19890210 Ver al_Complete File_20100726

' STAIho. lY
1 r F {{ #{
L ??? s.• ?f? Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA X10ASTAL RESOURt e,3 COMN1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
-- -- - RALEIGH 27611-5201 - - - -
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
November 6, 1990
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Office of coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Sir:
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
r:-
t
SUBJECT:-Emergency work on Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon
Inlet, Dare County NC.
In accordance with prior communication between our
Departments, a permit is hereby requested to perform certain
work at Bonner Bridge on an emergency basis. We are seeking
a modification of permit.-138-89 to authorize construction of
a temporary offloading area and approach road on the west
side of the bridge. Upon completion of bridge repairs, these
access areas will be restored to pre-project grade. This
- - - area will-be=replanted-with appropriate coastal wetland
- vegetation --(i: e -Spartina -aItern if_lora
If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Pipkin
at [phone].
Sincerely,
L.R. Goode, PhD, PE
Director, Programs, Policy and Budget
f
LRG/dp/gec
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

A { ,r . M PILE I D. :i `i ,. l t l,11'i N:.'I• D, .r ME. !.
RE CORD !ir°,.: PEEN CHANGED.
R{::.i,;.;Rj; ;'';;_
t 00689 ._. i.iA?;.
: . . . Th: M, MINT MOTTM
., .._..
R i
"Up,

,..

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 28, 1989
Washington Regional Office la-
THROUGH: Roger K. Thorpe, Water Quality Regional Supervisorpw.,.--
Washington Regional Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Mills, Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Section
THROUGH: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: DF/CAMA/401 Review
NC DOT - Beach Nourishment
Pea Island
Dare County
, L?" '?- ? af'u?
This office requested of the NC DOT to have the sand analyzed for
contaminants which is proposed to be used for beach nourishment. The
analyses are attached. This office is of the opinion that the
proposed project will have minimal water quality impacts.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at
946-6481. Thank you.
DS/cm
Attachments
f
„i L.t1s1'T'6`r T?F;'C;r°tMr=t: 1 _ t RI:::`,' DATE 09/12/851
nc:K(:TN ; add F7:L?. ? DFCAMA40I F' P 'asD > FORMAT : NRDFCA ,A NE XT RC:D 00659
ACTION = ADD, ENTER THE DATA TO BE STORED F RD DATA
I°'RO,JO : 00688 PR(:a..(: Pea i sta'itd ...do•I:....1:!crrach nr:,t!r COUNTY: dare REGION: 07
ASS:I:(:;iiiI:::D TO: da!-.,- JOINT NOTICE: ,,
TYPE CERTIFICATION RECOMMEND DAT T' O
404 PN : 401i F;EW ISSUE: RECEIVED : 89091-i
'
ti ONLY: GC: DENY: INITIAL 89OW'..?
REPORT:
r..F';Cr??r P'i rr ^ : v SEC P: ;>(,iPRE::(>> : D FINAL RE PORT:
RECEIVING STREAM: atlantic ocean CLAW:
COMMENTS:
modification of w'd r..er (.. 0233'',;'
request dred<:ie spoils from <:tro i n and reve kme n is Pro ir..,c: is to be used for L!etoc:h
nourishment
see attached memorandum
COPIES: w<ar(:!. i::en.I.r!:t L-m i I. L -°dc:rrt

f' °? - ;?
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ?C7-j989
September 12, 1989,
r-
MEMORANDUM (f¢?,y
TO: Bill Mills, Environmental Engineer
Operations Branch
THROUGH: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician .-6? --
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: DF/CAMA/401 Review
Project #00701
Pea Island Beach Nourishment
Dare County
This office has reviewed the above subject project. The request for a
modification of Water Quality Certification Number 2337 will have to
be held in abeyance until the N.C. DOT can submit to this office the
necessary sieve analysis of materials from the proposed dredge area
and verification of authorized channel depth. Upon receipt of the
sieve analysis, this office will make a determination as to the
recommendation of issuance for this modification or any further
monitoring requirements to ensure that water quality standards will
not be contravened.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office.
DAS/cm

SEP 1989
A
CR"V AT r
'Alify
ti
3
SrnTF
? h
•? Rw+vDy
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor September 14, 1989 John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas C. Suermann District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers r>
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 `.%
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Suermann:
Thank you for your cooperation in arranging for the
emergency beach nourishment of Pea Island in conjunction
with your current maintenance dredging of the navigation
channel to Oregon Inlet. The status of our arrangements for
this project is as follows:
1. Secretary William W. Cobey, Jr. has mailed you a letter
dated September 12, 1989, holding the Corps of
Engineers harmless from impacts of the emergency beach
nourishment project as you requested in your letter of
September 7.
2. The Division of Environmental Management amended the
401 certification for the terminal groin project to
allow additional beach nourishment on September 13,
1989. The certification was sent by FAX to Mr. Barry
Holliday on September 13.
3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a special use
permit for the beach nourishment on September 14, 1989.
We have received a FAX copy today and will send you a
copy.
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a
Section 7 Endangered Species evaluation and given the
beach nourishment project clearance on September 13,
1989. The issuance of this approval was confirmed by
Mr. Wilson Laney on September 14 and a copy will be
sent to your office.
5. Funds for the project have been committed as follows:
N.C. Department of Transportation - $200,000, N.C.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276117687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
S
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
Page 2
September 14, 1989
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - $118,000, Dare County - $100,000, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service - $100,000. We understand that
each participant has sent or is in the process of
sending these funds to the Wilmington District. The
DEHNR check was mailed September 14.
6. A drawing is attached indicating the location where the
dredged material is to be placed on the beach.
We believe that all of the arrangements and approvals
for this project have been completed. Please proceed with
the placement of the dredged material on Pea Island as soon
as possible and let us know if any further administrative
items need to be completed.
We greatly appreciate the cooperation and support
provided by you and by staff members at the Wilmington
District in arranging for this emergency beach nourishment
project.
Sincerely yours,
r.
Jo n N. Morris
cc: Secretary William W. Cobey, Jr.
Mr. Tommy Harrelson
Mr. Michael Daniels
Ms. Mike Gantt
Mr. John Taylor
Mr. Bill Mills
Ms. Edythe McKinney

I
NsPo
AVr--f
'es
? IRNrnC
Qt,tflO
F .j 1
60ut pISOoS"
,?oo?F?carn?a
of??d.a?l
-.NAT

DR WrA IR&OM PMT i, c Attr.? Cot Pi of G?JI ??+c?? S ,z x? 39

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
PUBLIC NOTICE
CESAW-PD-89-19-0002 April 14, 1989
SAND SHOAL ISLAND
WEST OF HERBERT C. BONNER BRIDGE, MANTEO TO OREGON INLET CHANNEL
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY PROJECT
DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina,
proposes to discharge dredged material on a sand shoal island just south of
the channel and west of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Manteo to Oregon Inlet
Channel, Dare County, North Carolina (figures 1 and 2). The sand shoal
island was created as a result of disposal of dredged material during
maintenance dredging of the channel from mile 0 to mile 1.5. At this time,
the island is being proposed for use as a disposal site for material dredged
from west of the Bonner Bridge to the intersection of Old House Channel
using a hydraulic pipeline dredge (figure 1).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Historically, mile 0 to mile 1.5 of the Manteo to Oregon Inlet Channel
has been maintained by a sidecast dredge, as discussed in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project,
Dare County, North Carolina, filed with the Council on Environmental Quality
on April 20, 1979, and the Final Supplement to the FEIS (FSFEIS), Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay Project, North Carolina, filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on November 7, 1980.
Use of Sand Shoal Island will result in the disposal of up to approximately
150,000 cubic yards of dredged material, consisting of medium to coarse
grained clean sand with lesser amounts of shell fragments, annually by a
hydraulic pipeline dredge using the control of effluent method of disposal
with effluent directed away from the channel. Disposal will raise the
substrate elevation above m.l.w. in the open water area adjacent to the
island. The size of the island will fluctuate due to the dynamic nature
of the Oregon Inlet environment (i.e., direct effects of wind, shifting
currents, and wave action). There is no vegetation growing on the island.
A
Environmental impacts associated with dredging and disposal of dredged
material from mile 0 of the Manteo to Oregon Inlet Channel to the
intersection of Old House Channel with a sidecast or hydraulic pipeline
dredge, with disposal on sand islands in the Oregon Inlet area, are
described in the previously referenced FEIS and FSFEIS Manteo (Shallowbag)
Bay Project. Environmental impacts associated with use of the Sand Shoal
Island are described in an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), Sand Shoal Island, West of Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project, Dare County, North Carolina, dated
January 23, 1989.
A Section 404 (b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation has been prepared for
discharge of dredged material on Sand Shoal Island.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate (No. 1337-R) for the
discharge of dredged material using the control-of-effluent method of
disposal (effluent directed toward the channel) on sand islands in the
Oregon Inlet vicinity was received from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management on June 12, 1981. A determination has been
requested from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management on
whether continued use of the Sand Shoal Island as a disposal site can be
covered under the existing water quality certification or if a separate
certification is needed.
Formal consultation on endangered and threatened species listed pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, has been completed for the
authorized Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project. The proposed action is not
expected to have an adverse effect on any speoies currently listed;
therefore, reinitiation of formal consultation is unnecessary.
Sand Shoal Island is used by colonially nesting waterbirds (Black Skimmer,
Least Tern, Gull-Billed Tern, Royal Tern, Common Tern, and Sandwich Tern).
Therefore, disposal on the island will be in accordance with the Dredged
Material Management Plan in the FSFEIS. Maintenance will be scheduled so
as to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the nesting activities of
colonially ne30'ing waterbirds. Dredged material will not be discharged on
the island during the period April 1 through July 31 if significant nesting
activity is in progress. Dredged material disposal will be postponed until
nesting is substantially completed.
Use of Sand Shoal Island as a dredged material disposal site for the Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay Project using the control of effluent method of disposal is
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the proposed action
for potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources that may be
in the project area (memorandum to Colonel Paul W. Woodbury, Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, from David Brook, Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer, dated June 7, 1988). An archaeological investigation
is not recommended since the proposed work involves maintenance dredging
within controlled and previously dredged channels.

rZ]
There is attached a list of Federal, State, and local agencies with whom
this activity is being coordinated.
The decision to authorize the discharge of dredged material will be based on
an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts of the
proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.
The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the
cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership, and in
general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Designation of the proposed disposal site for dredged material associated
with the Federal project shall be made through the application of guidelines
promulgated by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, in
conjunction with the Secretary of the Army.
This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons in
order to assist in developing facts on which a decision may be made by the
Corps of Engineers with respect to the disposal of dredged material in
waters of the United States. For accuracy and completeness of record, all
data in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed should be submitted in
writing setting forth sufficient detail to support convictions. Any person
who has an interest which may be affected by the discharge of this dredged
material may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in
writing to the District Engineer within 15 days of the date of this notice
and must clearly set forth the interest which may be affected and the manner
in which the interest may be affected by this activity. In order for such
request to be given appropriate consideration, it should be mailed or
delivered to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, Post Office
Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890, in time to be received on
or before April 29, 1989. All correspondence should refer to the number and
date of this notice.
If you have any questions concernin the matter, nftase contact Mr. Daniel
Small, Environmental Resources Br c , at the abo a ddresa or by telephone
at [phone].
John F. Hi io '2-
Lieutenant onel, Corps of Engineers
Deputy Jr.
Deputy District Engineer
Attachments
3

LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
All United States Senators and Representatives for the State of North
Carolina
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, EIS Review Section
Office of Ecology and Conservation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Director, Office of Environmental Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy
Habitat Conservation Division, Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service
Area Director, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of Environmental Project Review, U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, DC
Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor, Asheville Endangered Species Field Office
Special Programs, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Disease
Control
Refuge Manager, Pea Island Refuge
Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service
State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Fifth Coast Guard District
Region 3, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Librarian, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
UNC-Chapel Hill, Wilson Library
North Carolina State Library
UNC-Wilmington, Randall Library
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Water Resources Research Institute
4

a
\\\\r/f0 MAN iEO Z
\\ 70 ?
\ O N O
CN
o Z R, m
J O
'I".?,?.
\ rn
Ar
AMC "I ? 1\\, H
O c
Z Z
D N\
Z O \ p
7t \
m \\
N\
fODIf
`\ r.7 ?ISIAND
\\ LIGHTHOUSE
\\ 4
\
\\ F
4h \
('1 r y\\ Q).E HEARING
? ?` ISLAND
O
LITTLE VIA
ISLAND
?? ? lO{rGN
p jk==??TE
,r
.r
/r
5
/
r,
r,
K rr
/?// MANTEp TG OR[O0N INLET EMANRIEC-z
SOUND 'r
SAND
ISLAND s?ANo
0
A?
9
if
US COAST GUARD
STATION
N'
??- ? ..?
?;:

