse
impacts to the specific plant site. While current plans do not indicate any work during this
period, this condition should be included in the DA in case work is delayed due to bad weather
or equipment problems and work extends beyond April 1.
Regarding the piping plover,the proposed work schedule(February-March) is not likely to
adversely affect migrating or nesting birds. However, as we noted, this period may be disruptive
to overwintering piping plovers. The project area does not contain designated critical habitat for
overwintering plovers,but the intertidal beaches and flats (between annual low tide and annual
high tide), associated dune systems, and flats above annual high tide may be used by
overwintering plovers. The February 2001 BO for the Ocean Isle Project required a monitoring
program for breeding and non-breeding piping plovers. The DA permit should require that any
piping plover monitoring program being conducted for the Ocean Isle Beach Project be
extended, with the same data requirements, to include the area of the East End Project. With the
same level of protection required for the Ocean Isle Beach Project as a condition of the East End
Project, the Service would concur with a determination by the Corps that the project may affect,
but is not likely to adverse affect piping plovers.
While a February-March work period would eliminate direct impacts on sea turtle nesting, the
Service remains concerned that significant alterations in beach sediment could produce adverse,
secondary impacts on nesting success. The impacts on sea turtles would be closely associated
with the compatibility of the material placed on the beach. As we noted in our March comments
the use of material with physical characteristics different from the native beach poses a risk of
degrading the quality of nesting habitat. However, the use of sediment that matches that of the

5
historic beach in sand grain size, density, shear resistance, color, heavy mineral content, and
moisture content would minimize any adverse impacts on sea turtle reproduction. The sand
compatibility analysis provided by CS&E indicates that potential problems exist. While
recognizing that the samples were taken from the edge of the shoal, there are concerns associated
with the gray color, the layers of clay or silt, and the overall characterization that the material is
"coarser, shellier, contains more clay and silt, and contains more gravel sized shell"that the
native beach.
To minimize adverse impacts on sea turtle nesting,the DA permit for this action should contain
conditions identical to those required for the Ocean Isle Beach Project. The February 2001 BO
required that all fill material placed on beaches be sand that is similar to that already existing at
the beach site in both coloration and grain size distribution. This fill material would be free of
construction debris, rocks, organic materials, or other foreign matter and shall generally not
contain, on average, greater than 10 percent fines (i.e., silt and clay; passing the#200 sieve) and
would not contain, on average, greater than 5 percent coarse gravel or cobble, exclusive of shell
material (retained by the#4 sieve).
The Ocean Isle Beach Project also requires a sand compaction monitoring program. The CS&E
responses state that if the Service considers the compaction of the constructed beach to be
detrimental to sea turtle nesting, tilling of the beach following completion of the fill operation
can be accomplished to soften the upper layer of the fill. The Service recommends that DA
permit conditions represent an extension of the protective measures that will be applied to the
adjacent beach building to the west which would occur either immediately before or after the
East End Project. Such permit conditions would not require an entirely new implementation
process, but merely extend the measures applied to the center of Ocean Isle Beach to the East
End project.
The February 2001 BO states that sand compaction data should be collected on beaches
scheduled for sediment disposal prior to the disposal operation. Compaction sampling stations
should be located at 500 ft(152 m) intervals along the placement area. One station should be at
the seaward edge of the dune line (when material is placed in this area); and one station should
be midway between the dune line and the high water line (normal wrack line). At each station, a
cone penetrometer should be pushed to a depth of 6, 12, and 18 inches three times (three
replicates). Material may be removed from the hole if necessary to ensure accurate readings of
successive levels of sediment. The penetrometer may need to be reset between pushes,
especially if sediment layering exists. Layers of highly compact material may overlay less
compact layers. Replicates should be located as close to each other as possible, without
interacting with the previous hole and/or disturbed sediments. Each transect would produce 18
data points (two stations/transect x three depths/station x three replications/depth). The three
replicate compaction values for each depth should be averaged to produce final values for each
depth at each station, or three data point (the average compaction value) for each station. Such
pre-disposal beach compaction data would establish a range of values for areas in which sea
turtles actually nest. These data would form a valuable baseline for comparison with post-
disposal compaction values and could influence the necessity for post-disposal tilling.
In accordance with the Ocean Isle Beach Project, sand compaction should be assessed in the
placement area immediately after completion of sediment placement on beaches and prior to
April 1. The assessment should use the same procedures employed in the pre-placement

6
assessment. If the average compaction value for any depth exceeds 500 pounds per square inch
(psi) for any two or more adjacent stations,then that area should be tilled immediately prior to
April 1. If values exceeding 500 psi are distributed throughout the placement area but in no case
do those values exist at two adjacent stations at the same depth,then consultation with the
Service should be required to determine if tilling is required. If a few values exceeding 500 psi
are present randomly within the placement area,tilling would not be required.
If the constructed beach is compacted,based on the criteria above, the area should be tilled to a
depth of 36 inches. All tilling activity should be completed prior to April 1. Post-placement
compaction data and any required tilling associated with the East End Project should be included
with any report prepared by the Corps for submission to the Service. For example,the Ocean
Isle Beach Project requires the submission of an annual summary to the Service of compaction
surveys and any remedial actions taken.
In addition to safeguards against beach compaction,the East End Project should provide the
same level of protection against escarpments which may form along the constructed beach. The
February 2001 BO required visual surveys for escarpments along the project area immediately
after completion of the sediment placement and prior to April 1 for three subsequent years.
Results of the surveys should be submitted to the Service prior to any action being taken.
Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or exceeds 18 inches in height for a distance of
100 ft(30 m) should be leveled to the natural beach contour by April 1. The Service should be
contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle
nesting or exceeds 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 ft(30 m) occurs during the nesting
and hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that
escarpment leveling is required during the nesting or hatching season,the Service will provide a
brief written authorization that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of
impacting existing nests. As with compaction information, escarpment formation and any
remedial actions taken within the East End Project should be integrated into the annual summary
submitted to the Service on activities associated with the Ocean Isle Beach project.
Overall,the section 7 requirements for the current DA permit may be fulfilled by incorporating
all the appropriate terms and conditions and reasonable and prudent measures provided by the
Service for the Ocean Isle Beach Project. The larger project is adjacent to the East End project
and the protective action should be easily extended into the area covered by the DA permit.
These comments have noted the most important protective measures which are relevant to both
projects. Since these protective measures led to our determination that the Ocean Isle Beach
Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species likely to occur in the project
area, and the effects of this project would be essentially identical, and additive,to the larger
project permit,we hereby amend our February 19; 2001 Biological Opinion to include this
project. The Incidental Take Statement is amended to include the additional 0.5 of beach habitat,
and the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion
must be applied to this project.
Service Recommendations
Our letter of March 2005 stated that the Service did not support the issuance of the DA permit
for this project. Critical information regarding the nature of the material to be placed on the
beach was not available. We believed that such information was not only important for sea turtle

7
nesting, but also affected the ability of beach macroinvertebrates to re-colonize the area. Beach
macroinvertebrates provide an important food resource for migratory shorebirds and nearshore
fishes.
The April 2005 responses from CS&E have done little to change our opinion. The sand
compatibility analysis based on 1994 vibracore samples from the edges of proposed borrow area
indicate some potential compatibility problems and may not reflect the characteristics of the
material which would actually be placed on the beach. Furthermore, we have concerns about the
plan,proposed in the CS&E responses (p. 8),that"further study of borrow sediments can best be
accomplished during construction of the federal project [Ocean Isle Beach], by means of weekly
sampling of the dredge slurry." There are no assurances that the areas used for the Ocean Isle
Beach Project would be the same ones used for the East End Project.
The Service continues to believe that there is insufficient evidence to support the assertion of
CS&E that the grain-size distribution, color, and mineralogy of the sand from the inlet borrow
area is "expected" to be similar to the native East End beach. Therefore, the Service reiterates
our recommendation made in March that the applicant work with the Corps to designate a
specific area that would be used for the proposed 2,700 linear feet of beach construction. Once
this area is designated, systematic sampling could be undertaken to establish the physical
characteristics of the sediment. If sediment analysis has been undertaken in conjunction with the
larger, Corps beach disposal effort to the west, such data could be used to designate the area to
supply material for the 2,700 linear feet of beach construction considered in this PN. These data
would need to be compared to the historic characteristics of the native beach.
While the Service supports the efforts of the Town to monitor the material being placed on the
beach,we requested additional details on how this effort would help ensure the placement of
compatible material. One issue which we did not raise in our March letter was whether this
effort would be directed at material being discharged from the pipeline or material already on the
beach. Each case requires clarification. In the former case, further information is required on (1)
how the monitor would assess the quality of the material as the water-slurry mixture is placed on
the beach; and, (2) the criteria for stopping the placement if incompatible material starts to arrive
at the beach. In the later case,the inspection of sand already on the beach, there should be a
discussion of the actions which would be taken to remove or otherwise mitigate the presence of
incompatible material. Without such information it is unclear what value, if any, this monitoring
program would have.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the additional information regarding the
DA permit. If you have questions regarding these comments,please contact Howard Hall at
919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at<[e-mail]>. Please provide this office with
a copy of the coordinated federal position, if one is developed.
S' ce
✓�
Pete e ' in
Ecolog 1 Services Supervisor

8
Literature cited:
Greene, K. 2002. Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, DC. 69 pp. +Appendices.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C. 334pp.
cc:
Ronald Mikulak, US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler,National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort,NC
David Cox,NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Creedmore,NC
Jim Gregson,NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington,NC
b/l5oug Huggett,NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City,NC
Mike Street,NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City,NC
Noelle Lutheran,NC Division of Water Quality, Wilmington,NC
Ted Wilgis,NC Coastal Federation, Wilmington,NC
J. W. Forman, Jr., Coastal Science and Engineering, Columbia, SC

A9
�.�
RC- D- ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S.Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr.,Secretary
May 19, 2005
Town of Occan Isle 13cach
"!'lir•cc West Third Street
Occan Islc Beach, NC 28469
1)c,.ir° Sir or Madam:
'I'lris letter is with reference to your application for a Coastal Area Management Act
Major Development permit to dredge 135,000cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and deposit it on
17001f of ocean reach adjacent to the inlet in Brunswick County, NC.
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 snake July 02, 2005 the new deadline for reaching a decision on your
rc,rlUest. 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 ([e-mail]).
V, ry sincerely,
ek
1:)rrug Fluggett
Maio" I'ernlits &, Consistency Coordinator
cc: I)CM, Morehead City
1-)CN4, Will-nington
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Rhone: 252-808-28081FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nccoastalmana-qement.net

�OF W Ark9P Michael F. Easley, Governor
�O G William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 13, 2005
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
c/o Debbie Smith
Three West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach,NC 28469
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification
and Additional Conditions
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
East End Beach Nourishment Project
DWQ Project#050487
Brunswick County
Dear Ms. Smith:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions(WQC#3400)to conduct the
following activity located at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County. This approval allows
you to:
1. Dredge 208,000 square feet of sandy shallow bottom in the ebb tide channel and the delta area of
the Shallotte Inlet channel by hydraulic pipeline dredge, and place approximately 135,000 cubic
yards of beach quality sand on the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your CAMA Major
application received by the Division of Water Quality(DWQ) on March 18, 2005. After reviewing your
application, we have determined that General Water Quality Certification Number 3400 covers this
activity. This Certification allows you to use your CAMA Permit when the NC Division of Coastal
Management issues it. Please keep in mind that there may be additional Federal, State or Local
regulations applicable to your project, such as(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations,NPDES and Coastal Stormwater. In addition,this
approval will expire when the accompanying CAMA Permit expires unless otherwise specified in
the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your revised CAMA Major
Permit application received by the Division of Coastal Management on February 2, 2005. If you change or
modify your project,you must notify the Division(DWQ) in writing and you may be required to send us a
new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project(now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be
required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid,you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional conditions listed below:
1. 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 the attached
certificate of completion to this office and a copy to the 401/Wetlands Unit,North Carolina Division
of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,NC, 27699-1650;
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone[phone] Customer Servicel-877-623-6748 One
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington,NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycledl10%Post Consumer Paper Naturally

Town of Ocean Isle Beach 2
DWQ Project No. 050487
May 13,2005 ,
2. No excavation and no waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters,or
riparian areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the CAMA Major Application. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and mainte
and erosion control Best Management Practices,shall be performed so that no
It I
water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. 0�1
MAY 2 0 2005
Please notify this Office at the number listed below if any problem arises during Uh construction of
the project that may affect water quality. orehead City DCM
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,send a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the DWQ Permit#050487 under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions,please telephone Noelle Lutheran at 910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek,P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Attachments: GC#3400
Certificate.of Completion
cc: Coastal Science and Engineering—J.W. Forman, Jr.,P.E.
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office—Henry Wicker
WiRO-Noelle Lutheran
401/Wetland Unit, Central Office—Cyndi Karoly
CAMA—Jim Gregson
CAMA Raleigh—Doug Huggett
Central Files

WQC #3400
CAMA PERMIT CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER 198000291 (ISSUED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULES (BUFFER RULES)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with requirement of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 2B .0200 for the discharge of
fill material as described in General Permit 198000291 and for the Riparian Area Protection Rules
(Buffer Rules) in 15A NCAC 2B .0200. This Certification replaces Water Quality Certification
Number 3025 issued on September 6, 1995, Water Quality Certification Number 3112 issued on
February 11, 1997, Water Quality Certification Number 3274 issued June 1, 2000 and Water
Quality Certification Number 3371 issued March 18, 2002. This WQC is rescinded when the
Corps of Engineers re-authorizes Regional General Permit 0291 or when deemed appropriate by
the Director of DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Activities authorized by CAMA major permits require written concurrence from the
Division of Water Quality as well as compliance with all conditions of this General
Certification;
2. Activities authorized by Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Minor or General
Permits do not require written authorization from the Division of Water Quality as long
as they comply with all other conditions of this General Certification;
3. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e), any
request for written concurrence for a 401 Water Quality Certification must include the
appropriate fee. If a project also requires a CAMA Permit, one payment to both
agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of the two fees. The fee shall be
collected and distributed between the two agencies in accordance with agreements
reached between the Division of Water Quality and the Division of Coastal
Management;
4. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) compensatory mitigation may be
required for impacts to 150 linear feet or more of streams and/or one acre or more of
wetlands. In addition, buffer mitigation may be required for any project with Buffer
Rules in effect at the time of application for buffer impacts resulting from activities
classified as "allowable with mitigation"within the "Table of Uses"section of the
Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A determination of buffer,
wetland and stream mitigation requirements shall be made for any Certification for
this Nationwide Permit. The most current design and monitoring protocols from DWQ
shall be followed and written plans submitted for DWQ approval as required in those
protocols. When compensatory mitigation is required for a project, the mitigation
plans must be approved by DWQ in writing before the impacts approved by the
Certification occur. The mitigation plan must be implemented and/or constructed
before any permanent building or structure on site is occupied. In the case of public
road projects, the mitigation plan must be implemented before the road is opened to
the travelling public;
1

e
WQC #3400
5. Compensatory stream mitigation shall be required at a 1:1 ratio for not only perennial
but also intermittent stream impacts that require application to DWQ in watersheds
classified as ORW, HQW, Tr, WS-1 and WS-II unless the project is a linear, publicly-
funded transportation project, which has a 150-foot per-stream impact allowance;
6. Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins (or any
other major river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in effect at
the time of application) requires written concurrence from DWQ in accordance with
15A NCAC 2B.0200. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot
wide riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico River Basins shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 213 .0200. All new development shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water
quality to the maximum extent practicable through the use of best management
practices. Activities listed as "exempt'from these rules do not need to apply for
written concurrence under this Certification;
7. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
8. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
9. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual" or the"North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR)
in the DENR Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure compliance with
the appropriate turbidity water quality standard;
10. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with freshwaters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
11. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects which have applied for
CAMA major permits which are proposed under this Certification in order to ensure
compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
12. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the most
recent version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work
included in the 401 Certification has been completed;
13. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall
expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as
the expiration date of the corresponding General Permit 198000291, whichever is
sooner.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project
shall result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
2

WQC #3400
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: March 2003
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Alan W. Klimek
Director
WQC#3400
3

Certification of Completion
DWQ Project No.: County:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Isolated Wetland Permit:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ 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
1, , 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
1, , 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 Permittee 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: Registration No. Date

4 EC. ,��,
r MAY 0 9 2005
4-1
. . .. ;
ly ©CM
Y
♦ _
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Bennett Wynne 'Acl
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 6, 2005
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge& Fill Permit Application by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to
nourish the ocean beach adjacent to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County,North
Carolina.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the project for impacts
to wildlife and fishery resources. We regret that time constraints delayed our response. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S.
113A-100 through 113A-128).
The western shoulder of Shallotte Inlet is reported to have been actively eroding over the
past several decades. This westward migration of the inlet is threatening buildings and roads on
the eastern end of Ocean Isle and has prompted the placement of sandbags for protection of these
structures. As described, the applicant proposes to hydraulically dredge beach quality sand from
the Corps of Engineers' designated dredging area consisting of the channel through the inlet's ebb
tide delta. Project diagrams also indicate that the location of dredging avoids or minimizes
impacts to intertidal and hard bottom areas. Sand is to be pumped to 2,700 linear ft. of the
island's eastern end,joining the eastern limits of the earlier Corps of Engineers' beach
nourishment project. Ocean waters are classified SB. Shallotte Inlet is classified SA and open to
shellfishing.
Inlet shoulders are perhaps the best available nesting habitat for beach nesting birds. Sue
Cameron, our Waterbird Biologist, visited this particular site two weeks ago and found birds
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

r'
a .
.- -; ''' t"� ..,;. ,�,,.•::::) � ✓µ' S !'.1 ,fir.....: C.••,I`ri bP Jii,�. >S .11i1 a J,.;'. ,t; t,.,"�A .. �r.' -
,; - � "d°.. al '..0,1 .. .%i . . i-�. i� xi .';�Y'{�i..�.•_�.i,T. i .. - i {i' �ti>. .�.� -.
4C7l�Via. Y
1p (,; a
jot .•r .. t'. •: 1'-. -',j.. _ "r'
' _ �'/3aY3 Jr '.�..1t1� 1�'*. x. ... "`al , ti .a ..:`�` S' `r!•5: '�.ii ..

R
Ocean Isle nourishment 2 05/06/05
starting to nest at that time. Last year the site was used by nesting least terns, Wilson's plovers,
and American oystercatchers. If timed to coincide with the waterbird nesting season,the project
would be expected to result in the direct mortality of eggs, nestlings, and/or fledglings. Another
impact would be the loss of nesting habitat available to the birds for a nesting season. Likewise,
the project could also cause disturbance to nesting sea turtles(increased mortality of offspring,
habitat displacement). Based on these concerns, we strongly recommend that permit issuance be
conditioned as follows.
- Dredging and placement of material on the ocean beach will not occur from April I to
November 15, a period coinciding with both the waterbird and sea turtle nesting seasons.
All equipment, including pipeline, shall be completely removed from the ocean beach
during this period.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. If you have questions,
please call me at [phone].
Cc: Sue Cameron, WRC
Matthew Godfrey, WRC
David Allen, WRC
David Rabon, FWS

pP�N OF ENT Tye.
W ti� United States Department of the Interior
a
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
?'4RCH 3 �ea9 Raleigh,North Carolina 27636.3726
March 18, 2005 RECFIVEDMr. Henry Wicker MAR 2 9 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers DIV.OF COASTAL MP:AGEMENT
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office RALEIGH
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington,North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID#200500360, Beach Construction, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County,North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject
Public Notice (PN), dated January 24, 2005. The applicant, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach
(Town), has applied for a Department of the Army(DA)permit to place approximately 135,000
cubic yards (yd3) of sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet on approximately 2,700 linear feet of
beach. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act(FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA
are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and
in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and wildlife
resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's determination of
project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Proposed Project
The PN contains a Narrative Description of Project(NDP)provided by the applicant. The 2,700
linear feet of shoreline that would receive the 135,000 yd3 of sediment is located at the eastern
end of Ocean Isle. Ocean Isle is a very low, narrow island with poor dune development and no
significant protective vegetation (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 197). The beach fill would cover
approximately 19 acres of intertidal and subaerial beach. The main portion of the sediment
placement would be done at 50 yd3 per linear foot and would include a flat berm at seven feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD), approximately mean sea level. The ends of the
main fill would taper to meet the larger beach construction effort to the west and the natural
shoreline on the east.
The PN and NPD do not contain a specific statement of the project purpose. However, both
documents refer to the shoreline recession which has occurred in the area. The PN notes that the
area has experienced above average erosion resulting in damage and condemnation of several

2
oceanfront properties. At several locations, surf extends beneath existing structures during high
tide. Sand bags have been placed in the area to protect structures and infrastructure. These
conditions are consistent with Pilkey et al. (1998,p. 197) who state that erosion associated with
Shallotte Inlet on the eastern end of the island is destroying roads and forcing some homeowners
to move their buildings. Portions of the eastern end lack dunes and are overwashed periodically.
The Service assumes that the purpose of the proposed work is to construct a temporary beach
and berm to serve as a barrier between the ocean and residences along the shoreline.
The NPD states that the proposed work would be done in conjunction with the periodic sediment
placement by the Corps using material dredged from Shallotte Inlet. This larger project would
place 384,000 yd3 of material along the main beachfront of the island. The applicant expects to
"gain significant economic advantage by contracting with the dredging contractor for [the inlet
dredging work] to complete the Town's project before demobilizing equipment from the site."
The Corps' inlet dredging was expected to start in February 2005 and require approximately four
weeks for completion.
On February 4, 2005, the Wilmington Starnews published an article which stated that the Corps
dredging of Shallotte Inlet would be delayed until next year because bids came in significantly
over budget. Therefore, the plan to use the same contractor for the work described in this PN
cannot be done this year. The newspaper report states that the Town would continue to explore
potential solutions—short and long term—to help residents at the east end of the island. The
article also noted that the Town could consider a new, land-based source of material as a
substitute for sediment dredged from the inlet.
Service Concerns
While it is unclear when, or if, the work described in the PN and NDP will be undertaken, these
comments address the work described in those documents. It is likely that future work may
require an amended PN and the use of a different sediment source would require a new permit
application.
The Service is concerned about the direct, immediate loss of both subtidal and, especially,
intertidal estuarine habitats, due to dredging and disposal. Both areas are important fish and
wildlife habitat and the values of intertidal flats in North Carolina have been described (Peterson
and Peterson 1979). Shorebirds forage along intertidal habitats of exposed sand bars and
beachfronts. Invertebrates inhabiting intertidal shoals are an important food source for
shorebirds and fishes. Birds such as the sanderling (Calidris alba), black-bellied plover
(Pluvialis squatarola), willet(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria
interpres) , greater yellowleg (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser yellowleg(Tringa flavipes ), marbled
godwit (Limosa fedoa), American oystercatcher(Naematopus palliatus) , clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) are a few of the birds that may forage on
intertidal flats in North Carolina (Peterson and Peterson 1979, pp. 49-58).

3
The Service is concerned that the placement of the incompatible dredged material on the beach
could reduce the habitat value of the beach by significantly altering the physical characteristics,
especially grain size characteristics, of the beach. As the Service has noted before, it is
important for the physical characteristics (sand grain size, density, shear resistance, color, heavy
mineral content, and moisture content) of dredged material to be similar to those of the native,
historic beach. However, it is necessary to distinguish the natural beach from one which has
received repeated sediment placements. Beaches which have received sediment from the same
source over many years may take on the physical characteristics of the borrow source and loose
the characteristics of the native beach. Care should be taken in establishing the physical
characteristics of the area to receive sediment.
The issue of grain size compatibility is critical to many aspects of the project's success, such as
longevity, and the adverse environmental impacts, such as turbidity and sedimentation. This
issue is summarized by the statement(National Research Council [hereafter NRC] 1995,p. 97)
that:
,,The most important borrow material characteristic is the sediment size. Borrow
material grain size matching the native material is considered synonymous with
quality. Fine material also adversely affects project performance. Early projects
constructed without regard for grain size performed relatively poorly, and recent
developments indicate that nourishment sand that is only slightly smaller than
native sand can result in significantly narrower equilibrated dry beach width
compared to sand the same size as (or larger than)native sand."
A major reduction in grain size has important ramifications for both shorebirds and nesting sea
turtles. Beach invertebrates which serve as a food source for near shore fishes and shorebirds
live in the spaces between sand grains. High energy, intertidal beaches in the southeastern
-United States may have 20-30 invertebrate species (Ruppert and Fox 1988,p. 346).
Invertebrates found here include the beach digger(Haustorius canadensis), a polychaete worm
(Scolelepis squamata), and, in late summer, the mole crab (Emerita talpoida) and coquina clam
(Donax sp.). The swash zone is dominated by the mole crab and coquina clam. Greene (2002
and references therein, p. 25) states that both Emerita and Donax are the primary prey base for
surf zone fish, crabs, and shorebirds.
One important manifestation of the adaptability of Donax and Emerita to the beach-face is their
mobility. Both animals move up and down the beach with each wave uprush; and they stay
within the swash zone as the tides change by moving out of the sand on the uprush, if they prefer
a higher location on the beach, or in the backrush of the waves as the tides fall,if they prefer a
lower location. They do this in steps, moving in mass with almost every wave, in an effort to
maintain their position in the active swash zone with optional feeding conditions. Therefore, the
"health" of the Emerita and Donax is closely linked with the sediment characteristics of the
beach, and the availability of natural seawaters surging up and down the beach-face. In regard to
this mobility, sediment grain size is extremely critical because mole crabs do not actually burrow

4
into the beach as they change locations within the swash zone,but rather vibrate their lower
appendages and legs to create a "quicksand" condition in their immediate area. This makes it
easy for them to penetrate or burrow into the sand with a minimum expenditure of energy.
Anything that significantly alters the beach-face sand has the potential to impact Emerita
numbers. If the sand is too coarse,too fine, too well sorted, or contains too many heavy minerals
(dark sands), mole crabs find it difficult or impossible to burrow into the beach. If the proposed
work reduces populations of beach invertebrates, shorebirds would be adversely affected due to a
reduction in food resources.
The use of finer grained material can produce a harder, more compacted beach. In discussing the
beach building at Atlantic Beach (Carteret County)with sediment from the Morehead City
Harbor, Bush et al. (1996,p. 85) wrote that mud in sediment is cohesive enough to form small
scarps on the beach and packs down into a relatively hard pavement on the upper beach. Pilkey
et al. (1998,p. 101) also noted that dried mud made sections of Atlantic Beach as "hard as rock."
A compacted beach would adversely affect sea turtle nesting success. A compacted beach can
increase false crawls, increase nest digging time,hinder gas exchange within incubating nests,
the hydric environment of the nest, and result in broken eggs from clutches deposited in too
shallow an egg chamber(National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[hereafter NMFS and USFWS] 1991,pp. 21-22). Project planning should seek to ensure that
beach disposal does not lead to an increase in the percent of false crawls. In addition to
hindering the excavation of sea turtle nests, a hard, compact beach can also be detrimental to
proper incubation. Sand grain shape, size, and compaction can alter gas diffusion necessary for
proper development and thereby alter hatching success (NMFS and USFWS 1991,p. 22; Greene
2002 and reference therein, p. 30).
Project planning should ensure that the work does not alter the color of the beach. A darker than
normal beach color absorbs more heat and increase beach temperature. Alteration of beach
temperature during the incubation of sea turtle eggs can alter the incubating environment of the
nest and, in turn, affect hatching success and hatchling sex ratios (NRC 1995 and references
therein, p. 112).
Pilkey et al. (2004, p. 113) state that all natural North Carolina open beaches are light brown to
yellow-brown when viewed from a distance due to iron oxide in shell fragments. Beaches may
become darker if black shell fragments are added. Black shell fragments originate in oxygen-
poor mud of a lagoon or sound where iron is converted to iron sulfide (Pilkey et al. 2004,p.
115). While beaches with black shell fragments may result from island migration which reveals
ancient lagoon on the beach front, such fragments may also be introduced by sediment
placement.
The Service is concerned that work could produce harmful turbidity (and subsequent
sedimentation) for an extended period. Offshore water quality, especially turbidity appears to be
important with respect to the "health" of Emerita and Donax(Reilly and Bellis, 1983). If the
source material for a beach nourishment project includes a significant amount of fine-grained

4
5
sediment(silts and clays), this may not only impact the distribution of Emerita and Donax in the
areas of discharge,but also have a more lasting impact on the adults that winter offshore. Reilly
and Bellis (1978,p. 58) concluded that the high turbidity following beach nourishment on Bogue
Banks was the probable cause for the failure of adult Emerita to return to Fort Macon beach.
There may be a deterioration of nearshore habitat quality due to long-term turbidity from a
poorly designed beach construction project. Bush et al. (1996,p. 83) state that"streams of turbid
water from the surf zone of Miami Beach are still responsible for killing coral heads 14 years
after the beach was emplaced." Goldberg(1985 as cited in Goldberg 1988) gives an example of
a Florida beach nourishment project which resulted in damage to a nearby rocky environment
50-60 meters (164-197 feet) offshore. Material placed on the beach during a nourishment
project quickly eroded off the beach and covered nearshore rocks. Seven years after the project,
the rocks were still covered in fine sand and silt, and turbidity of the nearshore area remained
high. While projects in other areas may not be comparable to the east end of Ocean Isle Beach,
careful planning should ensure that there will not be episodes of high flows of fine grained
material from a constructed beach to the ocean until the entire beach fill has washed away.
While increased turbidity per se is harmful, a closely related event, increased offshore
sedimentation, also produces adverse impacts. The suspended particles which are transported by
water eventually settle to the bottom creating sedimentation. The settling of suspended particles
is also referred to as siltation. Offshore hardbottoms (areas with exposed limestone,phosphate,
and other sedimentary rock) are valuable biological communities that support a diverse
community of algae, soft and encrusted coral, sea anemones, sea whips, and recreationally
important finfish(Frankenberg 1997, pp. 191-192). Nearshore reef habitats that lie within the
depth of closure may be destroyed by sand burial resulting from the redistribution of beach fill
material (NRC 1995,p. 113-114). Studies have indicated that sand placed on Wrightsville
Beach has washed off the beach and buried extensive hardbottoms on the inner continental shelf
(Riggs, 1994,p. 17). These hardbottoms were prime fishing locations, but are now out of
production due to a covering of two to six inches of sand. Riggs (1994, p. 17) concludes that
"[T]he business of beach nourishment and hardbottoms represents a very serious conflict, and a
problem that's going to get much bigger." The current evaluation of potential adverse
environmental impacts does not discuss the presence or absence of nearshore hardbottom which
could be harmed by the work.
Other factors should be considered in long range planning. Leatherman (2001, pp. 188-189)
states shoreline position is determined by several factors such as sediment supply, wave energy,
and sea level. He also states that sea level rise induces beach erosion or accelerates ongoing
shore retreat in several ways. For example, deeper water decreases wave refraction and thus
increases the capacity for longshore transport. He also notes that there are important differences
between erosion and inundation: Erosion is the physical removal of material by waves and
currents from the beach profile with the subsequent loss of this material offshore beyond the
closure depth or to sinks such as inlet and lagoons. In contrast, inundation is the permanent
submergence of low lying land. Leatherman(2001, p. 189) writes that"[t]otal coastal retreat or
recession equals the sum of erosion plus inundation. Along open ocean beaches, over 90% of

6
the retreat is caused by erosion; the opposite is generally true for coastal marshes in sheltered
bays, lagoons, and estuaries with limited wave action." If, as expected, global warming
continues to accelerate in this century, the impacts of both erosion and inundation are likely to
increase. Such considerations should be incorporated into the long-term management plan of the
applicant.
Neither the PN nor NDP provide information on the physical sediment characteristic of the
existing beach or the material that would be placed on the beach. The NDP notes that the Town
would monitor the material placed on the beach on a daily basis to make sure that the best
material available is used. Furthermore, the proposal anticipates that experience gained by the
dredging contractor during the larger, Corps project would"help place the dredge in areas of the
borrow area containing the best beach quality material." However, considering that the material
would be moved by a conventional hydraulic dredge pipeline and pumped onto the beach as a
water-sediment slurry, it may be difficult to rapidly assess the quality of the material before the
water fraction has drained into the ocean. The current proposal is unclear regarding: (1) how the
proposed monitoring would detect unsuitable material in the water-sediment slurry; (2)
procedures for stopping the placement if unsuitable material is detected; and/or(3) whether
unsuitable material would be removed from the beach.
Special Status Species
The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Brunswick County. We have also reviewed information from the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the
special status species, both federal and state. This database can be accessed by topographic
quadrangle (quad) of the U. S. Geological Survey(USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the
most project-specific information on species which should be considered in permitting this
project. The project area is located in the Shallotte quad. The occurrence data of special status
species within this quad can be obtained on the internet at<
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html>.
Our review indicates that the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), a federally-endangered
mammal, could occur in the project area. The species is known to occur in Brunswick County
and the NCNHP database indicates historic records for the species in the Shallotte quad. The
shallow, estuarine waters of the project area may provide suitable habitat for manatees that move
along the Atlantic Coast during summer months and are seasonal transients in North Carolina,
primarily from June through October. The species moves extensively when in North Carolina
waters and past occurrence records cannot be used to precisely determine the likelihood that it
will be presence at a particular construction site. However, restricting work to the cooler months
of the year(November-May) would result in a project that is not likely to adverse affect
manatees.
The project area is used by the federally threatened piping plover(Charadrius melodus). The
NCNHP database shows an occurrence record in the immediate vicinity of the proposed

7
sediment placement. The beaches of North Carolina may be used by piping plovers for nesting,
migratory stopovers, and overwintering. Nesting activities usually occur from April 1 through
July 15. During the winter the birds utilize expansive sand or mudflats (feeding) in close
proximity to a sandy beach(roosting). Critical habitat has been designated for wintering piping
plover(Federal Register, July 10, 2001, Vol. 66,No. 132,pp. 36038-36143). While there is a
designated unit of critical habitat east of Shallotte Inlet(Holden Beach), the western edge of the
inlet(Ocean Isle Beach) is not a formally designed unit of critical habitat. While winter disposal
of the proposed volume of material would be disruptive to overwintering piping plovers,the
effects on migratory and nesting birds would not be significant.
Sea turtles,primarily the loggerhead(Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas), are known to
nest on Ocean Isle Beach. The overall period of nesting and incubation extends from May 1
through November 15. Conducting the proposed activities between November 16 and April 30
would minimize potential direct impacts (e.g., the burial of nests,pipelines blocking access to
nest sites, etc.) to sea turtle nesting. However, concerns remain about longer-term, adverse
impacts on the quality of sea turtle nesting habitat. The use of material with physical
characteristics different from the native beach poses a risk of degrading the quality of nesting
habitat. However, the use of sediment that matches that of the historic beach in sand grain size,
density, shear resistance, color, heavy mineral content, and moisture content would minimize
any adverse impacts on sea turtle reproduction.
The federally threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) occurs in the project area.
The NCNHP database contains two occurrence records in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
placement area. This annual plant grows on barrier islands primarily in disturbed areas, such as
overwash flats on accreting spits. However, it can sometimes be found on middle portions of
islands on upper strands of non-eroding beaches. Seabeach amaranth is a dune building pioneer
species and is usually found high on the beach in front of the foredune. The applicant should
value the presence of this species since it is an effective sand binder and may build dunes where
it grows. The Service supports surveys for seabeach amaranth prior to disposal of the dredged
material. While work during the winter months would not directly affect the plants, seeds from
the previous summer could be buried. If plants are found in the designated disposal area, the
Service should be contacted to determine whether an acceptable course of action for protecting
this species can be established.
The PN acknowledges that there may be threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat
within the project area. The Corps will make a final determination on the effects of the proposed
project after additional review and completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or
consultation with the Service. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill
that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is
necessary. The Corps' section 7 determination should address manatees, nesting by marine sea
turtles,piping plover, and sea beach amaranth.
With regard to sea turtle nesting, the determination should not only consider direct impacts,but
also the longer-term, adverse impacts that could arise due to beach compaction, potential

8
problems in excavating a nest,physical conditions in the nest during incubation, and escarpment
formation. The potential secondary impacts are related to the compatibility of the introduced
material with the native beach. The fact that the applicant seeks to use the "best material
available," while commendable, does not ensure that the constructed beach will continue to
provide adequate sea turtle nesting habitat. Furthermore, the fact that the exact location of the
material to be placed on the beach would apparently be selected after the start of the larger Corps
inlet dredging project adds more uncertainty regarding the ultimate characteristics of the
constructed beach. There do not seem to be any objective criteria for the material to be placed
on the beach and even the use of the "best available material" could severely alter the physical
characteristics of the beach.
Service Recommendations
At the present time the Service does not support the issuance of the DA permit for this project.
Critical information regarding the nature of the material to be placed on the beach is not
available. Such information is not only important for sea turtle nesting, but also affects the
ability of beach macroinvertebrates to recolonize the area. Beach macroinvertebrates provide an
important food resource for migratory shorebirds and nearshore fishes.
The Service recommends that the applicant work with the Corps to designate a specific area that
would be used for the proposed 2,700 linear feet of beach construction. Once this area is
designated, systematic sampling could be undertaken to establish the physical characteristics of
the sediment. If sediment analysis has been undertaken in conjunction with the larger, Corps
beach disposal effort to the west, such data could be used to designate the area set aside for the
2,700 linear feet of shoreline considered in this PN. These data would need to be compared to
the historic characteristics of the native beach.
While the Service supports the efforts of the Town to monitor the material being placed on the
beach, additional details should be provided on this effort. Such information includes: (1)how
the monitor would assess the quality of the material as the water-slurry mixture is placed on the
beach; (2)the criteria for stopping the placement if incompatible material starts to arrive at the
beach; and,(3)procedures, if any, for replacing incompatible material with compatible material.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this PN. If you have questions regarding
these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at<
[e-mail]>. Please provide this office with a copy of the coordinated federal
position, if one is developed.
4colical
min
Services Supervisor

'T r
y �
9
Literature cited
Bush, D. M., O. H. Pilkey, Jr., and W. J.Neal. 1996. Living by the Rules of the Sea. Duke
University Press. Durham,North Carolina. 179 pp.
Frankenberg, D. 1997. The Nature of North Carolina's Southern Coast: Barrier Islands, Coastal
Waters, and Wetlands. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 250 pp.
Goldberg, W. M. 1985. Long term effects of beach restoration in Brevard County, Florida, a
three year overview. Unpublished Report to Broward County Environmental Quality
Control Board and Erosion Preservation District. (As reported in Goldberg 1988).
Goldberg, W. M. 1988. Biological effects of beach restoration in South Florida: the good, the
bad, and the ugly. In Tait, L.S. (ed). 1988. Beach preservation technology'88: problems
and advancements in beach nourishment-proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach
Preservation Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.
Greene, K. 2002. Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, DC. 69 pp. +Appendices.
Leatherman, S.P. 2001 Social and economic costs of sea level rise. pp. 181-223. in Douglas,
B. C., M. S. Kearney, and S. P. Leatherman (eds.). Sea Level Rise -History and
consequences. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 232 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for
the U. S. population of Loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C. 334pp.
Peterson, C. H. and N. M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina: a
community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of biological Services.
FWS/OBS-79/39. 73pp.
Pilkey, O. H., W. J. Neal, S. R. Riggs, C. A. Webb, D. M. Bush, D. F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B.
A. Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands - Restless Ribbons of
Sand. Duke University Press. Durham,North Carolina. 318 pp.
T. M. Rice, and W. J. Neal. 2004. How to Read a North Carolina Beach—Bubble
Holes, Barking Sand, and Rippled Runnels. The University of north Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 162 pp.

10
Reilly,F.J. Jr., and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of beach nourishment
with dredged materials on the intertidal zone. East Carolina University Institute for
Coastal and Marine Resources, Technical Report No. 4., Greenville,North Carolina. 107
PP.
and 1983. The Ecological Impact of Beach Dredging with Dredged Materials on
the Intertidal Zone at Bogue Banks,North Carolina:Miscellaneous Report No. 83-3.March,
1983.U. S.Army,Corps of Engineers,Coastal Engineering Research Center,Fort Belvoir,
Va. 74 p.
Riggs, S. R. 1994. Nonliving resources. pp. 13-19. in Hart, K. (ed.) Managing the Coastal
Ocean for the 21 th Century: North Carolina=s Role. A proceedings from a conference
held May 20-21, 1993, University of North Carolina at Wilmington. N.C. Sea Grant
Publication UNC-SG-94-02. 54 pp.
Ruppert, E. E. and R. S. Fox. 1988. Seashore Animals of the Southeast. University of South
Carolina Press. Columbia, South Carolina. 429pp.
cc:
Ronald Mikulak, US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler,National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort,NC
Bennett Wynne,NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Kinston,NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington,NC
Doug Huggett,NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City,NC
Mike Street,NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City,NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,NC
Ted Wilgis, NC Coastal Federation, Wilmington,NC

NCDENR APR t 1 2005
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management iviurehead City DCM
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r,
March 14, 2005 I APR - 1 2005 U
MEMORANDUM: CL,
Fll_FISH SANITATION b' >
TO: Patty Fowler V ZSh
f
NCDENR-Division of Environmental Health
Shellfish Sanitation Section
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
?S LAW
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. I�E�OkD[rl►�lf�'
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.
rvlC'c�
SIGNED y G DATE
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

WCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
f LUUS .� ..
Morehead Qt Y;
March 14, 2005 y Ci �
6 ���� :
a'�
MEMORANDUM: MAR 2 5 x►Rc ``
TO: Renee Gledhill-Early WTCRf.',rf�ESSIWArik- rti-,,F.
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives & History
FROM: Doug Huggett f2lN fir),
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review 0 >
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach � 1cv_ co ,
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
k 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 %=6—j DATE 4 - ( Z
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]\FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www,nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper MAR 1 7 2005

� S �
W
� Q
�.
N
� Q
1�� V
00
� V

NCDENR wk.+es
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005 F611VED
MEMORANDUM: Pf APR 0 4 2005
TO: Ocean Isle Beach LPO
Justin Whiteside Morehead City DCM
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis 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 _2DATE 3/ 2W Q 57
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal O o 'ty 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

Apr 0405 02: 14p Preferred Customer 910-437-2535 p. 3
4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F.Easley, Governor Charles S.Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr.,Secretary
Harch 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Jason Epley
Division of Community Assistance
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMAIDREDGE &PILL Permit-Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach.
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet_
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet,Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7,2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project,please contact Caroline
Bellis at(910) 395 3900. 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.
,/1
SIGNED DATE 1
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone' 759-Rf1R-9anR l FAX 7.,9-7d7-q'i'in 1 Intnmot. iAn All AI nrrn�ot��n n.,^•• ,,••' ^

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Joe Henderson
NC Dept. of Administration
State Property Office
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE &FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis 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 theyroject for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED W I,JDATE 3 01
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S, Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Dan Sams
For James Simmons
Division of Land Resources
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE& FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project,please contact Caroline
Bellis at(910) 395-3900. 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.
C This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
/ incorporateed. See attached. -1 L I
kh4;YC
1.ew�v. �d rf µ•. 41 4 SW liw6 01 PV.w.w V [ 'er., a7 C-,<L .dJ � aut. w.'( �tr fe-
a%Ea W1�..,_ This agency objects!to the project7or reasons described in the attached comments.
wd -*PCe^1.
SIGNED7
DATE J440-4 l�zoos
0 - -
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

WL
Aia-
DISTRICT3 MAR 18 ypp�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 1412005 D
MEMORANDUM: RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 2005
TO: Ken Pace
NCDOT DIV.OF COASTAL IRALE� ��M'�
State Construction/Materials Branch °
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE& FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis 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
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

AL
Al�a
�
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RECEIVED
March 14, 2005 MAR 1 5 Z
P
BY:
MEMORANDUM: vp
n
TO: Linda Lewis 16 [�C�,,rj
or
Noelle Lutheran Cpgs qI�M N OF
Surface Water Protection AGEMENT
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis 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 �6"'4�� DATE 3-/5-CAS
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Linda Lewis
or
Noelle Lutheran
Surface Water Protection
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis 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 _ ._
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 1 10%Post Consumer Paper

6
NCDENR.
North Carolina Departmont of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F.Easley,Governor Charles S.Jones, Director William G.Ross Jr.,Secretary
March 1 4,2005 LOWMA
ul
NMMORAN'1)�: zTO: Fritz Rohde
For Preston P•Pate, Jr.,Director'Division of Marine Fisheries 6TAT w
FROM: ' Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE&FILL Permit Application,Re-view
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: the Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shailotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Vocation: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet,Brauswick Cottuty-
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7,2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project,please contact Caroline
Dellis at(910) 395-3900. When appropriate,in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
P.Er y. This agency has no`obj ection 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.$�0 Ck i {vn C„+f-i,,(:.C—
This.agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE 3/2.t 0 S�
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.necoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper
ZO'd 8Z:OZ SO. ZZ 62W ZZTSZZZZSZ Xpd S�d�ddd/SQNd�Hf1S dWQ

7),
HCDENR `'`
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F.Easley,Governor Charles S. Jones, Director VfftfftJr. Secretary
ZkU Sri L.F i
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Bennett Wynne
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMAIDREDGE& FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: "lawn of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet,Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 20056 If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis at(910) 395-3900. 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.
t/ 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
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]\FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An FrHA 0QMrWnity 1 Affirmdliv@ Action Employ@r—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

1
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 0 S d g�
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Linda Lewis MA
or YQO2
za
Noelle Lutheran �D5
Surface Water Protection M°r�he$(y
City ACM
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to dredge 135,000 cy of sand from Shallotte Inlet and
deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet.
Project Location: Ocean Isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by April 7, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Caroline
Bellis at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This a ency has no obje tion to th71-376CY
s proposed. 71-
VGil Gj C isStJr� or/
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 '15 DATE 6_1f6/011.)
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

CSE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
C� 7 1V Fj
February 23, 2005
FES 2 2005
Ms. Carolyn Bellis DIVISION O F�
N. C. Division of Coastal Management COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] phone
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 [phone] fax
Re: Major CAMA Permit Application, Additional Information
Ocean Isle Beach,East End Beach Nourishment(2163)
Brunswick County
Dear Ms. Bellis:
Please find additional information requested for the referenced major CAMA Permit application. As
requested in your January 28, 2005 letter, the following information is enclosed:
• Cross-sectional drawing of the sediment borrow area in Shallotte Inlet.
• Cross Sectional drawing of the proposed beach profile including the mean high and mean low
water elevations and the temporary control dike that will be constructed for dewatering of the
dredged material placed on the beach.
• A letter authorizing CSE to act on behalf of the Town was submitted to your office under a
separate cover by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach.
• An Area of Environmental Concern(AEC) Hazard Notice Form was also submitted to your office
by the Town.
Your attention to this matter at your earliest convenience is appreciated. We would be glad to meet with
you or your staff to discuss this application.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE&ENGINEERING, PLLC
W. Forman,Jr.,P.
Senior Engineer
Attachments
CC: Daisy Ivey,Town Administrator
Charles Jones,Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
Henry Wicker, U.S., Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mary Ellen Simmons, Congressman Mike McIntyre's Office
Tim Kana,CSE, Columbia, SC

HV E
D
FEB 0 9 2005
February 7, 2005 DIVISION OF
Caroline Bellis COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington,NC 28405-3845
RE: Authorized Agent—Ocean Isle Beach East End Beach Nourishment
Dear Ms. Bellis:
In regards to your letter on January 28, 2005 concerning the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's
CAMA Major Permit Application we are providing this letter to grant Coastal Science &
Engineering the right to apply on our behalf for the Major Permit.
Attached you will find the contract between the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and Coastal
Science &Engineering to perform the services outlined and to act as our Authorized
Agent in obtaining any CAMA Permits.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me(910) 579-3469.
Sincerel ,
Justin W. Whiteside
Planner/Zoning Official
cc: Daisy Ivey, Town of OIB
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH/THREE WEST THIRD STREET/OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NC 28469/[phone]

Richard W. Jennings
P. O. Box 13091 Z
Greensboro, N. C. 27415 �t:1J IV
336-272-4987
754x 336-574-1126 !, 2 0 20
E-Mail: [e-mail]
January 18 , 2005 DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington,NC 28405-3845
RE: Ocean Isle Beach,East End Beach Nourishment
Brunswick County
To Whom It May Concern:
I am responding to a copy of an Application I have received regarding a Major CAMA
Permit.
I own several lots at Shallotte Blvd. and going East approximately 1.50 feet, and then
South about 400 feet. (Basically, on Shallotte BIvd. between 2nd Street,and I st Street)
I am pleased that there are plans to stabilize this section of the beach, however I would
object to any loss or impairment of my property rights. If any of my rights would be
impaired, such as a permanent easement, I would object to that.
Please let this response be a part of your file.
Sincerely,
CH JENNINGS
RWJlmjd
Eric: copy of Fax to Town of Ocean Isle

COS
—E COASTAL SCIENCE � ENGINEERING P L L C
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 •TEL [phone] •FAX [phone]•EMAIL [e-mail]
"ED
January 12,2005 JAN 14 2005
Mr. Jim Gregson
Morehead City DCM
N. C. Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] phone
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 [phone] fax
Re: Major CAMA Permit Application
Ocean Isle Beach, east End Beach Nourishment(2163)
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Gregson:
On behalf of The Town of Ocean Isle Beach,we respectfully submit the attached application documents
for a Major CAMA Permit for the referenced project. Included with this submittal are application
documents, drawings, Project Narrative and a check for$475.00.
The work in this permit application includes placement of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of sand
dredged from the mouth of Shallotte Inlet adjacent to the site.
The town proposes to take advantage of the fact that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will be placing
some 300,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach of Ocean Isle west of this project as part periodic re-
nourishment under the Brunswick County Beaches Project. That work is scheduled to take place starting
in February of this year.
Your attention to this matter at your earliest convenience is appreciated. We would be glad to meet with
you or your staff to discuss this application.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE& ENGINEERING, PLLC
J. W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Attachments
CC: Daisy Ivey, Town Administrator
Charles Jones, Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
Henry Wicker, U.S., Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mary Ellen Simmons, Congressman Mike McIntyre's Office

C)SE
COASTAL SCIENCE ENGINEERING
PO BOX 8056 COLUMBIA SC 29202 •7EIL 8103-799-8949 • FAX [phone] • EMAIL c-,eCPcoagoIsoence_com
ECEHVE
November 23, 2004 FEB 2005
DIVISION OF
Ms. Daisy Ivey, Town Administrator COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Town of Ocean Isle Beach - - - -
Three West Third Street Tel: [phone]
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469
RE: Revised Proposal and Contract-Analysis of Erosion and Alternatives for Beach Restoration
along the Eastern End of Ocean Isle Beach (CSE P2163-01)
Dear Ms. Ivey:
I am pleased to submit our revised proposal, scope of services and budget for design permitting and
coordination of a beach restoration project for the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach. The revised
scope of services follows discussions with your office and my letter dated 5 November (now
referenced as Exhibit B). The revised budget is $39,881 to accomplish tasks 1,2 and 5 as outlined in
the exhibits.
Bill Forman PE will serve as principal POC. Bill was responsible for implementation of our beach
nourishment projects at Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach and Emerald Isle. He is very familiar with
the permitting requirements and coordination necessary to piggyback with the federal project at
Ocean Isle Beach. Bill heads up our Morehead City office which is located close to the CAMA
office. This will facilitate our coordination with CAMA and the resource agencies.
Bill and I anticipate meeting with you and USACE in the next ten days or so to determine what
options are available to fast-track permitting for the project.
Please contact me or Bill (252-222-0976) if you have any questions about our work plan.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to continuing our work with your town.
Your truly,
Timothy W Kana PhD W"d-)
President
cc: Bill Forman \nd' I f

(CBS E AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT AND ENGINEER
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES [2163-01]
// ��, F
Project Name: Ocean Isle Beach — Inlet Erosion Analysis and Alternatives Fe f' `
Z1105
CSE Project No. 2163-01 00,4s JI /S101V pF
,h M�NgG�MFNT
THIS AGREEMENT i s made on the 24 day of November 2004, by and between Town of Ocean Isle Beach,
hereinafter called CLIENT, and Coastal Science & Engineering, hereinafter called ENGINEER.
The CLIENT and ENGINEER,for mutual consideration hereinafter set forth,agree as set forth below and as set forth
in the attached standard provisions:
1.0 ENGINEER'S SERVICES: ENGINEER shall perform professional services in connection with the Project as
set forth below and contained in this Agreement:
Services provided shall be as described in the Proposal for Professional Services,Scope of Services attached
as Exhibit A(dated October 11,2004)and revised on 5 November 2004 by Exhibit B (letter and Table A) and
made a part of this agreement herein.
2.0 ENGINEER shall start performing services hereunder within 5 days after receipt of CLIENT'S authorization
to proceed, which shall not be given later than 45 days after the date of this agreement.
3.0 ENGINEER COMPENSATION:
In accordance with this Agreement, the ENGINEER shall provide professional services for which the CLIENT shall
compensate ENGINEER as follows:
Fees shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Table A dated November 5, 2004.
OTHER:
3.1 Payments will be made to the ENGINEER on a monthly basis upon presentation of an approved invoice.
4.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
4.1 The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina.
4.2 During the term of this Agreement, ENGINEER agrees to provide evidence of workmen's compensation
insurance coverage where applicable and comprehensive general liability insurance coverage.
4.3 During the term of this Agreement, ENGINEER agrees to provide evidence of professional liability insurance
with a limit of at least$250,000 for each claim and an annual aggregate of at least$500,000.
4.4 The CLIENT acknowledges and understands the potential risks with engineering and construction activities,
and agrees to allocate risk in proportion to the ENGINEER'S fees for the project. The CLIENT therefore
agrees to limit the ENGINEER'S liability to the CLIENT and to all contractors and subcontractors on the
project,due to any claim of any nature whatsoever arising out of or relating to the performance of professional
services under this agreement, such that the total aggregate liability of the ENGINEER shall not exceed the
ENGINEER'S fee for labor on the project.
Coastal Science G Engineering Inc [11/24/20041 PAGE 1 OF 5

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES[2163-01]
CSE
4.5 ENGINEER is not responsible for the identifying,discovering, removal and/or treatment(remediation)of any
hazardous waste, known or unknown at the site, nor for the consequences of any hazardous waste materials
of any kind at the site, including, but not limited to asbestos and PCB's, as well as materials not yet known
as hazardous.
4.6 Any notices required to be given under this Agreement may be given by enclosing the same in a sealed
envelope,postage prepaid,addressed to the CLIENT at Town of Ocean Isle Beach,Three West Third Street,
OreanJsle-Beach,NC 28469, wd to theNGINEER at-PO Box-8056;-Gelumbia,SG-29202-805&v-at-PO-
Box 1643, Morehead City, NC 28557 and by depositing same with the U.S. Postal Service. When so given,
such notice shall be given from the time of mailing the same.
IN WITNESS THEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.
ENGINEER: BY: G�
Coastal Science& Engineering Inc PO Box 8056 TITLE:
Columbia SC 29202-8056
DATE: 23 1J� WITNESS: '
ATTEST T N OF OCEAN ISLE BINC)
m
Clerk to'Board Mayor own Manager
BSI.E gFq '•.
� � I
O ,f \y+•
n _
s y` o
• vim
:O '• - Oo
/V0P'l FEB A 9 2005
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENl-
Coostol Science&Engineering Inc [11/24/2004] PAGE 2 OF 5

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES(2163-01]
CSE
STANDARD PROVISIONS
FEB t � 2005
1.0 CLIENT 'S RESPONSIBILITY: DIVIgt,
O .
The CLIENT shall, unless otherwise provided for in this agreement, at no cost toCC the ENGINEER-;ENT
1.1 Furnish to the ENGINEER all reasonable survey and property description data requested by the
ENGINEER forthe rolec. — -
1.2 Guarantee full and free access for the ENGINEER to enter upon all property for the performance of the
ENGINEER'S services.
1.3 Furnish to the ENGINEER all existing studies, reports and other available data and services of others
pertinent to the Scope of Services, and obtain additional reports and data as required; and ENGINEER
shall be entitled to rely on such information and services in performance of services hereunder.
1.4 Give prompt written notice to the ENGINEER whenever the CLIENT observes or otherwise becomes
aware of any defect in the Project or other event which may substantially affect the ENGINEER'S
performance of services under this Agreement.
2.0 PAYMENTS TO THE ENGINEER:
2.1 Progress payments shall be made in proportion to the services rendered and as indicated within this
Agreement and shall be due and owing upon the ENGINEER'S submittal of any invoice. Past due
amounts owed shall include a late payment charge which will be computed at the interest rate of 1 percent
per month, which is an Annual Percentage Rate of 12 percent, and will be applied to the balance unpaid
30 days after the date of the original invoice.
2.2 No deductions shall be made from the ENGINEER'S compensation on account of penalty or other sums
withheld from payment to Contractors.
2.3 Hourly rates and reimbursable expenses shall be subject to periodic revision. In the event revisions are
made during the lifetime of this Agreement, the increased or decreased hourly rates and Reimbursable
Expenses shall apply to all remaining compensation for services performed by the ENGINEER where such
rates provide the basis for the ENGINEER'S compensation.
2.4 Reimbursable expenses are in addition to ENGINEER'S compensation for services performed on an
hourly basis and include expenditures made by the ENGINEER, his employees or his consultant(s) in the
interest of the project.
2.5 If the Project is delayed or if the ENGINEER'S services on the project are delayed or suspended for more
than three months for reasons beyond the ENGINEER'S control, the ENGINEER may, after giving seven
days written notice to the CLIENT, terminate this Agreement and the CLIENT shall compensate the
ENGINEER in accordance with the termination provision contained hereinafter in this Agreement.
Coastal Science&Engineering Inc [11/24/20041 PAGE 3 OF 5

AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES[2163-01]
C EIVE(5.SC
F`3 ' 2005
2.6 If the CLIENT fails to make payments when due and the ENGINEER incurs any costs in order to collect
overdue sums from the CLIENT, the CLIENT agrees that all such collections costs incurred shall be
immediately become due and payable to the ENGINEER. Collection costs shall include without limitation,
legal fees, collection agency fees and expenses, court costs, collection bonds and reasonable ENGINEER
staff costs at standard billing rates for the ENGINEER's time spent in efforts to collect. This obligation of
thee CLIENT to pay the ENGINEER's collection costs shall survive the term of this Agreement or any
earlier termination by either party.
2.7 If the CLIENT fails to make payments when due or otherwise is in breach of this agreement, the
ENGINEER may suspend performance of services upon five (5) calendar days' notice to the CLIENT. The
Engineer shall have no liability whatsoever to the CLIENT for any costs or damages as a result of such
suspension caused by any breach of this Agreement by the CLIENT. Upon payment in full by the
CLIENT, the ENGINEER shall resume services under this agreement, the time schedule and
compensation adjusted for the period of suspension plus any other reasonable time and expenses
necessary for the ENGINEER to resume performance.
3.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS:
3.1 All drawings, Specifications, computer data, and other work data of the ENGINEER for this Project are
instruments of service for this Project only and shall remain the property of the ENGINEER whether the
Project is completed or not. The CLIENT shall not reuse any of the ENGINEER'S instruments of service
on extensions of this Project or on any other project without the written permission of the ENGINEER.
Any unauthorized reuse shall be at the CLIENT'S risk and the CLIENT agrees to hold harmless the
ENGINEER from all claims, damages, and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of such
unauthorized reuse of the ENGINEER'S instruments of service by the client or by others acting through
the CLIENT.
3.2 Neither party to this Agreement shall transfer, sublet or assign any rights under or interest in this
Agreement (including but not limited to monies that are due or monies that may be due) without prior
written consent of the other party. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an
assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under
this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent ENGINEER from employing such
independent associates and consultants as ENGINEER may deem appropriate to assist in the
performance of the services hereunder.
3.3 This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven days written notice in the event of substantial
failure to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement by the other party through no fault of the
terminating party. If this Agreement is terminated, the ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed to
the termination notice date including Reimbursable Expenses due
3.4 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the ENGINEER and CLIENT and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. The Agreement
may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the CLIENT and the ENGINEER.
Coastal Science U Engineering Inc [1 1/2 412 0 0 41 PAGE 4 OF 5

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES[2163-011
�SE
3.5 In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during performance of services, the CLIENT and ENGINEER
agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to
nonbinding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The CLIENT ad ENGINEER further
agree to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with independent contractors and
consultants retained for the project and to require all independent contractors and consultants also to
include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with subcontractors, suppliers or fabricators so
retained, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method of dispute resolution between parties to
those agreements.
3.6 Should litigation occur between the two parties relating to the provisions of this Agreement, all reasonable
litigation expenses, collection expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorneys fees incurred by the
prevailing party shall be paid by the non-prevailing party to the prevailing party.
3.7 Neither party shall hold the other responsible for damages caused by acts of God, Strikes, lockouts,
accidents, or other events beyond the control of the other or the other's employees and agents.
3.8 In the event any provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions shall be valid and binding on the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provision,
term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach
of the same by the other party.
3.9 The ENGINEER is not responsible for design and construction review services relating to the Contractor's
safety precautions or to means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures required for the
Contractor to perform his work. Omitted services include but are not limited to shoring, scaffolding,
underpinning, temporary detainment of excavations, and any erection methods and temporary bracing.
4.0 The ENGINEER intends to render his services under this agreement in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices for the intended use of the Project and makes no warranty either
expressed or implied.
4.1 Any estimate of construction costs prepared by the ENGINEER represents his judgment as a design
professional and is supplied for the general guidance of the CLIENT. Since the ENGINEER has no control
over the cost of labor and materials, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the ENGINEER
does not guarantee the accuracy of such estimates as compared to Contractors bids or actual cost to the
CLIENT.
The ENGINEER's federal identification number is 57-0784511. [Please note change effective October 1,2004]
D
�U �v
FEB (' 2005
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Coastal Science b Engineering Inc [11/24120041 PAGE 5 OF 5

CSC
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 8056 COLUMBIA SC 29202 •TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
EXHIBIT B
November 5, 2004 EE8 ( 0 2005
DIVISJOi� OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Daisy Ivey, Town Administrator
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
T-hre West Third-Street Tel [phone]I66
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469
RE: Revised Proposal—Analysis of erosion and alternatives for beach restoration along the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach (CSE P2163-01)
Dear Ms. Ivey:
Per your request, we have modified our proposal of October 11, 2004 to accommodate the town's
revised requirements. We have removed Task 3 and Task 4,which involved detailed hydrodynamic
and geotechnical field investigations and analyses. We also reduced the scope of report requirements
in Task 5.
We understand the town is primarily interested in a proposal that provides only one design alternative
involving a beach nourishment template and environmental permitting services. Our revised proposal
would not include additional design alternatives, such as relocating ebb/flood shoals, or realigning
channels. However, we are retaining necessary bathymetric survey work (Task 2) over the channels
and shoals because of their potential impact on the nourishment requirements.
The design would be based primarily on existing analyses (such as the USACE's project and
monitoring reports), an updated shoreline change analysis, and updated volume and contour change
analyses. Our design would assume potential borrow source sediments such as the shoals in Shallotte
Inlet are compatible with east end beach sediments. Note, this assumption could be challenged by
environmental groups requiring more detailed analysis such as we outlined in Task 4 (which we are
removing for this modified proposal).
Our revised budget is reduced to $39,881. I will be happy to review the details of our scope revisions
and budget reductions with you later next week after the NCSBPA Conference.
In the meantime, we look forward to getting started on the project at the earliest time. Thank you
again for your consideration.
Your truly,
Coastal Science &Engineering PLLC
Timothy W Kana PhD
President
cc: Chris Mack
Bill Forman

77
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
EAST END BEACH NOURISHMENT J�'d 13 2005
COASTAL DIVISION
M OAGMOE
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ENT
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to place approximately 135,000 cubic yards of beach
quality sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet on some 2,700 linear feet of beach just west of
Shallotte Inlet. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach is located along the Atlantic Ocean coast of
Brunswick County, North Carolina between Shallotte Inlet and Tubs Inlet just north of the South
Carolina border. Ocean Isle Beach can be accessed by driving south from Wilmington, North
Carolina on U. S. Highway 17 past the Town of Shallotte to State Road 1184 and following S. R.
1184 south across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to the island Town. The project
site is located at the east end of the island along the ocean shoreline just west of the mouth of
Shallotte Inlet (see sheet 1 of 6).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Ocean Isle Beach project is an extension of a periodic re-nourishment being undertaken by
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, as part of the Brunswick
County Beaches project. The beach fill will cover approximately 19 acres of shoreline with sand
placed on the beach above the low tide line. The main fill portion of the project will contain
approximately 50 c.y. per linear feet of beach (95,000 c.y. total) and will include a flat berm at
elevation +7.0 (NGVD) initially placed 130 to 150 feet wide (see sheets 4 and 5 of 6) and
extending seaward to elevation —5.0 (NGVD) on a 1:20 slope. A transitional taper section 700
feet long will tie the main fill to the USACE taper at the west. Similarly, a taper 1000 feet long
will tie the main fill into the natural shoreline at the east end of the project (see sheet 3 of 6).
Each taper will contain approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand.
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 1 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application— Narrative
January 7, 2005

The USACE project includes placement of approximately 384,000 cubic yards of beach quality
sand dredged from the designated borrow area in Shallotte Inlet. The project is scheduled to
begin in February 2005 and is projected to require approximately four weeks to complete. The
Town proposes to gain a significant economic advantage by contracting with the dredging
contractor for the USACE project to complete the Town's project before demobilizing equipment
from the site.
The beach fill material will be dredged from a borrow area in Shallotte Inlet (see sheet 2 of 6)
that has been identified by the Corps of Engineers for the ongoing and future re-nourishment
projects on Ocean Isle Beach. The Town will monitor the material placed on the beach on a
daily basis to make sure that the best material available is used. Experience gained by the
dredging contractor on the USACE project will help place the dredge-in areas of the borrowaree,.
l
containing the best beach quality material. � i
EXISTING CONDITIONS DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
The shoreline proposed for nourishment has experienced above average erosion resulting in
damage and condemnation of several oceanfront properties along 2nd and 3 d Streets (see sheet
2 of 6). At several locations, the surf extends beneath existing structures during extreme high
tide conditions. Sand bags have been paced at the ends of Shallotte Blvd and Charlotte Street
to protect streets and utility infrastructure from damage.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
No upland improvements, pavements, walkways or other impervious surfaces will be
constructed as part of the project. No stormwater management or additional stormwater
measures will be required for this project. A letter will be sent to the Division of Water Quality in
Wilmington describing the scope of the project.
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 2 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application— Narrative
January 7, 2005

n ECKVE
V
,A1 1 3 2005
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF
COASTAI MANAGEMENT
Dredging will be done by conventional hydraulic dredge with a temporary pipeline placed on the
ocean bottom up to the beach. The sand and water slurry will be confined on the beach to
permit settlement of sand and drainage of the water fraction back to the ocean. The settled
sand will be shaped on the beach using conventional earth moving equipment. The dredging
and fill operations will be on a 7 day per week basis and will only be shut down in order to
relocate the dredge in the borrow area, for weather conditions too extreme for the dredging
operations, or for maintenance and repair of pipelines or equipment.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The objective of the Town is to complete the project before the end of the moratorium period,
April 1, 2005. It is anticipated, that once work begins, approximately four days will be required
to complete the dredging and placement portion of the project. The contractor will require an
additional week to remove equipment and pipelines from the jobsite.
COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH ZONING AND CAMA LAND USE
PLAN
The property is within the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. The site is
classified "Developed" by the Town's CAMA Land Use Plan.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE N. C. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The beach nourishment work proposed will be financed with public funds but consist of less
than 200,000 cubic yards of total fill with fill dimensions 50 cubic yards per linear feet or less.
The project is classified as a small nourishment project by the N. C. Division of Coastal
Management and does not require review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 3 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application— Narrative
January 7, 2005

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNERS
Steven Miller
Leslie B Miller
206 Quaker Road
Mooresville NC 28117 704-948-0156
Cynthia Knisely
PO Box 660
Dover OH 44622 910-575-3051
Tommy Baldwin JAN 13 2005
Jo Baldwin DIVISION OF
697 Dobbins Road COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Ellenboro NC 28040 828-453-7558
Dee Wilkerson
1576 Union Road
Rutherfordton NC 28139 828-287-0059
Lowel A. Freelander
Diane Freelander
484 E. Third St
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469 910-280-0018
Ocean Isle Enterprises
2 Causeway Drive
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469 910-579-6222
Christopher McKenzie
Allysa McKenzie
470 E. Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469 910-575-0892
Thomas S. Blevins
478 East Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469 none listed
John McClenon
712 Riverside Drive
Lynchburg VA 24503 none listed
Richard Jennings
PO Box 13091
Greensboro NC 27415 none listed
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 4 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application — Narrative
January 7, 2005

LTC John R. Dye
Jacqueline Dye C
��]�
4915 Lakeshore Drive \�/
-T,
Killeen, TX 76543 none listed
Odell Williamson
y 1 .11 13 2005
2 Causeway drive DIVISION OF
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 76543 COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Ocean Isle Beach - East End Beach Nourishment Page 5 of 5
Major CAMA Permit Application — Narrative
January 7, 2005

C SE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 8056 COLUMBIA SC 29202 •TEL [phone] • FAX 803=799-9481 • EMAIL [e-mail]
EXHIBIT A
V3 Z 2005
COASTAL DIVISION OF
October 11, 2004 MANAGEMENT
Ms. Daisy Ivey, Town Administrator
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Three West Third Street Tel: [phone]
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28469
RE: Proposal — Analysis of erosion and alternatives for beach restoration along the east end
of Ocean Isle Beach (CSE P2163-01)
Dear Ms. Ivey:
We are pleased to submit the attached proposal for an analysis of erosion along the eastern
end of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. The scope of services follows earlier correspondence
dated September 10, and discussions with you and your staff. We recognize time is of the
essence and we are proposing as short a schedule as possible. However, because of certain
field surveys and analyses that have to be performed to lend credibility to the alternatives, we
will need several months to complete the work.
If the results of our field data collection point to an obvious solution, we will focus on that
alternative in an attempt to speed up the process. Regardless of the alternatives available to
the town, it is likely that any solution will require some environmental review before it can be
permitted. Our proposed schedule assumes that permitting and environmental assessment
would be initiated next spring after your council has a chance to consider each alternative.
The earliest construction under this scenario would be the winter of 2006. We will let you
know if there are any short-term remedies that are feasible, cost-effective, or easier to permit.
In the meantime, please contact me or Chris Mack if you have any questions about the
proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this and continue our work with your town.
Yours truly,
i�
Timothy W Kana PhD
President
cc: Chris Mack
Bill Forman

CSE
- - EXHIBIT A
THE PROPOSAL '
[P2163-01] .�
'� J ?005
Surveys and Analysis of Erosion Along ,I
Eastern Ocean Isle Beach — Shallotte Inlet M�NAG F
and Alternatives For Beach Restoration PA4&-,,,_
with Long-Term Maintenance
INTRODUCTION
This proposal is submitted at the request of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (NC) for an
analysis of erosion along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach near Shallotte Inlet. In
2001, much of Ocean Isle Beach was nourished as part of a federally-authorized Beach
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection Project (USACE 1997). The borrow
source was Shallotte Inlet shoals (USACE 2002). Approximately 1.87 million cubic yards
of sand were dredged from Shallotte Inlet and placed along -3.25 miles of beach encom-
passing the eastern two-thirds of Ocean Isle Beach. The fill began about one-half mile
from Shallotte Inlet and extended west. Since 2001, the shoreline has eroded (between
the nourished section and the inlet) to the point where at least one dozen homes are
imminently threatened.
CSE has been asked to investigate the possible causes of erosion near Shallotte Inlet and
outline several feasible alternatives for restoration of the beach and dune system in the
critically eroded area.
Because the inlet is classified as sensitive habitat area, any design for erosion control will
likely require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement along with
permits for the work. Major issues of concern to resource agencies are nesting habitat
(for piping plovers and turtles) and dry beach habitat (for the rare plant, seabeach ama-
ranth). Other issues of concern to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and property owners
are loss of property, declines in the tax base, damage to infrastructure, and diminished
recreational area.
Preliminary to developing an environmental assessment and permit application, certain
condition surveys and engineering analyses are required. Beach, channel, and shoals
should be surveyed such that quantities can be calculated. Information on flows and dis-
Coastal Science&Engineering 1 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163.01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

EXHI 1�163.011(10.11.04)
C SE FEB 2005
COASTAL IM��OF
-` ►ENT
charge are needed to assess the feasibility of realigning or relocating the channel and
shoals in a more favorable configuration. Sediment-quality data are needed to confirm
whether inlet shoals contain beach-compatible sand for nourishment along eastern Ocean
Isle Beach. Analyses are required to establish whether additional inlet dredging is
feasible or determine if such dredging may have the potential to adversely impact the
Ocean Isle-Bearh shoreline The following scope of work outlines-what CS nsiders
to be minimal survey requirements for a quantitative analysis of alternatives.
The following tasks are required to develop a plan, finalize design, permit, and engineer
a project involving restoration and stabilization of the shoreline along eastern Ocean Isle
Beach.
1) Acquire existing data and review previous reports and studies.
2) Condition survey.
3) Inlet hydrodynamic measurements and analyses.
4) Geotechnical study.
5) Preliminary design,analysis of alternatives,and estimates of probable
construction cost.
6) Environmental assessment / environmental impact statement.
7) Community and regulatory liaison.
8) Permit application.
9) Final design.
10) Preparation of plans, specifications, and contract documents.
11) Construction and construction observations.
12) Project monitoring.
The present proposal addresses only Tasks 1 through 5.
REFERENCES
USACE. 1997 General reevaluation and environmental assessment for beach erosion control and hurricane wave
protection,Brunswick County beaches,North Carolina,Ocean Isle Beach portion. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, NC.
USACE. 2002. Ocean Isle Beach nourishment project: inlet and shoreline monitoring. Report No. 1 prepared by
USACE, Wilmington District, NC, 35 pp.
Coostol Science&Engineering 2 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

EXHIBIT A[P2163-01] (10-11-04)
CSE
Task 1) Acquire Existing Data & Review Previous Reports and Studies — CSE pro-
poses to search for and acquire existing reports and data on the shoreline and inlet rele-
vant to an analysis of erosion. We are aware of several data sets prepared by the
USACE in conjunction with the 2001 beach nourishment project. Other studies have been
performed over the years by UNC-Wilmington and NCDENR. Task 1 will require pro-
fessional time to organize and reformat historical data into patible with CSE
and other software for analysis. CSE will obtain historical aerial photography from the
USACE-Wilmington and/or US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service. They will be used for preparing comparative shoreline and inlet maps, updating
historic shoreline change estimates, and delineating stations for field surveys and mea-
surements.
Task 2) Condition Survey — CSE proposes to mobilize a survey crew to the site and
conduct the following measurements in November or December (dependent on weather
and tide conditions). Survey items will include:
— Establish baseline and transects, topo beach and dune habitats along an —1-mile
reach at eastern Ocean Isle Beach, extending from USACE transect 50 (ocean-
front about one mile west of Shallotte Inlet) to the inlet. The baseline and tran-
sects will be continued onto Holden Beach and extend approximately one-half mile
upcoast to USACE transect 370. This survey will cover the region affected by
Shallotte Inlet changes and dynamics that are impacting Ocean Isle Beach.
— Run beach and channel (bathymetry) profiles at —500-ft spacing along the inlet
between Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach. These lines will cross the shoals
of the inlet and allow calculations of sediment volumes contained within the ebb
tidal delta of Shallotte Inlet.
— Map the mid-inlet shoals above mean low water. This will include transects across
marginal or incipient channels through the shoal(s).
— Delineate existing habitat and locate existing development for purposes of com-
puting land loss (using historical aerial photos/maps) and critical habitat loss/gain.
— Prepare base map and typical sections.
Coostol Science&Engineering 3 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

EXHIBIT A[P2163-01] (10.11
SSE
FE& r 9 2005
=op
- Compute profile volumes, channel sections, shoal areas and volumes to reference 4ENT
contours.
- Develop an inlet sediment budget to the extent sufficient historical survey data are
available from previous projects and studies.
Task 3) Inlet Hydrodynamic Survey — CSE proposes to:
- Conduct synoptic measurements of tide height and current velocities over a repre-
sentative tidal cycle using -6 stations around the inlet to define spatial variation
in flows and circulation. Measurements will be made using a SonTekTm Acoustic
Doppler Profiler (ADP) which provides detailed vertical profiles through the water
columns, or a Marsh-McBirney Electromagnetic flow meter (Model 201). Synoptic
measurements will be performed at a surveyed cross-section of the channel such
that estimates of flood and ebb discharge and tidal prisms can be made. To the
extent marginal or secondary channels of the inlet are accessible by boat, synoptic
flow measurements will be obtained over a representative tidal cycle. Discharge
is the instantaneous flow rate through the inlet. Tidal prism is the volume of water
entering or exiting the inlet during the ebb or flood portion of the tidal cycle.
- Compare results of the synoptic measurements with previous data by others (as
available) or with hydrodynamic data from similar inlets. This comparison will help
CSE classify the inlet and establish scales for flows and sediment transport.
Task 4) Geotechnical Study of Inlet Sediments — CSE proposes to:
- Obtain a minimum of five (5) vibracores over the mid inlet shoal to confirm
sediments to a depth of approximately -12 ft to -15 ft NGVD. Obtain a minimum
of five (5) additional short cores by divers around the margin of the inlet shoals to
supplement the vibracores. If the shoals are not accessible at any tide stage,
perimeter sampling by divers around the margins of the shoals will be attempted
to infer sediment quality at depth over the center of the shoal(s).
- Obtain -12 beach sediment samples (three stations, four samples per station)
along the inlet margin of Ocean Isle Beach to characterize the native beach and
dune sediment.
Coastal Science&Engineering 4 Proposal —Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

EXHIBIT A[P2163.01](10.11-04)
CSE &C.ETTv
I FE3
— Analyze core (up to 10) and beach (total of 12) samples for grain size, shell con- J DO
tent, and mud content. Prepare statistical summaries and calculate means for, _
"native" beach and prospective "borrow" sediment in the shoal(s).
NT
— Compare related geotechnical data from USACE (obtained in Task 1) with CSE
field data from Task incorporate-results�as applicable, in sediment--distri-
bution maps, graphs, or related depictions of sediment quality.
— Evaluate inlet shoals and other offshore areas (from the literature and other
studies) for their suitability as borrow sources for future nourishment. Particular
attention will be paid to analyzing the potential impact of inlet excavations on the
adjacent shorelines.
Task 5) Analysis of Alternatives, Preliminary Design,
and Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Based on the results of Tasks 1 through 4, as well as previous inlet dredging projects by
USACE, CSE proposes to analyze three primary alternatives.
• Modification of the existing federal project to provide periodic nourishment further
to the east such that threatened properties are included in the project. This would in-
clude CSE's opinion on modifications in the schedule, borrow source, and/or configu-
ration of the fill for the federal nourishment project. It would include a summary of the
required permitting and environmental review that may be necessary to effect such a
modification in the federal project.
• Outline a locally-funded plan for beach restoration that may be performed indepen-
dent of the federal project. The plan would provide a rationale and describe a specific
borrow source, dredge volume and fill template such that its life expectancy could be
estimated. The plan could possibly involve inlet dredging and channel realignment to
induce accretion along the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. The plan may instead
recommend against further inlet dredging and identify an alternative borrow source.
(Note: This latter option would reflect CSE's finding that Shallotte Inlet does not con-
tain sufficient beach-quality sediment for excavation without adverse impact to Ocean
Isle Beach or Holden Beach.)
Coastal Science&Engineering 5 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

i � 7
EXHIBIT A[P2163-01] (10- )
t=cif
CSE 2005
---- COASTAL ML OEMENT
• Evaluate a do-nothing or small-scale maintenance alternative which would include
CSE's prognosis of future changes in the shoreline at the eastern end of Ocean Isle
Beach. For example, if CSE's analysis shows that the erosion trend is likely to re-
verse because of certain configurations of the inlet channels and shoals, it may be in
the town's interest to forego a major beach restoration project. Alternatively, it may
be f--easihte_to performsmall-scale_scraping-of attach shoals .where thera is-pr-es-
ently a surplus)and shift sand to critically eroding areas. Small-scale alternatives can
be cost-effective because mobilization costs are lower than most dredging operations.
It is possible some other alternative may become apparent as CSE's work progresses.
One such alternative may involve excavations in the AICWW or other back-barrier areas
of Ocean Isle Beach that might double to reduce a shoaling problem and renourish the
beach. CSE will identify such opportunities as they arise and discuss the viability of other
alternatives with the town (and possibly the regulatory agencies) before proceeding with
detailed analyses.
For each of the alternatives, CSE will prepare preliminary designs, quantity estimates, and
estimates of probable construction costs. Advantages and disadvantages of each plan
will be identified with regard to technical feasibility and environmental impacts (ie, permit-
ability). Given uncertainties in inlet behavior, it is not possible to predict outcomes with
absolute certainty. However, CSE will draw on professional experience with other inlet
projects to rank the likelihood of success under each alternative. To the extent possible,
each alternative will seek to perform further dredging in Shallotte Inlet only if it can be
demonstrated that removal of additional sediment will not adversely impact the adjacent
shorelines.
Each alternative will outline areas to be dredged (whether in Shallotte Inlet, offshore, or
near the AICWW), dimensions of the borrow area(s) (distinguishing portions seaward of
the COLREGS line from portions landward of the line, if applicable), dimensions of typical
beach/channel fill sections, and geographic limits of the project. The design will include
quantity estimates and estimates of probable construction costs based on experience and
recent market conditions for projects of this type. This task includes time to develop alter-
nate conceptual designs, to prepare a draft report and executive summary, to discuss
alternatives with town officials, and to finalize the report with recommendations upon
receipt of comments from the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. We anticipate that the level of
detail, format, and content of our final report will be similar to CSE's 2001 study of Bogue
Coostol Science&Engineering Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] 6 Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

GCSE "j(;y T7)T2?• 10.11.04)
!J
{ 1 F'3 2005
,-)1\1olci0'.l OF
Inlet for the Town of Emerald Isle (copy provided under separate cover46494 Mown of
Ocean Isle Beach).
PROPOSED SCHEDULE (TASKS 1-5)
CSE proposes to complete-the-above approxi-
mate schedule.
November 2004 - Initiate project, Assemble Data, Review Previous Reports
Nov 2004-Jan 2005 - Complete Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4 surveys and analyses
Jan-Feb 2005 - Task 5 (analysis of alternatives)
15 February 2005 - Draft report and cost estimates
15-28 Feb 2005 - Presentation of findings to town council
Feb-Mar 2005 - Review by town council
31 Mar 2005 - Submit revised final report and recommendations
For construction during the winter 2005-2006 environmental window, certain environ-
mental assessment studies and permitting (ie, items 6, 7, and 8 listed in the introduction
of this proposal) would have to be initiated in early 2005. These design tasks are not
included in the present proposal.
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS AND BUDGET
Table A lists estimated personnel requirements and budget based on the following fee
schedule. The project will be supervised by Dr. Timothy W. Kana (PG, senior scientist).
Chris Mack (coastal engineer) will serve as project manager, prepare the analysis of
waves, tides, and currents, and provide liaison with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. Mr.
Mack will prepare the analysis of alternatives with Dr. Kana. Philip McKee (senior techni-
cal associate) will be responsible for field data collection, assisted by John Hair (diver/
CAD technician) and CSE field assistants. Diana Sangster will be responsible for report
production. Resumes for senior professionals are available on request. All of our pro-
posed personnel have been involved in previous CSE work for Ocean Isle Beach (Bruns-
wick County)and Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, and
Town of Emerald Isle. References are available on request.
Coastal Science 6 Engineering 7 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163.01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

E�HIBIT A[P2163.01](10-11.04)
QSE
FEB ��y 2005
Relationship to CSE's Analysis of Revisions to FEMA Flood Maps IAN, OF
Aa T-
The proposed scope of work is related to CSE's present study of revisions to Floc
maps in the following ways.
During review of the 25 NOV 2003 FEMA preliminary FIS and FIRMS of Ocean Isle Beach
(NC), CSE estab..... ed control points for aonroximately-15-transects across the-island.
This included installing a new benchmark located on Ocean Isle Pier (courtesy of Mr. Will
Long, owner). Because of this prior work, our survey time and cost outlined in Task 2 will
be less for the proposed inlet study. CSE has already obtained some historical data (such
as USACE 2001 to 2004 beach profile surveys, 1991 to 2003 USACE aerial photographs,
historic erosion reports) that will reduce the data collection efforts of Task 1. These sav-
ings are reflected in the budget for this proposal.
CSE's work on the FEMA flood review study also allowed us to survey parts of the eastern
end of the island, including the present escarpment, vegetation line, and several control
points. These preliminary field data will help in the preparation of a detailed survey plan
and transect layout for the proposed study.
Type of Contract Desired
Time and expenses with costs not to exceed the indicated total personnel and direct
expenses in Table A. Our proposed contract agreement follows.
Coastal Science&Engineering Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163-01] 8 Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

EXHIBIT A[P2163.01](10.11-04)
) �'
CSE ; .�� �
FEB 1' 0 2005
Fee Schedule
The fee for our services will be based on the charges listed below. All fe tations are
estimates and actual fees are based on actual t' I` . 'time and expenses Incurred by �o�astal
Science & Engineering unless otherwise stated in the proposal. All rates are listed in U.S.
dollars.
PERSONNEL Staff Category Hourly Rate
Principal 98.00
Coastal Engineer 90.00
Sr Technical Associate 55.00
Technical Staff (CAD) 45.00
Support Staff (Editorial/Admin) 40.00
Field Staff (Assistant) 35.00
Expert witness services are available at 1 .5 times the base billing rates. Such services
include trial preparation, depositions, and court appearances (travel excluded).
EXPENSES
Direct expenses incurred on the client's behalf are charged at our cost. Such items
include, but are not limited to, equipment rental, subsistence, printing and reproduction,
transportation and travel charges, and any special equipment or fees unique to the
project. Vehicle mileage will be charged at IRS rates (currently $0.371/2 per mile).
In-house expenses (such as miscellaneous photocopying and blueprints, long-distance
telephone/facsimile, microcomputer, word-processing equipment, CAD, and normal post-
age) will be invoiced at 5 percent of total invoiced CSE labor. This replaces detailed
invoicing of these items. Rates for field equipment, specialized numerical models, and
associated computer time are available on request.
INVOICES
Progress invoices shall be issued monthly and shall be paid within 30 days of date of
invoice. Balances remaining unpaid at due date are subject to a monthly finance charge
of 1.0 percent (annual rate of 12 percent per year) until paid. CSE reserves the right to
cease work on any project that has past-due invoices until all outstanding balances are
paid.
[Effective to 31 December 2004]
Coastal Science&Engineering 9 Proposal—Surveys and Analysis of Erosion
[P2163.01] Eastern Ocean Isle Beach

- '� United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
€ Raleigh Field Office
i
r Post Office Box 33726
f' Raleigh,North Carolina 27636-3726
February 19,2001
Colonel James W.DeLony
District Engineer,Wilmington District
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington,North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Biological/Conference opinion on the effects of the Ocean Isle Beach Project on
seabeach amaranth,manatee,loggerhead.and green sea turtles,and piping plover.
.Dear Colonel DeLony:
This document transmits the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service)biological and conference
opinion(opinion)based on our review of the proposed beach erosion control and hurricane wave
protection project located on Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County,North Carolina,and its effects on
seabeach amaranth,the West Indian mauatee,loggerhead and green sea turtles,and the Great Lakes,
Atlantic Coast,and Northern Great Plains piping plover populations in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act(Act)of 1973, as amended(16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). We received your
October 17,2000 request for formal consultation on October 20,2000.
This opinion is based on information provided in the June 1997 Environmental Assessment(EA),the
October 1997 Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI),available literature,personal communications,
and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the
Ecological Services Field Office in Raleigh,North Carolina.
Consultation History
On October 17,2000,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)submitted a letter to the Service
requesting initiation of formal consultation and the preparation of an opinion for the proposed beach
erosion control and hurricane wave protection project located on Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County,
North Carolina(hereafter referred to as Ocean Isle Beach Project). Formal consultation concluded on
January 15,2001.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. Description of the Proposed Action
A. Location
The proposedproject is located in and around the vicinity of Shallotte Inlet and Ocean Isle Beach in