... STAr[ o
? t S
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor September 13, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
V
Mr. 'T'homas J. Harrelson, Deputy Secretary
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Modification to Water Quality
Certification No, 2337
N.C. Department of Transportation
Oregon Inlet
Dare County
Dear Mr. Harrelson:
In response to your application dated September 5, 1989 for
modification to Water Quality Certification No. 2337 originally
issued May 30, 1989, we have completed our review and are hereby
modifying the Certification to allow placement of up to 300,000
cubic yards of dredged material from the navigation channels at
Oregon Inlet onto the ocean beach of Pea Island. Please find
attached a copy of the modified Certification.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact us.
Sincerely,
OR161NAC SIGNED ey,
""ARIES WANIID
R. Paul Wilms
RPW:BM/jho
cc: W' i.ngton District Corps of Engineers
ashington Regional Office
John Morris
George Everett
William Mills
harrelson.1/vol.d-2
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
M
North Carolina
Dare County
CERTIFICATION
THIS MODIFIED CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to North Carolina Department of Transportation pursuant to an
application filed on the 5th day of April, 1989 and amended on
the 5th September 1989 to construct a stone groin and revetment
with a 3300 foot access channel at the north end of Hatteras
Island and to place up to 300,000 cubic yards of dredged material
from the navigation channels at Oregon Inlet onto the beach on
Pea Island.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of dredged and fill materials, into the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean in conjunction with the proposed groin and
revetment and the beach nourishment in Dare County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to
prevent significant increase in turbidity outside the
area of construction or construction related discharge
(increases such that the turbidity in the Stream is 25
NTU's or less are not considered significant).
2. That the stone be of such size as to not be washed away
by tide or wave action.
3. That the material for the groin and revetment be free of
any toxic pollutants.
4. That the dredged material to be placed on the beach shall
be predominantly sand, having a mean grain size of .2
millimeters.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 13th day of September, 1989
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ORIGINAL' SIGNED BYi
CHARLES YVAKILO
R. Paul Wilms, Director
+ IV
S EP 1989
nc.. ?_D
`+' AlFER QUALITY
r. !.?:ar,„ing Branch
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 12, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Mills, Environmental Engineer
Operations Branch
THROUGH: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician d?-
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: DF/CAMA/401 Review
Project #00701
Pea Island Beach Nourishment
Dare County
This office has reviewed the above subject project. The request for a
modification of Water Quality Certification Number 2337 will have to
be held in abeyance until the N.C. DOT can submit to this office the
necessary sieve analysis of materials from the proposed dredge area
and verification of authorized channel depth. Upon receipt of the
sieve analysis, this office will make a determination as to the
recommendation of issuance for this modification or any further
monitoring requirements to ensure that water quality standards will
not be contravened.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office.
DAS/cm
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Office of Director
_ ZIA
_.I,lAt tached is referred to :
_. Please prepare a final draft _ reply by
for signature by the:
Governor _ Deputy Secretary _ Director _
Secretary _ Asst. Secretary _ Asst. Director
In your response, please note correspondence was
referred by:
- Indicate carbon copies to
Indicate blind carbond copies to
_. In taking action, coordinate efforts with
_ Please review attached and give me your comments by
Coordinate your review and comment with
,/lease handle
_ Please note and advise me as appropriate
_ Please note and file
Please discuss with me
_ For your information
Remezrks: Please return background information
with drafted responses.
Log Number v
16
-r -
ST) rf "
w
f? `H`AM vM1fR??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Manage it
Thomas J. Harrelson
`??? ? 9101jr??`?n
SEp 1988 s
N
?, do O
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
DEPUTY SECRETARY
MODIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION NUMBER 2337
I am writing to request a modification to the 401 Certification issued to the
North Carolina Department of Transportation for the construction of the groin
and revetment project at the north end of Pea Island in Dare County. Because
of recent erosion along the beach in the vicinity of the old Coast Guard
Station, beach nourishment is needed to protect the mobilization site for the
groin and revetment project. Thus, we are requesting that our certification
include the following:
Placement of up to 300,000
the area shown on Figure 1
primarily coarse sand with
and fines, will be dredged
in Figure 2 and pumped to
Island shown in Figure I.
September 5, 1989
cubic yards of sandy material in
attached. This material,
lesser amounts of shell fragments
from the navigation channel shown
the area on the north end of Pea
The Corps of Engineers has a pipeline dredge under contract in the vicinity of
the Bonner Bridge. To accomplish the needed nourishment at the least costs,
the State has asked the Corps to pump the material to the area shown on
Figure 1, rather than use a spoil disposal island. Thus, we need to have this
modification approved as soon as possible.
If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me.
TJH/bhj
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
r ?
i
'1 y
M ?
j : ??..
`? '.\
.. 4 !' .
'''? ? ?
.. _ f?».?_ ? _<?
1 yi '
s

oA 0 \
o O
o >
,6-w At"Rol.Z
N
i
y
f
` Vk
*
`\` QI r"

ANC Y
!,• ?,• H
v
'TO

70
O ?\
G
D
Z O O
? m

,
lS
` O

Z
c'N
O
m
Z
Beach
Renourishment
Area
1
.r
?h
W? 1
? 2.
QOH 2
a? rt
s?: nhWO
s \
9
Z
0
6OD41
9,1UAN0
SIC."THOUSI
%?F
nt111 4
E IsLAW
• ? ` 111111 f1Y?? ,..,
ISI AMD
D `?t===rµ'1
"' 1r
K, to A
0 U N 0
5
PAt,4LICO M /i r ?tSj,os/,c.
/ V
N
!
d
!
/
/i
i
US COAST GUA
STA110N
`f A??re7L.200/X ??? X4100'vj'- b fzA QG?
?/? ' CNtoTtk, T7EEipTt{ , LzIaGr+a
N
DIKED UNDERWATER
DISPOSAL AREA
Present
Shoreline
FIGURE 2

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
September 13, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Bill Mills
Division of Environmental Management
John Sutherland )d--l".
Plan for Beach Nourishment

of Pea Island
The Corps of Engineers hired Atkinson Dredging Company to
perform maintenance dredging of navigation channel near Oregon
Inlet. See Figure 1. A total of 350,000 cubic yards was to be
dredged and pumped to Sand Shoal Island. Because of very high
rate of erosion on the north end of Pea Island and its importance
as a breakwater for the southern end of the Oregon Inlet Bridge,
DEHNR requested the Corps to place 300,000 cubic yards of that
material in the area shown on Figure 2. The pipeline will be
placed as shown in Figure 3. Only 50,000 cubic yards would be
pumped on Sand Shoal Island.
Atkinson Dredging Company has already started pumping the
spoil (mostly coarse sand) to Sand Shoal Island. Its dredge has
started at the bridge and is moving to the east in order to do
the most difficult section first.
We need to have a decision on 401 certification as soon as
possible in order to place the 300,000 cubic yards of sand on the
beach. The longer it takes to make a decision, the lesser amount
of sand will end up on the beach. It will take approximately 60
days to complete the beach nourishment.
I talked to Mr. Barry Holliday today about the material that
is being dredged. He said it is some of the best material for
beach nourishment in North Carolina. Also, the advance
maintenance dredging to 17 feet was done earlier this year (1989)
east of the bridge; west of the bridge the channel was dredged to
15 feet in 1988. However, according to the Corps, in years past,
the entire channel west of the bridge was naturally greater than
17 feet.
x
I i
A
1
Q s?oS
fiX.E f

l'I Ft NTi c
Oe,tAo
a6AC1t DISvuSA L.
DR?MwI'i F&4M Ak+TO ?S q?t..?J cot Pt of r`Q&, k"cc+S
-. )-. .?.._...wV'TVA7 Alttt%c.'r
O.,6Garl
7 NXJF. C`
AEI u Ref 3
z 5't a?
f?tl? F?
la(ojdw3 uou:)y a,+[.1NMU.gjV Al;uiw0dd0 jenb3 ud
SIOL-EEL-616 auoyda!a)L L89L-119LE eui!aeD TJOiy 'g2iagea 'L89LZ xOa 'ad
s.Cnd ucijuaaad uor1nlhd
44010AH abloaq • zW
sTTTW WPTTTTM -3 aoTJJO TPUOTbag uogbuTg PM
szaauTbug go sdaoo 4oTzgsTQ uo4buTUa?TM :oo
SWTTM Tnud •d
'F,.TazaouTS
•sn ?oP?uoo
Oq ogpgTsoq qou op 'aouPgsTssP a0gganj go Oq uPO aM ;I
'686T '0£
fiPW pagPp uoTgPgjodsuPaj go quowgjPdaQ PuTTOIP3 T4glON Oq panssT
L££Z 'ON uOTqPOTJTga@D 30 saTdoo (Z) OMq azP ogazoq p3g3P4gV
:apooS •aa apoa
F?qunoo a.aPQ
uPaoO oT4uP14K
uoTgPgaodsuPaj
go quowgjpdoa •0•N
gaTul uoba.zp
quaw40nag PUP uTOaq posodoia
'qov aagPM uP013
TPZapaa aqq 30 T0t uoTgoaS
Oq quPnsana uOTqP3T;jgl0D : qoa CgnS
TOZS-TT9LZ PuTTOZPD T4JON 'gbTaTPg
TOZSZ XOg aOTJJO 'sod
uoTgpgaodsupaz L go quow-4aPdaa PuTTOZPD gglON
gouPlg AoTToa PUP mabozd '.zabPuPW
.S.d ..Q.qd 'apooS *H •Z -au
.1OIaaa1Q Ajmz)iaaS ".if 'Az)gOD M we!II!A\
suil!A\ Ined '?l 686T '0Z APN IOU1anOD 'LIIIJLl1 'D sawL(
1191H L'UIIOILD 41lON 'y !alL?i , aaaaas /uii qsllLS TION ZlS
JUauia°LULyv lL;uaulllOainUj JO l1015!ni(1
JuawdolanaQ AiiunwwoD pue saDanosa-d lL"UeN Jo juawj.zpdaQ
l?uI10112D giiON JO z)MS
P^0'
3lV15'" ,+?

-- . - 3
NORTH CAROLINA
Dare County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to North Carolina Department of Transportation pursuant
to an application filed on the 5th day of April, 1989 to
construct a stone groin and revetment with a 3300 foot access
channel at the north end of Hatteras Island.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of the Atlantic
ocean in conjunction with the proposed groin and revetment in
Dare County will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
i. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. That the stone be of such size as to not be washed
away by tide or wave action.
3. That the material for the groin and revetment be
free of any toxic pollutants.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 30 day of May, 1989.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 2337 .

. e,,. SUrgo
t
v
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor July 12, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Dr. L. R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E.
Manager, Program and Policy Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Dr. Goode:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401
of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Temporary Road and Offloading Area
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Oregon Inlet Groin and Revetment
Atlantic Ocean
Dare County
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 2361
issued to the North Carolina Department of Transportation dated
July 12, 1989.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
t ,
A* Paul Wilms
Attachments
Mr. John Parker
i
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
cc: Wi mington District Corps of Engineers
shington
Regional Office
r. William Mills

NORTH CAROLINA
Dare County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to North Carolina Department of Transportation pursuant to an
application filed on the 16th day of June, 1989 to construct a
temporary road and offloading ramp at the Bonner.Bridge in
conjunction with the groin and revetment project.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into a wetlands area adjacent to the
waters of Pamlico Sound and Atlantic Ocean in conjunction with
the proposed road and ramp in Dare County will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge
guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that
this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307
of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above condition is made a condition of the Federal Permit.
This the 12th day of July, 1989.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

R. Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 2361
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
\
April 10, 1989
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-CO89-N-028-0271
s ? iVr- D
APR 1 2. 1989
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, for Department of the Army authorization
and a State Water Quality Certification to construct a revetment and terminal
groin, including excavation of a work channel, on the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon
Inlet, north end of Pea Island, Dare County, North Carolina. Your receipt of
this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request for certification in
accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same
law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by June 5, 1989, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Cliff Winefordner, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
,h u?
ha 's W. H lis
ief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-2-

Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Griffin
Elizabeth City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
ig - 097/
??,.A ?: srnrt v?
r,..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
March 31, 1989
District Engineer .
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Proposed Terminal Groin and Revetment,
South Shore, Oregon Inlet, Dare County
1989
REGULATORY BRANCH
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
T:ie North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
construct a terminal groin and revetment at the north end of
Pea Island in an effort to stabilize Oregon Inlet in the
vicinity of highway 12 and Bonner Bridge in Dare County.
This plan of protection has become necessary because of erosion
at the north end of Pea Island which recently accelerated from
an annual rate of 180 ft/yr measured between 1981 and 1988 to an
equivalent annual rate of 1150 ft/yr between April 1988 and
Iiarch 1989. During the severe northeast storm that occurred
between Harch 6th and 10th, 1989, the north end of Pea Island
lost 350 1_, 400 feet of shoreline. Since April 1988 this
accelerated erosion has destroyed the fresh wager pond at the
north end of the island and resulted in the loss of approximately
32 acres of land owned by both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Coast Guard.
The erosion now poses a serious threat: to NC Highway 12 where it
approaches the Bonner Bridge and to the southern abutment of the
bridge itself. Due to the economic importance of the bridge and
Highway 12 to the local economy as well as the importance of this
transportation facility to the health and safety of over 5000
residents of Hatteras Island, the N. C. Department of Transportation
decided to implement one of the plans developed by the Oregon
inlet Task Force in August 1988.
District Engineer
Page 2
March 31, 1989
The protective structures would begin as a sloping rubble revetment
at the Coast Guard Station bulkhead. The revetment would cover about
600 feet of shoreline before joining with a free-standing rubble-
mound type structure, designated as a terminal groin, at a point
where the existing upland area of the island ends. The terminal
groin would project about 550 feet into the inlet before gradually
turning and extending seaward perpendicular to the adjacent
shoreline of Pea Island. This proposed alignment, which is shown
on the attached drawing, would place the groin near the position
the north point of Pea Island occupied in April 1988. The total
length of the terminal groin, measured from its juncture with the
revetment, is about 3200 feet.
The purpose of the revetment and terminal groin is to impede the
southward movement of Pea Island and Oregon Inlet. A stable
accretion fillet, encompassing approximately 60 acres and extending
3500 feet south of the groin, is expected to form in the lee of the
structure. The extension of the groin into the inlet to approxi-
mately .he April. 1988 shoreline position would provide a wave
shadow for the southern bridge abutment. The erosion of over
1000 feet of shoreline at the north end of Pea Island since
April 1988 has exposed the southern bridge abutment to direct
attack of ocean waves.
Once the fillet forms in the lee of the groin, which will likely
occur during the construction period of the groin, natural sand
transport around the inlet via the offshore bar should continue.
Therefore, the groin is not expected to have any detrimental
impacts on island processes south of the fillet. Numerous
examples of this type of fillet development are available at
other project sites including: Fort Macon State Park near
Beaufort Inlet, NC; the south side of Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida;
and the south side of Masonboro Inlet.
Other than stabilizing the position of the north end of Pea Island
arid Oregon Inlet, the proposed plan would not affect inlet
navigation. Shoaling arid shifting of the inlet's ocean bar
channel will continue. By stabilizing the position of Oregon
Inlet, however, the revetment and groin will greatly lessen the
potential need for bridge replacement at Oregon Inlet in the
immediate future. If Oregon Inlet is not prevented from
migrating southward, a replacement bridge would have to be
extended an additional 4000 to 5000 feet south to accommodate
future inlet movements.
District
Page 3
March 31,
In order to assist the construction process, an access channel
for supply vessels may be required off the northern end of
Pea Island (see drawings, Sheet 5). This channel will function
as an alternative to land based routes needed for transport of
materials to the site.
Our Department is in the process of obtaining the necessary
Special Use Permits from the Department of the Interior, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and from the U. S. Coast Guard. Copies
of these permits will be forwarded to you upon receipt.
Application is hereby made to the Department of the Army for
permit approval to allow work to proceed. By copy of this letter,
we are requesting review and issuance of a CAMA permit by the
Office of Coastal Management and issuance of 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management, NRCD.
Given the importance of this project to the health, safety and
welfare of our residents and visitors along the Outer. Banks,
your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Jerry
McCrain at 919-733-7842.
Sincerely,
LRG/GRM/jcr
Engineer
1989
L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE
Manager, Program & Policy Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
M s.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
iir.
.
John Parker, CAMA
Paul Wilms, ATT: Mr.
John Taylor, USFWS
L. K. Gantt, USFWS
Tommy Harrelson
George 61e l l s , PE
Tommy Peacock, PE
W. M. Ingram, PE
A. L. Hankins, PE
L. A. Sanderson, PE
John Smith, PE
Jim Greenhill, PE
C. 0. White, PE
G. R. McCrain
Bill Mills, DEM, NRCD
?SGO
FOR O??
01
e co
G
P a
?aI
?GJS ti9
an %?
ca?c S X13 •\E`cac
Qc G. ?
C?
c ?
? aGG `S • ?`?? 3c``ccs
. ? C?Cpc ' 16.11' cc?`? "? °` O??`C E 199
F,as GG S
? • b1C bnp ?Ql Ca????` a?`cA ? a
?a???G 5 •? FAO p` ?a? any
O C?aS`?1 OE `??J
Q\?`S\OQCQ3?ma ?\?
G. a<`
?C e`o
?a<<o
a1??1
CPS b1C E c?C ?acC
dn1p ° Ott\?? Pc?
SCC?`°
atOC Q e G1Cao
oll CG``°
CJ CPS • L
Ply O`S`??c
Q
DIVISION OF
COASTAL
FIELD OFFICES
Elizabeth City
108 South Water Street
Elizabeth City, N.C. 27909
[phone]
Washington
Box 1507
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
Wilmington
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
[phone]
Raleigh Central Office
N.C. Department of Natural R=urccs and
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury Street
Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
[phone]
Morehead City
Box 769
3411 Arendell Street
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
[phone]
1-800.682-2632
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
[phone]
MANAGEMENT
Please type or print. Carefully describe all an- d. Describe the planned use of the project.
ticipated development activities, including c4 t'L:NE= Protection of Public
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and Transportation Facility
stotmwater control. If the requested infortnatio j 1989
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not a
plicable). Irems 1-4 and $-9 must be compleC ?
all projects. t ftATORY BRA r r* ` R ?? z t
a ;., x19 3D' ??;
t - i71. lT A?F
~Stli teisfk7 a.
North Carolina Department of Transportation b.
a. Name L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE'
Address P. O. Box 25201. C.
City Raleigh State NC d
Zip 27611 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or X_ Authorized agent' c
b. Project name (if any) N/A
c. If the applicant is not die landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
?cc a"si iii n?t' r : +rYy j7, y
a. Street address or secondary road number
NC 12
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Orpgon Tnlet
c. County Dare County
d. Is prop work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? N(,
e. Name of body of water nearest project
'atlantic Ck-an
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
Construction or Terminal
Groi.n.Revetment and
Construction uction Access Channel
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an c
isting project, new work, or both?
Stabi-lization or Shoreline
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
C'ommuni_ty
Size of entire tract N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum N/A
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract N/A
Vegetation on tract N/A
f. Man-made features now on tract N/A
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
-X- Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local goverment?
rI/ A
i. How arc adjacent waters classified? N/A
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No
If so, by whom?
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed N/A
b. Number of lots or parcels. N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and die units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed WA
c. If the proposed project will..disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erasion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
N/A
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops. N/
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, b. Amount of material to be excavated from
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved below water level in cubic .yards 55 , 000 yds. 3
surfaces. N/A c. Type of material Sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management land, swamps, or other --wetlands? Yes
plan been submitted to the Division of En- c. High ground excavation, in cubic yards one
vironmental Management? N/A f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste g. Location of spoil disposal area
water treatment facilities. N/A
h. Do you claim title to die disposal area?
j. Have these facilities received state or local If not, attach a letter granting permission from
approval? N/A the owner.
k. Describe existing treatment facilities. i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?/ N/A
If so, where? Z41A
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
1. Describe location and type of discharges to swampland; or water areas? N/A
waters of the state (for example surface runoff, k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial high water? Y s -
effluent, or "wash down"). NSA 1. Amount of fill in cubic yards 73.000 eft. yds.+
in. Type of fill material Rn(-k
n. Source of fill material ruarlZy
m. Water supply source N/A o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
n. If the project is oceanfront development, wetlands? Nn
describe the steps that will be taken to main- p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled m/A
tain established public beach acccssways or pro- q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
vide new access. N/A site and erosion controlled? N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will r. What type of construction equipment will be
be the elevation above mean sea level of the used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
first habitable floor? N/? 'hydraulic dredge)? nrazl i nP . Ra }-,h P
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? vn_ If yes explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava- vironmental impacts.
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
3 300' 60' +5'
3,850' 60'+
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 850' + 1
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level 1,000'+
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet 1, 100' +-
d. Type of bulkhead material Stnne Ripran
c. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water 7'1,000+
f. Type of fill material Rock
2
C,P1 - ..?L'OT
i, Ntr(???L?'?t? ?1V1`lT a!
In audition to the completed application form, the
followirl must be submitted:
",'L copy of the decd (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to clie affected property. If the applicant is not
Claiiiitrig to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a cony of the deed or otlicr i;lst umcnt under
v,llich tnc O'.1'ilcr• Claillls title, plus written perlills-
sion froal the owner to cam; out the project.
??.n accur:ltc wort; plat (including plan view and
cress s_ctioilal dra'.vings) drxxrl to scale in black
ink on x 11 white paper. G)efer to Coastal
Resources Conullission We 7J.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note, that orii;inal drawirics are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints, o. other larg,.r plats are acceptable only if 16
hi-11 cualit}' conics are provided by the applicant.
(Cont_zct the U.S. tiriily COIJ)s cf Engineers icgard-
in, that a ?;er.cy's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements arid it
must c sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
SO1111cl unfai;liliar with the area to tic site. Include
Cou:lty toad X51:.) rlurilbei:s, landmarks, and the like
ri. storrl.ti :ter IrIa:lagement pla m, if applicable, that
play have be =l1 developed in consultation with the
Livisicrl of Eil': irOniliCtlCa 1`itaRagCI11Cr1C.
A Iist of file r.:uues anl" co;nplete addresses of tile
djaccnt v;aterfront (riparian) landowners. -Idlest
individuals.havc 30 days in wllicli to submit corn-
I ents On tilt proposcd project to the Division of
Coastal "'131-13„enlent. `I11e applicant must advise
chc au;accnt landowner., of this opportunity by sen-
ding copy of the pCIllllt application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. I13-2?-9(d).
Name U. S. Fish ldIife
Address _ 1 l.. of Int«:ri.or
Name U. S . re,? 1st'. G' std
!?>ddrecs -
Nam:. _
P.ddress
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. *Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A clieck for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
,?'ii?4h.•xo?F`!r?'.s,?cYxr-rr ;? ? ! ih? y ?, ??'?<.
- e.-r.Ii{`?..•,.1;/1X ??"?j 3_...ira
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only die development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
1 certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant; and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the day of
Landowner oi(llAu-tliorizcd agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
neap on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3
S 7 1 '?\ Sliso + dZl??t
l? Is? Matsnf SMth It ?Swa.d.a . utaslf?ci q`-
5? r Cam U ba
14+ 7 ,\ s ` S Dry 8.tc, ?i w.t.wlr • `iNOVS!
•froMUtSe i Q l? T Gow.lIs. od `,
.1'Od t? 11 ?, BMlaot
2 r it bs"114 `` +
?.... • fCsmden •Ar61ftI ?
\\ ..? ., Itiddit \ ?. Pwlr 1k wh
IMI -Rill' 1 [. C hloh
Borth `L Sra ?
BN` dfca?.o.wol.d U i c'ors l
1) yt..
PER UIMANS-" 9 `io ` • 014 Trip,\ %. Sandart.nt
17w
7 "n.11tla W ?Moneom PoaNls? Dude
OWAN Punt l s
1 • °io +Du ants Nod ?S;dr' - w.d. K 1 Yang) Spol?o ,,
f anmi f- Pant l IUtty \\ eus
llr...rft H.ctwr 'Hswk L
J J"IV n
t A lb° l5A
? rte"
1 / ` . fat L,rWraV - ?aa.4-N,ss l
' ??r \ Q QQa' NwMsawdland - __ 'I ""shoos
M Al
1- 56 S : East L 1
s.d a.w...eiw.
Danl HdIs
Swr.rM
,!\p .pad NUJ.
\` L4?YWM n V.
1 Pleasant Gros 5 f Calrnaa+ Il h of at .Wef loge U_ t ScyGOarnont ) woodi.y I 1 '?? 11 *C.?r.. ^'L' rn. ttAL
Gr.6¦0U._
a w.ncM Se a,,;
Guth ? / `rrnsPan I V. % tLCxtriot 9„/mitt
WASHINGTON -•?"?_ + n `loan` p A R E
T Y R R E L L` ?fA
14
0• - - -s 1l1 2t1 ---SCALE Of MOUS 0t9E ,.GI EQUALS A Mk 17 MA.U i
S 1TE
?. IbodtatM

. . 7
QAR'E 'CO-
'n n A t ,- -r ?- r,-
1^

9
DI`rISON OR HI C' ?MAYS
DA77- OU I""'
PROPOSE_ ?ROIN
AND REVETKENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
Y? SHEET I OF G 3-89
PEA r-t r LI$LAPJQ
RE W1
MOW
MOW
C-.. ?_..?
SCAA1.1
I 0 1 : ] • ..us ?.
40' ARMOR STONE
2 LAYERS
1 TON STONE
1o CJz%w U_ tF.p1
1.5' FOUNDATION STONE UNDERLAYER STONE
500-1000 lb. .z•s'
30 C. In . . C 10 • :n s, ?`co za
SCALE 11' = 20' -TYPICAL SECTIO14 REVETMENT
CREST ELEV. +8.0
. UN.Ot0.t3iYG5l?'to4t-6oct1 >1OC5- ARtoK S'R,v? ??.
ZMET.710 E 1ry f1ZL j.b 7DA),-tmL SIOCY
' 25
'
IT cr Ip I ` JI': ?? ?z z, z1
TON "fOTnLTTO.
!w Jl J ? ? \ OT7LT IJA
dli 1?z-? yT ?1
4?4 N (-VUKIMT-OK
V?l1iY ?O M?14Ti11 ??'?'?
>Tor4 C1 iYT TL
IOTSO I. VPUCy
r
m 60 C6 {O 10 CO -?
10 U to to SO

NGT?:
SCALE 1" 20' 91STA UCt Fw.+ 4 (ETj
-
-
'
rn
, !
,ROIL'
mvpT? Q T, 5. r•m
Dimension and stone sizes are approxi- No= :
crate and subject to revision during 1 optional Underlayer stone can
design detailing. be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.G. +/- 2.58 with S.G
NO=S:
1. Optional underlayer stone can

be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone NOTE:
with S.G. +/- 2.58 or m3.^ine e Sree- 4 of r for quantities.
S
Limestone 350 to 550 lbs. vdth e
S. G. +/- 1.85
2. Foundation stone can be quarry
run dense stone cr ;,acme
1 inestone-see soec
r J r A 1'.
,. Under-,--- store fc_,ar.-? ?
section can b? 4 to = ;bs
y -..
?OSF? T .H1•IINAL GHOiI i
dense stone with ...0.
+;'- 2.5 ? I :.._ -y,-J?,. J.i`" SO'?`='Ii S.:O?E
or mri_ne
lbs. wit:, S.G. +i = i. b5 SHE_E"' 0 -7 G 3-89
I
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TERMINAL GROIN AND REVETMENT AT THE
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND
TYPE OF MATERIAL
y QLIAMITY
1'Ton Granitic Armor Stone 19,200 tons
3.5 Ton Granitic Armor Stone 92.900 tons
145 lb Marine Limestone Underla!jer 1;,600 tons
500 lb Marine Limestone Underlayer 15,000 tons
Foundation Stone (Marine L/S) 42,500 tons.
Roadway Stone (Marine L/S) 5,500 tons
Excavation and Fill •75,000 cu. yds.
Marine Limestone is optional, can be replaced by comparable
size (ie linear dimensions) granitic stone.
D_ i.^ ? _ - 7,3 Hjilt.. PROPOS 77RT'1111AL GR=11
Q O' t--..
OREGG;;
s - T 4 OF 6_ 3-89
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CHANNEL,AND BASIN
LJ j.j D
5 ?
LOGO
P, VA
P

0pNt4
A 's s
TEMPORARY BULKHEAD
06 ?pN
NrIG
TYPICAL SECTIONS N.T. S.
TOTAL DREDGED
W.S. tIL.T. £L ao MATERIAL = 51,000 cu. yds.
t -:3.0 AYG
EL. -8.0
zoo'
BASIN
W-S- ML.T. EL. 0.0
+ ± -3.0 AVG.
ACCESS CHANNEL
N r-, D 0 T
DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROIN
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEETS OF 6_ 3-89
SCALE I" =600'

SCALE 1" = 200'
PEA .ISLAI.'D
7 REFUGE

/-i cRES = .7 ±
S . = Srl GUA R1;
Hct2Es = 7.7
AREA OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION, ,?--?
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MATERIAL
AND EQUIPME14T STORAGE
0

aae:
DA~" 000'I'
PROPOSED TE-R7,1NAL GROIN
AND REVET:c11' SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET Or _6 3-89
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFTJGE
a
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-C089-N-028-0271
PUBLIC NOTICE
REVISED PLANS
f, .
?y
June 23, 1989
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS,
Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201, has requested a
modification to their Department of the Army authorization TO CONSTRUCT A
REVETMENT AND TERMINAL GROIN, INCLUDING EXCAVATION OF A WORK CHANNEL, ON THE
ATLANTIC OCEAN, OREGON INLET, NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND, Dare County, North
Carolina. This modification would provide for TEMPORARILY PLACING FILL
MATERIAL IN WETLANDS TO ESTABLISH AN EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL OFFLOADING AREA
NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BONNER BRIDGE APPROACH ON PEA ISLAND.
The following description of the revised proposal is taken from data
provided by the applicant. Plans submitted with the revised application
continue to show the proposed construction of a sloping rubble revetment,
beginning at the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station bulkhead and extending to
where the existing upland portion of the island ends. From this point, a
terminal groin is to•extend into Oregon Inlet before gradually turning and
extending oceanward perpendicular to the beachfront. A stable accretion
fillet, encompassing somewhat less than 60 acres, is expected to form in the
lee of the groin.
NCDOT's revised application proposes to temporarily place fill material in
approximately one acre of wetlands near the southeast corner of the Bonner
Bridge on Pea Island to establish an area for the movement of construction
equipment and transfer of construction materials. After all work is
completed, NCDOT is to restore the wetland area to the satisfaction of the Pea
Island Natural Wildlife Refuge Manager.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) issued
Water Quality Certification No. 2337, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, for the work as originally proposed. NCDEM is presently
considering modification of this Certification to include the proposed
revision.
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) agreed that the
original work is consistent with North Carolina's Coastal Management Program
and has issued a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit. Presently, NCDCM
t
-2-
is considering the applicant's certification that the revision also is
consistent and whether a modified CAMA permit can be issued.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) has issued a "Special Use"
permit, pursuant to 50 CFR 29.21, indicating that the proposed work is not
incompatible with the purposes for which the Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge was established. This "Special Use" permit represents the overall view
of the U.S. Department of the Interior with respect to the project.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment
period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider
this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Cliff Winefordner, until
4:15 p.m., July 10, 1989, or telephone [phone].

I
u
• ,
%
1
S Lee
Is dlee
1 d? surd
?l?y?ff t ?;r? sNUulkbI
,11•
? , Lt.* r. • ,1` w.lYrly 1 )C•fNl. aid ?/.?.??• ? 0 I I1 ?J all r. a GINW 1 rHaHIHOUf•
Upd w 1
1 + r•ncwu .
r No69•rum ` C `
All •ma•o \ Arfr•11
lv' ,
• ` "8u + + 1 t f1?, <1 I 1
. ? 11 M . ` ,1. C f NIO11 rl/ N
MM owwY. •? r u I [uef r¦Nf N
x 1 c • IIA •A/r
u PER UIM NSA 1 Nr. 11.x' I , ssall.?
11-11 U IM
• `1 .•.••III•tiq, I\, 1 IYM•lfq
0 AN -,t:
' l 1 D111M1• M•q ?'r' I I ?, SM?? i
ur• IAY•
;? wr. n. I' fwu
1 I r k/ \ N•,N•l• l i
?w 7
"Nebo
4"-W Mwr Ao.w
?+fde loo' * _.f A??? __?--- ?;:? -?c•Iluluwl?' a "Iw.Dow.d•N.uiw$•A.w,'-
- [u ?. ,
{ -_1 ??tl'J?tl J IYIL•A'I of ?H/ I? rH M..N•/. H•• I..V-W& AAw.r
• , / !Y NsNww/1•M I ' 1i MnAO•u 1.I•..rrrV" OJ 517 E
Media 1 r \ L•A1 wr•INw
W 11•••Mlo1 1 ?? Co11wf•u+ II LAW I! Nnbal • 1
•dow k4vYAw 1 W/Iq • 11 / I ? I I C u, ? •?offr?
iz,
C1uw.r >> i q
\ coon 1 . w. .•.
mouth
WASHINGTON .`?"rarr.M r'~?„L•1a1"•? D A R E / ?uc,1r , /•./,a«
I,, PA•1,1• l .A.) T Y R R E L 2W
1 _
w•1fM• , i; I I I i1M•? '?
% 1
• i 1• 20
l6ALl Or M1tLi OM[ r•CJI lpUAll Arr00M, l1 Wl[l '
? 1 r•/lulw
i ISLAND n ;r ,.. u'r h i h 1, PEA.
.. ?o
15"D `4
r. CAPE RA3 NATION
S SEASHOR A QE/
? Got'
41
S yp?A° OF' PR J SGT :snrLr
?A.1aa \ PEA ISLAND NATIOPiAL
' DARE Co.
• REVISED 6-12-89
? ? a ;,?.\ tJ C D
DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
icAu AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
i7R OREGON INLET
Man? t 7 . .yµ -- - ?; SHEET OF Z_ 3_89

APPROXIMATE POSITION OF
ADJUSTED SHORELINE

? ti ti ti • ?
;• :
? ?F

:y ti x
.gyp :00
0
SHORELINE POSITION •c
APRIL 21, 1906 : 8 x ey ?s
? ?
?
? ti
?
o
'%'•r,? f li
%
y x
ti
y r/

REVISED 6-12-89
i
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS i
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON, INLET
SHEETZ OF 7 3-89

40' ARMOR STOVE
"'rw 2 LAYERS ;
..•.... r.. ???,,,? .....1.? 1 TON STONE
cft;w +f', VP
s
w+
1.5' FOUNDATION STONE i S ??H/•
UNDERLAYER STONE \
500-1000 lb. s•sl
io ID q p to W. sp w X70
1 •]?N•1ftw.& TM %w*w"wo. Ci14 Iw `r{7
SCALE 1" 20' TYPICAL SECTION REVETMENT
,
CREST ELEV. +8.0
UND\IIAV?*.Y10Nt'6o1N 1p?Y A>trlorl vrc?If. AEI,.
TNlET:71D1E. Wt N«s 1) +Iu s.s 7ow?'ool+ Ulosy i
8T'•?
_ ? ? OTItTW1
'? . f'o UN011T.OK --- ... Y?t11? M NAINr?1" I 1 ?°??.
?O?n~ ""`"y •?o MIN. DEPTH -6.0 OR LOWER.
? 40 --'o•--; to--?--- ....?to _ T.:.1._. .?._.
NOTE: SCALE 1" 20 914TAMCl rwM 4 (I?
SECTIQ7 f GROIN
Dimension and stone sizes are approxi- NOTES:
mate and subject to revision during 1. Optional Underla.yer stone can
design detailing, be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
NOTES: with S.G. +/- 2.58 with S.0
1. Optional underlayer stone can NOTE.
be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.C. +/- 2.58 or marine
limestone 350 to 650 lbs. with See Sheet 4_ of _for quantities.
S. G. +/- 1.85 ..
2. Foundation stone can be quarry REVISED 6--12-89
run dense stone or marine
Limestone-see specs for
gradation. N.C.D.O.T.
3. Under DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
layer atone for revetment DARE COUNTY
section can be 4 to 365 lbs. PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
dense stone with S.C. +/- 2.58 AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
or marine limestone 30 to 265 OREGON INLET
lbs. With S.O. +/_ 1.85 SHEET,, OF _a 3-89
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TERMINAL GROIN AND REVETMENT AT THE
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND
TYPE OF MATERIAL
1 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
3.6 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
9.0 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
146 lb. Marine Limestone Underlayer
600 lb. Marine Limestone Underlayer
1600 lb. Marine Limestone Underlayer
Foundation Stone
Excavation and Fill
r
QUANTITY
4,100 tons
36,900 tons
72,900 tons
3,800 tons
11,000 tons
16,800 tons
62,300 tons
76,000 cu. yds.
Marine Limestone Is optional, can be. replaced by comparable
size (le linear dimensions) granitic stone.
REVISED 6-12-89
a
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CHANNEL AND BASIN
_.xN9
SCALE: 1" = 800'
TYPICAL SECTION

TOTAL DREDGED
MATERIAL =257 000CU. YDS.
W.S. M.L.T. EL. 0.0
AVG.
- ' <,ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
BASIN
REVISED 6-12-89 i
T
ACCESS CIIANNEL
ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
NOT TO SCALE.

N C D 0 T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET _,J:_ OF?`
C
? , , v pRD
v . s • ?°psT G .

AREA OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MATERIAL
AND EQUIPME14T STORAQE
f•
• PEA ISLAND
\ WILDLIFE REFUGE
?; ``BEN 1SIAE FV?E
wztivtizF
SCALE: 1" a 200'
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
ACRES - 13.8+/-.
WETLANDS
U.S.COAST GUARD
ACRES = 7.7 */-
.' 'nr , IA ?... ' .. • r j
,?h1 r ( M,,A
REVISED 6-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
' OREGON INLET
SHEET- OF --np 3-89
i

ON,.
I'4 PEA ISLAND
4?? ?v1
1+
WILDLIFE REFUGE
.a
O
. 1? may``
•I
DENOTES WETLANDS "
iAi M• i.ww ? ? 11 (i?Ir k~ I
ACRES 1.0
SCALE: 1" 200' PAMLICO SOUND
TYPICAL SECTION HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING AREA
60'ROAU
80'OFFLOADING AREA
FILL MATERIAL I
/ll = /ll = c / I l%i pit 111 !11 r 111 l11 a it, c 111 c 111 = s Ill
GEOTECH FABRIC NOTE: HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING
AREA CAN BE CONSTRUCTED
IN WETLAND AREA OF MATS
OR FILL MATERIAL AS DEPICTED
REVISED 6-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
NOT TO SCALE OREGON INLET
SHEET OF 3-89
•? v t
'~? ?? ' ? ?
J' ? ?
..4--.?
d
,?-
?? .- i
4 ?. ? { t•'
`,?
-:.r ???
?: .?-
??;.

py1-j l.i.i :iIn;) IVI_ 11th KAI.I1.I1irl ?LJ V9V9F{
•r

-Ak
?f?14,010 t4/'
Av'c !? ?a
?? ? ?e'?,
aft,
(,r. soo orro) ZA?

C, --4
14J?
?G?,?wne? ? lavN 9?9 ?,a ? ?ao?
,lia a 2e?cwf' ? ? ??w?c vl,
/its ^?? ?L?? ?c/?lbl Gr ?12ee
IV, 0. L\CT-
Q?2xndtXen.? ?G?uir .fio Q??07d ?4? t(?:
0? GG11?tc???G ? L'f?t ??a/ {y4?fiXQ?et4. /
'ov
? urn
fi3S0? OUP y?3 ,?? ma?i??e.? G,cU4(Vr?( 14,7t& Q4-
0
- A6. -
IL' c?,? .
4t2 P")kj -6L L4- ?A-?KT
qav
ef?
,ia (Yieac?.?rt? ? lsAUcAc a/? .-' , o? ? Z.ca?
GNP' /.d0ut Q 69a-? /itRJ'?cc/t- ?? ? L'
?- A ?G?a?rJf/A ?e dta.G?c ??ta.?y /?1?e a-
Q
COUNTY OF DARE
MANTEO, NORTH CAROLINA 27954
P. O. BOX 1000
PHONE [phone]
AUGUST 27, 1989
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION TO GOVERNOR JAMES MARTIN
FROM DARE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL P. DANIELS
Have tried with NO success to relate to Secretary Harrington
T= ABSOLUTE PEND1110 EMERGENCY AT QREGON INLET--he doesn't
see the seriousness we do, because we are here--and the
potential of buying time for the terminal groin mobilization
area--via redirection of dredge spoils from the current Corps
of Engineers dredging project. That project is now in the
set-up stage near the Oregon Inlet bridge. The expected cost
of the groin/revetment was $15 million, set aside by DOT for
that purpose; the contract bid was $9.9 million. It seems
ridiculous not to try and protect that project with another
$518,000. Transferring the dredge spoils to the point should
buy some time in protecting the mobilization site since the
contractor will not have rocks on site until November. It
would also assist in putting more sand in the down beach
migration for Pea Island, which will benefit NC 12 to
Hatteras, and DOT.
THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL HAPPEN IS FOR YOU TO MAKE A DECISION
TODAY AND NOTIFY ATKINSON DREDGING AND THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT.
We are available to come to Raleigh Monday morning or
afternoon and discuss this in more detail. The fate of this
project now relies on your immediate decision.
Sincerely,
f 41"b
Michael P. Daniels, Chairman
Dare County Board of Commissioners
LAND OF BEGINNINGS

Iola
COUNTY OF DARE
4 MANTEO, NORTH CAROLINA 27954
CAW
P. O. BOX 1000 .
PHONE [phone]
August 23, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: DARE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: HARRY SCHIFFMAN, CHAIRMAN OREGON INLET AND WATERWAYS CO ISSION
RE: UPDATE ON OREGON INLET
I wanted to make you aware of our growing, grave concerns
about the current situation at south point, Oregon inlet, as
regards the erosion taking place due east of the old Coast
Guard Station.
What we have is a race between the contractor and the
elements at the north end of Pea Island.
About 100 feet of beach was lost there from mid-July to mid-
August; only 35 feet of that was lost during Dean's passage.
Only about 35 feet of protective dune remains before the
ocean will have a straight shot into the station yard. When
the erosion claims the old Station and the station yard, the
contractor will lose his mobilization site for the terminal
groin project.
For a detailed update, please attend the regular Oregon Inlet
and Waterways Commission meeting Thursday, August 24, at 7
p.m. in the county building or call Eve Trow at the office.
LAND OF BEGINNINGS

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Natural Resour
hereby gives public notice as require
215 3(a)(1)(c) that NORTH CAROLINA DE
Raleigh, N:C., filed an application o
from the Division of Coastal ManaQeme
Environmental Concern and for certifi
Environmental Management that a disch
wetlands will not violate applicable
According to said application NC
TRANSPORTATION proposes to construct
channel with a 200' by 200' by 13' dE
temporary haul road with a 80' x 200'
the Herbert Bonner bridge at Oregon I
es and Community Development
by NCGS 113A-119(b) and 143-
ARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION of
June 14, 1989, for a permit
t to develop in an Area of
ation from the Division of
rge of fill material in project
ater quality standards.
TH CAROLINA DEPAI
3300' by 150' w
p basin and a 50
offloading ramp;,
let, Dare County
MENT OF
e by 13' deep
x 200'
d j acen t to
A copy of the entire application and additional information
may be examined (or copies furnished upon request and payment of
reproduction costs) during normal business hours at the office of
David R. Griffin, Division of Coastal Management, located at Route f,,
Box 203, Elizabeth City, N.C., [phone], and/or the office of
Deborah Sawyer, Division of Environmental Management, NRCD Regional
Field Office, Washington, N.C., 27889.
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take final
action on this water quality certification on or before July 17, 1989.
The issuance of the CAMA Major Development permit and the Section 401
Certification may deviate froi;i this projected date depending upon
the nature of the comments submitted and subsequent hearings that
may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in writing
to Mr. George T. Everett, Director, Division of Coastal Management,
P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to July 7, 1989 for
consideration in the CAMA permit decision, and to Mr. Bill Mills,
Division of Environmental Managerent, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C.,
27611, prior to July 7, 1989 for consideration in the water quality
certification decision. Later comments on the CAMA application will
be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project
modifications may occur based on review and comment by the public
and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision on this
matter will be provided upon request.

MEMO.

DATE:
SUBJECT:
r71e?Aj F1
?? A
20O 11Dc7
2s? ?
7
Z
tULA4- a,
11
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
F?,3.