Brunswick County,North Carolina. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce average annual
damages along the project area due to hurricanes, extra tropical storms, and beach erosion.
g my i7s nn S i
-
ZD
�— -
s 13
2 Shallotte Inlet
S I 904
Ocean Isle Beach
�F
Atlantic Ocean
O�imi
ykm
B. Project Design
The proposed project consists of dredging Shallotte Inlet using an ocean-certified hydraulic pipeline
dredge and disposing of dredge sediments on Ocean Isle Beach in three main fill segments. Segment 1 is
a dune and berm fill extending approximately 5,150 feet(ft)from Station 51+50 to Station 103+00. The
top of dune elevation is 9.5 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD),with 50-ft wide berm
extending seaward from the dune toe. The constructed dune template will tie into the existing dunes,
with the existing dunes staying in place. The dune template starts 40 ft inland from the natural
vegetation line at elevation 7 ft NGVD. The landward slope of the dune is 5:1 horizontal to vertical,the
top of dune width is 25 ft, and the seaward slope is 10:1 horizontal to vertical. The berm elevation is 7 ft
NGVD. Below 7 ft NGVD,the with-project profile is assumed to parallel the natural profile out to a
closure depth of-26 ft NGVD. Segment 2 is the 50-ft berm portion of the main fill, and extends
approximately 2,600 ft from Station 103+00 to Station 129+00. The berm-only templates (Segment 2
and Segment 3) extend seaward from the existing profile at elevation 7 ft NGVD. Below 7 ft NGVD,the
with-project profile is assumed to parallel the natural profile out to a closure depth of-26 ft NGVD.
Segment 3 is the 25-ft berm segment of the project, and extends approximately 2,400 ft from Station
129+00 to Station 153+00. In addition to the main fill described above,the project includes a 4,200 ft
long transition on the east end,from Station 9+50 to Station 51+50, and a 2,800 ft long transition on the
2

west end,from Station 153+00 to Station 181+00. This gives a total project length (including
transitions)of 17,150 ft or about 3.25 miles.
The constructed dune will be vegetated,including both the foreslope and backslope of the dune. The
vegetation will be comprised of American beach grass(Ammophila bmWligulata)and sea oats(Uniola
paniculata)planted in designated patterns.
Approximately 1.6 million cubic yards(cy)of beach-quality sand are available from Shallotte Inlet for
project construction. The proposed dredging cut for initial construction will follow the natural flow of
the inlet,and will create a 15 ft deep channel with 3:1 horizontal to vertical side slopes measuring
approximately 150 ft wide at the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway(AIWW)and 1,400 ft wide at the bar
channel. An average volume for three-year maintenance sediment disposal is estimated to about 300,700
cy available from Shallotte Inlet.
C. Project Timing and Duration
The proposed work is scheduled to begin in late February or early March 2001 and will require
approximately four to six months to complete, including time for mobilization and demobilization. Each
three-year maintenance sediment disposal cycle will take approximately three months. The life of the
project is 50 years.
D. Conservation Measures
To reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project on Federally-protected species,the Corps has
offered the following conservation measures.
(1) Implement a sea turtle nest monitoring and relocation program between May 1,2001 and
will continue until the end of the nesting season or until all work is completed. A
knowledgeable contractor with current permits will perform the work;
(2) Assure that the entire restored portions of the beach are in permanent public ownership;
(3) Time project to occur during the dormant season(December-May)for seabeach
amaranth. The Corps will annually monitor the project area as part of the Annual
Seabeach Amaranth Monitoring Program and will coordinate work performed during the
seabeach amaranth growing season with the Service;
(4) Monitor beach compaction and escarpments and conduct tilling and grading,if
necessary,immediately following the beach disposal operation. If tilling or grading of
escarpments are necessary in the interim,the work will be performed by Ocean Isle
Beach;
(5) Implement a shoreline monitoring program to determine if any modifications in project
operation are necessary to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent beaches;and,
(6) Extend wooden walkways to the beach at public beach access points within the limits of
the proposed project.
H. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat
A. Species/Critical Habitat Description
3

Seabeach Amaranth
Seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus)was listed as threatened under the Act on April 7, 1993 (58
FR 18035), The species currently ranges from South Carolina to New York;although,North Carolina is
presently considered a stronghold for the species(Weakley and Bucher, 1992). There is no designation
of critical habitat for seabeach amaranth.
West Indian Manatee
The West Indian manatee(THchechus manatus)was listed as endangered under a law that preceded the
Act on March 11, 1967(32 FR 4001). Additional Federal protection is provided for this species under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended(16U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.). The manatee
population in the United States is confined during the winter months to the coastal waters of the southern
half of peninsular Florida and to springs and warm water out-falls as far north as southeast Georgia
(USFWS, 1996c). However,during the summer months,they may migrate as far north as coastal
Virginia on the East Coast and Louisiana on the Gulf of Mexico. Manatee populations also exist outside
the continental United States in coastal areas of the Caribbean and Central and South America(Odell,
1982). There is no critical habitat designated for the West Indian manatee in North Carolina.
Sea Turtles
Of the sea turtle species that are found in United States waters or that nest on United States beaches,only
the loggerhead and green sea turtle have nested on beaches in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The loggerhead sea turtle(Caretta caretta),listed as threatened under the Act on July 28, 1978(43 FR
32800),inhabits the continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic,
Pacific,and Indian Oceans. Loggerhead sea turtles nest within the continental United States from
Louisiana to Virginia. Major nesting concentrations inthe United States are found on the coastal islands
of North Carolina, South Carolina,and Georgia and along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida
(Hopkins and Richardson,1984). There is no critical habitat designated for the loggerhead sea turtle in
North Carolina.
The green sea turtle(Chelonia mydas)was listed under the Act on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800).
Breeding populations of the green sea turtle in Florida and along the Pacific coast of Mexico are listed as
endangered;all other populations are listed as threatened This species has a worldwide distribution in
tropical and subtropical waters. Major green sea turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on
Ascension Island,Aves Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam. Atlantic Green turtles nest in small numbers in
the U.S.Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico,and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida(NUTS
and USFWS, 1991a). Green turtles have also been known to nest in Georgia(Georgia Department of
Natural Resources,unpubl.data),but only on rare occasions,and sporadically in South Carolina(South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources,unpubl. data)and North Carolina(North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission,unpubl. data). There is no critical habitat designated for Atlantic green turtles in
North Carolina.
Piping Plover
The piping plover(Charadrius melodus)breeds in only three geographic regions of North America—the
4

Great Lakes,the Northern Great Plains,and the Atlantic Coast. The Great Lakes population was
designated as endangered and the Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations were designated
as threatened under the Act on December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726). Piping plovers from all three
breeding populations winter along southern Atlantic,Gulf Coast,and Caribbean beaches and barrier
islands,where they are classified as threatened under the Act. The Service proposed to designate critical
habitat for wintering piping plovers on July 6,2000(65 FR 41782).
In 1986,the Service appointed two recovery teams to develop recovery plans for the Atlantic Coast
(USFWS, 1988a; 1996a)and Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains(USFWS, 1988b; 1994)breeding
populations. Responsibility for recovery of the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains populations was
subsequently divided, and separate revised recovery plans for those two populations are currently in
preparation(USFWS,2000b). The recovery plan for the Atlantic Coast plover identifies four recovery
units-New England(Maine to Rhode Island),New York-New Jersey,Southern(Delaware,Maryland,
Virginia,North Carolina),and Atlantic Canada—for management and recovery purposes(USFWS,
1996a).
B. Life History
Seabeach Amaranth
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant that grows on Atlantic barrier islands and ocean beaches,primarily
in disturbed areas such as overwash flats,accreting areas near inlets,and on lower foredunes and upper
strands of noneroding beaches,and may serve as a dune-building pioneer species. The stems are fleshy
and pink-red or reddish,with small rounded leaves that are 0.5 to 1.0 inches(1.3 to 2.5 cm)in diameter.
The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the stem,are normally a spinach-green color,and have a small
notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous,borne in clusters along the
stems. Germination occurs over a relatively long period of time,generally from April to July. Upon
germinating,this plant initially forms a small unbranched sprig,but soon begins to branch profusely into
a clump. This clump often reaches a foot(0.3 m)in diameter and consists of 5 to 20 branches.
Occasionally,a clump may get as large as three ft(09 m)or more across,with 100 or more branches.
Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size,sometimes as early as June,but more
typically commencing in July and continuing until the death of the plant in late fall. Seed production
begins in July or August;it reaches a peak in September during most years,but continues until the death
of the plant. Weather events,including rainfall,hurricanes,and temperature extremes,and predation by
webworms have strong effects on the length of seabeach amaranth's reproductive season. As a result of
one or more of these influences,the flowering and fruiting period can be terminated as early as June or
July. Under favorable circumstances,however,the reproductive season may extend until January or
sometimes later(Radford et al., 1968;Bucher and Weakley, 1990;Weakley and Bucher, 1992).
West Indian Manatee
The West Indian Manatee is an aquatic mammal that primarily consumes aquatic vegetation such as
seagrasses and bank grasses;however,they will occasionally feed on fish. Manatees may spend about
five hours a day feeding,and may consume 4 to 9 percent of their body weight a day(USFWS, 1995).
Adult manatees average about 11 ft long(3.5 m)and weigh as much as 2,200 lbs. (998 kg)(USFWS,
1996c). Males and females are similar in size and appearance,but are distinguished by the position of
5

the genital openings and the presence or absence of mammary glands.
Observations of mating herds indicate that females mate with a number of males during their two-to
four-week estrus period,and then they go through a pregnancy estimated to last 12 to 14 months
(USFWS, 1996c). Births occur during all months of the year with a slight drop during the winter.
Mature females may give birth to a single calf every two to five years,but 1.5 percent of births are twins.
Calves reach sexual maturity at three to six years of age.The only long-term, stable bond between
manatees is that between a cow and her calf. Weaning generally occurs between nine and 24 months of
age,although a cow and calf may continue to associate with each other for several more years. There is
little information on the life-time reproductive output of females,although ihey may live over 50 years
(Odell, 1982).
Sea Turtles
During the nesting season(May through October)female sea turtles come ashore to lay their eggs in pits
excavated using their fore and rear flippers. Females lay from 50 to 120 eggs per nest that will incubate
for about 50 to 70 days before hatching. Hatchlings proceed to the water and will swim offshore until
they reach the safety of protective floating seaweed. There they will remain until they reach a certain age
or size at which time they return to nearshore waters. When they reach reproductive age,adult females
return to the same beaches where they were hatched to lay their eggs. The large numbers of offspring
produced help compensate for the high natural mortality of the young during their first several years of
life.
Adult loggerheads average three ft(92 cm)in length and weigh an average of 2501bs.(113 kg).
Hatchlings measure approximately 1.75 inches (45 mn)in length and weigh approximately three quarters
of an ounce(20 g). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be about 20 to 30 years(Turtle Expert Working
Group, 1998). Mating takes place in late March-early June,and eggs are laid throughout the summer.
Loggerheads are known to nest from one to seven times within a nesting season(Talbert et al., 1980;
Lenarz et al., 1981;Richardson and Richardson, 1995);the mean is approximately 4.1 (Murphy and
Hopkins, 1984). The internesting interval varies around a mean of about 4.1 days(Dodd, 1988). Mean
clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern United States coast(NMFS and USFWS,
1991b). Remigration intervals of two to three years are most common in loggerheads,but the number
can vary from one to seven years(Dodd, 1988).
Adult green sea turtles commonly reach a size greater than three ft(1 m)in length and weigh 330 lbs.
(150 kg). Hatchlings weigh nearly an ounce(25 g)and are about two inches(50 mm)long. Age at
sexual maturity is estimated at 20 to 50 years(Hirth, 1997). Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine
clutches within a nesting season,but the overall average is about 3.3 clutches. The internesting interval
varies around a mean of 13 days(Hirth, 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations;
average clutch size reported for Florida was 136 eggs in 130 clutches(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989).
Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive yeas. Usually two,three,four,or more
years intervene between breeding seasons(NNIFS and USFWS, 1991a).
Piping Plover
Piping plovers are small,sand-colored shorebirds approximately seven inches(17 cm)long with a
wingspan of about 15 inches(38 cm)(Palmer, 1967). Breeding birds have a single black breastband,a
6

black bar across the forehead,bright orange legs and bill,and a black tip on the bill. During winter,the
birds lose the black bands, the legs fade to pale yellow,and the bill becomes mostly black.
Great Lakes piping plovers nest on sparsely vegetated beaches,cobble pans,or sand spits of sand dune
ecosystems along the Great Lakes shorelines. 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 in the Northern Great Plains make their nests on sand
flats or bare shorelines of rivers and lakes,including sparsely vegetated sandbar on the upper Missouri
River system,and patches of sand,gravel,or pebbly-mud on the alkali lakes. Piping plovers from all
three breeding populations winter along South Atlantic,Gulf Coast,and Caribbean beaches and barrier
islands,primarily on intertidal beaches with sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse vegetation.
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. Plovers depart for the wintering grounds from mid-July through late October. 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 provides shelter from wind and extreme
temperatures.
C. Status and Distribution
Seabeach Amaranth
Seabeach amaranth is currently known from 13 populations in New York, 34 populations in North
Carolina,and eight populations in South Carolina(USFWS, 1996b). Seabeach amaranth has been
eliminated from two-thirds of its historic range,and most of the remaining populations are small and
vulnerable to extirpation. North Carolina has the only remaining large populations(Weakley and
Bucher, 1992).
Reason for Listing Seabeach amaranth has been and continues to be threatened by destruction or
adverse alteration of its habitat, and as a fugitive species dependent on a dynamic landscape and
large-scale geophysical processes,it is extremely vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and isolation of
small populations. Further,because this species is easily recognizable and accessible,it is vulnerable to
taking,vandalism,and the incidental trampling by curiosity seekers. No evidence of disease has been
seen in seabeach amaranth;however,predation by webworms is a major source of mortality and lowered
fecundity. Seabeach amaranth is afforded legal protection in North Carolina by the General Statutes of
North Carolina, Secs. 106-202.15, 106-202.19(N.C.Gen. Stat. section 106(Supp. 1991)),which
provide for protection from intrastate trade(without a permit).
7

Historically,seabeach amaranth occurred in 31 counties in 9 States from Massachusetts to South
Carolina. It has been eliminated from six of the States in its historic range. Most of the remaining
populations are small,and the species appears vulnerable to extirpation in two(South Carolina and New
York)of the three States in which it remains.
Range-wide Trend: In September of 1989,Hurricane Hugo struck the Atlantic coast near Charleston,
South Carolina,causing extensive flooding and erosion north to Cape Fear,North Carolina,with less
severe effects extending northward throughout the range of seabeach amaranth. This was followed by
several severe Northeasters in the winter of 1989-1990 and by Hurricane Bertha in the late summer of
1990. These last storms,although not as significant as Hurricane Hugo,caused substantial erosion of
many barrier islands in the heart of seabeach amaranth's remaining range. The 1990 surveys revealed
that the effects of these climatic events were substantial(Weakley and Bucher, 1992).
In the Carolinas,populations of amaranth were severely reduced. In South Carolina,where the effects of
Hurricane Hugo and subsequent dune reconstruction were extensive,amaranth numbers went from 1,800
in 1988 to 188 in 1990,a reduction of90 percent. A 74 percent reduction in amaranthnumbers occurred
in-North Carolina,from 41,851 plants in 1988 to 10,898 in 1990. Although population numbers in New
York increased in 1990,range-wide totals were reduced 76 percent from 1988 (Weakley and Bucher,
1992).
Most of the largest remaining populations are located on publicly owned land,including Cape Hatteras
and Cape Lookout National Seashores,inNorth Carolina. At these sites,the plants are being protected
from beach armoring and shoreline stabilization,the single most serious threat to the species'continued
existence. Off-road vehicle traffic has also been routed around areas where plants are growing on
National Park Service lands. Collection and storage of seeds and plant material has begun in cooperation
with the Center for Plant Conservation and its member gardens.
New Threats. The most serious threats to this species' continued existence are construction of beach
stabilization structures,natural and man-induced beach erosion and tidal inundation,fungi(i.e.,white
wilt),beach grooming,herbivory by insects and feral animals,and off-road vehicles.
West Indian Manatee
Reason for Listing: The manatee population was probably more abundant in the 18'or 19`b century than
today. Initial population decreases probably resulted from overharvesting for meat,oil,and skins
(USFWS, 1980). Today hunting is prohibited and is not considered a problem,although there is an
occasional incidence of poaching. Heavy mortality does occur,however,from accidental collisions with
boats and barges,and from canal lock operations. Another closely related factor in the decline of the
species has been the loss of suitable habitat through incompatible coastal development,particularly the
destruction of seagrass beds. The combination of high mortality rates and low reproductive rates have
led to serious doubts about the species'ability to survive in the United States.
Range-wide Trend: Manatee population trends are poorly known and determining exact population
estimates is difficult(USFWS, 1996c). Aerial surveys,a common method of determining population
numbers,may not be an accurate account of trends(USFWS,1999). For example,surveys conducted in
February, 1996 determined that 2,639 manatees were in Florida's waters. In 1997,surveys in January
and February determined that 2,229 and 1,709 individuals,respectively,were present. Further,there was
8

no evidence of increase or decrease in the population numbers between the 1970s and 1980s(USFWS,
1999). Because of the variation and uncertainty in surveying(i.e.,manatee behavior,surveying
methodology,weather conditions,etc.),it is difficult to correlate population estimates with population
trends.
Despite the lack of accurate estimates,human activities have significantly affected manatees. Modifying
suitable habitat,altering migratory routes,and increasing mortality affect manatee reproduction,
distribution,recruitment,and behavior. For example,mortalities from collisions with watercraft
increased approximately 640 percent from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s(USFWS, 1999). In addition
to direct impacts,secondary effects from boating include such stresses as disruption of normal breeding
behavior,disruption of cow-calf bonding,interference with migration routes and patterns,and the loss of
feeding areas. Overall,human-related activities have accounted for about 50 percent of all manatee
deaths in Florida during the last 25 years(USFWS, 1999).
New Threats Brevetoxins from periodic blooms of dinoflagellates(Gymnodinium brevii),commonly
referred to as red tide,have been associated with recent manatee die-offs. Future outbreaks could be
detrimental to the species if not controlled,but the cause ofred tide is currently unknown. Other threats
include natural catastrophic events such as low temperatures and hurricanes. However,collisions with
watercraft,harassment by divers,boaters,and fisherman,and loss or degradation of seagrass beds remain
the most serious threats to the manatee(USFWS, 1999).
In Puerto Rico,the primary cause of manatee mortality seems to be from entanglement in gill nets.
Collisions with boats and illegal killing of manatees for food may also be affecting the Puerto Rican
population to some extent,but supporting data are limited.
Sea Turtles
Both Species
Reason for Listing There are many threats to sea turtles,including nest destruction by natural events,
such as tidal surges and hurricanes,or eggs lost to predation by raccoons,ghost-crabs,and other animals.
However,human activity has significantly contributed to the decline of sea turtle populations along the
Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico(NRC, 1990). These factors include the modification,
degradation,or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development,artificial lighting,beach driving,and
marine pollution and debris. Furthermore,the overbarvest of eggs for food,intentional killing of adults
and immature turtles for their shells and skin,and accidental drowning in commercial fishing gear are
primarily responsible for the worldwide decline in sea turtle populations.
Range-wide Trend:
Loggerhead Sea Turtles
Total estimated loggerhead nesting in the southeastern United States is approximately 50,000 to 70,000
nests per year(NMFS and USFWS, 1991b). From a global perspective,the southeastern United States
nesting aggregation of loggerhead sea turtles is important to the survival ofthe species and is second in
size only to that which nests on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman(]Ehrhart, 1989;NMFS and USFWS,
1991b;Ross, 1995). The status of the Oman colony has not been evaluated recently,but its location in a
9

part of the world that is vulnerable to disruptive events(e.g.,political upheavals,wars,catastrophic oil
spills)is cause for considerable concern(Meylan et al., 1995). The loggerhead nesting aggregations in
Oman,the southeastem United States,and Australia account for about 88 percent of nesting worldwide
(NMFS and USFWS, 1991b).
Genetic analyses using restriction fragment analysis and direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA)have been employed to resolve management units-among loggerhead nesting cohorts of the
southeastern United States(Bowen et al., 1993;Encalada et al., 1998). Assays of nest samples from
North Carolina to the Florida Panhandle have identified three genetically distinct nesting populations: (1)
Northem subpopulation—North Carolina to Cape Canaveral,Florida; (2) South Florida subpopulation—
Cape Canaveral around to Sarasota,Florida;and, (3)Northwest Florida subpopulation—Eglin Air Force
Base and the beaches around Panama City,Florida. These data indicate that gene flow between the three
populations is very low. If nesting females are extirpated from one of these regions,regional dispersal
will not be sufficient to replenish the depleted nesting population(Bowen et al., 1993).
In the United States,the Northern subpopulation of loggerheads has declined since the early 1970s,but
most of that decline occurred prior to 1979. There has been no significant trend in recent years(Turtle
Expert Working Group, 1998;2000),and annual nesting in North Carolina has ranged from 457 to 1140
nests since 1989. Adult loggerheads of the South Florida subpopulation have shown significant increases
over the last 25 years,suggesting the population is recovering,although the trend could not be detected
from the State of Florida's Index Nesting Beach Survey program from 1989 to 1998. However,an
increase in the numbers of adult loggerheads has been reported in recent years in Florida waters without
a concomitant increase in benthic immatures. These data may forecast limited recruitment to South
Florida nesting beaches in the future. Nesting surveys in the Northwest Florida subpopulation have been
too irregular to date to allow for a meaningful trend analysis(Turtle Expert Working Group, 1998;2000).
Since loggerheads take approximately 20 to 30 years to mature,the effects of decline in immature
loggerheads might not be apparent on nesting beaches for decades.
Loggerhead populations in Honduras,Mexico,Colombia,Israel,Turkey,Bahamas,Cuba,Greece,Japan,
and Panama have also been declining. This decline continues and is primarily attributed to shrimp
trawling,coastal development,increased human use of nesting beaches,and pollution.
Green Sea Turtles
The primary nesting sites in United States Atlantic waters are along the east coast of Florida,with
additional sites in the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Total population estimates for the
green sea turtle are unavailable,and trends based on nesting data are particularly difficult to assess
because of wide year-to-year fluctuations in numbers of nesting females,difficulties of conducting
research on early life stages,and long generation time. For instance,in Florida,where the majority of
green turtle nesting in the southeastern United States occurs,estimates range from200 to 1,100 females
nesting annually. Since 1989,the number of green sea turtle nests in North Carolina has ranged from 0
to 23.
In the United States Pacific,over 90 percent of nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the
French Frigate Shoals,where about 200 to 700 females nest each year. Elsewhere in the United States
Pacific,nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,Guam,
and American Samoa. In the western Pacific,the largest green sea turtle nesting aggregation in the world
occurs on Raine Island,Australia,where thousands of females nest nightly in an average nesting season.
10

In the Indian Ocean,major nesting beaches occur in Oman,where 6,000 to 20,000 females are reported
to nest annually. Populations in Surinam, and Tortuguero,Costa Rica,may be stable,but there is
insufficient data for other areas to confirm a trend
Both Species
New Threats: The most serious threats to the loggerhead and green sea turtles'continued existence are
incidental take from channel dredging and commercial trawling longline,and gill net fisheries;the loss
and degradation of nesting habitat from continued and future coastal development and beach
stabilization; sediment disposal on beaches and beach grooming;disorientation of hatchlings by
beachfront lighting;increased recreational activities on the beach(e.g.,off-road vehicles);excessive nest
predation by native and non-native predators;degradation of foraging habitat;marine pollution and
debris;watercraft strikes; and disease. There is particular concern about the extensive incidental take of
juvenile loggerheads in the eastern Atlantic by longline fishing vessels from several countries.
Another major factor contributing to the green sea turtle's decline worldwide is commercial harvest for
eggs and food. Fibropapillomatosis,a disease of sea turtles characterized by the development of multiple
tumors on the skin and internal organs,is also a mortality factor and has seriously impacted green sea
turtle populations in Florida,Hawaii,and other parts of the world. The tumors interfere with swimming,
eating,breathing,vision,and reproduction, and turtles with heavy tumor burdens become severely
debilitated and die.
Piping Plover
Reasons for Listing: Hunting during the 19"'and early 20'b centuries likely led to initial declines in the
species;however,shooting piping plovers has been prohibited since the 1918 pursuant to the provisions
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 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
Range-wide Trend: Two range-wide population surveys have been conducted for the piping plover;the
1991 (Haig and Plissner, 1992)and 1996 International Piping Plover Censuses(Plissner and Haig, 1997).
These surveys were completed to help determine the species distribution and to rmnitor progress toward
recovery.
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,Canada. Russell(1983)reviewed historical
records to estimate the pre-settlement populations of the plover throughout this range. While estimates
may be high for some Great Lakes states,no other historic estimates are available. Total population
estimates ranged from 492 to 682 breeding pairs in the Great Lakes region;Michigan alone may have had
the most with as many as 215 pairs.
The endangered Great Lakes population is at a perilously low level. From an all-time low of 12 nesting
pairs in 1990,the population has increased to 32 nesting pairs in 1999,then declined again to 30 pairs in
2000,but has not increased significantly since listing. During this period most nesting occurred in
Michigan,but in 1998,and again in 1999, one pair nested along the Lake Superior shoreline in
11