Permit Class
Modi f i cation/
Major
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit Number
138-89
hermit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
_X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
/ ?J ut 1989
? ?TFR Vtp
° Onning 8 an(e4 y
Issuedto NC Dept of Transportation, Div. of Highways, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611
authorizing development in Dare County at Oregon Inlet, south shore, marsh, west of
bridge as requested in the permittee's application dated 6/12/89 including,
attached plat, sheet 7 of 7 dated revised 6/12/89. ,
This permit, issued on 715 9 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applic ble r gulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be
subject to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) This permit modification authorizes the construction of an offloading area and
approach road on the west side of the Bridge as depicted in the attached plat,
sheet 7 of 7.
2) This permit modification must be attached to the original of permit No. 138-89
issued on 6/22/89 and be available on site when Department personnel inspect
the project for compliance.
3) Prior to construction of the fill road and the offloading area, the project
area will be staked by D.O.T. and inspected by DCM staff.
4) The haul road and offloading area shall be constructed of mats, fill over mats
or fill over "Geotech" type material.
(See Attached Sheet for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not
covered hereunder requires further Departmental approval.
All work must cease when the pen-nit expires on
December 31, 1992
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
/iv,- Ge e T. Everett, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permitter

NC Dept. of Transportation Permit $138-89
Page 2
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
5) Within 30 days of completion of the groin/revetment, the haul road and
offloading pad shall be removed. The affected areas shall be restored to
pre-project grade.
6) Within 6 months of completion of the groin/revetment and in consultation with
DCM staff, the affected areas will be replanted with appropriate coastal
wetland vegetation.
7) No other temporary or permanent filling of any wetlands shall occur.
8) The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related
discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTUs or less
are not considered significant).
9) Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control devices, measures, or structures
will be used to prevent sediment from entering the adjacent wetlands and
watercourses (e.g., silt fence, diversion swales/berms, sand fence, etc.).
10) All fill for the proposed access road and offloading area will come from an
upland source, unless fill is otherwise available from an approved dredging
project.
NOTE: The Division of Environmental Management issued Section 401 Water Quality
Cert=ification No. 2361 for the proposed modification on July 12, 1989.
NOTE: The state supports the efforts of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
require mitigation of the impacted coastal wetland through waterfowl
feeding pond construction.
;... ,? STATf
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN June 26, 1989
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON I,
SECRETARY
V-?
a
Mr. Paul Wilms, Directo
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept. of Natural Res. & Comm. Dev.
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:

JUN 30 1989
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact" for:
Construction of a Terminal Groin and Revetment at Pea Island, Dare
County, North Carolina
The N. C. Department of Transportation has evaluated the comments made on
the subject environmental document and responded to the comments, as appropriate.
In that you made comments on the document you are being provided a copy of that
analysis.
Sincerely, ;
M.enhill E.
Manager of Planning and Research Branch
JMG/Dlr
Att
Please
? READ
HANDLE
? APPROVE'
and
? FORWARD
? RETURN
? KEEP OR D
? REVIEW WI

Date From //
PosFlt'"routlnp request pad 7884
ROUTING - REQUEST
A-C
h JUL 6 198°
iployer
WE HOPE THAT THE ENCLOSED INFORMATION g?
WILL BE HELPFUL TO YOU. s4 s. rz?
IF WE CAN BE OF FURTHER SERVICE, PLEASE CONTACT US. gel 1989
A DM1Noo-il\I? yp4t%EN
MA?
RESOD-1RGE
1
J U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
dYL?S ' Department of the Interior
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
` El 1,
,Y.?i
JUL 18 1989
WATER QUAL?TY
SECT1011
r C(
?q
S. eriN
rte- ?- ??

Y
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Right of Way Permit to
Provide Protection of
Bonner Bridge and North Carolina
Highway 12, Dare County, North Carolina
June,1989

• •+.?„'?•' ?-r-? - ir ' ! s K?? y tax ?' ??? r `y i nil,1
All
i3 _",;?-r R`1fTl ur r"'?. + Y' t?,limit a Y --ar- l3' ' .J 1p?J
?F .. 5?4c`?.?r..+'i '•1'7. i-ria[-•. [;Ir ,..: ?`+Y'• ?1 /?rf"
?r' ?----- __ ,..? l4 r. ?• ) ?3i,?,C4: _ r t y ? rim v s !
= ??..'K /' "?Y? ' ? ,l•t ???d • Y1' 4c 4?' ?r t j? ?i?''"et ??jfi. w fi
-?'?•.?. ?'^7•'?
a1? EY y „ai ??f l?L Y at?? t of°CT'? - !
ra.??t;???- ?•` t r'?1' ?t?? "?-? ?° ? lei ri?a ?. 7 rr ?:t 1.. ?? r.ir .2 ? ?-'? n N:?
????
." ??.y?? ^'?. ?r'??I??G?»?a'sy? ?r ?il? ?? - } i r ? ,, ? Y•p?"`5"j 1C' 1??."'?/?4 ?<;fs.
?r,t?•?-.i?..!?.,;•???,,;.r??r??-sj ? Ja•?(7?L.;.CK. ???{4 ?.,,??'?,?`{?,_:,_+`""f? ?;''.-'-?, n? -???t?#???. ?,k ?,•(} ?•T'?M! -4,i'?,??I
e1'i *?s? -`6 IK .1
tz ai {
_ _ ? =`ti?? ? _ ? tee,! •, _ _ > ????',t`SV.f ? r+4 ? ? f -1 i • Y? F?.R3`i_ ?? ?? *?? *•`t''Y[?.u.''.t.r ?? ???a-???.-1'?' JC3C7?"z?
?.?.;. _o.. +r. ?y?t•.o,1.; r+. `-K ^r.•. C i y ir+AY? ??"''.r4 -,:?Li33r+-.R
-- - Z. ._ - -? --'• ,w 4?'r_.4+? "`^r tiox Vii?s.'?..^'yN "'?_?+?+•_' .;?. i?'?..:'•• ??Vfn?
J•,`ti ^_?... - ?d•-yam y .v:r ! ???. ...--? ?...I?..
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
for
Issuance of
A Right-of-Way Permit to North Carolina Department
of Transportation to Provide Access to Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge to Provide Protection to the
South End of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
and North Carolina Highway 12
Dare County, North Carolina
Based on a review and evaluation of the information contained in the
supporting references below, I have determined that issuance of a
Right-of-Way Permit for the State of North Carolina's Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways (NCDOT) to undertake either a program
of sand management (with an optional revetment) or construct a terminal
groin and revetment with beach nourishment on the north end of Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. These actions are closely
similar to previous (1986 through 1989) NCDOT efforts at the Refuge which
were approved or permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
The terminal groin and revetment and beach nourishment does not
significantly affect any part of the natural environment. In addition,
sand management will have a positive effect on the natural environment.
Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the
proposed action is not required.
Supporting References
1. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared by the Service that
summarizes two alternatives and subsequent environmental impacts for
these actions.
Environmental Assessment developed by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, May 1, 1989.
3. Service's Biological Opinions, May 26, 1989, and June 19, 1989.
4. Service's Refuge Compatibility Statements, June 19, 1989.
5. Inman, D. and R. Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina:
Budget of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System.
Journal of Coastal Research 5 (2):193-237.
6. Minutes of the meeting on Bonner Bridge, June 9, 1989, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Date Regional Director
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Right-of-Way Permit to Provide
Protection of Bonner Bridge
and North Carolina Highway 12
Dare County, North Carolina
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determined that the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) May 1, 1989, Environmental
Assessment was not adequate for its needs for the following reasons:
(1) it failed to consider all reasonable alternatives (i.e., sand
management with optional revetment); (2) it did not adequately assess
expected impacts of the NCDOT's preferred alternative (i.e., the need to
construct additional structures as the inlet and barrier islands continue
to migrate, and possible beach erosion south of groin); and, (3) it did not
document expected adverse impacts of beach erosion or island migration
south of the groin on threatened loggerhead sea turtles. Thus, the Service
decided to partially adopt the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment (40 CFR
1506.3 and 1506.5(b)) and to prepare this assessment covering the sand
management with optional revetment alternative.
This Environmental Assessment considers the effect of Right-of-Way Permit
issuance resulting from actions proposed to be taken on the north end of
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) to protect the southern
600 feet of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, the bridge's southern abutment
and North Carolina Highway 12 in the vicinity of the bridge, Dare County,
North Carolina. The NCDOT has proposed to construct a terminal groin and
revetment to protect the bridge from direct wave impact. The construction
is proposed to begin in early summer, 1989. This document assesses two
alternatives which would not have negative impacts on the Refuge or its
resources. The NCDOT's Preferred Alternative entitled Terminal Groin and
Revetment as modified by NCDOT and with terms and conditions stipulated by
the Service. The second alternative is Sand Management with an Optional
Revetment. The Service has determined that both Alternatives are
consistent with the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
For Further Information Contact:
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
[phone]
Prepared By:
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 20, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Introduction
B. Background
C. Proposed Action
D. Consultants
E. Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
II. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternative 1 - Terminal Groin and Revetment (NCDOT Proposal)
B. Alternative 2 - Sand Management with Optional Revetment
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Introduction
B. Biological Resources
C. Endangered and Threatened Species
D. Water Quality
E. Cultural Resources
F. Recreational Resources
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Terminal Groin and Revetment (NCDOT Proposal)
B. Sand Management with Optional Revetment
V. PERMITS REQUIRED AND RELATED FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
VIII. LITERATURE CITED
APPENDIX A - MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1989, MEETING
APPENDIX B - REFUGE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENTS
APPENDIX C - ENDANGERED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS
Page
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
7
10
10
11
12
13-
13
14
15
15
17
20
21
21
22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Pane
1. Oregon Inlet Project Area 1 a
2. Proposed Terminal Groin and Revetment 1 b
3. Sand Management with Optional Revetment 7. a
4. Plant Community Patterns at the North End of Pea Island 11 a
5. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 11 b
6. Northern End of Pea Island 11 c
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Sand Management Proposal Details Phase I 8 a
2. Contingency Plan for Sand Management at the Northern 9 a
Point of Pea Island (P1 in Figure 3) Assuming a
25-Year Storm Event Occurs During Year 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Introduction
In early May 1989, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
Construction of a Terminal Groin and Revetment at Pea Island, Dare County,
North Carolina (North Carolina Department of Transportation---hereinafter
NCDOT---1989) (Figures 1 and 2). It is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) determination that the document is inadequate for its
purposes, and in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality Guidance
(Federal Register 48(146), July 28, 1983), the Service is unable to adopt
the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment in its entirety. The Service has also
determined that there could be adverse impacts from any downdrift erosion
that might result from the NCDOT's selected proposed solution on threatened
species and migratory waterfowl that use the Pea Island National WIldlife
Refuge (Refuge). Therefore, the Service has found that the action as
originally proposed by the NCDOT to be incompatible with the purposes for
which the Refuge was established. Further, based on studies by experts
(see Section I.D_.) in the coastal oceanography, coastal geology and coastal
engineering fields, there is another reasonable alternative that is less
damaging (i.e., will not cause downdrift erosion). The Service has
determined that it would be compatible with the purposes of the Refuge.
The purpose of this action is to provide an acceptable measure that will
protect the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge) and its southern abutment
which is compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
B. Background
On March 31, 1989, the NCDOT applied to the Service for a Special Use
Permit to construct a terminal groin and revetment on the north end of
the Refuge to provide protection to the south end of the Bridge and its
southern abutment. During a severe storm from the northeast on March 6-10,
1989, approximately 350 to 400 feet eroded from the north end of Pea
Island.
The Refuge was established in 1938 "as a refuge and breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife." The Refuge now has the following
objectives:
1) To provide wintering habitat for migratory birds consistent with
the overall objectives of the Atlantic Flyway;
2) To provide habitat and protection for endangered and threatened
species including the peregrine falcon, piping plover, southern
bald eagle and loggerhead sea turtle;
3) To provide habitat for natural wildlife diversity; and,
4) To provide opportunities for environmental education,
interpretation, and wildlife-oriented recreation to 1.5 million
visitors annually.
NORFOLK -
AaElm
1?8 ?MASHOES LLB CITY
? a
64 MANTEi OQ
EAST MANNS 264 l?\ WASHiNGTON
LAKE HARSOR
-..i• Sal
y L? HATTERAS
} NEW
WANC}iSE Za BERN
12 4OREHEAO, CITY UFQAT
264 80NNER OREGON ImET
BRIDGE
17
STUMPY POINT r
7
O
PROJECTZ
J7 SITE Z
Q
RODANTHE 44
WAV ES
SALVO
NGELHARD
OCRACOKE
Felk%'
Gp
Pty
Q

Z
Q Q
? N
J
p N
Q
5

LU

Q

AVO N

EllXTCN
Q
FRIS O
HATTER AS/ CAPE
? 45y; HATTERAS
HATTERAS INLET
?PGO Figure 1. Oregon Inlet project area.
OL
0 5 10
I I I
SCALE IN MILES
1 a
0?
?G
0?
'Ol
i6 xs
o\
,?)o
%°o
'IN
'Ir %o
12o
X°o
7..
N
o
\rF? -92
sy
?o