Wisconsin.
Reproduction is adversely affected by human disturbance of nesting areas and predation by foxes,gulls,
crows and other predators. Shoreline development, such as the construction of marinas and breakwaters,
has adversely affected nesting andbrood rearing in this population. As with other populations,unleashed
dogs and feral cats may harass and kill the birds.
Atlantic Coast Population
The Atlantic Coast piping plover breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and southeastern
Quebec,Canada to North Carolina. Piping plovers were comrmn along the Atlantic Coast during much
of the 19th century,but nearly disappeared due to excessive hunting for the millinery trade. Following
passage of the Migratory Bird Treat Act in 1918,numbers recovered to a 20th century peak which
occurred during the 1940's. The current population decline is attributed to increased development and
recreational use of beaches since the end of World War II.
The Atlantic Coast piping plover population has increased from 790 pairs since listing to 1,386 pairs in
1999(USFWS,2000a). However,it is important to note that the increase is very unevenly distributed,
with most pairs occurring in New England,and can be partially attributed to increased survey efforts,
especially in the southern balf of the species'range(USFWS, 1996a). From 1986 to 1994,the Southern
recovery unit increased from 158 to 217 nesting pairs,then declined to 182 pairs in 1999. The recovery
objective for the Atlantic Coast population and the Southern recovery unit is 2,000 and 400 breeding
pairs,respectively(USFWS, 1996a).
The recovery plan(LJSFWS, 1996a)cites a population viability analysis(Melvin and Gibbs, 1994)that
states:
.The modeled scenario that most closely approximates the current status of the Atlantic coast
piping plover population—1,200 to 1,500 pair populations with average productivity of 1.25
chicks per pair—showed,respectively,extinction probabilities of 35%and.31%over 100 years,
and 95%and 92%probabilities of the population dropping below 500 pairs during the same time
period."
Attainment of the subpopulation goal for the Southern recovery unit is particularly important because of
its current small size and sparse distribution over large geographic areas(USFWS, 1996a).
A growing body of information shows that overwash-created and-perpetuated habitats,including inlets
that are not artificially stabilized,inlets that have recently closed and remain undeveloped,and moist
sparsely vegetated barrier flats are especially important to piping plover productivity and carrying
capacity(Wilcox, 1959;Cairns, 1982; Strauss, 1990;Burger, 1994; Goldin andRegosin, 1998;Elias et
al.,2000). In the Southern recovery unit,productivity and carrying capacity of Atlantic Coast piping
plover breeding habitat is especially dependent on the availability of overwasbes and naturally
functioning inlets. Loegering and Fraser(1995)found that chicks on Assateague Island,Maryland that
were able to reach bay beaches and the island interior had significantly higher fledgling rates than those
that foraged solely on the ocean beach. Higher foraging rates,percentage of time spent foraging and
abundance of terrestrial arthropods on the bay beach and interior island habitats supported their
hypothesis that foraging resources in interior and bayside habitats are key to reproductive rates on that
site. Their management recommendations stressed the importance of sparsely vegetated cross-island
12

access routes maintained by overwash,and the need to restrict or mitigate activities that reduce natural
disturbance during storms. Dramatic increases in plover productivity and breeding population on
Assateague since the 1991-92 advent of large overwash events corroborate Loegering and Fraser's
conclusions. Piping plover productivity,which had averaged 0.77 chicks per pair during the five years
before the overwash,posted an average of 1.67 chicks per pair in the years 1992 to 1996. The nesting
population on the northern 5.0 miles of the island also grew rapidly, doubling by 1995 and tripling by
1996,when 61 pairs nested there(Maclvor, 1996). Habitat use data continues to show predominant use
of interior and bayside habitats(NPS andMDNR, 1993-1997). Furthermore,another 11.8-mile section
of Assateague Island,where effects of artificial dunes remained visible until the winter of 1997-98,25 to
30 years after the National Park Service abandoned dune maintenance, supported only nine plover nests
and fledged three chicks over the six years of 1992 to 1997 (MDNR, 1993;NPS and MDNR,
1993-1997). A recently formulated restoration project for northern Assateague Island has a design
criterion of allowing approximately one major overwash eventper year(Hecht and Moser, 1998).
In Virginia,Watts et al. (undated)found that piping plovers nesting on 13 barrier islands from 1986 to
1988 were not evenly distributed along the islands. Beach segments used by plovers had wider and more
heterogenous beaches,fewer stable dunes,greater open access to bayside foraging areas,and in closer
proximity to mud flats. They note that characteristics of beaches selected by plovers are maintained by
frequent storm disturbance.
The breeding piping plover population in North Carolina dropped to a 12-year low of only 24 pairs in
2000(D.Allen,NCWRC,in lift.),compared with a post-listing high of 55 pairs in 1990. This is
consistent with very poor productivity in North Carolina,averaging 0.49 chicks per pair 1990-1999,
compared with 1.33 chicks per pair for the entire United States Atlantic Coast during the same period
(USFWS, 2000a), and well below the 1.5 chicks per pair recovery criterion in the Atlantic Coast recovery
plan(USFWS, 1996a). Concerns about the declining North Carolina breeding population are heightened
by the piping plover situation in southern Virginia(south of Cedar Island),where the breeding population
has plummeted from 29 pairs in 1995 to only 4 pairs in 2000. Overall,the North Carolina breeding
population appears to be in a precarious situation.
A consistent finding of all analyses ofthe demographic factors affecting the persistence and/or extinction
of piping plover populations(Ryan et al., 1993;Melvin and Gibbs, 1994;Plissner and Haig,2000)is that
vulnerability to extinction is greatly increased by even small declines in survival rates. Modeling by
Melvin and Gibbs(1994),for example, showed approximately four fold increases in the likelihood of
extinction of the Atlantic Coast piping plover population when survival rates of adults and juveniles
declined by as little as 5 and 10 percent,respectively,and other parameters were held constant'. Since
piping plovers spend 55 to 80 percent of their annual cycle associated with wintering areas,factors that
affect their well-being on the wintering grounds will substantially affect their survival and recovery
(USFWS, 1996a).
North Great Plains Population
The Northern Great Plains plover breeds from Alberta to Manitoba,Canada and south to Nebraska; .
1 Simulations referenced involved population sizes from 1,200 to 2,000 pairs with an average productivity
of 1.5 chicks per pair. Probabifity that thepopulation would drop below 500 pairs also increased substantially,for
example,from 55 to 97 percent for a 1,200 pair population. It should be noted that average 1990-1999 productivity
on the U.S.Atlantic Coast was only 1.3 3 chicks per pair.
13

although some nesting has recently occurred in Oklahoma. Currently the most westerly breeding piping
plovers in the United States occur in Montana and Colorado. According to the last breeding census
(Plissner and Haig, 1997),the Northern Great Plains population is the largest of the three breeding
populations,numbering approximately 1398 breeding pairs.
The decline the Northern Great Plains population has been attributed to the construction and operations
of dams on rivers that result in the loss of sandbar habitat. Reservoirs created by the dams have flooded
much of the rivers' natural sandbar habitats,although birds can use shorelines of reservoirs where
appropriate substrates exist. However,unless reservoirs are managed to preclude vegetation in some
years nesting habitat is minimized. Dam operations for purposes other than plover nesting may cause
sandbar/island habitat inundation or flooding ofnests. Too much water in the spring floods nests;
whereas,dams operated with steady constant flows over a long period of time allows grasses and other
vegetation to grow on the prime nesting islands,making these sites unsuitable for successful nesting.
Population declines in alkali wetlands are attributed to wetland drainage, contaminants,and predation.
Ryan et al. (1993)developed a stochastic population growth model using empirical,demographic data,
and that model indicated that the Great Plains population of the piping plover was declining seven
percent annually. Unchecked,that decline would result in extirpation in approximately 80 years.
Furthermore,the model showed that as little as a five percent increase in the annual rate of adult
mortality would increase the rate of decline in that population by 38 percent. Holding adult and
immature survival rates constant,the model also projected fledge rates needed to stabilize the population,
including what might happen with delays in initiation of population growth. The model results indicated
the Great Plains plover population was undergoing a substantial decline.
From 1991 to 1996,the Northern Great Plains(United States and Canada)piping plover numbers
declined by five percent. However,when you look at the United States portion of the Northern Great
Plains population alone,piping plover numbers declined by 24 percent. This decline closely matches the
Ryan et al. (1993)model.
All Populations-Migrating and Wintering
Piping plovers from all three breeding populations primarily winter along the South Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts beaches and barrier island from North Carolina to Texas,although some migrate to the Bahamas
and West Indies. The highest concentration of birds reported in winter censuses are found in Texas,
Louisiana,and Florida. However,only 63 percent of the breeding birds counted in 1991 were reported
during the winter census, suggesting that important wintering areas are still unknown throughout this
region. Wintering and migrating piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast are generally found at the accreting
ends of barrier islands,along sandy peninsulas,and near coastal inlets. Wintering piping plovers appear
to prefer sand flats adjacent to inlets or passes,sandy mud flats along prograding spits,and overwash
areas as foraging habitats. These substrate types may have a richer infauna than the foreshore of high
energy beaches and often attract large numbers of shorebirds. Roosting plovers are generally found
along inlet and adjacent ocean and estuarine shorelines and their associated berms and on nearby exposed
tidal flats(Fussell, 1990;Nicholls and Baldassarre, 1990b). Diverse coastal systems may be especially
attractive to plovers and may concentrate wintering piping plovers when roosting and feeding areas are
adjacent(Nicholls and Baldassarre, 1990b).
While piping plover migration patterns and needs remain poorly understood and occupancy of a
particular habitat may involve shorter periods of time relative to wintering or breeding,information about
14

the energetics of avian migration indicates that this might be a particularly critical time in the species'
life cycle. The possibility of lower survival rates for Atlantic Coast piping plovers breeding at higher
latitudes(based on relationships between population trends and productivity)suggest that migration
stress may substantially affect survival rates of this species(Anne Hecht,USFWS,pers.comet.). In
addition,observations suggest that this species exhibits a high degree of nest site fidelity(Wilcox, 1959;
Haig, 1985;Haig and Oring, 1988).
Migratory and winter residents occur along the North Carolina coast from early August to late May
(Potter et al., 1980). Unfortunately,survey efforts to date outside the breeding season have been
extremely limited. Three statewide surveys for wintering piping plovers in North Carolina were
conducted—January 1987 (Nicholls and Baldassarre, 1990a),January 1991 (Haig and Plissner, 1992),
and January 1996(Plissner and Haig,1997);statewide counts from these surveys were 50 birds in 1987,
20 birds in 1991,and 50.birds in 1996. While fairly comprehensive in geographic scope,these surveys
represent only a single visit to each site. Furthermore, they were designed to capture wintering activity,
rather than use by migrating plover which might be more important to the Atlantic Coast population in
North Carolina.
The source population of a piping plover seen outside its breeding range can only be determined if it has
been banded. Furthermore,the probability of sighting banded birds from a given breeding population is
biased by the size of the breeding population,the proportion of banded birds,and the intensity of survey
effort in the wintering/migration areas. While the vast majority of overwintering birds are likely to be
from the largely unbanded Atlantic Coast population,individuals from the Great Lakes and Northern
Great Plains populations have been documented in North Carolina. Overwintering birds from the Great
Lakes population have been seen on the Outer Banks(south of Oregon Inlet,November 3,2000,reported
by M.Hannisian). It is noteworthy that 24 of 39 confirmed individual plovers from the Great Lakes
population sighted on the wintering grounds between fall 1993 and spring 1999 were found on the
Atlantic Coast Piping plovers from the Northern Great Plains population have also been documented in
North Carolina. Pooled sightings of banded plovers from the 1991 International Census and earlier
reports included 26 piping plovers(14percent of sightings)from inland breeding populations wintering
in North and South Carolina(Haig and Plissner, 1992),while 84 percent of 49 sightings of banded
plovers occurred on the southern Atlantic Coast. Sightings of plovers banded in Atlantic Canada are
consistent with this pattern(e.g.,recent sighting of the plovers on southern Figure Eight Island on
December 29,2000,and on January 13,2001,by D. Carter, Southern Environmental Law Center,pers.
comm.;D.Amirault,Canadian Wildlife Service,in lift.).
All Populations
New Threats. Many future threats to this species' continued existence are similar to the current
problems,including increased human and pets disturbance,increased recreational pressures,increased
development of beaches and shorelines,the construction of beach stabilization structures,and the
prevention of overwash-created and-perpetuated habitats.
Barrier beach habitats preferred by both breeding and wintering piping plovers are dynamic,
storm-maintained ecosystems, and much of this species'historic habitat along the Atlantic Coast has been
destroyed or permanently degraded by development and human use. The construction of houses and
commercial buildings on and adjacent to barrier beaches directly removes plover habitat and results in
increased human disturbance. The impacts of shoreline development are often greatly expanded by the
attendant concerns for protecting access roads. While legal restrictions on coastal development may slow
15

the future pace of physical habitat destruction,the trend in habitat availability for this species is down.
A more subtle threat to the plover is the decrease in the suitability of the species'habitat due to
accelerating recreational activity and development along the Atlantic Coast. Habitat loss occurs when
suitable nesting sites are made unusable because high human and/or animal use precludes the birds from
successfully nesting. Habitat loss can also occur when important wintering habitats are made unusable
by increased man-made activities and operations(i.e.,sand disposal,inlet dredging,etc.)which cause
birds to flee protective habitats and use valuable energy reserves.
Human population growth along the United States coast creates an ever increasing demand for beach
recreation. In 1993 only 32 percent of the U. S.Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers nested on
Federally-owned beaches where at least some protection from development can be afforded. The
remaining 68 percent of the birds nested on State,Town,or privately-owned beaches where they face
increasing disturbance from recreationists and development. The situation in the plover's Atlantic Coast
wintering range is similar; 37 percent of the shoreline recently proposed for designation as critical habitat
for wintering piping plovers in North Carolina, South Carolina,and Georgia is Federally-owned,while
63 percent is in State and private ownership(65 FR 41782). Pressure from development and human
disturbance on Atlantic Coast beach habitat continues,and the recovery plan emphasizes that piping
plover habitat protection efforts must recognize and seek to perpetuate the natural dynamism of these
barrier systems(USFWS, 1996a).
The Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan(USFWS, 1996a)calls for the protection of all known
wintering habitat by preventing habitat degradation and disturbance,including direct and indirect
impacts of shoreline stabilization,navigation projects, and development,disturbance by recreationists
and their pets,and contamination and degradation due to oil or chemical spills. In addition,the plan
addresses the need to identify important migration stop-over habitat and mitigate any factors that may
adversely affect these areas. Factors that must be considered include: (1)energetic depletion due to
displacement ofbirds as a result of disturbance,even if alternative habitats are available; and, (2) short-
and long-term effects on prey availability that can extend effects on habitat quality long after the
completion of a given action.
D. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected
Barrier islands and inlets are complex and dynamic coastal systems that are continually responding to
sediment supply,waves,and fluctuations in sea level. The location and shape of the beaches of barrier
islands perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Waves that strike a barrier island at an angle,for
instance, generate a longshore current that carries sediment along the shoreline. Cross-shore currents
carry sediment perpendicular to the shoreline. Wind moves sediment across the dry beach,dunes and
island interior. During storm events,overwash may breach the island at dune gaps or other weak spots,
depositing sediments on the interior and back sides ofislands,increasing island elevation and accreting
the soundside shoreline.
Tidal inlets play a vital role in the dynamics and processes of barrier islands. Sediment is transferred
across inlets from island to island via the tidal shoals or deltas. The longshore sediment transport often
causes barrier spits to accrete,shifting inlets towards the neighboring island. Flood tidal shoals that are
left behind by the migrating inlet are typically incorporated into the soundside shoreline and marshes of
the island,widening it considerably. Many inlets have a cycle of inlet migration,breaching of the barrier
16

spit during a storm,and closure of the old inlet with the new breach becoming the new inlet. Barrier
spits tend to be low in elevation,sparse in vegetation,and repeatedly submerged by high and storm tides.
Seabeach Amaranth
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect seabeach amaranth within the proposed project
area. The effects of the proposed action on seabeach amaranth will be considered further in the
remaining sections of this opinion. Potential effects include burying,trampling,or injuring plants as a
result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities;burying seeds to a depth that would
prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; and,
destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational activities.
West Indian Manatee
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect West Indian manatees within the proposed
project area. The effects of the proposed action on West Indian manatees will be considered further in
the remaining sections of this opinion. Potential effects include the injuring or killing of manatees
resulting from collisions with boats as a result of dredging operations.
Sea Turtles
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect nesting females,nests,and hatchling loggerhead
and green sea turtles within the proposed project area. The effects of the proposed action on sea turtles
will be considered further in the remaining sections of this opinion. Potential effects include destruction
of nests deposited within the boundaries of the proposed project;harassment in the form of disturbing or
interfering with females attempting to nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result
of construction activities;disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the construction area
as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of project lighting;and,behavior
modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the project area during a nesting
season resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal cr unsuitable nesting areas to
deposit eggs. The quality of the placed sand could affect the ability of female turtles to nest,the
suitability of the nest incubation environment, and the ability of hatchlings to emerge from the nest.
Piping Plover
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect nesting piping plovers,nests,hatchlings,and
overwintering and migrating plovers within the proposed project area. The effects of the proposed action
on piping plovers will be considered further in the remaining sections of this opinion. Potential effects
include the destruction of nests created within the boundaries of the proposed project;harassment in the
form of disturbing or interfering with plovers attempting to nest,forage,or roost within the construction
area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction activities;harassment in the form of disturbing or
interfering with plovers attempting to nest,forage,or roost within the construction area or on adjacent
beaches as a result of increased pedestrian or animal traffic;killing of fledgling birds as they begin to
leave the nest;behavior modification of nesting plovers due to disturbances associated with construction
activities within the project area resulting in failed nest attempts or situations in which they choose
marginal or unsuitable nesting areas; and,behavior modification of migrating or wintering plovers due to
disturbances created by the construction activities within the project area resulting in excessive energy
17

expenditures or displacement of birds to unsuitable sites,increased foraging behavior,or situations
where they choose marginal or unsuitable resting or foraging areas. The construction activities could
also lead to diminished quantity and quality of intertidal foraging habitats within the action area,
resulting in decreased survivorship of nesting,migrating,or overwintering plovers.
M. Environmental Baseline
A. Action Area
1. Location
The Ocean Isle Beach Project area includes approximately 3.25 linear miles(5.2 km)of Ocean Isle
Beach from Station 9+50 westward to Station 181+00;from 40 ft(12 m)inland from the natural
vegetation line at elevation 7 ft(2.1 m)NGVD to nearshore waters-26 ft(7.9 m)NGVD;and Shallotte
Inlet at-15 ft(4.6 m)NGVD from the AIWW to the bar channel. The project area includes
approximately 85,800,000 ft (1,970 ac)of oceanfront shoreline and approximately 4,800,000 ft2(110 ac)
of inlet and nearshore waters.
RU S StO W
�� FUIford �� ,Sanly H
r 'X0n l
�d r Cool Ru ,Mono -am Iq
f--
17 ,
� f _ Hoiden Beach
Ocean Isle Beach
ti,4., 'Sunset Beach
F r4
0—
A,flantic Ocean
The action area for direct impacts includes those sections of Ocean Isle Beach and Shallotte Inlet where
dredging,sediment disposal,and earthen manipulation will occur. The action area for indirect impacts,
however,is much larger. Because manatees,sea turtles,and piping plovers are highly mobile species,
animals influenced by direct project impacts may move great distances from the actual project site. For
example,a piping plover that cannot nest on the sand spits around Shallotte Inlet due to the dredging of
the inlet channel may fly many miles only to find marginal nesting sites. Nest site fidelity may influence
the nesting success of the plover pair in successive years and may reduce the future nesting success of
their offspring. Likewise, sea turtles exhibit nest site fidelity;therefore,habitat destruction may cause
females to choose marginally suitable habitat resulting in lower reproductive success,as well as long
term decreased reproduction by the surviving hatchlings. Further,migrating and wintering plovers that
cannot forage on the sand spits within the project area during the construction operation may expend
energy to find other suitable feeding sites. The excessive energy expenditure may result in the bird's
18

decreased ability to migrate back to its breeding grounds and successfully reproduce. The range of these
movements produced by the project constitute the action area for indirect impacts;for the purposes of
this opinion it will.be the entire islands ofHolden Beach,Ocean Isle Beach,and Sunset Beach and their
corresponding inlets—Shallotte and Tubbs—that may be used by manatees,sea turtles and piping
plovers. The action area for seabeach amaranth is the area within the proposed project footprint(i.e.,
Ocean Isle Beach).
2. Land Ownership/Access
Land ownership within the action area is both public and private,and land use encompasses recreational,
commercial and residential activities. The State of North Carolina,the Towns of Holden Beach,Ocean
Isle Beach,and Sunset Beach,and many private individuals own and/or manage properties within the
project area. All oceanfront beach property above the high tide line on Holden Beach,Ocean Isle Beach,
and Sunset Beach is privately owned by various individuals and businesses. For all beaches,all property
below the mean high tide line is publicly owned,and the dry sand beach area between mean high water
and the primary dune line is subject to public.trust rights established by common law and State law. The
action area can be accessed by vehicle,on foot,or by boat. None of the beaches within the action area
are open to off-road vehicle traffic.
3. Residential and Commercial Development
Ocean Isle Beach,Holden Beach and Sunset Beach contain heavy residential and commercial
development. From 1990 to 1999, Ocean Isle Beach experienced a 45 percent increase in their
permanent population(North Carolina Municipal Population 1990-1999,Office of State Budget,
Planning and Management, State of North Carolina). Holden Beach experienced similar permanent
population increases(43 percent). Sunset Beach,however,has experienced enormous growth,from 311
to 1,963 (531 percent increase)permanent residents in the last decade. Sunset Beach,Ocean Isle Beach,
and Holden Beach are the 5`h,67 ,and 72°d fastest growing municipalities in North Carolina,
respectively. Unfortunately,many homes are reported as non-permanent residences;therefore,the actual
population growth is deflated.
B. Status of the Species within the Action Area
Seabeach Amaranth
The EA(June 1997)states:
"A beach survey for seabeach amaranth was conducted by personnel from the Wilmington
District in the vicinity of Shallotte Inlet from 1992 through 1995. Total plants counted in 1992
and 1993 were 5 and 15,respectively. Total plants counted in the vicinity of Shallotte Inlet in
1994 and 1995 were 112 and 22,respectively."
The following table represents the numbers of seabeach amaranth plants found within the action area
between 1987 and 2000. Data from Ocean Isle Beach is from different sources and,therefore,is not
completely comparable between years;data from 1987- 1990 is from Weakley and Bucher(1992),while
data from 1992-2000 is from the Corps. Since it is nearly impossible to determine the exact extent of
the surveys and,additionally,sand disposal and erosion and inlet migration might have changed the
19

actual length of the inlet reaches,it is very hard to compare data between years. In general,it appears
that each survey included both the east and west ends of the islands and did not include the central
portions of the islands,where it is believed that little habitat exists. Accordingly,the number of plants
reported for each year are likely fewer than what might have occurred within the action area.
#of seabeach amaranth plants 1987 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
within action area
Holden Beach 560 2656 434 21 52 -- -- 99 1 32 268 10
Ocean Isle Beach 52 191 12 5 15 112 22 819 7 11 5 4
Sunset Beach 176 232 7 -- -- -- -- --
--"indicates data not available
West Indian Manatee
The manatee is generally considered a regular,but infrequent,resident of North Carolina's coastal
waters. Since first reported in 1919,the manatee has been documented from at least 60 sites in 13
coastal counties in North Carolina. The majority(48 of 57)of these sightings were reported during the
warm water summer months of June through October(Schwartz, 1995). An equal number of these
sightings were reported from creeks,inlets,sounds,and the open ocean. At least 10 sightings of
manatees have been documented within the freshwater,brackish,and saltwater environments of
Brunswick County,North Carolina and Horry County, South Carolina(Rathbun et al., 1982; Schwartz,
1995). However,the only known sighting in the vicinity of Ocean Isle Beach was reported in July, 1976
(Schwartz, 1995).
Sea Turtles
Loggerhead sea turtles represent greater than 98 percent of all sea turtle nesting activity in North
Carolina(NCWRC, 1998),and most nesting activity occurs between mid-May and late August(Palmer
and Braswell,1995),but may occur into September. The loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching
season for North Carolina extends from May 1 through November 15. Incubation for the loggerhead sea
turtle ranges from about 45 to 90 days.
Green sea turtles nest sporadically in North Carolina(NCWRC, 1998). However,in recent years,nesting
activity by this species has been on the rise. In the 20-year period from 1980 through 1999,a total of 74
green sea turtle nests were recorded from 13 areas of North Carolina and approximately 22 nests were
recorded during 2000. The green sea turtle nesting and hatching season for North Carolina extends from
May 15 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days.
The EA(June 1997)states:
"Data collected by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC)indicates that
loggerhead sea turtles are nesting on Ocean Isle Beach. In 1992,20 nests were counted,and in
1993, 8 nests were counted. In August of 1994, 19 nests were reportect.. ...Green sea turtles are
also known to nest sporadically along the North Carolina coast. However,to date,too few green
sea turtle nests have been discovered in the State to allow meaningful analysis of nesting trends
20

or success."
The following table represents the number of known loggerhead and green sea turtle nests as recorded by
the Commission within the action area of the proposed project from 1991 to 2000.
#of known sea turtle nests 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000*
within the action area
Holden Beach 42 54 43 35 39 45 21 73** 53 32
Ocean Isle Beach n/a 80 8 54 14 39 19 34 34 21
Sunset Beach 25 -F J 7 8 19 5 12 4 17 3 20
Indicates preliminary numbers subject to change
"**" Includes two green sea turtle n ests
Piping Plover
North Carolina occupies a critical geographic link in the life cycle of the piping plover. It is the only
State in the species' range to receive use by both breeding and non-breeding plovers. Wintering activity
has been documented in North Carolina for plovers from all three breeding populations(Haig and
Plissner, 1992). Equally significant is North Carolina's location on the Atlantic Coast migration route;it
is likely that a very high proportion of the Atlantic Coast population depends on North Carolina stopover
habitat during the annual spring and fall migrations.
The EA(June 1997)states:
"Piping plovers prefer upper edges of overwash areas at inlets or large open unvegetated beaches
for nesting. The highly developed nature of the beaches within the study area,however,very
likely excludes the area as prime piping plover nesting habitat. There has been no recorded
nesting by piping plovers along the ocean beach within the project area."
While the preponderance of piping plovers breeding in North Carolina over the last twelve years have
been north of Cape Lookout,successful breeding has occurred in the vicinity of the action area. Four
pairs nesting at Holden Beach in 1993 fledged one chick per pair(J. [Nicholls]Allen,North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust,in lift.). However,nesting on Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach has not been well
documented. Breeding pairs were also documented sporadically at Waties Island, South Carolina in the
early 1990s(Murray and McDavit, 1993)with as many as five birds seen.
The Commission collected data on the presence of breeding plovers in the project area;however, surveys
were not conducted every year and never exceeded three monitoring days per year. The following table
represents the number of known breeding plover pairs within the action area for most years between
1989 to 2000. Data in parentheses indicates the number of days monitoring was conducted.
#of known piping plover 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
nests within action area
West Holden Beach 2(1) 2(1) 2(1) 4(1) 4(1) l(1) l(1) 0.5(1) 1(1) 1 1(1) 0(1) 0(1)
21

Ocean Isle Beach 0(1) -- 0.5(1) -- 0(1) 0(1) -- 0(l) 0(1) l(1) 0(1) 0(1)
Sunset Beach/ 0(1) -- 0(1) -- 0(1) 3(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1)
Bird Island
"--"indicates no survey conducted
The Commission also collected data on the presence ofwintering plovers in the project area. Again,
surveys were not conducted every year and never exceeded three monitoring days per year. Furthermore,
weather and tidal conditions may influence both the abundance and detectability of wintering piping
plovers, so actual plover use may be substantially higher than indicated by these limited survey data.
Data in parentheses indicates the number of days monitoring was conducted.
#of non-breeding piping 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
plovers within action area
West Holden Beach -- 4(1) 2 -- -- -- -- 0(l) 3 -- -- 7
Ocean Isle Beach -- 0(1) 0 -- -- -- -- 0(1) --
Sunset Beach/ 0 l(1) 2(1) -- -- -- - 2(1) 1
Bird Island
"--"indicatesno survey conducted
As noted in the Status of the Species section above,non-breeding(migrating and wintering)plovers are
generally found near coastal inlets,and Commission biologists report(D.Allen,NCWRC,in litt.)that all
plover observations from the action area have been on the sand and mud flats near the inlets. However,
the data reported here illustrates the lack of surveys to draw definitive conclusions.
Available data provide a limited basis for assessing the importance of the action area for migrating
plovers,since most surveys have been conducted in the winter. For example,a similar number of
plovers were counted on both South Core Banks(five birds)and the western end of Holden Beach(seven
birds)during the winter of 2000. On North Core Banks,however,several single day counts during
migration in August and September of 1992 and 1993 tallied 110 to 136 piping plovers,making this one
of the most important known staging areas for Atlantic Coast piping plovers(Collazo et al, 1995). More
intensive surveys may determine that there are other North Carolina migration stop-over or
overwintering areas of similar importance.
C. Factors Affecting the Species Environment within the Action Area.
A wide range 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 for the immediate
future. 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. Beach scraping,which has increased
in frequency in recent years,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
22

structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Inlet stabilization projects,such as jetties and groins,
reduce the dynamism of overwash areas 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. Excessive recreational use of beaches and flats may also pose a threat to the species utilizing
these habitats by making them unsuitable or dangerous. All of these actions may have adverse effects on
seabeach amaranth,manatees,nesting sea turtles and their offspring,and breeding and non-breeding
piping plovers by destroying,diminishing, or altering the habitats on which they depend.
Historically there has been a Federal navigation project at Shallotte Inlet since 1974,resulting in the
disposal of sediments on Ocean Isle Beach at least seven times. Beach scraping or bulldozing has been
frequent on Holden Beach and Ocean Isle Beach and to a lesser extent on Sunset Beach in recent years in
response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. Sandbags have also
been constructed on numerous lots within the action area. These activities primarily occur during the
winter months but increasingly before and after severe storm events,regardless of the season. Artificial
dune or berm systems have been constructed and maintained in several areas within the action area,often
as part of beach scraping or bulldozing activities. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function
like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat,evolution,and overwash.
W. Effects of the Action
A. Factors to be Considered
Proximity of the action: The proposed project is in the immediate vicinity of habitats important for
seabeach amaranth,manatees,nesting sea turtles,and nesting,foraging,and roosting piping plovers.
Specifically,the proposed project will potentially impact one of the largest remaining seabeach amaranth
populations(plants and seed source),summer transient manatees,loggerhead sea turtles from the
Northern subpopulation,and Atlantic Coast breeding plovers from the Southern Recovery Unit,as well
as non-breeding plovers from the Great Lakes,Atlantic Coast,and Northern Great Plains populations. In
addition,the proposed action has the potential to directly impact as much as 5.9 miles(9.5 km)of
shoreline and sand and mud flats that have been proposed for designation as critical habitat for
overwintering piping plovers.
Distribution: Disturbance activities that will impact listed species will primarily occur on the ocean front
shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach and in the waters of Shallotte Inlet. Mobile species,such as the manatee,
sea turtles, and the piping plover,may also be affected in nearby waterways and on adjacent islands by
intraspecific competition,excessive energy expenditure,and marginally suitable habitat selection. The
longshore transport may redistribute eroded sand to portions of beaches(i.e.,Holden Beach and Sunset
Beach)beyond the project construction area which might affect seabeach amaranth plants on those
beaches.
Timing: The timing of the proposed project will result in direct impacts occurring during the growing
season for seabeach amaranth,during the nesting season for sea turtles and the piping plover,and during
the migratory period of piping plovers. Transient manatees may also be affected by the timing of the
proposed project. The effects of the project impacts are likely to remain or continue through the
migratory and wintering periods for the piping plover,as well as subsequent nesting years for sea turtles
and the piping plover and growing seasons for seabeach amaranth. The timing of future maintenance
23