O/
x0 WILI
L h
Q
ACCESS CHANNEL o0
OFFLOADING BASIN
U. S. COAST GUAR
? REFJGy
15L AND
Figure 2. Terminal Groin and Revet-
ment (NCDOT Proposal)
0 Sao
SCALE IN FEET
1b
Historically, Oregon Inlet is a highly mobile inlet migrating under natural
conditions at a longshore rate of 75 feet per year to the south and
receding to the west approximately 16 feet per year (Inman and Dolan 1989).
These rates are based on a 126-year (1849-1975) historical record. The
rates have accelerated during the period 1981-1988 to 180 feet per year
south and 1985 to 1989 to 45 feet per year west (NCDOT 1989).
C. Proposed Action
The proposed action involves the issuance of a Right-of-Way Permit for sand
management or a terminal groin and revetment with beach nourishment that
will protect the south end of the Bridge and its southern abutment.
D. Consultants
The Service and the National Park Service consulted with five coastal
experts to obtain objective scientific views of the expected impacts of the
terminal groin and revetment project proposed by the NCDOT. The
consultants are: Dr. Doug Inman (Chairman), Coastal Oceanographer of
Scripps Oceanographic Institute in California; Dr. David Aubrey, Marine
Geologist and Oceanographer, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Massachusetts; Dr. Robert Dean, Coastal Engineer, University of Florida;
Dr. Robert Dolan, Coastal Geologist, University of Virginia; and Dr. John
Schmertmann, Bridge Engineer, private industry, Florida.
E. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
The NCDOT's Environmental Assessment states the southern abutment to the
Bridge may be threatened possibly within 1 to 4 years (NCDOT 1989).
The Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12 link two coastal barrier islands,
Bodie and Pea-Hatteras Islands (the northern end of Hatteras Island is
known as Pea Island) and provide the major transportation corridor for the
5,000 residents of Hatteras Island as well as for approximately 3.5 million
visitors to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
(Seashore) and the Refuge.
The Bridge, completed in 1964, spans a highly dynamic inlet. Littoral drift
transport rates, as reported by Inman and Dolan (1989) are 1,540,000 cubic
yards per year to the south and 610,000 cubic yards per year to the north.
The net southern longshore transport rate is estimated at 930,000 cubic
yards per year (Inman and Dolan 1989). These transport rates correspond
relatively closely with studies conducted earlier by the Corps of Engineers
(Corps) (1980). The historical migration rate of 75 feet per year to the
south and 16 feet per year to the west is considered acceptable for Refuge
management purposes, but any significant increase due to accelerated
erosion would adversely affect Refuge activities.
In 1983, the Wilmington District Corps intensified its maintenance dredging
operations for navigation in the Oregon Inlet Channel. An average of
2
approximately 719,000 cubic yards of sand is removed yearly from the
local budget and deposited offshore in about 20 feet of water (NCDOT 1989).
Inman and Dolan (1989) report that ". . . offshore placement of dredge
material constitutes a continuous loss of mass to the barrier
system. . . The Department of the Interior has recommended repeatedly
in earlier reports that beach nourishment should be a necessary component
of any dredging plan at the inlet (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986;
1987). At a June 9, 1989, meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, a representative
(Tom Jarrett) of the Corps agreed that the sand dredged at Oregon Inlet
ought to be placed on the beach. According to Kearney-Centaur (1987),
dredging at Oregon Inlet began in 1960 with dredging rates of approximately
60,000 cubic yards per year. In the period 1965-75, the rate increased to
200,000 cubic yards and in 1976-80, to 400,000 cubic yards. In the
interval 1981-1988, the rates reach almost 1,000,000 cubic yards per year
(Kearney-Centaur 1987) of which about 719,000 cubic yards are disposed of
at sea. During this latter period of 1981-88, the offshore disposal
averaged 719,000 cubic yards per year coinciding with an increased
southerly migration rate of the north end of Pea Island from its long-term
rate of 75 feet per year to 180 feet per year (NCDOT 1988). It must be
emphasized that every cubic yard of material that is disposed of outside of
the natural transport path at Oregon Inlet results in the direct erosion of
essentially the same volume from Pea Island (Dr. Doug Inman, pers. comm.)
Thus, the Service's Preferred Alternative proposes to utilize the dredged
sand to restore the system to as natural a state as possible considering
man's alterations at the inlet.
There appears to be a consensus among the involved agencies (NCDOT, Corps,
National Park Service, and Service) that the Corps' maintenance of the
Federal navigation channel with disposal of about 719,000 cubic yards of
sand offshore is a major factor in accelerated erosion and south and
westward migration of Pea Island. Therefore, the Service and the
Department of the Interior (Department) will make a concerted effort, over
the next 30 to 60 days, with the Corps and Department of the Army to insure
that all future sand removed from this Federal channel associated with
maintenance dredging activities will be placed on the northern point and
along the northern ocean shoreline of Pea Island. Accomplishment of this
objective is absolutely essential to prevent the accelerated loss of lands
at the Refuge and the resultant adverse impact to migratory birds, and
threatened and endangered species.
Another area of concern relates to the long-term stability of the Bridge.
The NCDOT's Environmental Assessment states, on page 9, that the remaining
structural life of the bridge disregarding erosion is approximately 15
years (NCDOT 1989). The alternatives addressed in the NCDOT's
Environmental Assessment were developed by a NCDOT Task Force assembled
during the summer of 1988 (NCDOT 1988). Recently, the NCDOT initiated
other contracted studies to examine future alignments for North Carolina
Highway 12. Sand management with optional extension of the existing
revetment would provide an opportunity to ensure that hard structural
alternatives do not limit the choice of future options for the replacement
3
of the bridge. Coordination and planning now for the long-term necessary
improvements will provide the needed time to address the NCDOT's
transportation needs in concert with the long-range goals of the Refuge and
Seashore. By maintaining the natural resource values of the area, both
people and wildlife will benefit.
II. ALTERNATIVES
The NCDOT's Environmental Assessment (NCDOT 1989) evaluated seven
alternatives. These are:
1. Terminal Groin and Revetment
2. Beach Nourishment
3. Jetties
4. Temporary Extension of the Bonner Bridge and Future Replacement of
Bridge in a New Location
5. Ferry Plan
6. Radial Groin and Revetment
7. No Action
The Service has reviewed the Alternatives Section of the NCDOT's document
and while there are areas of each of these where we disagree with specific
statements, we agree with the conclusion that several of the alternatives
would not accomplish protection of the Bridge. In accordance with
provisions in Section 1506.3 of the Council Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, we
hereby adopt the conclusions and rationale presented by the NCDOT for
rejecting the following alternatives: Jetties, Temporary Extension of the
Bridge and Future Replacement of the Bridge in a New Location, Ferry Plan,
Radial Groin and Revetment, and No Action. Therefore, further evaluation
of these alternatives is not appropriate for this assessment. The public
comment period on the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment ended on May 26,
1989.
Alternatives evaluated in this document are:
1. Terminal Groin and Revetment (NCDOT Proposal)
2. Sand Management with Optional Revetment
A. Alternative 1 - Terminal Groin and Revetment MOOT Proposal)
The NCDOT proposed action is the construction of a terminal groin and
revetment at the northern end of Pea Island (Figure 2). "The
protective structures would begin as a sloping rubble revetment at the
Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station bulkhead. This revetment would cover
about 625 feet of shoreline before joining with a free-standing
rubblemound structure, designated as a terminal groin, at a point where
the existing upland area of the island ends. The terminal groin would
project about 550 feet into the inlet before gradually turning and
extending seaward perpendicular to the adjacent Pea Island shoreline.
4
This alignment, which would place the groin near the position the north
point of Pea Island occupied in April 1988, would provide wave
sheltering for the Bonner Bridge abutment. The total length of the
groin, measured from its juncture with the revetment is about 3,000
feet, and therefore the overall length of the proposed structure is
3,625 feet." (NCDOT 1989)
"The revetment and terminal groin were designed by utilizing
engineering and design analysis of jetties at Oregon Inlet performed by
the Corps in conjunction with Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project. In this
regard, modifications were made to the nearshore sections of the
proposed south jetty design based on present and expected conditions
along the alignment of the groin and revetment." (NCDOT 1989)
"The groin will range approximately 110 to 170 feet wide at the base
and 25 to 39 feet wide at the crest. The elevation of the crest will
range from +8 feet msl at its shoreward end to +9.5 feet msl at the
seaward end. The sides of the groin will slope 1V:2H from the crest to
the toe protection along entire length of the structure except for the
head section which have side slopes of 1V:3H. The revetment will have
an elevation of 6 feet above msl and width of 15 feet at the crest.
The bottom width of the revetment will vary from approximately 44 to
55 feet with the toe towards the inlet sloping at a rate of 1V:2H.
Shoreward, the revetment will form a 1V:2H slope which will be
backfilled with sand to a 1V:10H slope. The backfill material will be
obtained from excavations during revetment construction and/or offsite
source, if necessary (not on Cape Hatteras National Seashore or Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge lands)." (NCDOT 1989)
"Heavy construction equipment and stone materials required for
construction of the groin and revetment will be brought in by barge to
a temporary bulkhead-offloading facility at the former Oregon Inlet
Coast Guard Station boat basin. Construction traffic across Bonner
Bridge will be restricted to minimum loads determined by NCDOT. The
abandoned channel from the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station to the
Oregon Inlet channel and the Coast Guard basin would need to be dredged
and maintained. . The access channel will be 60 feet wide (bottom
width with 1V:2H side slopes), 8 feet deep (mean low water (mlw)) and
approximately 3200 feet long. The offloading basin will be 200 feet
square and 8 feet deep mlw. The offloading basin will coincide with
what was the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station boat basin. The initial
dredging would involve excavation of about 51,000 cubic yards of sand
and shell. It is likely that maintenance dredging of the access
channel will be required during the 12 month construction period. The
dredging would be performed by hydraulic pipeline dredge. Disposal of
dredged material would be on the beach at Pea Island . seaward of
any primary dunes which may remain in this area." (NCDOT 1989)
"Approximately 6 and 8 acres of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
and U.S. Coast Guard lands, respectively, will be required for
structural location, construction access, and materials and equipment
storage. ." (NCDOT 1989). Thus, a Right-of-Way Permit is needed
from both the Service and U.S. Coast Guard.
On May 25, 1989, the Service provided NCDOT an "advance copy" of its
Environmental Assessment on possible solutions to bridge protection.
In a letter of May 31, 1989, the NCDOT provided comments to the Service
on this "advance copy" and provided additional project information. On
June 9, 1989, a meeting was held in Atlanta, Georgia, with NCDOT,
Service, and National Park Service representatives to further discuss
possible solutions for bridge protection and to exchange additional
information.
As a result of the above information exchanges, the NCDOT proposed
project purpose is more clearly defined. The current project is
designed to protect the southern 600 feet of the Bridge which is below
elevation 17 feet above mean sea level and the southern bridge abutment
where it joins the Refuge. Protection of North Carolina Highway 12
south of the bridge is not a current purpose of the NCDOT proposed
project. The NCDOT recognizes that beach erosion and the subsequent
westward island migration threatens North Carolina Highway 12 south of
the Bridge, and acknowledges that this is a "perpetual maintenance
problem" that has required beach nourishment in the past. However, the
NCDOT's current project proposal is intended only to stop the southward
migration of Pea Island whether caused by natural migration or
accelerated by Federal maintenance dredging of the Oregon Inlet
navigation channel. The NCDOT is not addressing westward island
migration at this time. The NCDOT is willing to enter into some joint
venture with the Departments of Army and/or Interior to fund beach
nourishment with material dredged from the navigation channel which
would provide protection for North Carolina Highway 12 south of the
Inlet. Beach nourishment or sand management would slow or stop
westward migration of the island.
NCDOT has agreed to provide beach nourishment to mitigate for erosion
directly due to its proposed terminal groin and revetment, but not that
caused by island migration, storm events or maintenance dredging of the
navigation channel.
The NCDOT has proposed to continue its aerial photographic shoreline
mapping to monitor shoreline changes and the functioning of the groin
and revetment. If the Secretary, NCDOT or the Regional Director of the
Service, determines from this monitoring scheme that its groin and
revetment is the cause of erosion, it will either perform beach
nourishment in the affected areas or remove the groin and revetment
(NCDOT 1989).
As a result of the meeting on June 9, 1989, NCDOT has agreed to consult
with the Service to reach a mutual agreement on details of an adequate
monitoring scheme and criteria or evaluation factors, acceptable to the
Service, which would more clearly define when accelerated beach
erosion occurs. Furthermore, NCDOT representatives stated that the
originally proposed 3,200-foot-long groin was now being shortened by
about 500 feet (or 15.6 percent) to a length not to exceed 2,750 feet.
Further details of the structural plans for this alternative are
provided in the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment (NCDOT 1989).
B. Alternative 2 - Sand Management with Optional Revetment
This alternative was presented to the NCDOT and the Corps by the
Department's consultants at a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, on
June 9, 1989 (Appendix A). It is a two-phase sand management plan for
beach nourishment on the northern end of the Refuge (Figure 3).
Extension of the existing revetment at the east base of the Bridge is
an optional feature which could be included if NCDOT so desired.
The general features of a sand management plan which make it a
desirable alternative are listed below:
1. The placement of sand in amounts greater than the erosion rates
will result in accretion of the northern and eastern shoreline of
Pea Island.
2. A properly designed sand management plan will provide the material
necessary to: (a) overcome the increased erosion rates and return
the inlet to its long-term natural migration rates, and (b)
reestablish conditions that would prevail had offshore sand
placement not been carried out since 1983. This would allow an
orderly planning and design process for the successor to the
present Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12 alignment.
3. An essential component of the Oregon Inlet sand management plan
requires by-passing all sands dredged from the navigation channel
to the northern shoreline of Pea Island.
4. There are no scientific or engineering principles preventing the
control of inlet migration and barrier erosion by adequate and
proper sand management procedures.
This alternative will restore areas eroded as a result of 6 years (1983-
1989) of offshore disposal of material dredged from the inlet bar. It will
also protect the southern 600 feet of the bridge and its southern abutment.
It will slow the westward migration of the northern segment of Pea Island
and thereby, protect the Refuge and North Carolina Highway 12 south of the
Bridge in the vicinity of the Bridge. The initial nourishment to protect
the bridge could be done immediately (within 45 to 90 days) and would very
quickly resolve the immediate threat to the Bridge.
A solid structure, such as a terminal groin, has a design criterion to
withstand a certain size wave. Otherwise, it will be destroyed and
useless. Usually.the design wave is stated in terms of the probability of
7
i
FIGURE 3
SCHEMATIC PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
-SAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
BODIE ISI.'AND . _
_B I OREGON..iNLET OCEAN BAR
ALTERNATE ROUTE TO P2 I

N
}
a
U
Z
P
A
/A
/A
' P2
/
PEA ISLAND
NWR
/
/l
a
BEACH NOURISHMENT
TO 3000 FEET
SOUTH OF THE POINT
NOT TO SCALE
occurrence and reoccurrence in so many years. This leads to the common
statement that the project is designed for a certain-year storm event. In
a sand management program, the design criterion is simply that it responds
to the next year's demand for sand; therefore, it is designed with sand
reserves that will provide a buffer against erosion. In this case, the
sand management plan has been designed to be more than adequate for a
25-year storm event in every year (Dr. Doug Inman, pers. comm.).
The March 1989, storm is considered to have been a 25-year storm event.
That storm did not adversely affect the Bridge or its southern abutment,
and the residual degree of protection following that storm is unknown.
However, the consultants have estimated that the loss of sand from the
March 1989, storm at the northern end of Pea Island was 470,000 cubic
yards. This was calculated based on measurements from comparisons of
summer 1988, aerial photographs and post-storm 1989 aerial photographs.
That comparison showed a loss of 700,000 cubic yards. Consequently, the
700,000 cubic yards includes the average annual losses of 230,000 cubic
yards; so the actual amount of loss due to the storm is 470,000 cubic
yards. This implies that this alternative creates a bigger buffer than
what existed prior to the March 1989, storm. According to the consultants,
a 700,000 cubic yard buffer will provide for erosion losses 1.5 times the
loss during the March 1989, storm. Additional protection of the bridge,
highway, seashore and refuge will accrue as beach nourishment reduces
shoreline erosion to the unaccelerated rates or exceeds actual erosion
altogether.
Phase 1 of this plan calls for 3 years of intensive nourishment at the
northern end of Pea Island to immediately protect the Bridge and North
Carolina Highway 12 in the vicinity of the Bridge by restoring land lost to
the recent accelerated erosion and the March 1989, storm. Phase 2 of the
plan, which begins in Year 4, calls for continued maintenance nourishment
of the northern end of Pea Island so long as the Corps continues to dredge
in the inlet. In Phase 1, there are 2 steps to nourishment in each year.
In step 1, the point is nourished, and in step 2, the ocean beach is
nourished.
In Phase 1, step 1, sand naturally accreting at the southern end of Bodie
Island (BI) would be placed on the northern end of Pea Island (P1) in the
abandoned Coast Guard harbor and on the eroded north point. Also in
Phase 1, step 2, sand from the Oregon Inlet ocean bar (B2), would be placed
on the ocean beach south of the point (P2).
The nourishment schedule for Phase 1 is presented in Table 1. The sand
volumes required are based on the assumption that erosion of the northern
end of Pea Island will continue at approximately 230,000 cubic yards per
year. Cessation of inlet dredging during Phase 1 would not change the
volumes needed.
8
1-1
W
N
Q
O.
L/)
J
Q
F-
W ^
• J i1J
rr Q L
N O
W O LT
JcL•r
C) L,t_
H tl O
O
f- N
W
E
LLJ
LD
o_
4/}