dredge and sediment disposal events are likely to have little direct effect on seabeach amaranth,
manatees, and nesting sea turtles and piping plovers if operations are conducted during the winter
months. Maintenance dredge and sediment disposal operations could,however,effect migrating and
wintering plovers during the winter months.
Nature of the Effect: The effects of the action are likely to destroy,alter,or diminish the nesting success
of sea turtles and the piping plover. The effects are also likely to adversely impact foraging and resting
habitats of migrating and wintering piping plovers,which may decrease their survival rates. Any
reduction in productivity and/or survival rate will contribite to a vulnerability to extinction in sea turtles
and the piping plover. The effects of the proposed action could harm,harass,or kill manatees if the
animals are struck by dredging equipment. The effects of the proposed action could destroy existing
seabeach amaranth plants and/or bury plants or seeds,but are also likely to redistribute buried seeds.
Duration: The duration of the direct impacts resulting from construction operations could be short-term,
lasting about four to six months,and three months for maintenance dredge and sediment disposal
operations. Maintenance events are scheduled to occur every three years,the results of which can
devastate the productivity of sea turtles and piping plover that rely on habitats within the project area.
The continuous impacts could also destroy the local population of seabeach amaranth through repeated
disposal on the project beach. The duration of the indirect impacts could vary in intensity in subsequent
years and last the life of the project or beyond. The duration of the direct impacts resulting from the
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the manatee unless activities are conducted during the
summer months.
Disturbance Frequency Productivity of the North Carolina,Southern Recovery Unit,and United States
Atlantic Coastpiping plover is below that identified in the Atlantic Coast recovery plan. As discussed in
the Status of the Species Section,with low numbers and reduced productivity,the probability of
extinction increases. Continuous impacts to habitats important for this species will likely result in the
species being unable to recover between disturbances. At the very least,the plover will become more
sensitive to the effects of other disturbances. Further,the disturbance frequency of dredging and
sediment disposal might also adversely affect productivity ofplovers from the Great Lakes,Northern
Great Plains,and Atlantic Canada populations while migrating through or overwintering within the
project area. The Northern subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtles could experience reduced nesting
success with repeated disturbances resulting from the disposal of dredged sediments. While it appears
that the number of nesting loggerheads is nearing the objective of the recovery plan,the time it takes for
turtles to reach sexual maturity could cloak the availability offuture sexually mature females and,thus,
nesting success. Repeated disturbance to seabeach amaranth could result in extirpation of the plant from
the project beaches. The duration of the direct impacts resulting from subsequent dredging events are
not likely to adversely affect the manatee unless conducted during the summer months.
Disturbance Intensity and Severity: The effects of disturbance from the proposed project on the
Southern Recovery Unit and the North Carolina breeding population of the Atlantic Coast piping plover
could result in the reduction of the breeding population by 3 percent(5 pairs/l82 pairs)and 21 percent(5
pairs/24 pairs),respectively. While this would not be a significant reduction of the overall population,
there is concern that impacts that reduce the dispersal area of the Atlantic Coast population would result
in a greater intensity of the overall effects of environmental stochasticity,catatrophes,or inconsistent
management. The effects of disturbance on the migrating and wintering population of plovers in North
Carolina are much greater,however. The effects of the proposed project could result in the significant
24

reduction of the total Great Lakes population,which could lead to extinction. Similarly,if nesting
loggerhead females are extirpated from the Northern subpopulation,regional dispersal from other
subpopulations will not be sufficient to replenish the depleted nesting subpopulation. Currently,no level
of take is allowed for the manate,and any impact to this species could be detrimental to its survival.
B. Analyses for Effects of the Action
Seabeach Amaranth
Beneficial Effects: The dredging of the inlet channel and the disposal of dredged,beach-compatible sand
may benefit this species by providing additional suitable habitat or by redistributing seed sources buried
during past storm events,beach disposal activities,or natural barrier island migration. Disposal of
dredged sand may be ccmpatible with seabeach amaranth provided the timing of beach disposal is
appropriate,the material placed on the beach is compatible with the natural sand,and special precautions
are adopted to protect existing seabeach amaranth plants. Further studies are needed to determine the
best methods of beach disposal in seabeach amaranth habitat(Weakley and Bucher, 1992).
Direct Effects: Beach disposal activities may bury or destroy existing plants,resulting in mortality,or
bury seeds to a depth that would prevent future germination,resulting in reduced plant populations.
Increased traffic from recreationists and their pets can also destroy existing plants by trampling or
breaking the plants.
Indirect Effects: Future tilling of the beach may be necessary if beach compaction hinders sea turtle
nesting activities. Thus,the placement of heavy machinery or associated tilling equipment on the beach
may destroy or bury existing plants. Sediments disposed of on the oceanfront beach may,through the
longshore transport system,rove into the surrounding inlet channels. This could result in the need for
additional inlet dredging or sediment disposal activities that would damage or bury plants or seeds.
West Indian Manatee
Beneficial Effects: The Service is not aware of any beneficial effects of the action within the project area
for manatees.
Direct Effects: Boats and equipment associated with dredge and disposal activities may result in harm,
harassment,or mortality of transient manatees moving through the waterways during the summer months
(June through October).
Indirect Effects:Dredge and sediment disposal activities may force manatees to occupy areas that are
utilized by boating recreationists. By restricting the free movement of manatees,pleasure boat strikes
may increase.
Sea Turtles
Beneficial Effects: The placement of dredged sediments on a beach with reduced dry fore-dune habitat
may increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the material is highly compatible(i.e.,grain size, color,shape,
etc.)with naturally occurring sediments. In.addition,properly engineered and constructed beaches may
be more stable and may reduce the occurrence of escarpments and sand compaction which could hinder
25

sea turtle nesting activities.
Direct Effects: The placement of sediments on beaches within the project area,in and of itself,may not
provide suitable nesting habitat for sea turtles. Although the sand placement may increase the potential
nesting area,significant negative impacts to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not
incorporated during construction. Sand disposal operations conducted during the nesting and hatching
season may result in the burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings or loss of sea turtles through disruption
of nesting activity. While a nest monitoring and/or egg relocation program would likely reduce these
impacts,nests may be inadvertently missed or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrols. In
addition,nests may be destroyed by operations at night prior to beach patrols being performed. Under
the best of conditions,approximately 7 percent of nests are misidentified as false crawls by experienced
sea turtle nest surveyors(Schroeder, 1994),thus these nests would be destroyed by the project
Besides the potential for missing nests during a nest relocation program,there is the potential for eggs to
be destroyed by their excavation and movement during relocation or for unknown biological mechanisms
to be affected. Nest relocation can have adverse impacts on incubation temperature(and hence sex
ratios),gas exchange parameters,hydric environment of nests,hatching success,:and hatchling
emergence(Limpus et al.,1979;Ackerman, 1980;Parmenter, 1980; Spotila et al., 1983;McGehee,
1990). Relocating nests into sands deficient in oxygen or moisture can result in mortality,morbidity, and
reduced behavioral competence of hatchlings. Water availability is known to influence the incubation
environment of the embryos and hatchlings of turtles with flexible-shelled eggs,which has been shown to
affect nitrogen excretion(Packard et al.,1984),mobilization of calcium(Packard and Packard, 1986),
mobilization of yolk nutrients(Packard et al., 1985),hatchling size(Packard et al., 1981;McGehee,
1990),energy reserves in the yolk at hatching(Packard et al., 1988),and locomotory ability of hatchlings
(Miller et al., 1987).
Comparisons of hatching success between relocated and in situ nests have noted significant variation
ranging from a 21 percent decrease to a 9 percent increase for relocated nests(Florida Department of
Environmental Protection,unpubl.data). Comparisons of emergence success between relocated and in
situ nests have also noted significant variation ranging from a 23 percent decrease to a 5 percent increase
for relocated nests(Florida Department of Environmental Protection,unpubl. data). A 1994 Florida
Department of Environmental Protection study of hatching and emergence success of in situ and
relocated nests at seven sites in Florida found that hatching success was lower for relocated nests in five
of seven cases with an average decrease for all seven sites of 5.01 percent(range=7.19 percent increase
to 16.31 percent decrease). Emergence success was lower for relocated nests in all seven cases by an
average of 11.67 percent(range=3.6 to 23.36 percent)(A.Meylan,Florida Department of
Environmental Protection,in lift.).
A final concern about nest relocation is that the program may concentrate eggs in an area resulting in a
greater susceptibility to catastrophic events(e.g.,a low area subject to flooding). Hatchlings released
from concentrated,relocated nests also may be subject to greater predation rates from both land and
marine predators as a result of predators learning where to concentrate their efforts(Glenn, 1998;
Wyneken et al., 1998).
The placement of pipelines and the use of heavy machinery on the beach during a construction project
may also have adverse effects on sea turtles. They can create barriers to nesting females emerging from
the surf and crawling up the beach,causing a higher incidence of false crawls and unnecessary energy
expenditures.
26

Another impact to sea turtles is disorientation(loss of bearings)and mioorientation(incorrect orientation)
of hatchlings from artificial lighting. Visual cues are the primary sea-finding mechanism for hatchlings
(Mrosovsky and Carr, 1967;Mrosovsky and Shettleworth, 1968;Dickerson and Nelson, 1989;
Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting is a well documented cause of hatchling
disorientation and misorientation on nesting beaches(Philbosian, 1976;Mann, 1977;Florida Department
of Environmental Protection,unpubl.data). In addition,research has also documented significant
reduction in sea turtle nesting activity on beaches illuminated with artificial lights(Witherington, 1992).
Therefore,construction lights along a project beach and on the dredging vessel may deter females from
coming ashore to nest,disorient females trying to return to the surf after a nesting event,and disorient
and misorient emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches. Any source of bright lighting can
profoundly affect the orientation of hatchlings,both during the crawl from the beach to the ocean and
once they begin swimming offshore. Hatchlings attracted to light sources on dredging barges may not
only suffer from interference in migration,but may also experience higher probabilities ofpredation to
predatory fishes that are also attracted to the barge lights. This impact could be reducedby using the
minimum amount of light necessary(may require shielding)or low pressure sodium lighting during
project construction.
Indirect Effects: Many of the direct effects of beach disposal may persist over time and become indirect
impacts. These indirect effects include future sand migration,changes in the physical characteristics of
the beach,the formation of escarpments,and the consequences of increased beachfront development.
Future sand displacement on nesting beaches is a potential effect of the proposed beach disposal. The
dredging of the existing inlet to an artificially maintained channel will serve as a sand sink and alter the
existing movement of sand in the longshore transport system Over the years of project life,project area
beaches may experience excessive recession as a result of artificially maintaining an inlet channel. Such
recession would reduce suitable sea turtle nesting habitat.
If the material placed on the beach is dissimilar from the original beach sand,sediment disposal may
result in changes in sand density(compaction),beach shear resistance(hardness),beach moisture
content,and beach slope(Nelson and Dickerson, 1988a). Physical characteristics of the sand such as
color, grain size, grain shape,and gain mineral content may also be changed. These changes could
result in adverse impacts on nest site selection,digging behavior,clutch viability,and emergence by
hatchlings(Nelson and Dickerson, 1987;Nelson, 1988).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles that may result from beach disposal activity could
negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Very fine sand and/or the use of heavy
machinery can cause sand compaction on nourished beaches(Nelson et al.,1987;Nelson and Dickerson,
1988a). Significant reductions in nesting success(i.e.,false crawls occurred more frequently)have been
documented on severely compacted nourished beaches(Fletemeyer,1980;Raymond, 1984;Nelson and
Dickerson, 1987;Nelson et al., 1987), and increased false crawls may result in increased physiological
stress to nesting females. Sand compaction may increase the length of time required for female sea
turtles to excavate nests and also cause increased physiological stress to the animals(Nelson and
Dickerson, 1988c). Nelson and Dickerson(1988b)concluded that,in general,beaches nourished from
offshore borrow sites are harder than natural beaches,and while some may soften over time through
erosion and accretion of sand,others may remain hard for 10 years or more.
These impacts can be minimimd by using suitable sand and by tilling the beach after nourishment if the
sand becomes compacted. The level of compaction of a beach can be assessed by measuring sand
27

compaction using a cone penetrometer(Nelson, 1987). Tilling of a nourished beach may reduce the sand
compaction to levels comparable to unnourished beaches. However,a pilot study by Nelson and
Dickerson(1988c)showed that a tilled nourished beach will remain uncompacted for up to one year.
Therefore,the Service requires multi-year beach compaction monitoring and,if necessary,tilling to
ensure that project impacts on sea turtles are minimized. A root rake with tines at least 42 inches long
and less than 36 inches apart pulled through the sand is recommended for compacted beaches. Service
policy calls for beaches to be tilled if compaction levels exceed 500 pounds per square inch(psi).
A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of nests within
an area,which,in turn,could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting
sea turtles,the color of the nourished sediments must resemble the natural beach sand in the area.
Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark
nourishment sediments;however,the time frame for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be
critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season.
On nourished beaches,steep escarpments may develop along water line interfaces as the beaches adjust
from the unnatural,construction profile to amore natural beach profile(USACE,1984;Nelson et al.,
1987). These escarpments can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites. Researchers have shown that
female turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation of an escarpment,leading to
situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs(e.g.,in front of the
escarpments,which often results in failure of nests due to prolonged tidal inundation). This impact can
be minimized by leveling any escarpments prior to the nesting season.
Beach disposal of project dredge-material would constitute a form of beach nourishment within the
project area. According to Pilkey and Dixon(1996),beach replenishment frequertly leads to more
development in greater density within shorefront communities that are then left with a future of further
replenishment or more drastic stabilization measures. Dean(1999)also notes that the very existence of a
beach nourishment project can encourage more development in coastal areas. Following completion of a
beach nourishment project in Miami during 1982,investment in new and updated facilities substantially
increased tourism there(NRC, 1995). Increased building density immediately adjacent to the beach often
resulted as older buildings were replaced by much larger ones that accommodated more beach users.
Overall,shcreline management creates an upward spiral of initial protective measures resulting in more
expensive development which leads to the need for more and larger protective measures. Increased
shoreline development may adversely affect sea turtle nesting success. Greater development may support
larger populations of mammalian predators,such as foxes and raccoons,than undeveloped areas(NRC,
1990),and can also result in greater adverse effects due to artificial lighting,as discussed above.
Piping Plover
Beneficial Effects: The Service is not aware of any substantial beneficial effects of the action within the
project area for piping plovers. A slight net increase in piping plover habitat post-construction could
occur if intertidal flats furmiish foraging habitat as a result of sediment disposal operations. However,the
disposal of dredge sediments will likely bury or destroy prey organisms(Donoghue,1999).
Direct Effects The construction operation(i.e.,inlet dredging and disposal of sand)would extend
through part of one piping plover wintering season(2001)and the maintenance disposal operations
would extend through approximately 16 migrating and wintering seasons during the life of the project
(estimated at 1 dredging/3 years for 50 years). Heavy machinery and equipment(e.g.,trucks and
28

bulldozers operating on project area beaches,the placement of the hydraulic pipeline along the beach,
and sand disposal)may also adversely affect migrating and overwintering piping plovers by disrupting
normal beach uses such as resting and feeding,causing birds to expend valuable energy reserves. In
addition,beaches that have recently received sand could have fewer invertebrates as a food source than
natural beaches.
By repeatedly dredging the inlet channel and preventing the dynamic and natural coastal processes(e.g.,
overwash,inlet migration,etc)from occurring,a majority of this area may be subject to succession(i.e.,
the colonization of vegetation communities)thereby rendering it unsuitable and uninhabitable for the
plover for the life of the project. Currently,a significant portion of the project action area is suitable
habitat for nesting,resting and foraging plovers,and the constant creation and formation of new habitats
ensures the species has adequate resources available necessary for its survival. The loss of this habitat
could lessen the available habitat necessary to sustain overwintering birds,forcing them to seek suitable
habitat outside of the project area. The displacement of these birds could,in turn,affect areas which
other birds utilize by reducing their available roosting and/or foraging habitat and increasing intraspecific
competition.
Indirect Effects: Sand placement on area beaches may reduce the occurrence of overwash areas. Piping
plovers nest on overwash areas that are created by the flow of water through the primary dune line.
Water flowing through the dune deposits sand on barrier flats and marshes depending on the storm
magnitude and the width of the beach. Cross island overwashes create and maintain intertidal bayside
flats that are valuable shorebird foraging habitats. Nests may be established on the portion of storm-
created areas and adjacent areas that are relatively dry during the nesting season,and the birds may feed
on those portions that stay moist(USFWS, 1996a). These moist areas are key to plover feeding during
migration and overwintering as well. Displacement of dredged sand from Shallotte Inlet robs material
from the tidal deltas that form prime intertidal foraging habitats at naturally functioning inlets. The
combined effects of removing sand that would normally form intertidal flats from the new inlet and
depositing it along the barrier island beach where it will impede overwash will be perpetuated over the
project life, and are likely to persist for some years thereafter,even if inlet maintenance ceases.
Furthermore,these impacts will occur in a region where prime habitats formed by naturally functioning
inlets are already severely reduced by past and on-going projects. Thus,options for affected plovers to
find suitable alternative habitats in the vicinity are already limited.
Repetitive,beach disposal of dredge sediments is likely to adversely affect beach invertebrate
populations,a food source for piping plovers. These populations are a key facet of the coastal food web,
and therefore decreased species abundances would reduce the prey base for shorebirds,surf fishes,and
beach invertebrate macrofauna. Once maintenance dredging begins,Ocean Isle Beach will receive
additional sand placement on a three year cycle for 50 years. This periodic beach disposal of dredge
material over many years may permanently depress beach invertebrate populations(Donoghue, 1999).
Thus,the project may reduce foraging habitat for nesting,migrating,and overwintering plovers. Piping
plovers that cannot find sufficient food within the project area would be forced to move to feeding sites
outside the actual sediment disposal areas.
Beach invertebrates may take a year or more to recover from beach disposal(Reilly and Bellis, 1978;
Donoghue, 1999). The long term impacts ofthese repetitive sand placements on beach invertebrates and
the shorebirds which feed on them is uncertain,but is most likely to be a degradation of habitat value.
Impacts on piping plover survival rates are likely to be more severe during periods of peak energetic
29

demand including the first weeks after hatching,during migration,and during and after harsh winter
weather. As discussed above,the displacement of birds from the project area could also negatively affect
nearby-birds by congregating animals in areas and reducing available feeding or roosting habitats.
In addition,piping plovers may also be adversely affected by future development,increased commercial
and recreational use of the inlet,and by increased human and pet traffic disturbance. While it is likely
that future development within the project area would be limited due to building and lot size restrictions
that are normally associated with ocean hazard areas(15A NCAC 07H.0300),past development within
the action area has created the situation that necessitates the proposed action.
C. Species' Response to the Proposed Action
Seabeach Amaranth
The disposal of dredged sediments on the project beach could bury existing plants if the disposal
operations are conducted during the growing season. Sediment disposal at any time of year could also
bury seeds to a depth that would prevent germination.
Sediment disposal on beaches could also have positive impacts on seabeach amaranth by creating
additional habitat for the species. Although more study is needed before the long-term impacts can be
accurately assessed,several populations are shown to have established themselves on beaches receiving
dredged sediments,and have thrived through subsequent applications of dredged material(Weakley and
Bucher, 1992).
West Indian Manatee
Dredging operations conducted during the warm water summer months may injure or kill manatees if
individuals are present within the area of operation. Dredge and sediment disposal activities may also
destroy areas of aquatic vegetation,the manatee's food source. However,boat strikes resulting from the
dredging operations are most likely to be the major cause of injury or death to manatees. The disposal of
dredged sediments at any time of the year are likely to have little affect on transient manatees.
Sea Turtles
Ernest and Martin(1999)conducted a comprehensive study to assess the effects of beach nourishment on
loggerhead sea turtle nesting and reproductive success. The following findings illustrate sea turtle
responses to and recovery from a sediment disposal project. A significantly larger proportion of turtles
emerging on nourished beaches abandoned their nesting attempts than turtles emerging on Control or
pre-nourished beaches. This reduction in nesting success was most pronounced during the first year
following project construction and is most likely the result of changes in physical beach characteristics
associated with the sediment disposal project(e.g.,beach'profile,sediment grain size,beach compaction,
frequency and extent of escarpments). During the first post-construction year,the time required for
turtles to excavate an egg chamber on the untilled,hard-packed sands of one treatment area increased
significantly relative to Control and background conditions. However,in another treatment area,tilling
was effective in reducing sediment compaction to levels that did not significantly prolong digging times.
As natural processes reduced compaction levels on nourished beaches during the second post-
construction year,digging times returned to background levels.
30

During the first post-construction year,nests on the nourished beaches were deposited significantly
farther from both the toe of the dune and the tide line than nests on control beaches. Furthermore,nests
were distributed throughout all available habitat and were not clustered near the dune as they were in the
Control. As the width of nourished beaches decreased during the second year,among-treatment
differences in nest placement diminished.More nests were washed out on the wide,flat beaches of the
nourished treatments than on the narrower steeply sloped beaches of the Control. This phenomenon
persisted through the second post-construction year monitoring and resulted from the placement of nests
near the seaward edge of the beach berm where dramatic profile changes,caused by erosion and
scarping, occurred as the beach equilibratedto a more natural contour.
As with other beach nourishment projects,Ernest and Martin(1999)found that the principal effect of
sediment disposal on sea turtle reproduction was a reduction in nesting success during the first year
following project construction. Although most studies have attributed this phenomenon to an increase in
beach compaction and escarpment formation,Ernest and Martin indicate that changes in beach profile
may be more important. Regardless,as a nourished beach is reworked by natural processes in
subsequent years and adjusts from an unnatural construction profile to a more natural beach profile,
beach compaction and the frequency of escarpment formation decline,and nesting and nesting success
return to levels found on natural beaches.
Piping Plover
Limited information is available on the specific effects of dredge and disposal projects on nesting,
migrating,and wintering piping plovers. Most research has focused on the general impacts of human
disturbance(e.g.,Burger, 1991; 1994;Collazo et al., 1995),or other measurable impacts to resources
used by plovers(e.g.,Reilly and Bellis,1978;Donoghue, 1999). However,the results of human
disturbance are closely related to the indirect effects of a dredge and disposal project on piping plovers.
Habitat loss and disturbance associated with human development are the most frequently cited causes of
the decline of the species.
Dredge and disposal operations can be beneficial or detrimental to plovers depending on the timing and
location of the operations. If nesting habitat is more limited than nearby foraging habitat,the deposition
of dredged material can be beneficial to nesting plovers. A project may improve the quality and
availability of nesting habitat if the spoil material results in the creation of areas that are higher,wider,
and less vegetated than the pre-disposal site. However,the disposal operation often increases the use of
the area by humans,which results in an increase in human-caused disturbance of adults and juveniles or
mortality of eggs and chicks. In general,coastal development and stabilization activities degrade
nesting,roosting,and foraging habitats used by piping plovers by altering the natural processes of beach
dune and inlet erosion and accretion. The construction of recreational,residential,and commercial
structures not only physically alters or covers the habitat,but the increase in human and pet and feral
animal use of the beaches generates greater disturbance ofplovers using those habitats.
The geographical location ofNorth Carolina makes it unique in its use of habitats by piping plovers
during the breeding and non-breeding seasons. However,additional data are required before conclusions
can be drawn on the specific impacts a dredged and disposal project might have on nesting,migrating,
and wintering piping plovers.
31

V. Cumulative Effects
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. Future Federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Beach bulldozing and sandbagging(i.e.,above the high tide line and not requiring a Federal permit)by
private individuals or local groups and governments is another activity that may adversely affect species
using project area beaches. The purpose ofthe proposed beach disposal is to protect beachfront
buildings;however,the effort creates the impression that beachfront property will be protected from time
to time by government action. In the periods between beach nourishment activities,beachfront property
owners may feel compelled to provide their own interim protection. These interim protective measures
may include small-scale beach bulldozing or sandbagging to create small barriers between the ocean and
beachfront homes. These activities impede habitat creation and maintenance. Bulldozing and
sandbagging have occurred before and after storms in the recent past on Ocean Isle Beach and is likely
continue in the future.
Seabeach Amaranth-Following storms,private individuals and local governments may undertake
relatively small-scale beach bulldozing and/or sandbagging operations. Such activities can destroy
seabeach amaranth plants by trampling or burial.
West Indian Manatee-Increased water-related recreational activities, such as boating and fishing,may
seasonally effect transient manatees using the waterways within the project area during the summer
months. Collisions with manatees from boats or personal watercraft could harm,harass,iryure, or kill
individuals.
Sea Turtles-As with seabeach amaranth,beach bulldozing and sandbagging while sea turtle nests are
present on action area beaches has the potential to destroy these nests or create artificial barriers that
prohibit hatcblings from reaching the shore. In addition,beach bulldozing activities could create
escarpments and sandbags could create barriers that hinder females from accessing suitable nesting
habitat.
Piping Plover-Beach bulldozing and sandbagging may also affect piping plovers by reducing
populations of beach invertebrates used as a food source and creating artificial barriers to movement of
chicks. Beach bulldozing can also destroy plover nests if conducted during the nesting season and in
areas used as shelter during the migrating and wintering seasons. The greatest impact of sandbagging
and bulldozing,however,is that these activities prevent overwash and the creation of new nesting
roosting,and foraging habitats.
As a result of the sediment disposal operation,the.project area beach will be more readily accessible by
beach-goers and residents. The increased recreationists and animal traffic could result in the destruction
of eggs and nests and the flushing of birds from their nests exposing the eggs or young to predators and
the elements. In addition birds may be flushed from protective habitats during the migrating or wintering
seasons.
Sand fencing could also adversely affect piping plovers by altering the geomorphology of the beach,
32

creating dunes where they might otherwise not occur. This activity adversely modifies and/or converts
suitable nesting,resting,and foraging habitat and prevents the formation of suitable habitat through
natural processes.
Small scale development not affected by the restrictions associated with ocean hazard areas could occur
within the species'nesting,resting or foraging habitat. The loss of these habitats could result in the
displacement of birds to sites less suitable for sustaining or recovering the species.
VI. Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of seabeach amaranth,the manatee,loggerhead and green sea turtles,
and the piping plover,the environmental baseline for the action area,the effects of the proposed Ocean
Isle Beach Project and the cumulative effects,it is the Service's biological opinion that the Ocean Isle
Beach Project, as proposed,is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of seabeach amaranth,the
manatee,loggerhead and green sea turtles,and the piping plover.
Critical habitat has not been designated for seabeach amaranth,the manatee,or loggerhead and green sea
turtles in North Carolina;therefore,none would be affected. The Service proposed to designate critical
habitat for wintering piping plovers on July 6,2000(65 FR 41782). A final decision on the designation
of critical habitat for this species should be published in the Federal Register by July 6,2001. Comments
on the effects of the proposed project on the proposed designation of critical habitat for this species are
included in the conference opinion. If critical habitat is formally designated,the conference opinion may
be considered the Service's final opinion on the proposed project.
The proposed project will affect approximately 78.8 acres(31.8 ha; 8.6%)of the approximate 922 acres
(372 ha)of seabeach amaranth habitat in North Carolina,an undeterminable amount of aquatic habitat
within Shallotte Inlet and surrounding Ocean Isle Beach seasonally utilized by the manatee in North
Carolina,approximately 16.8 linear miles(27.0 km; 5.3 %)of beachfront and inlet shoreline of the
approximate 320 miles(515 km)of available sea turtle nesting babitat in North Carolina,and
approximately 5.9 linear miles(9.5 km; 3.9%)of sand spits and sand and mud flats of the approximate
153 linear mules(247 km)of piping plover habitat proposed for designation as critical habitat in North
Carolina. Research has shown that the principal effect of beach nourishment on sea turtle reproduction is
a reduction in nesting success,and this reduction is most often limited to the first year following project
construction. Research has also shown that the impacts of a nourishment project on sea turtle nesting
habitat are typically short-tern because a nourished beach will be reworked by natural processes in
subsequent years,and beach compaction and the frequency of escarpment formation will decline. Inlet
dredging and sediment disposal impacts on nesting,foraging and roosting piping plovers are also short-
term;however,the severity of the effects increase with repetitive activities,especially when they do not
allow the natural dynamism of the environment to occur. A18iough a variety of factors,including some
that cannot be controlled,can influence how anourishment project will perform from an engineering
perspective,measures can be implemented to minimize impacts to seabeach amaranth,manatee,sea
turtles,and piping plover.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d)of the Act prohibit the take of
endangered or threatened species,respectively,without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
33

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,the carrying out of 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 taking under the Act
provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take
statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary,and must be undertaken by the Corps so that they
become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued,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)fads to assume and implement the terms and conditions or(2)fails to require
a contractor 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 INCIDENTAL TAKE
Seabeach Amaranth--Sections 7(b)(4)and 7(o)(2)of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant
species. However,limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act
prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally-listed endangered plants or the malicious
damage of such plants on areas under federal jurisdiction,or the destruction of endangered plants on
non-federal areas in violation of state law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law. Applicable provisions of the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act(GS 106-202.12 to 202.22)should be followed.
West Indian Manatee—The Service is not including an incidental take authorization for marine
mammals at this time because the incidental take of marine mammals has not been authorized under
section 101(a)(5)of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or its 1994 Amendments. Following
issuance of such regulations or authorizations,the Service may amend this biological opinion to include
an incidental take statement for marine mammals,as appropriate.
Sea Turtles--The Service anticipates approximately 3.25 linear miles(5.2 km)of nesting beach habitat
on Ocean Isle Beach could be taken as a result of this proposed action. Based on the review of biological
information and other information relevant to this action,incidental take is anticipated to be in the form
of: (1)destruction of all sea turtle nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and
missed by a nest survey and egg relocation program within the boundaries of the proposed project;(2)
destruction of all sea turtle nests deposited when a nest survey and egg relocation program is not required
to be in place within the boundaries of the proposed project; (3)reduced hatching success due to egg
mortality during relocation and adverse conditions at the relocation site; (4)harassment in the form of
disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to nest within the nourishment area or on adjacent
34

beaches as a result of nourishment activities;(5)disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to
the nourishment area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of project lighting;
(6)behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the project area during
a nesting season,resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting
areas to deposit eggs; and, (7)destruction of all nests destroyed as a result of escarpment leveling within
a nesting season when.such leveling has been approved by the Service.
Incidental take is anticipated for only the 325 linear miles(5.2 km)of nesting beach habitat on Ocean
Isle Beach that have been identified for sediment disposal. The Service anticipates incidental take of sea
turtles will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1)turtles nest primarily at night and all nests
are not found because(a)natural factors,such as rainfall,wind,and tides may obscure crawls,and(b)
human-caused factors,such as pedestrian traffic,may obscure crawls,and result in nests being destroyed
because they were missed during a nesting survey and egg relocation program; (2)the total number of
hatchlings per undiscovered nest is unknown; (3)the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success
per relocated nest over the natural nest site is unknown; (4)an unknown number of females may avoid
the project beaches and be forced to nest in a less than optimal area;(5)lights may disorient an unknown
number of hatchlings and cause death;and, (6)escarpments may form and cause an unknown number of
females from accessing a suitable nesting site. However,the level of take of these species can be
anticipated by the disturbance of suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because: (1)turtles nest within the
project site;(2) sediment disposal will likely occur during aportion of the nesting season; (3)the
sediment disposal project will modify the incubation substrate,beach slope,and sand compaction;and,
(4)artificial lighting will disorient nesting females and hatchlings.
Piping Plovers-Based on historic use of the project area by nesting piping plovers,the Service
anticipates no more than one(1)nesting pair of plovers on Ocean Isle Beach could be taken(harassment
and harm)as a result of the initial construction operation(first year dredge and disposal operation only)
of this proposed action. Based on the review of biological information and other information relevant to
this action,harassment and harm is anticipated to be in the form of: (1)the loss of nesting opportunities
within the project area that are designated to receive sand placement or be dredged due to disturbances
associated with nourishment activities; (2)disturbing or interfering with piping plovers attempting to
nest,forage,or roost within the project area or on adjacent beaches as a result of nourishment activities;
(3)disturbing or interfering with piping plovers attempting to nest,feed,or roost within the project area
or on adjacent beaches as a result of increased recreational,pedestrian,or animal traffic; (4)behavior
modification of piping plovers due to disturbances associated with nourishment activities within the
project area during the nesting season,resulting in failed nest attempts or situations where they choose
marginal or unsuitable nesting areas;and,(5)decreased survivorship of nesting piping plovers due to
diminished quantity and quality of foraging habitats as aresult of dredge and sediment disposal
activities. No incidental take is anticipated,nor exempted,for the abandonment or destruction of active
piping plover nests. No incidental take for nesting plovers is anticipated,nor exempted,for out-years or
subsequent maintenance dredging and disposal years. Should an active nest be found on Ocean Isle
Beach,protective measures detailed under the terms and conditions shall be implemented.
The Service also anticipates approximately 3.25 linear miles(5.2 km)of oceanfront shoreline habitat
directly impacted within the project area boundaries and an additional undeterminable amount of sand
spits and sand and mud flats indirectly impacted on the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach could be taken
as a result of this proposed action. This habitat loss equates to an undeterminable number of piping
plovers that will be taken(harassed and harmed)during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons of
35

the initial construction year and every three years during maintenance years(totaling no more than 17
dredge and sediment disposal events). Non-breeding season impacts are expected because(1)piping
plovers migrate and overwinter within the action area;(2)the effects of the dredge and sediment disposal
will occur during a portion of the migrating and wintering seasons;and,(3)the dredge and disposal
project will modify the hydrology,beach slope,and habitats utilized for feeding and roosting by the
plovers. The Service anticipates incidental take of non-breeding piping plovers will be particularly
difficult to detect because: (1)migrating and wintering plovers are not as easy to identify as breeding
birds because they lose some of the markings associated with their breeding plumage and often
congregate with other similar looking shorebirds; (2)the effects of intraspecific competition are difficult
to measure;and, (3)reduction in reproductive success on the breeding grounds will be difficult to
measure if the plover on the wintering grounds is unidentifiable(no bands present). Based on the review
of biological information and other information relevant to this action,incidental take(harassment and
harm)is anticipated to be in the form of. (1)disturbing or interfering with piping plovers attempting to
forage or roostwithin the project area or on adjacent beaches as a result of increased recreational,
pedestrian or animal traffic; (2)behavior modification of piping plovers during the migrating and
wintering seasons due to disturbances associated with nourishment activities within the project area,
resulting in excessive energy expenditures,displacement of individual birds,increased foraging
behavior,or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable resting or foraging areas;and,-(3)
decreased survivorship of migrating and wintering piping plovers due to diminished quantity and quality
of foraging habitats.
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§ 703-712),if such take is in compliance with the terms
and conditions(including amount and/or number)specified berein.
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
In the accompanying biological opinion,the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to seabeach amaranth,the manatee,loggerhead and green sea turtles,or the
piping plover.
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
Reasonable and Prudent Measures:All Species
The Service believes that the following reasonable andprudent measures are necessary and appropriate
to minimize take of the manatee, loggerhead and green sea turtles and the piping plover:
1. Only high-quality,beach-compatible sand should be deposited on Ocean Isle Beach as part of
this project;
2. If the construction phase will be conducted during the seabeach amaranth growing season(April
1 through September 30),surveys for seabeach amaranth shall be conducted prior to the start of
any sediment disposal and again prior to any tilling operation. If plants are found within the area
of sediment disposal or tilling,the plants shall be protected with an adequate buffer zone;
3. The Corps shall ensure that contractors doing the work fully understand the seabeach amaranth
36

protection measures detailed in this opinion;
4. If the project will be conducted during the summer months of June through October,observations
for manatees shall be conducted to minimize the potential impacts resulting from dredging
operations. If manatees are observed within the area of dredging operations,avoidance measures
will be taken to minimi impacts to the species;
S. The Corps shall ensure that contractors doing the work fully understand the manatee protection
measures detailed in this opinion;
6. If the project will be conducted during the sea turtle nesting season(May 1 through November
15),surveys for nesting turtles shall be conducted daily prior to the start of any work If nests
are constructed in the area of sediment disposal,the eggs shall be relocated following the
protocols of a nest relocation program approved of by the NCWRC and the Service;
7. Immediately after completion of the project and prior to the next three nesting seasons,beach
compaction will be monitored and tilling shall be conducted as required to reduce the likelihood
of impacting sea turtle nesting and hatching activities;
8. Immediately after completion of the project and prior to the next three nesting seasons,
monitoring shall be conducted to determine if escarpments are present,and escarpments shall be
leveled as required to reduce the likelihood of impacting sea turtle nesting and hatching
activities;
9. The Corps shall ensure that contractors doing the work fully understand the sea turtle protection
measures detailed in this opinion;
10. During the sea turtle nesting season,construction equipment and pipes shall be stored in a
manner that will minimize impacts to sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable;
11. During the sea turtle nesting season,lighting associated with the project shall be minimized to
reduce the possibility of disrupting and disorienting nesting and/or hatchling sea turtles;
12. If project construction will be conducted during the piping plover nesting season(April 1
through July 15),surveys for nesting plovers shall be conducted daily. If nests are constructed in
the area of construction activities,the nests shall be protected following the'protocols of a nest
protection program approved of by the NCWRC and the Service;
13. If project construction will be conducted during the piping plover non-breeding season(July 15
through April 1), surveys for plovers shall be conductedbi-weekly;
14. The Corps shall ensure that contractors doing the work fully understand the piping plover
protection measures detailed in this incidental take statement;and,
15. During the piping plover nesting season, construction equipment and associated materials shall
be stored in a manner that will minimize impacts to piping plovers to the maximum extent
practicable;
37

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act,the Corps must comply with the
following terms and conditions,which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above
and outline required reportingf monitoring requirements. These terms and conditiais are
non-discretionary.
Terms and Conditions:All Species
A report describing the actions taken to implement the terms and conditions of this incidental take
statement shall be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office,Post Office Box 33726,Raleigh,
North Carolina 27636-3726 within 60 days of completion of the proposed work. This report will include
the status of the species—seabeach amaranth,manatees,nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles,and
nesting,migrating,and wintering piping plovers—addressed in this opinion and any known impacts,
either beneficial or adverse,of the project upon completion of the construction phase and following each
maintenance phase,inclusive of the years between each operational event. The dates of actual
construction activities and the names and qualifications of personnel involved in species surveys should
also be included. The biological and geographical scope of these reports shall not be limited to areas of
actual disposal,but each report shall encompass all areas within the project action area.
Terms and Conditions: Seabeach Amaranth
1. Seabeach amaranth surveys shall be required if any portion of the sediment disposal project or
tilling operation occurs during the period April 1 through September 30. Plant surveys shall be
initiated prior to sediment disposal and/or tilling activities. If plants are discovered in areas
where they may be affected by sediment disposal,and/or tilling and construction activities,the
plants shall be protected by an adequate buffer zone. The protected area shall not identify the
plants to protect them from collectors,but shall be of adequate size to obscure the specific plant
site.
Terms and Conditions: West Indian Manatee
1. The Corps will inform all personnel associated with the project that manatees may be present in
the project area,primarily during the months June through October,and the need to avoid any
harm to these endangered mammals. The Corps will ensure that all construction personnel know
the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about completely or partially
submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be informed that they are
responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatees.
2. The Corps will advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for
harming,harassing,or killing manatees which are protected under the Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended.
3. If a manatee is seen within 300 ft of the active daily construction/dredging operation or vessel
movement,all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee.
The precautions shall include the operation of all moving equipment no closer than 50 ft of a
38

manatee. Operation of any equipment closer than 50 ft(152 m)to a manatee shall necessitate
immediate shutdown of the equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed
the project area on its own volition. Manatees should notbe herded away or harassed into
leaving.
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report must be
made to the Service's Raleigh Field Office(919.856.4520),the Service's Law Enforcement
Office(919.856.4786),and the Commission(Mr.David Allen,252.448.1546)immediately,and
dredging should be postponed until cause of injury or mortality can be determined and a revised
dredging and or monitoring plan is produced and approved by the Service.
5. A sign should be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly visible to the
vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION:The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months,primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating this
vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down if a
manatee comes with 50 ft(15.2 m)of operating equipment. A collision with and/or
injury to a manatee will be reported immediately to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service at
919.856.4520 and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at 252.448.1546.
6. The Corps/contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings,collisions,.or injuries to manatees
during project construction. After construction,the Corps/contractor will prepare a report which
summarizes all information on manatees during construction. This report will be submitted to
the Service's Raleigh Field Office and the Commission.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at"no wake/idle"speeds at all
times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than four-foot clearance from the
bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water,these barriers will be: (a)made of material
in which manatees cannot become entangled;(b)secured in a manner that they cannot break free
and entangle manatees;and,(c)regularly monitored to ensure that manatees have not become
entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow manatees entry to or exit from essential
habitat.
Terms and Conditions: Sea Turtles
1. All fill material placed on beaches shall be sand that is similar to that already existing at the
beach site in both coloration and grain size distribution. All such fill material shall be free of
construction debris,rocks,organic materials,or other foreign matter and shall generally not
contain,on average,greater than 10 percent fines(i.e.,silt and clay;passing the#200 sieve)and
shall not contain,on average, greater than 5 percent coarse gravel or cobble,exclusive of shell
material(retained by the#4 sieve).
2. Daily early morning sea turtle nesting surveys shall be required if any portion of the sediment
disposal project occurs during the period from May 1 through November 15. Nesting surveys
39

shall be initiated 65 days prior to sediment disposal activities or by May 1,whichever is later.
Nesting surveys shall continue through the end of the project or throughNovember 15,
whichever is earlier. If nests are constructed in areas where they may be affected by construction
disposal activities,eggs shall be relocated per the following requirements.
2a. Nesting surveys and egg locations shall only be conducted by personnel with prior
experience and training in nest survey and egg relocation procedures. Surveyors shall
have a valid North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission permit. Nest surveys shall
be conducted daily between sunrise and 9 a.m. Surveys shall be performed in such a
manner so as to ensure that construction and maintenance activities do not occur in any
location prior to completion of the necessary sea turtle protection measures.
2b. Only those nests that maybe affected by construction activities shall be relocated. Nests
requiring relocation shall be moved no later than 9 a.m.the=wing following
deposition to a nearby self-release beach site in a secure setting where artificial lighting
will not interfere with hatchling orientation. Nest relocations in association with
construction activities shall cease when construction activities no longer threaten nests.
Nests deposited within the areas where construction activities have ceased or will not
occur for 65 days shall be marked and left in place unless other factors threaten the
success of the nest. Any nests left in the active construction zones shall be clearly
marked,and all mechanical equipment shall avoid nests by at least 10 ft(3 m). The nest
site shall also be cleared of materials or equipment that could potentially block passage
of hatchlings from leaving the nest and approaching the ocean.
3. Immediately after completion of sediment placement on beaches and prior to April 1 for three
subsequent years,sand compaction shall be monitored in the placement area in accordance with a
protocol agreed to by the Service,the State regulatory agency,and the Corps. At a minimim,the
protocol provided under 3a and 3b below shall be followed. If required,the area shall be tilled to
a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activity must be completed prior to April 1. If the project is
completed during the nesting season,tilling shall not be performed in areas where nests have
been left in place or relocated. A report on the results of compaction monitoring shall be
submitted to the Service prior to anytilling actions being taken. An annual summary of
compaction surveys and the actions taken shall be submitted to the Service. This condition shall
be evaluated annually and may be modified if necessary to address sand compaction problems
identified during the previous year. (NOTE:The requirement for compaction monitoring can be
eliminated if the decision is made to till regardless of post-construction compaction levels. Also,
out-year compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if placed material no longer
remains on the beach.)
3a. Compaction sampling stations shall be located at 500 ft(152 m)intervals along the
placement area. One station shall be at the seaward edge of the dune line(when material
is placed in this area); and one station shall be midway between the dune line and the
high water line(normal wrack line).
At each station,the cone penetrometer shall be pushed to a depth of 6, 12, and 18 inches
three times(three replicates). Material may be removed from the hole if necessary to
ensure accurate readings of successive levels of sediment. The penetrometer may need
to be reset between pushes,especially if sediment layering exists. Layers of highly
40

compact material may lay over less compact layers. Replicates shall be located as close
to each other as possible,without interacting with the previous hole and/or disturbed
sediments. The three replicate compaction values for each depth shall be averaged to
produce final values for each depth at each station. Reports shall include all 18 values
for each transect line,and the final six averaged compaction values.
3b. If the average value for any depth exceeds 500 psi for any two or more adjacent stations,
then that area shall be tilled immediately prior to April 1. If values exceeding 500 psi are
distributed throughout the placement area but in no case do those values exist at two
adjacent stations at the same depth,then consultation with the Service shall be required
to determine if tilling is required. If a few values exceeding 500 psi are present
randomly within the placement area,tilling shall not be required.
4. Sand compaction data shall be collected on beaches scheduled for sediment disposal prior to the
disposal operation following the protocols described above. Such pre-disposal beach compaction
data would establish a range of values for areas in which sea turtles actually nest. These data
would form a valuable baseline for comparison with post-disposal compaction values and could
influence the necessity for post-disposal tilling.
5. Visual surveys for escarpments along the project area shall be made immediately after
completion of the sediment placement and prior to April 1 for three subsequent years. Results of
the surveys shall be submitted to the Service prior to any action being taken. Escarpments that
interfere with sea turtle nesting or exceeds 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 ft(30 m)
shall be leveled to the natural beach contour by April 1. The Service shall be contacted
immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or
exceeds 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 ft(30 m)occurs during the nesting and hatching
season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment
leveling is required during the nesting or hatching season,the Service will provide a brief written
authorization that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of impacting existing
nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken shall be submitted to the
Service. (NOTE:Out-year escarpment monitoring and remediation are not required if placed
material no longer remains on the beach.)
6. The Corps shall arrange a meeting between representatives of the contractor,the Service,the
Commission,and the permitted person responsible for egg relocation at least 30 days prior to the
commencement of work on this project. At least 10 days advance notice shall be provided prior
to conducting this meeting. This will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification
of the sea turtle protection measures.
7. From May 1 through November 15,staging areas for construction equipment shall be located off
the beach to the maximum extent practicable. Nighttime storage of construction equipment not
in use shall be off the beach to mininize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and hatching activities.
In addition,all construction pipes that are placed on the beach shall be located as far landward as
possible without compromising the integrity of the existing or reconstructed dune system.
Temporary storage of pipes shall be off the beach to the maximum extent possible. Temporary
storage of pipes on the beach shall be in such a manner so as to impact the least amount of
nesting habitat and shall likewise not compromise the integrity of the dune systems(placement of
pipes perpendicular to the shoreline is recommended as the method of storage).
41

8. From May 1 through November 15,all lighting associated with the project shall be limited to the
immediate area of active construction only and shall be the minimal lighting necessary to comply
with safety requirements. Shielded low pressure sodium vapor lights are recommended to
minimize illumination of the nesting beach and nearshore waters. Lighting on offshore
equipment shall be minimized through reduction,shielding,lowering,and appropriate placement
of lights'to avoid excessive illumination of the water,while meeting all U.S.Coast Guard and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. Shielded low pressure sodium
vapor lights are highly recommended for lights on offshore equipment that cannot be eliminated.
9. A report describing the actions taken to implement the terms and conditions of this incidental
take statement shall be submitted to Mr.Dale Suiter of the Service's Raleigh Field Office within
60 days of completion of the proposed work. This report will include the dates of actual
construction activities,names and qualifications of personnel involved in nest surveys and
relocation activities, descriptions and locations of self-release beach sites,nest survey and
relocation results,and hatching success of nests.
10. In the event a sea turtle nest is excavated during construction activities,the permitted person
responsible for egg relocation for the project should be notified so the eggs can be moved to a
suitable relocation site.
11. Upon locating a dead,injured,or a sick sea turtle specimen,initial notification must be made to
Mr.David Allen,Non-game Coastal Project Leader for the Commission,located in Trenton,NC
at 252-448-1546 prior to transporting live debilitated turtles to a rehabilitation facility or
disposing of carcasses. Care shall be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure
effective treatment and care and in handling dead specimens to preserve biological materials in
the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of a sick
or injured sea turtle or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal,the finder has the
responsibility to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not disturbed.
The Service believes that incidental take of sea turtles will be limited to the 3.25 linear miles(5.2 km) of
nesting beach habitat that has been identified for sand placement. The reasonable and prudent measures,
with their implementing terms and conditions,are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take
that might otherwise result from the proposed action. The Service believes that no more than the
following types of incidental take will result from the proposed action: (1)destruction of all sea turtle
nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and missed by a nest survey and egg
relocation program within the boundaries of the proposed project;(2)destruction of all sea turtle nests
deposited during the period when a nest survey and egg relocation program is not required to be in place
within the boundaries of the proposed project; (3)reduced hatching success due to egg mortality during
relocation and adverse conditions at the relocation site;(4)harassment in the form of disturbing or
interfering with female turtles attempting to nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a
result of construction activities; (5)disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the
construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of project lighting;(6)
behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the project area during a
nesting season,resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting
areas to deposit eggs; and, (7)destruction of all nests destroyed as a result of escarpment leveling within
a nesting season when such leveling has been approved by the Service. The amount or extent of
42

incidental take for sea turtles will be considered exceeded if the project results in sediment disposal
occurring more than once every three years(totaling no more than 17 disposal events/50 years)on the
3.25 linear miles(5.2 km)of beach shoreline identified for sand placement without reinitiation of
consultation and/or the prior written consent of the Service. If,during the course of the action,this level
of incidental take is exceeded,such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of
consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal action agency
must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the
need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.
Terms and Conditions:Piping Plover
1. A monitoring program for breeding and non-breeding piping plovers must be implemented; daily
during the construction phase and bi-weekly(no less than every 12 days)when no activity is
scheduled. Monitoring of piping plovers must be initiated immediately or by the start of
construction,whichever is earlier. A quarterly report must be prepared by the Corps on the
previous breeding,migrating,and wintering season data and submitted to the Service and the
Commission;an annual report must be submitted by April 30 of every year summarizing the
previous year's data. The reports will be reviewed and the scheduled timing and/or frequency of
surveys shall be adjusted accordingly. The Service and the Commission shall approve the timing
of surveys,any protocol for selecting areas to be surveyed,any protective markings or symbolic
fencing around nests,the establishment of protective buffer zones,and work restrictions within
protective buffer zones. The Corps shall ensure that the monitoring program is adequately
funded. (NOTE: If deemed appropriate based on collected data or new information,the Service
can make the decision to end the piping plover monitoring program.)
Monitoring for piping plover nesting may be limited to those areas that match established criteria
necessary for the survival of piping plovers(e.g.,accreting areas at inlets;bayside,sand,and
mud flats;or,recently disturbed areas such as washover areas),but should include all of Ocean
Isle Beach. Monitoring should be conducted daily during the time of territory establishment,
courtship,and copulation(March 1 through July 15)of the construction year or during the
construction operations,whichever is longer. In addition to nesting pair counts and productivity
data,monitoring of breeding sites should include other information important to determine of
site protection needs. Whenever possible,data collection should include(USFWS, 1996a):
a. dates when monitoring began and ended;
b. nesting chronology(dates when plovers were first seen on the site,nest establishment
dates,dates when unfledged chicks are present on the site);
c. locations of nests and brood foraging territories;
d. known and suspected causes of nest and chick loss;
e. indices of predator abundance;
f. locations of commonly used foraging areas during each stage of the breeding cycle;
and,
g. use of the site by post-breeding or migrating plovers.
The Corps,in coordination with the Service and the Commission,should develop a plan to
protect piping plover nests in the project area. The protective plan should implement appropriate
protective measures(e.g.,post and fence nest areas)to restrict access of people, animals,
vehicles,and other machinery and/or equipment to nests and chicks,but not restrict movements
43

of the adult and juvenile birds. Typically,a buffer zone of approximately 500 ft(150 m)is
required to protect nests and juveniles prior to fledging.
Monitoring for non-breeding plovers should be conducted bi-weekly(no less than every 12 days)
during the migrating and the overwintering periods(July 15 through March 15)and year-round
during years when no activity is"scheduled. Piping plovers exhibit diurnal shifts in habitat use;
therefore,observations should be conducted for the minimum amount of daylight hours,
including 30 minutes after sunrise to 30 minutes before sunset,and should be evenly distributed
throughout this period,including a wide range of tidal conditions and habitat types. The amount
of time necessary to survey each site will depend on the amount and type of habitat to be
covered;areas should be surveyed slowly and thoroughly.
Monitoring piping plovers can be difficult because they appear to depend on a variety of
habitats,and habitat use varies depending on tidal regime,weather conditions,season,and
disturbance. Plovers are often found in tight clusters on prime feeding sites,and may be
overlooked,especially in large shorebird concentrations. While some ornithologists find
censussing of plovers on roosting habitat to be the most efficient(Fussell, 1990),an
inexperienced eye may easily miss a cluster of roosting plovers because they are often huddled
down in the sand or along the wrack line(Eubanks, 1992). Monitoring should not be conducted
during poor weather(winds>25 mph,heavy rain,severe cold)since birds may seek protected
areas during these times.
The Corps,the Service,and the Commission should coordinate on the exact data to be collected
by the monitoring program. At the very least,these data should include: (1)the date,time,and
location of each observation;(2}the number of birds seen; (3)the microhabitat of the occurrence
(e.g.,sand and mud flats,beach, etc.); (4)the activity of the birds(e.g.,foraging,roosting,
courtship,brooding rearing,etc.); and,(5)any visible markings or identifying features(i.e.,leg
bands). Observers should be able to recognize bands on piping plovers from any of the three
breeding populations,but specifically the endangered Great Lakes population. The presence of
birds from the Great Lakes population should be reported immediately to the Service and the
Commission.
2. The Corps,in coordination with the Service,will devise and implement,a plan to minimize the
impacts to nesting piping plovers during the initial construction phase,to include: (1)minimizing
the amount of heavy equipment in the project area at any given time; (2)not storing heavy
equipment within the project area;and,(3)minimizing the spatial extent of the work area.
3. Both the Service and the Commission shall be notified before any additional dredging,sediment
placement,or other construction activities not covered in this opinion occurs in Shallotte Inlet or
on Ocean Isle Beach. The notification shall include,but is not limited to, species monitoring
data previously collected, all available information on the material to be removed,the deposition
site,and the procedures to be used to move the material. Additional construction,maintenance,
or disposal activities are not covered under this opinion without prior written approval from the
Service.
4. The Corps shall ensure that person(s)responsible for monitoring piping plover nesting shall
develop specific procedures for notifying the Service's Raleigh Field Office(Mr.Dale Suiter,
44

919.856:4520 extension 18),and the Commission(Mr.David Allen,252.448.15446)in the event
that construction activities result in the direct take(killing,harming,or maiming)of a piping
plover. The Service,the Commission,and the Corps shall develop a standard protocol for
handling dead piping plovers found during the monitoring program. This protocol shall be
directed at determining the cause of death and ensuring that all banding data are recorded.
The Service believes that incidental take(harassment and harm)will be limited to no more than one(1)
nesting pair of piping plovers on Ocean Isle Beach that have been identified for initial construction
operations. The Service also believes that incidental take(harassment and harm)of piping plovers will
be limited to the approximately 3.25 linear miles(5.2 km)of oceanfront shoreline habitat directly
impacted within the project area boundaries and an additional undeterminable amount of sand spits and
sand and mud flats indirectly impacted on Ocean Isle Beach that have been identified within the action
area. The reasonable and prudent measures,with their implementing terms and conditions,are designed
to minimise the impact of incidental take that night otherwise result from the proposed action. The
Service believes that no more than the following types of incidental take will result from the proposed
action: (1)the loss of nesting opportunities within the project area that are designated to receive sand
placement or be dredged due to disturbances associated with construction activities;(2)disturbing or
interfering with piping plovers attempting to nest,forage,or roost within the project area or on adjacent
beaches as a result of construction activities;(3)disturbing or interfering with piping plovers attempting
to nest,feed,or roost within the project area or on adjacent beaches as a result of increased recreational,
pedestrian or animal traffic; (4)behavior modification of piping plovers due to disturbances associated
with construction activities within the project area during the nesting season,resulting in failed nest
attempts or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas; (5)decreased survivorship
of nesting piping plovers due to diminished quantity and quality of foraging habitats;(6)disturbing or
interfering with piping plovers attempting to forage or roost within the project area or on adjacent
beaches as a result of increased recreational,pedestrian or animal traffic; (7)behavior modification of
piping plovers during the migrating and wintering seasons due to disturbances associated with
construction activities within the project area,resulting in excessive energy expenditures,displacement
of individual birds,increased foraging behavior,or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable
resting or foraging areas; and,(8)decreased survivorsbip of migrating and wintering piping plovers due
to diminished quantity and quality of foraging habitats. The amount or extent of incidental take for
piping plovers will be considered exceeded if the project results in the take(harass or harm)of more than
one(1)nesting pair of piping plovers during the initial construction dredge and disposal operation and/or
maintenance dredge and disposal operations occurring more than once every three years(totaling no
more than 17 dredge and disposal events)that have been identified for the proposed dredge and sediment
disposal operation. If,during the course of the action,this level of incidental take is exceeded,suds
incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the
reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal action agency must immediately provide an
explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of
the reasonable and prudent measures.
CONFERENCE OPINION
After reviewing the current status of the piping plover,the environmental baseline for the action area,the
effects of the proposed Ocean Isle Beach Project and the cumulative effects,it is the Service's
conference opinion that the Ocean Isle Beach Project, as proposed,is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat for overwintering piping plovers.
45

CONSERVATION RECOMN ENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1)of the Act directs Federal action agencies to utilize their authorities to further the
purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,to help implement recovery plans,or
develop information.
For the benefit of seabeach amaranth,the Service recommends the following conservation
recommendations:
1. When sediments are scheduled for disposal on project areabeaches,the material should be
placed in a manner which would not harm existing seabeach amaranth plants. These precautions
would include efforts to prevent the deep burial ofplants.
2. Educational signs should be placed where appropriate at beach access points explaining the
importance of seabeach amaranth for the stabilization of the dune system and/or the life history
of seabeach amaranth in the area.
For the benefit of manatees,the Service recommends the following conservation recommendations:
1. Construction activities for similar future projects should be planned to take place outside of the
warm water summer months(June through October)to minimize potential impacts to manatees.
For the benefit of sea turtles(loggerhead and green),the Service recommends the following conservation
recommendations:
1. Surveys for nesting success of sea turtles should be implemented for a minimum of three years
following sediment disposal to determine whether sea turtle nesting success has been adversely
impacted. A coordination meeting prior to the commencement of sea turtle nest monitoring
should provide an opportunity for the Corps,the Service,and the Commission to discuss
additional data collection during the program This meeting should allow the discussion of data
needs and funding possibilities for such measures as Global Positioning System coordinates for
each crawl and frequency of tidal inundation for each nest.
2. Educational signs should be placed where appropriate at beach access points explaining the
importance of the area to sea turtles and/or the life history of sea turtle species that nest in the
area.
3. Sand compaction data should be collected on all beaches scheduled for sediment disposal prior
to the disposal operation. Such pre-disposal beach compaction data would establish a range of
values for areas in which sea turtles actually nest. These data would form a valuable baseline for
comparison with post-disposal compaction values and could influence the necessity for post-
disposal tilling.
4. In addition to monitoring sand compaction and escarpment formation,the Corps,in cooperation
with the Service,the Commission,and local sponsors of all sediment disposal projects inNorth
46