4-- O O o O
0 ° ° CD I
C)
0 o C) C) c
U rp
O O O O
r- O O O O
(D co :'7 ch r4
O n
c l7 Lc cf tp .?
C ry
Q 64 4A 4A, 64
C
rD
r• ^
N N

O O O
v
O O O O QJ
N O O .7 O r i
Q. O rt7
O O O O
N .7 O O O
m O O O O
4-3
c E O
N N N O r-
O L C
* 64 y} 64 64 4- •r

N 10 aJ
N
O rp
U N
O O O O 4,
C) CD C) I
C) S-
ro
.•-4 O O O O O
G. 4- A
O O O O L
•-4 O O O O O
m (D LC) LO O L 0)
?C C
c7• N rt 00 •r
O
4A 64 64 64 U C
r W

-4 U O
a
L N
c O C).
O CL S-
o
to U
L7) C 4R
c W CJ
•- O O O 4-
S- O O O O 4J
O O I
O
4-)
>,
? >- O O O I N

W 4-3 L! co m V
RJ ci
? Cn
ca V
4-J N
N O L

ro ?v
a ( aJ C
r4 o O O 4,1 b
1 O O O of
E
1] O C r L
O L O O O O 4-1 O
V W L Cl) m m LA 4•
4- N N N O

vi C L
al (9 b

O c
r O V
O r
O O O O
4 C:3 C) 'o C)
CL O (D O I O N U
1 I rti
N O O O I O .0 L
d O O O :--) O O
f? ? ^ ! ra O O S
I ;
O L
I
N
i O 61)?
O Ln

in O
O O O I O M O
•+ O O 7 I O U 4-J
a 1 C =
41 O
-4 O 7 O O i V
I
C3 "
l

? M
I t
A
•

LA r
•r
L rT
r- r L
i- RJ O rt3
R7 4-i
j
+j
? C

-
> O O
-D
F-
I--
8 K
a
In Year 1, step 1 would be the immediate and rapid placement of 800,000
cubic yards of sand in the abandoned Coast Guard harbor and on the northern
point of Pea Island. The best source for this sand is the southern spit of
Bodie Island. That sand is available in readily accessible large quantity
and is of a quality compatible with the natural sands on the northern end
of Pea Island. Approximately 230,000 yards of this sand would be eroded
from the point and would partially contribute to the nourishment of
downdrift beaches. The net nourishment of the northern end of the island
at the end of Year 1 would be approximately 570,000 cubic yards.
Also in Year 1, but less urgent, would be the second step involving
placement of 700,000 cubic yards of sand along the northern 3,000 feet of
the ocean shore of the northern end of Pea Island. This sand could be
taken from the southern end of Bodie Island, the ocean bar or the
navigation channel east of the Bridge, but the most economical source would
be the 700,000 cubic yards to be dredged from the inlet bar by the Corps.
In Year 2, step 1 involves the placement of 500,000 cubic yards of sand on
the northern point of Pea Island. At the end of Year 2, the net
nourishment of the northern end of the island would be approximately
840,000 cubic yards. Also in Year 2, step 2 would involve the placement of
another 700,000 cubic yards along the ocean shore of Pea Island within
3,000 feet of the northern point.
In Year 3, step 1 involves the placement of 300,000 cubic yards of sand on
the northern point of Pea Island. The net nourishment of the northern end
of the island at the end of Year 3 would be approximately 910,000 cubic
yards. Step 2 would involve the placement of another 700,000 cubic yards
along the ocean shore of Pea Island within 3,000 feet of the northern
point.
In Phase 2, which begins in Year 4, beach nourishment would match the
volumes dredged from the inlet. If dredging were to cease at any time
after Phase 1, nourishment could be discontinued and southward and westward
migration rates of the northern end of the island would continue at
approximately the pre-dredging, unaccelerated, or historical rates of
75 feet per year southward and 16 feet per year westward. If dredging is
discontinued and later resumed, beach nourishment must also resume at equal
volumes of sand.
A contingency plan, to be implemented if a storm causing erosion equivalent
to the March 1989, storm should occur during Year 1, is presented in
Table 2. The storm would cause the erosion of approximately 470,000 cubic
yards of the nourished sand. Therefore, Year 2 nourishment at the northern
point is increased to 900,000 cubic yards to achieve the desired
protection. Year 3 nourishment at the north point would remain at 300,000
cubic yards. This contingency plan displays the flexibility of the sand
management strategy. Should a severe storm occur at any time during or
after the completion of this plan, nourishment volumes could be adjusted to
• provide the desired level of bridge and highway protection. Similarly, if
9
TABLE 2.
CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SAND MANAGEMENT AT THE
NORTHERN POINT OF PEA ISLAND (P1 IN FIGURE 3)
ASSUMING A 25-YEAR STORM EVENT OCCURS
DURING YEAR 1
Volume (cubic yards)
Remaining
Eroded at Year End
Year B1-P1 from P1 on P1
01 800,000 700,000 100,000
02 900,000** 230,000 770,000
03 300,000 230,000 840,000
* Includes average annual erosion rate of 230,000 cubic yards per year
plus 470,000 cubic yards eroded by U e 25-year storm event.
** Increased by 400,000 cubic yards over the basic sand management plan
to provide at least 700,000 cubic yards of protection at the end of
Year 2,
9a
additional protection is called for, nourishment volumes can be increased.
Likewise, the sand discharge point can be changed to put the sand where it
is needed to maximize the benefits of nourishment.
The preferred method of handling the nourishment material will be
determined through consultations with the NCDOT, the Corps, the National
Park Service and the Service. The preferred method will be selected,
depending upon costs, technical feasibility, and compatibility with
seashore and refuge purposes. The National Park Service has determined
that subaqueous removal of sand from the sand accretion area at the
southern spit of Bodie Island would be compatible with seashore purposes.
The Service has determined that the proposed sand nourishment plan is
compatible with Refuge purposes (Appendix B).
This plan to protect the bridge and highway does not require a revetment
to be effective. However, should the NCDOT determine that an additional
degree of security is desired, the existing revetment at the southern
bridge abutment would be extended either northwest or southeast or both and
parallel to the bridge and highway. The revetment cross-sectional
dimensions and construction materials would be approximately the same as
the existing revetment. Revetment construction, as described here, would
be compatible with Refuge purposes.
The cost of Phase 1 depends upon the source of the sand used for
nourishment and the sand handling methods. The cost of Phase 2 depends on
the amount and duration of inlet dredging after Year 3. It is estimated
that sand nourishment from Bodie Island would cost approximately $5 per
cubic yard. Sand nourishment from inlet and channel dredging would cost
approximately $4 per cubic yard, which is in addition to the $5 per cubic
yard the Corps pays to dredge the inlet. Thus, Year 1 nourishment with
800,000 cubic yards from Bodie Island and 700,000 cubic yards from the
ocean bar would cost $6,800,000 (Table 1). Year 2 nourishment with 500,000
yards from Bodie Island and 700,000 cubic yards from the ocean bar would
cost $5,300,000. Year 3 nourishment with 300,000 cubic yards from Bodie
Island and 700,000 cubic yards from the inlet bar would cost $4,300,000.
The total cost of Phase 1 would be $16,400,000. For the contingency of the
occurrence of a storm similar to the March 1989, storm occurring during
Year 1, Phase 1 would cost an additional $2,000,000 if the additional
400,000 cubic yards of sand were taken from Bodie Island.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Introduction
The project area is the northern 3,000 feet of
shallow estuarine and littoral oceanic waters
detailed description which follows is from the
Assessment (NCDOT 1989).
Pea Island and adjacent
and bottoms. Most of the
NCDOT's Environmental
10
B. Biological Resources
"The inlet and ocean beaches within the project area are generally
unvegetated. At the beach-dune interface, vascular plants including beach
spurge, sea rocket, pennywort, common saltwort, and spike grass occur. The
grassy dunes are principally vegetated by American beach grass, sea oats,
broom sedge, goldenrod, sand rush, sandspur, and wild bean or pea. Away
from the ocean and toward Pamlico Sound, the dunes may grade into fresh
water marsh and pond areas. Vegetation in the more open marshes and ponds
are water nymph, pond weed, spike-rush, widgeon grass, water-hyssop, false
loosestrife, and musk grass. Along the edges of open areas are cat-tails,
three square, spike rush, saltmeadow cordgrass, and willow, marsh elder,
and saltmyrtle. Fringing the Pamlico Sound shore are large marshes of
saltmarsh cordgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass. Wetland areas adjacent to
the Coast Guard station and boat basin are principally vegetated by common
reed." Figure 4 shows the distribution of the dominant plant communities
(McCrain 1988).
"Submerged aquatic vascular plants (SAV), widgeon grass and eelgrass occur
in beds in the shallow water of Pamlico Sound adjacent to Pea Island.
These beds of SAVs are important shallow water nursery and feeding habitats
for many species of fish, shellfish, and birds." (NCDOT 1989)
The Refuge was established April 8, 1938, by Executive Order Number 1864.
The 5,915-acre refuge is comprised of ocean beach, barrier dunes, salt
marshes, fresh and brackish water ponds and impoundments, and tidal creeks
and bays. An additional 25,700 acres of open water in Pamlico Sound is
closed by Presidential Proclamation Number 2284, May 8, 1938, pursuant to
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, to the taking of migratory waterfowl
(Figure 5). The Refuge is managed primarily for migratory waterfowl, but
it also supports a wide variety of other wildlife.
Pea Island is a midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much used and
valuable feeding and resting area for numerous species of wintering
waterfowl. Thousands of snow and Canada geese, whistling swans, coots, and
more than 25 species of ducks winter on the Refuge. Historically, peak
numbers of wintering waterfowl have included 16,000 snow geese, 10,000
Canada geese, and 45,000 ducks. The Refuge has the southernmost
substantial breeding flocks of black ducks and gadwalls.
In addition to waterfowl, large numbers of shorebirds, gulls, terns,
ibises, hawks, owls, and numerous species of passerine birds spend a part
of the year there. The Refuge also provides habitat for the endangered
southern bald eagle and peregrine falcon, threatened loggerhead sea turtle
and piping plover, and recently (1985) delisted brown pelican.
Water levels in refuge impoundments (Figure 6) are manipulated seasonally
to allow food plants favored by waterfowl to grow. The impoundments are
flooded in the fall and winter giving easy access to the available food by
wintering waterfowl. Controlled burning and mechanical brush control on
11

dC??
dC,?
PAMLICO SOUND
LEGEND
%MAINTAINED AREAS BLACK NE°_OLE RUSH POCKETS
:'-• `-?-.MARITIME SHRUB THICKETS GIANT REED STANDS
- - -:,Z=LOW SHRUB/GRASS LANDS SALT WORT/MUO FLATS
:::SALT MEADOW GRASS FLATS (LOW) .._. - .' CONE COMMUNITIES
SALT MEADOW ,BASS FLATS (NIGH) -.:. INTERTIDAL CORD GRASS

ATLANTIC OCEAN

l
1? 11! 111 11, ..
^'.1' -'?•) 1111 \ I \ '
?• ?.?. \ 111\y.1,\1`y .
111! \ 1, \1!
V :` • ?. y,'y., !'11'; '.11,1'! '{ '• ..
? ... ; ly ) ' 111 1 I !
:.//?:•. X.Y yy 1 1111 II r/\1
ti. .. L?..\y.': .;j?:?i1/1y 1!'y/\1111 •`, :
! ..... r J •1...1!11.
11! IIJ11i:.1Ji?:? •1 !? ! 111. .-
Figure 4. Plant community patterns at c'
north end of Pea Island -
(from McCrain 1988)
o . /I .? Boa
OREGON INLET
11 a
PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
1141TEO STATES DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES
OE.... WENT OF THE INTERIOR - FISH ANO MR.OLIFC SERVICE
Ts•3Y 73.30,