Carolina,should design and fund a research program to determine the long-term effects of beach
disposal on sea turtle nesting success. This program would collect and analyze data on the
physical,biological,and chemical characteristics of disposal and natural beaches and the data
examined with regard to sea turtle reproductive success. The goal of the effort would be to
develop methods for minimizing the adverse impacts of sediment disposal activities on sea turtle
reproduction.
5. Construction activities for similar future projects should be planned to take place outside of the
main part of the sea turtle nesting and hatching season.
6. The Corps,in coordination with respective local sponsors and the Service,should develop and
implement a lighting management plan on all ocean-facing or beachfront structures and facilities
affected by Federal sediment disposal projects in North Carolina in order to minimize effects of
lighting on sea turtles.
For the benefit of the piping plover,the Service recommends the following conservation
recommendations:
1. The Corps should endeavor to create and maintain suitable piping plover nesting,migrating,and
overwintering habitat. Natural accretion at inlets should be allowed to remain. Accreting sand
spits on barrier islands provide excellent foraging habitat for nesting,migrating,and
overwintering plovers.
2. The Corps sharld fund monitoring surveys fcr nesting,migrating,and wintering piping plovers
on and around all beaches and inlets outside the action area of this project that currently receive,
or are scheduled to receive,a Federally-maintained sediment disposal or inlet dredging project.
This data would assist the Corps and the Service in determining the long-term impacts these
routine activities have on this species and their seasonal use of these sites,and would be
important in developing protective and operational measures to assist in recovery of the species.
The goal of the effort would be to develop methods for minimizing the adverse impacts of
sediment disposal and inlet dredging on piping plovers. A detailed report documenting the
number and location of birds found and the behavior they were engaged in should be submitted
to the Service annually following the wintering/migrating season.
3. A conservation/education display sign would be helpful in educating local beach users about the
coastal beach ecosystem and associated raze species. The sign could highlight the piping plovers
life history and basic biology and ways recreationists can assist in species protection efforts(e.g.,
avoiding nesting sites,keeping pets on a leash,removing trash to sealed refuge containers,etc.).
The Service would be willing to assist in the development of such a sign,in cooperation with the
Commission,interested non-governmental stakeholders(i.e.,National Audubon Society,North
Carolina Coastal Land Trust),the Corps,and the other interested stakeholders(i.e.,City of
Ocean Isle Beach,property owners,etc.).
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefitting listed species or their habitats,the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
47

REINITIATION NOTICE
This concludes formal consultation and conference on the action outlined in your request for formal
consultation/conference for the Ocean Isle Beach Project. As provided in 50 CFR§40216,reinitiation
of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the
action has been retained(or is authorized bylaw)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;(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
You may ask the Service to confirm the conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal
consultation if the overwinter piping plover critical habitat is designated. The request must be in writing.
If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no significant changes in the
action as planned or in the information used during the conference,the Service will confirm the
conference opinion as the biological opinion on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be
necessary.
After designation of critical habitat for overwintering piping plovers and any subsequent adoption of this
conference opinion,the Federal action agency shall request reinitiation of consultation 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 conference
opinion; (3)the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat that was not considered in this conference opinion;or,(4)a new species is
listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become effective until critical
habitat is designated and the conference opinion is adopted as the biological opinion issued through
formal consultation. At that time,the project will be reviewed to determine whether any take of the
habitat has occurred. Modifications of the opinion and incidental take statement may be appropriate to
reflect that take. No take of the habitat may occur between the designation of critical habitat and the
adoption of the conference opinion through formal consultation,or the completion of a subsequent for
consultation.
We have assigned our log number Service ID#01-S019 to this consultation;please refer to it in any
future correspondence concerning this project. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this
opinion,please contact Mr.We Suiter of the Raleigh Field Office at(919)856.4520 extension 18, or via
email at [e-mail].
Sincerely yours,
/signed/
Garland B.Pardue,Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
48

cc: USFWS,Asheville,NC (Brian Cole)
USFWS,Atlanta, GA(Cherry Green)
USFWS,Atlanta, GA(Joe Johnston)
USFWS,Jacksonville,FL(Sandy MacPherson)
USFWS, Sudbury,MA(Anne Hecht)
USFWS,420 South Garfield Ave., Suite 400,Pierre, SD 57501-5408 (Nell McPhillips)
USFWS,2651 Coolidge Rd.,East Lansing,MI 48823 (Jack Dingledine)
NCWRC,Raleigh,NC(Frank McBride)
NCWRC,Trenton,NC (David Allen)
LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman,R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs.
American Zoologist 20:575-583.
Bowen,B.,J. C.Avise,J.I.Richardson,A.B.Meylan,D.Margaritoulis, and S.R.Hopkins-Murphy.
1993. Population structure of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta)in the northwestern Atlantic
Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 7:834-844.
Bucher,M.A., and A. S.Weakley. 1990. Status survey of seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus
Rafinesque)in North and South Carolina. Report to the North Carolina Plant Conservation
Program,Raleigh,NC and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Asheville,NC.
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.
Cairns,W. E. 1982. Biology andbehavior of breeding piping plovers. Wilson Bulletin 94:531-545.
Carter,D. Personal Communication. Southern Environmental Law Center,Chapel Hill,NC.
Collazo,J. A., J.R Walters, and J.F.Parnell.- 1995. Factors affecting reproduction and migration of
waterbirds on the North Carolina barrier islands. Final report to the National Park Service, Cape
Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores.
Coutu, S.D., J.D.Fraser,J.L.McConnaughey, and J.P.Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution and
reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished report to the National
Park Service.
Dean,C. 1999. Against the tide:The battle for America's beaches. Columbia University Press,New
York,NY.
Dickerson D.D., and D.A.Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses to light
wavelengths and intensities. Pp.41-43 in Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea
Turtle Conservation and Biology, S. A.Eckert et al.,compilers. NOAA Technical Memorandum
49

NMFS-SEFC-232.
Dodd, C.K.,Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus 1758). U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Report 88(14).
Donoghue, C. 1999. The influence of swash processes on Donaz variabdis and Emerita talpoida. Ph.D.
dissertation,University of Virginia,VA.
Ehrhart,L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. Pp. 122-139 in Proceedings of the Second
Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium,L. Ogren et al.,eds. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFC-226.
Elias, S.P.,J.D.Fraser,and P.A.Buckley. 2000. Piping plover brood foraging ecology on New York
barrier islands. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:346-354.
Encalada, S.E.,K.A.Bjomdal,A.B.Bolten,J. C.Zurita,B. Schroeder,E.Possardt,C. J. Sears,and B.
W.Bowen. 1998. Population structure of loggerhead turtle(Caretta caretta)nesting colonies in
the Atlantic and Mediterranean,as inferred from mitochondrial DNA control region sequences.
Marine Biology 130:567-575.
Ernest,R. G., and R. E.Martin. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project: Sea turtle monitoring
studies. 1997 Annual Report and Final Assessment. Unpublished report to Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
Eubanks, T. 1992. The piping plover in Texas: Winter survey guidelines. Draft report for Great
Lakes/Northern Great Plains piping plover recovery team.
Fletemeyer,J. 1980. Sea turtle monitoring project. Unpublished report to Broward County
Environmental Quality Control Board,FL.
Fussell, J. O. 1990. Census ofpiping plovers wintering on the North Carolina coast, 1989-1990.
Unpublished report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Glenn,L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles(Caretta caretta,L). Pp. 58-59 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,R.Byles and Y.Fernandez,compilers.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Goldin,M.R., and J.V.Regosin. 1998. Chick behavior,habitat use,and reproductive success of piping
plovers at Goosewing Beach,Rhode Island. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:228-234.
Haig. S. M. 1985. The status of the piping plover in Canada. A Status update prepared for the
committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada.Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario,Canada.
Haig. S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1988. Mate, site and territory fidelity in piping plover. Auk 105:268-277.
50

Haig, S.M., and J.H.Plissner.1992. 1991 International piping plover census. Report to the U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service Region 3,Division of Endangered Species,Ft. Snelling,MN.
Hecht,A. 2000. Personal Communication. Endangered Species Biologist. U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge,MA.
Hecht,A.,and G.A Moser. 1998. Northern Assateague Island restoration project and the piping plover:
A case study in Endangered Species Act inter-agency consultation. Endangered Species Update.
15:31-39.
Hirth,H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas(Linnaeus 1758).
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Report 97:1-120.
Hopkins, S.R.,and J.I.Richardson(eds.). 1984. Recovery plan far marine turtles. National Marine
Fisheries Service,St.Petersburg,FL.
Lenarz,M. S.,N.B.Frazer,M.S.Ralston,and R.B.Mast. 1981. Seven nests recorded for loggerhead
turtle(Caretta caretta)in one season. Herpetological Review 12.9.
Limpus,C.J.,V.Baker,and J.D.Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs.
Herpetologica 35:335-338.
Loegering,J.P.,and J.D.Fraser. 1995. Factors affecting piping plover chick survival in different
brood-rearing habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:646-655.
MacIvor,L.Ii 1996. Biological assessment: Ocean City water resources feasibility study,immediate
restoration of Assateague Island. Prepared for the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers,Baltimore
District. Woodlot Alternatives,Inc. Topsham,ME.
Mann,T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in southeastern
Florida. M.S.thesis,Florida Atlantic University,FL.
[MDNR]Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Breeding biology and management of
piping plovers on Assateague Island National Seashore,Maryland, 1992. Annapolis,MD.
McConnaughey,J.L.,J.D.Fraser, S.D. Coutu,and J.P.Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution
and reproductive success on Cape LookoutNational Seashore, Unpublished report to National
Park Service.
McGehee,M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles(Caretta
caretta). Herpetologica 46:251-258.
Melvin, S.M. and J.P. Gibbs. 1994. Viability analysis for the Atlantic coast population of piping
plovers. Unpublished report to the U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Sudbury,MA.
Meylan,A.,B. Schroeder, and A.Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-
1992. Florida Marine Research Publications 52:1-51.
51

Miller,K., G. C.Packard, and M.J.Packard. 1987. Hydric conditions during incubation influence
locomotor performance of hatchling snapping turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology 127:401-
412.
Mrosovsky,N., and A. Carr. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths inhatchling green sea
turtles, Chelonia mydas,tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behaviour 28:217-231.
Mrosovsky,N., and S. J. Shettleworth. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in the water
finding behaviour of sea turtles. Behaviour 32:211-257.
Murphy,T.M., and S.R.Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in
the southeast region. Final report to NMFS-SEFC.
Murray,R., and M.W.McDavit. 1993. First nest records of piping plover in South Carolina. Chat
57:10-11.
[NMFS and USFWS]National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991a.
Recovery plan for U.S.population of Atlantic green turtle(Chelonia mydas). National Marine
Fisheries Service,Washington,DC.
-----. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S.population of loggerhead turtle(Caretta caretta). National Marine
Fisheries Service,Washington,DC.
[NPS and MDNR]National Park Service and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1993-1997.
Management and monitoring of the piping plover at Assateague Island National Seashore,
Berlin,Maryland. Annual reports.
[NRC]National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: Causes and prevention.National
Academy Press,Washington,DC.
------ 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press,Washington,DC.
Nelson,D.A. 1987. The use of tilling to soften nourished beach sand consistency for nesting sea turtles.
Unpublished report. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,
MS.
Nelson,D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(23). U.S.Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2(Rev.).
Nelson,D.A., and D. D.Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nest digging times with
beach sand consistency. [Abstract]. Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and
Biology.
Nelson,D.A., and D.D.Dickerson. 1988a. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. Proceedings of
the Beach Preservation Technology Conference'88. Florida Shore&Beach Preservation
Association,Inc., Tallahassee,FL.
52

---,and----. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting beaches on the east coast of
Florida. Unpublished report. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg,MS.
-----,and---. 1988c. Response of nesting sea turtles to tilling of compacted beaches,Jupiter Island,
Florida. Unpublished report. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg,MS.
Nelson,D.A.,K.Mauck,andJ.Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea
turtle nesting,Delray Beach,Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15. U.S.Army Caps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,MS.
Nicholls,J.L,and G.A.Baldassarre. 1990a. Winter distribution of piping plovers along the Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:400-412.
Nicholls,J.L.,and G.A.Baldassare. 1990b. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the
United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:581-590.
[NCWRC]North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1998. North Carolina Sea Turtle News.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program.
Issue 4, Summer/Fall.
Odell,D.K. 1982. West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus. Pp. 828-837 in Wild Mammals of North
America,J.A. Chapman and G.A.Feldhamer,editors. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
Packard,M.J.,and G.C.Packard. 1986. Effect of water balance on growth and calcium mobilization of
embryonic painted turtles(Chrysemys pida). Physiological Zoology 59(4):398-405.
Packard,G. C.,M.J.Packard,and T.J.Boardman. 1984. Influence of hydration of the environment on
the pattern of nitrogen excretion by embryonic snapping turtles(Chelydra serpentina). Journal
of Experimental Biology 108:195-204.
Packard,G.C.,M.J.Packard,and W.H.N. Gutzke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the environment
on eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terapene ornata. Physiological Zoology 58:564-
575.
Packard,G. C.,M. J.Packard,T.J.Boardman, and M.D.Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of water
exchange in flexible-shelled eggs of turtles. Science 213:471-473.
Packard,G. C.,M. J.Packard,K.Miller, and T. J.Boardman. 1988. Effects of temperature and
moisture during incubation on carcass composition of hatchling snapping turtles(Chelydra
serpentina). Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 158:117-125.
Palmer,R. S. 1967. Piping plover. In The shorebirds of North America, G.D. Stout, editor. Viking
Press,New York.
53

Palmer,W.M. and A.L.Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill,NC.
Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle,Chelonia mydas,in Torres Strait,
Australia: The effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research 7:487-491.
Philbosian,R. 1976. Disorientation ofhawksbill turtle hatchlings,Eretmochelys imbricata,by
stadium lights. Copeia 4:824.
Pilkey,O.H. and K.L.Dixon. 1996.The Corps and the Shore. Island Press,Washington,DC.
Plissner,J.H.,and S.M.Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census. Report to U.S.
Geological Survey,Biological Resources Division. Corvallis, OR.
-----, and------ 2000. Viability of piping plover.Charadrius melodus metapopulations. Biological
Conservation 92:163-173.
Potter,E.F,J.F.Parnell, and R.P.Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University ofNorth
Carolina Press,Chapel Hill,NC.
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.
Rathbun, G.D.,R.K. Bonde,D. Clay. 1982. The status of the West Indian manatee on the Atlantic
Coast north of Florida. Pp. 152-164 in Proceedings of the symposium on nongame and
endangered wildlife,R.R. Odom and J.W. Guthrie, editors. Georgia Department of Natural
Resources,Game and Fish Division,Technical Bulletin WL5.
Raymond,P. W. 1984. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south Brevard
County,Florida. M.S.thesis,University of Central Florida,FL.
Reilly,F. J,Jr., and V.J.Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of beach nourishment with
dredged materials on the intertidal zone. Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources Technical
Report No.4, Greenville,NC.
Richardson,J.I., and T.H. Richardson. 1995. An experimental populationmodel for the loggerhead sea
turtle(Caretta caretta). Pp. 165-176 in Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles,K.A.
Bjomdal,ed. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington,D.C.
Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead,ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. Pp. 189- 195 in
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles,K A.Bjorndal, ed. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington,D.C.
Russell,R. 1983. The piping plover in the Great Lakes region. American Birds 37:951-955.
Ryan,M.R.,B. G.Root,and P.M.Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North
America: A demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7:581-585.
54

Schroeder,B.A. 1994. Florida index nesting beach surveys:Are we on the right track? Pp. 132433 in
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,K.
A.Bjomdal et al.,compilers. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-3 5 1.
Schwartz,F.J. 1995. Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus(Sirennia:Trichechidae),in North Carolina
1919-1994.Brimleyana 22:53-60.
Spotila,J.R.,E.J. Standora, S.J.Morreale,G. J.Ruiz,and C.Puccia. 1983. Methodology for the study
of temperature related phenomena affecting sea turtle eggs. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Report 11.
Strauss,E. 1990. Reproductive success,life history patterns,and behavioral variation in apopulation of
piping plovers subjected to human disturbance(1982-1989� Ph.D. dissertation. Tufts
Univdrsity,Medford,MA.
Talbert,O.R-,Jr., S.E. Stancyk,J.M.Dean, and J.M.Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead
turtle(Caretta caretta)in South Carolina I: A rookery in transition. Copeia 1980:709-718.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley(Lepidochelys kempii)and
loggerhead(Caretta caretta)sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC409.
------ 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the
western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444.
[USACE]U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual.(Vol. 1) Coastal
Engineering Research Center,Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,MS.
[USFWS]U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast
of the United States-West Indian manatee. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Services
Program. FWS/OBS-80/01.35.
-----. 1988a. Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Newton
Comer,MA.
------ 1988b. Recovery plan for piping plovers breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Twin Cities,MN.
------ 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers Charadrius melodus breeding on the Great
Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Twin Cities,MN.
------ 1995. West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus. Biologue Series,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.
------ 1996a. Piping plover(Charadrius melodus)Atlantic Coast population revised recovery plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,Hadley,MA.
------ 1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus). U.S.Fish and Wildlife
55

Service,Atlanta,GA.
--- -. 1996c. Florida manatee recovery plan(Trichechus manatus latirostris), second revision. U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service,Atlanta,GA.
----. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Atlanta,GA.
------ 2000a. 1999 Status update:U.S.Atlantic Coast piping plover population. U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service,Sudbury,MA.
------ 2000b. Piping plover Charadrius melodus,Great Lakes Population,Draft revised recovery plan.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Ft. Snelling,MN.
Watts,B.D.,D. S.Bradshaw,and K.Terwilliger. Undated. Dune stability and piping plover
distribution along the Virginia barrier islands. Draft ms.,College of William and Mary.
Weakley,A. S.,and M.A.Bucher. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus
Rafinesque)in North and South Carolina,second edition(after Hurricane Hugo). Report to
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program,North Carolina Department of Agriculture,Raleigh,
NC and Endangered Species Field Office,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Asheville,NC.
Wilcox,L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76:129-152.
Witherington,B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.
Herpetologica 48:31-39.
Witherington,B.E., and K.A.Bjomdal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward
orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Biological Conservation 55:139-149.
Witherington,B.E.,and L.M.Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles
(Chelonia mydas)nesting in Florida. Pp. 351-352 in Proceedings of the Second Western
Atlantic Turtle Symposium,L.Ogren et al.,editors. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFC-226.
Wyneken,J.,L.DeCarlo,L. Glenn,M. Salmon,D.Davidson, S.Weege., and L.Fisher. 1998. On the
consequences of timing,location and fish for hatchlings leaving open beach hatcheries. Pp. 155-
156 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation,R.Byles and Y.Fernandez,compilers. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFSC-412.
F W S/R4:DRabon:2-19-00:919.856.4520extensionl 6:\0ceanlsleB0.wpd
66

s
owa
OCM 111.
Duvulcpmonl Typo
FEE (14300 1601 4351C0090 1fi25 o2S31 f2d3001602435100095 2341)
I. Prival::,ncr.•rAm:narcial 0%(So)
duv4lpi�mUnt Ut;tl daps not involvo S250
quo Iiili:g or exr-1volion of any
wutl,tnris or open wold Brea-:
11, huhlic cr CUrrlmardai daveloprnr:nt (54COj 0%(SO)
thJt clot:;not involve tha rwing or
S uJ
1CC"a
i,x(-rv:+lien of any wetland:or open
walar area':
III. For duvclopmenl that involves tha
r111r0 or„ilor dXCavation of up la 1
acra of wialands andlor open wa!Ar
araas•d::larrninu if A,e.C,or D
bl:lrw
111(A). Frr Prrvato,nun-c_rrmcruial C%(SO)
d,vn(nl,rncnt,ll Ganoni water Quality
CarZif:�:Gon No.3301(ses ottachcd)
can he anf+iir.;t
For dUaiC or Cemmo:Clal 0- (SC)
dc•:eEcj'c_r•t,Ir Gnn,���l wa:�r Cuai:ty -
Ca tifi.�:ir n Na.2.01 (:r:o ra',ached)
r:n11 be arp'iad:
Ifl(C). If Gar,c:�l WJt,r Cu�lity
C_"tircauan(.t No.3-:01(see at:adled)
M S-11
_ ad he X)PRCd.brat DC
dc'_nn:ncd U1at additional mviow and
DvJA rnncurterca is A>-OWJ
S;uC�ur:of cancans ralalad to watt.
or acu,-'AiC lifat
ffGan^_ralWatr,fnua,ily (5240) dC%(S1oC)
•rli(:u�;n No.3301(--.a,3 altaC11cd)
5-y,� 60h
L:.
nn ri`t ba apprlcd:
IV. For d valo,meal If:al invo:vos / CD%(S:95)
the GCing andror excavation of morn 75
Man :cru or wetland;an ilar
pprn w.ltur are-1r:
' 1
r

P WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 14, 2005
FAX: [phone]
2 Pages
Brunswick Beacon
Ms. Carolyn Sweatt
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 2558
Shallotte, North Carolina 28459
Re: Public Notice - Town of Ocean Isle Beach, East End Beach Nourishment
Dear Ms. Sweatt:
Please publish the attached Notice in the Thursday, March 17, 2005, issue.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment
for newspaper advertising. Please send the affidavit, an original copy of the published notice, and an original
invoice to Jaye Poole, Division of Coastal Management, 1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1638. Please also send a copy of the affidavit to DCM, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC
28405.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our
Wilmington office.
Sincerely,
i
4everly
n k
Coastal Mana a Admin. Assistant
Enclosure
cc: Doug Huggett
Ted Tyndall
File Copy
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone]\Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer-50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice as
required by NCGS 113A-119(b) that application for a development permit in an Area of
Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA was received on February 2, 2005.
According to said application, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, proposes to dredge 135, 000 cy
of sand from Shallotte Inlet and deposit it on 2700 linear feet of ocean beach adjacent to the inlet,
at Ocean isle Beach: Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County.
A copy of the entire application may be examined or copied at the office of Caroline Bellis
at N.C. Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal
Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405, (910-395-3900) during normal business
hours.
Comments mailed to Charles S. Jones, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to April 7, 2005 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 this matter will be provided upon
written request.

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 10, 2005
J.W. Foreman
Coastal Science & Engineering
P.O. Box 1643
Morehead City,NC 28557
RE: Permit Application—Ocean Isle Beach East End Beach Nourishment
Dear Mr. Foreman:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, for State approval
for the proposed nourishment of the ocean beach adjacent to Shallotte Inlet at the east end of Ocean Isle
Beach,Brunswick County. It was received as completed on February 28,2005,and appears to be adequate
for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is May 14, 2005. 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 the February 28, 2005 date, 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.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension,Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone] Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer-50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

A field report has been prepared and is in the process of being circulated to the various state and federal
review agencies for their comments. If additional information is required based on this review,the agencies
may contact you directly.
Sincerely,
J!"r44:0-1
Caroline Bellis
Field Representative
Enclosure
cc: Jim Gregson, DCM District Manager
Ted Tyndall, DCM Assistant Director
Doug Huggett DCM
Henry Wicker, COE
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Justin Whiteside, LPO
J.W. Foreman, Agent

N kT r i 1 4
() I
1 (00* 19A
AMA ERMIT
APPLIED F
464
PROJECT:
'�- f .✓
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH A
0
APPLI ANT: FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
-� THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:WA /
/DK// d mil•'� ..L�(!� C emrAo0'
�1
�/o - 3�� ,�foo

U-S
Postal
a Postal ServiceT11 U.S.Postal Service
(Domesticj] CERTIFIED MAIL,,,, RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
0 , (Domestic mail only, No insurance covera CERTIFIED MAILT,,, RECEIPT
• . .•.
(Domestic Mail Only; Provided)
l rU
S�it r� L
7
Postage $ ""��++ � 2 OCEAN ISLE BEACH"NC 2B4b9
co
7 Postage $
Certified Fee $2.31) 1)b�9 $2. 0 ru Postage $ $l.Ob
1 Return Reole tFee 1j2 Postmark � Certified Fee =•31) Ob89 .31 OL89
(Endorsement Required) $1•r5 Here 0 112 Postmark try Certified Fee (12
ED Return Receept Fee #.1,75 Here $1.75 Postmark
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Return Receipt Fee Here
(Endorsement Required) $1-I,1 0 O O (Endorsement Required)
Lrl Rest r cted Delty Fee O $0.(10
(Endorsement Required) $I I,Ill I O Restricted Delivery Fee
Total Postage&Fees $ 55.11 I-11/13/20i15 M 1� (Endorsement Required)
'� $5.11 01/13/2005 $5.11 01/13/2005
Sent To Total Postage&Fees $ � Total Postage&Fees .p
l'... (, - --L ` 00 Sent To C T / n
SYrest, ' -- - (.4..�>< -�E -.4�D-- �? Se T y� r r A- Y V l C GY)
I apt."a.; ------------------------------------------------ (-t � A (�� 15 I.:��`�
'or PO Box No. r ------------------ - O I
T I z t ---------------------••• •-•••.......--•-.._.-•••••-•••-•............------------
C ----•�.. ------P----; _ $`fieef,Apt.No.;
Ci State,Z/Pr4 or PO Box No. O Y -�_O x No. ,
ry, !` Street,Apt No.;
.4 .J S(� C / City.State,Z/P+4 = / --• p or Po eo C ll/ ) ✓ �?-�J
.r �oV � 4 4 b Z Z ciry,-,,_s_�ate,ZIP+4 T _ � �C-
----i-�---� ,
V
PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions
PS Form :rr r0
Postal U.S.. •
(DomesticCERTIFIED MAILT,, RECEIPT U.S.
stal ServiceT. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Only; ul CERTIFIED ' RECEI ' D. Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
• cc (Domestic
Ll o p RESvIC 511 ..� „` ra RTHERORH�DNI[ 19 m OCEAN I.,LE BEACH NC 2v"t,I
Postage $
Il Postage $ � Postage $ $1.�1b
Certified $2•30 Obg9
S2.-0 m 16
Certified Fee $2• 1) Ob89 r-1 02 D
1-12 Postmark
Certified Fee
Retum Reciept Fee c p 02�1.7.i Postmark � zPostma
(Endorsement Required) Here p Return Reclept Fee $1.75
(Endorsement Required) Here O Return Receipt Fee 1-•+ Here
Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
(Endorsement Required) $I-I.1-1(1 0 Restricted Delivery Fee to
ul (Endorsement Required) Ki.A(l O Restricted Delivery Fee
O (Endorsement Required) t
Total Postage&Fees $ 55.11 Ili fi;�/21111_, � g $ 1/1 / O $5.11 00t/200
Total Postage&Fees $5.11 0 3 2005 Total Postage&Fees
Sent To
ED Sent To
Street.Ap ✓-•--------�---(- SU�----M l L� o W 1 LY ��jO�1 Sent To y_
r(�A,l-1�C VL/ 1�
( -- -----------------------
ru Str t
City
- Box No. b $treat,Apt.No.; // Street,Apt.No.;
Crty,Si.
ZlP+4
G v_,41� 2 `� or PO Box No. I��l� lJ r
or PO Box Na. C/
M�rZ�S City, 4Ci OVI LC � C- y,State.
PS Form 3800,June r :rr rr

CERTIFIEDU.S.Postal
stal Service U.S.
" ,, •.
stal Service
MAIL RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
• I • • I provided) • I • Coverage • • • • (Domestic
•CERTIFIED I RECEIPT No insurance Coverage
p
OCEAN ISLE BEACH NC 28469 Y,ILiEE4,`fX 4543 = m OCEAN ISLE BEACH HC 28469
m
Postage s $1-06 rU Postage $ $1.06 Postage $ $1.06
CO 0689 0689
.sl 0689 a 02 `°
Certified Fee 02 Ur7 Certified Fee r-9 Certified Fee 02
Postmark t1l Postmark
Return Receipt Fee $1'r5 Postmark p Rat um Receipt Fee Here Here
Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) p Return Receipt Fee
Here p $(t•�l� p (Endorsement Required) $0.0u
Restricted Delivery Fee $�l•0Q p Restricted Delivery Fee p Restricted Delivery Fee
_ndorXernel Required) p (Endorsement Required) p (Endorsement Required)
$5.11 7 TotalPosta Postage $5.11 O1i13/21)05 $ $5.11 01/13/2005
Total Postage&Fees 0111�121)0S p g $ Total Postage&Fees
.D p
ent To n �1 = Sent To _
reef,Apt.No.;
PO Box No.
---------�-• r--7 - _
ru
tY.Statn fI- G--_`- to 1P.4 ----r ------------ -- - -•---- --- -BOX
--o -- - --- -- -- ------ -
CC'0 p or PO Box No Q / Street,Apt.N. t ��
p
Cf / C3 or PO B N ,J/
-- ---- - - ---------------
L ¢�
I.S.Postal Service i U.S. Postal Service U.S. Postal Servicel'.
F'ERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT nj CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
Xomestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) (Domestic Mail only: No Insurance Coverage
• •-• I I • • •' • •••
flJ
Cc Ln
ru cc CC
L'fHCHBI#`G VA 245D3co
`6REENSBbRO I G 2d4i5 •E H�RD�RC 8 •1 •�+
7
Postage $ $1.06 fU Postage $ $1.06 ru Postage $ C D
0
Certified Fee 02Vg Cc'� Certified Fee 0689 p Certified Fee $2.30 9 z
u7 02 p �-Posim�t C`
Return Receipt Fee $ 75 Postmark p Return Redept Fee $1.75 Herq;i.
Postmark p Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
;orsement Required) Here p (Endorsement Required) Here fV
;tricted Delivery Fee $0.00 p Restricted Delivery Fee $0.00 � (Endorsementsed Required)Fee $0'00 � o �
iorsement Required) p (Endorsement Required) M t�
.at Postage&Fees $5.11 01/13/2005 $5.11 ID13/2005
g $ p Total Postage&Fees .$ $5.11 Ol/1312005 Total Postage&Fees $
110 `� p nt T
p �L C C—1 : ,^ D , ^ �7Sen
�t Apt No.;-•------•----••-------------•-----•-----••-----•-------••------...---•------
P ---------------- .�7 /�
7 Box N-- I'/ l Verg j ` SJ'Y �. dD , or PO Box No. ----- ---- ----
f �� F3�il 'J (ZDte,ZIP.a � TS •-•------ Cary,sia iP+a �LP-.-J 6 o eo L Z.c�b 4c
ie z
3800,January 2031 See Firwerse for Instructions :rr „ V"i