. t
Figure 5. Pea Island W.C.S. • I.ATCR CONTROL STRUCTURC
National wildlife Refuge ? .u
?.
z
`may r.wr •?'?? `??\ n
'1C1 l_
? x
CIS
\? v ?Vg s
%0
T'
%
REFUGE
ANO ??? ?? •...
n
Y ..wrl
LEGEND
REFUGE BOUNDARY \s= N •• ? `fi x ?,?
{ I'1
V y? t
%
3r.
3 r.O
v1C.N(7r MAP ?.l...? ? 1
, I 1 I
TS-351 73.30'
CON?gtD IN THE DIVISION OF REALTY FROM
f URV [rS Cr 'L 1. AND AERIAL
?IIOTOGAA'.1
e tooo .eo0 .oea :too. .ooe .[t•
CD I*
ATLANTA. GEORGIA JUNE. 197. ..• .,! ! ! .Tits
13•.3•
3•.0•
,• MCAN
S • OCCLIN?TION
IsTe
4R-N.C.-231-404
11 b
?4\
1 V
V
9
r
r
0
0
0
MN_I
1 GN
tat ?ILS? 0•ZO'
6MILS
i
i
m+ra? nrtcr.r f ?[[r
Figure 6. Northern end of Pea Island
MANAGED WATERFOWL
IMPOUNDMENTS
11 c
2,200 acres of managed marsh is used to favor plant growth beneficial to
waterfowl and other wildlife. These management practices serve to improve
waterfowl habitat and increase its use by a variety of wildlife species.
"The estuarine and ocean waters adjacent to the project area support a
great diversity of fish and shellfish species. Seasonal variations in
abundance and occurrence of fish and shellfish species are common,
resulting from seasonal cycles of water temperature and the migratory
patterns of species. These species can generally be placed into three
categories: seasonal, north-south migrant species; permanent resident
species; and estuarine dependent species. Common sport and commercial
species found in the area include croaker, spot, grey and spotted sea
trout, bluefish, channel bass, summer flounder, blue crab, and shrimp."
(NCDOT 1989)
"Mole crabs, coquina clams, and ghost crabs, amphipods, isopods, and
polychaetes are invertebrate residents of the beach seaward of the primary
dunes including the intertidal and surf zones. These organisms are food
for many surf zone fish and shorebirds" (NCDOT 1989).
The project area provides habitat for several species of mammals and
reptiles. "Small mammals such as mice, rats, and shrews may be found in
the beach and dune areas. In the freshwater and saltmarsh areas, larger
mammals such as opossum, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, nutria, muskrat, mink,
and otter occur." (NCDOT 1989) A variety of snakes and turtles are found
in the freshwater and saltwater marsh areas.
C. Endangered and Threatened Species
The federally-listed endangered and threatened species listed below may
occur within the impact area of the proposed project.
SPECIES
Common Name (Scientific Name) Status
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Endangered
Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) Endangered
Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines tundrius) Threatened
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened
Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) Endangered
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Legidochelys kem ii) Endangered
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Threatened
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered
12
"With the exception of several species of colonially nesting waterbirds,
State-listed species which may occur in the project area are the same as
those on the Federal list. Many species of colonially nesting waterbirds
use the dredged material disposal islands in the sound behind Oregon Inlet
for nesting sites and the waters of the project area for foraging purposes.
Five of these species have been proposed for Special Concern status under
the State's Endangered Species Act (GS 113, Article 25). These species are
the black skimmer (Rynchops niger), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus),
snowy egret (Egretta thula), little blue heron (Florida caerulea), and
tricolored heron (Hydranassa tricolor). There is no known nesting by
colonial waterbirds on the Pea Island beach in the vicinity of the inlet."
(NCDOT 1989)
"Habitat for one State-listed threatened species of plant, sea beach
amaranth (Amaranthus um? ilus), occurs in the project area; however, a
search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database disclosed no
current or historical records of the species for the area (Harry LeGrand,
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, personal communication)." (NCDOT
1989)
D. Water Quality
"The North Carolina water quality classification assigned to the waters of
the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Oregon Inlet, Oregon Inlet, and Pamlico
Sound adjacent to Oregon Inlet is SA (15 NCAC 2B .0317 effective June 30,
1981). SA waters are suitable for commercial shellfishing and all other
tidal salt water uses including swimming, primary and secondary recreation,
and fish propagation." (NCDOT 1989)
E. Cultural Resources
"A review of cultural resources within the project area was conducted and
consisted of existing surveys, historic documentation, and personal
communication with persons familiar with cultural resources of the area."
(NCDOT 1989)
"The prospects for the discovery of prehistoric sites on or near the ocean
beaches are generally considered low. The lack of resource variety, the
lack of freshwater, and the exposure to high winds and waves have proven to
be negative factors for all but the more recent occupants of European
descent (Phelps 1983:24, Loftfield 1988:108). No archaeological sites are
listed for the project vicinity in the North Carolina Division of Archives
and History site file." (NCDOT)
"The shipwreck site files of the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History Underwater Archaeology Unit, when taken together with the wrecks
listed by Angley (1985), list 56 wrecks occurring at or near the inlet.
These sites are generally believed to have occurred within a 5-mile radius
of the historic inlet locations at the time of their loss. The
• Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology (Brooks and Wilde-
13
Ramsing 1988) lists nine manuscripts dealing with shipwreck sites in Dare
County. All of these reported wrecks are exposed on the beach front and
none are within the vicinity of the proposed project (Mark Wilde-Ramsing
1989, personal communication)." (NCOOT 1989)
"The Oregon Inlet Station is the only historic property known to be located
in the vicinity of the proposed project, and it is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The structure is owned by the United States
Coast Guard, who abandoned the building in December 1988. It is not
currently open to the public." (NCDOT 1989) The Coast Guard is currently
evaluating alternative actions for the station. "The structure is under
immediate threat from erosion. At the time of its nomination to the
National Register, Oregon Inlet Station was the oldest active Coast Guard
station in North Carolina. It was built in 1897 and is on or near the site
of Oregon Inlet Lifesaving Station. It is not clear from the National
Register documentation if the original Lifesaving Station was structurally
incorporated into the Coast Guard station or if the original station was
destroyed to make way for the 1897 structure. This question may be of
future significance to the Coast Guard since only one of the original 29
lifesaving stations in North Carolina, Chicamacomico Lifesaving Station,
now serves as an historic site open to the public (Davis 1989)."
(NCDOT 1989)
F. Recreational Resources
Approximately 1.5 million people visited the Refuge in 1988. The Refuge is
within the Seashore. Thus, the general area provides significant
recreational opportunities. The refuge is administered and managed for
wildlife by the Service. Recreational activities compatible with refuge
objectives such as hunting, fishing and wildlife observation are managed by
the Service. Non-wildlife related recreational activities are managed by
the National Park Service.
"Because of public access, parking, and its location as a shore of Oregon
Inlet, the northern end of Pea Island receives a large percentage of the
visitors enumerated above, particularly fishermen and beach users."
(NCDOT 1989)
"To the north of Oregon Inlet, the southern end of Bodie Island.forms the
northern inlet shoulder. Bodie Island is a part of the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore administered by the National Park Service. Recreational
activities associated with the south end of Bodie Island include camping at
the Oregon Inlet Campground, surf-fishing, swimming, sightseeing/
beachcombing, picnicking, off-road vehicle use, and boating based from the
Oregon Inlet Fishing Center. A large portion of the activities mentioned
above take place at Oregon (sic) or within a few miles of the inlet."
(NCDOT 1989) Approximately 1.9 million people visited the Bodie Island
Subdistrict of the Seashore in 1988.
14
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The expected environmental effects of the two alternatives are presented in
this section. Other alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration as stated earlier. Although the Ferry Plan and No Action
Alternatives could be considered compatible with Refuge objectives, they
fail in the NCDOT objective of protecting the Bridge and its abutment.
A. Alternative 1 - Terminal Groin and Revetment (NCDOT Proposal)
Based on an analysis of this alternative by experts in the fields of
coastal oceanography, coastal geology, and coastal engineering, the
Service concludes that there could be impacts on the Refuge and
consequently on nationally significant fish and wildlife resources.
The consultants informed us that the south side of Bodie Island will
continue to migrate southward toward the groin, forcing the channel to
migrate against the groin. This could undermine the groin and cause it
to collapse unless extensive maintenance and remedial actions are
conducted by NCDOT.
Construction of this alternative, particularly the terminal groin,
could exacerbate existing beach erosion on Pea Island. This could lead
to a series of remedial structural solutions or beach nourishment to
remedy exacerbated shoreline erosion. This erosion will likely be most
conspicuous within 1 to 6 miles south of the proposed structure and
eventually could extend the entire length of Pea Island. Outward signs
of increased erosion will include beach narrowing, dune loss and island
overwash.
Waterfowl management activities within the impoundments on the Refuge
could be disrupted. These impoundments represent 950 acres of the most
intensively managed waterfowl and migratory bird habitat on the Outer
Banks which is utilized by species such as black duck, the southern
population of the Canada goose and canvasback duck. The black duck and
canvasback duck are presently faced with greatly diminished
populations. The Service has international treaty commitments to
protect migratory birds and their habitat.
Beaches and dunes could be reduced in size or eliminated due to
possible increased erosion rates resulting from the project. These
areas provide nesting habitat for willets, oystercatchers, black
skimmers, least terns and gadwall ducks. Historically, an estimated
300 willets, 50 oystercatchers, 40 black skimmers, 100 least terns and
20 gadwall ducks have been produced annually in the beach/dune zone.
This zone is also utilized by the threatened loggerhead sea turtle as a
nesting site and has potential to be used by the threatened piping
plover as a nesting and forage site. Since 1972, over 8,000 hatchling
sea turtles have been reared on Refuge beaches either through
management of existing nests or through relocation of nests from other
beaches.
15
Natural aesthetics and public use activities such as fishing, bird
watching, and nature study would be diminished if the exacerbated
erosion and island overwash were to occur. The Refuge is a place of
immense natural beauty and wildlife diversity and abundance. The
Refuge supports over 300 species of wildlife, including 248 bird
species and receives over 1.5 million visitors annually. The northern
end of Pea Island is utilized heavily for sport fishing. The NCDOT's
Environmental Assessment indicates that because of concern for visitor
safety, visitor access to the north point will be restricted. The
Service concurs in this restriction. Thus, recreational fishing would
be permanently excluded from the revetment and groin sites.
The exact cost of this alternative is unclear, but during a meeting
with representatives of the Corps and representatives of NCDOT on
June 9, 1989, Corps personnel informed us that the cost of the terminal
groin and revetment was approximately $15 million. Since the groin
could be undermined or cause additional erosion, potential remedial
actions such the as addition of groin fields, beach nourishment, etc.
could increase costs significantly.
The Service has determined that the NCDOT proposal could be compatible
with the purposes for which the Refuge was established with the
following terms and conditions.
1. To construct, operate, maintain, and monitor a terminal groin not
to exceed 2,750 feet and revetment of 625 feet on the north point
of the Refuge (Figure 2).
2. To provide initial beach nourishment as necessary to achieve the
adjusted shoreline as shown on Figure 2.
3. To provide advance written notification to the Project Manager, c/o
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 1969, Manteo,
North Carolina 27954, concerning commencement of all beach
nourishment, outlining the time, method, equipment and routes of
access, to conduct nourishment operations. Operations will not
commence until the Regional Director has reviewed and approved the
plans for nourishment.
4. To develop an acceptable bimonthly monitoring methodology, approved
by the Regional Director to determine effectiveness of the terminal
groin and revetment and beach nourishment to stabilize Pea Island
to a point 6.0 miles south of the Bridge. NCDOT will submit a
report to the Regional Director every 6 months covering the
reporting periods from May to October and November to April.
Reports are due within 30 days of the end of the reporting period,
and will be continued until mutually agreed to discontinue.
5. NCDOT has the responsibility for both the Bridge and North Carolina
Highway 12 and the integral nature of these transportation features
16
to the Pea-Hatteras Islands communities. NCDOT will have a
continued involvement, in full consultation with the Federal
landowners, the Service and the National Park Service, in the Pea-
Hatteras Islands area. The Service and NCDOT will develop a
program per condition 4 above to monitor shoreline changes and the
functioning of the terminal groin and revetment and beach
nourishment. If the Regional Director, Service, or Secretary,
NCDOT determines that the terminal groin and revetment are causing
long-term adverse shoreline erosion or island migration by
interrupting or otherwise affecting natural or normal sand
migration, NCDOT will either remove the structures or perform
additional beach nourishment.
6. NCDOT and the Service will develop a mutually agreeable "historical
rate of erosion" based on the best available historical data,
records, evidence, and technology available from all necessary
sources.
7. NCDOT will provide supplemental beach nourishment the Refuge beach
to restore all sand lost in excess of the "historical erosion rate"
as agreed to by the Service and NCDOT. Beach nourishment shall be
in conformance with the terms and conditions of the reasonable and
prudent measures to reduce the potential for incidental take of
loggerhead sea turtles as described in the Service's Biological
Opinion issued on May 26, 1989.
8. NCDOT owns the revetment and groin and will appurtenant
improvements for the term of this permit. Accordingly, it is the
responsibility of NCDOT to construct, operate, and maintain the
permitted features in a manner that will protect the public health
and safety. The United States, by virtue of this permit, disclaims
any duty to any person arising out of the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the permitted features.
9. Proposed modification or extension of the terminal groin and
revetment will require reevaluation and full compliance with
applicable environmental review requirements, before issuance of a
new or revised permit will be considered.
B. Alternative 2 - Sand Management with Optional Revetment
This Alternative will provide protection for the southern 600 feet and the
southern abutment of the Bonner Bridge at least equal to the level of
protection existing prior to the March 1989, storm. The sand management or
beach nourishment will slow the southward and westward migration rates of
the northern end of Pea Island to rates approximately equal to what would
occur without inlet dredging, 75 feet per year southward and 16 feet per
year westward. It will provide protection of refuge waterfowl ponds and
feeding areas and will ensure that nesting beach availability and stability
is maintained for sea turtles.
17
Recreational fishing would not be excluded from the north end of Pea
Island, except during periods of beach nourishment and in the vicinity of
revetment construction, should it occur. Other portions of the northern
tip of Pea Island would be available for recreational fishing as they have
been in the past.
Because this alternative will not attempt to stop natural barrier island
migration, it will not result in the need for larger and additional inlet
stabilization structures in the future which could cause adverse impacts
to Refuge and Seashore resources. Alternative bridge replacement
alignments will not be prematurely decided by this alternative, nor will
the selection of inlet navigation channel maintenance methods be
prejudiced. Thus, this alternative has the beneficial effect of providing
time for consideration of all reasonable alternatives for those other
challenges at Oregon Inlet.
If an optional revetment were constructed, it could cause the loss of a
small quantity (perhaps 0.5 to 1.0-acre) of maritime shrub habitat on Pea
Island. This loss could be mitigated by the creation of similar habitat
elsewhere on the Refuge.
The placement of sand on the beach will feed the littoral drift system in a
southerly direction. Additional storm protection would be afforded
North Carolina Highway 12 in the vicinity of the Bridge and the Refuge's
migratory waterfowl impoundments west of the highway by this nourishment.
The beach would be restored south of the project area, potentially
improving nesting habitat for the threatened loggerhead sea turtle and
improving feeding habitat for the threatened piping plover. Beach
nourishment at P2 (Figure 3) is restricted to the northern 3,000 feet of
Pea Island, based on the consultants' recommendation. This action also
avoids disruption of loggerhead sea turtle nesting habitat down beach.
The Service's Biological Opinion for this Alternative is included in
Appendix C.
The entire project is located within the 100-year floodplain. Since the
purpose of the work is to minimize storm impacts to the southern 600 feet
and southern abutment of the Bridge, and because there are no alternatives
to placement of the beach nourishment and revetment in the floodplain, it
is also considered to be in compliance with the Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management. No adverse impacts to wetlands are expected.
Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is in compliance with Executive Order
11990, Protection of Wetlands.
If the naturally accreting sand spit at the southern end of Bodie
Island were used as a source of beach nourishment material, subaqueous
dredging would create increased water depths close to shore. However, due
to the natural sand accretion in this area, this would not significantly
adversely affect fish and wildlife habitats on Bodie Island. Creating deep
water near shore can be expected to increase the site's value for
recreational fishing.
18
This alternative appears to be more economical than the NCDOT's terminal
groin and revetment alternative. This alternative will not result in the
large future costs of inlet-stabilizing structures which could result from
the NCDOT's proposed terminal groin and revetment as the inlet and barrier
islands continue to migrate. Beach nourishment costs are expected to be
approximately $4 to $5 per cubic yard more than the Corps' current dredging
costs of approximately $5 per cubic yard depending on the source of the
material. However, nourishment costs will depend upon the source of the
nourishment material and handling methods, both of which will be negotiated
among the NCDOT, the Corps, the National Park Service and the Service. The
consultants estimate that a revetment would cost approximately $400 per
linear foot.
This Alternative has the following advantages over the proposed groin and
revetment alternative:
1. Sand management makes no permanent and irreversible commitment to
structural solutions to inlet and barrier island migration.
2. Phase 1 would provide immediate (within 45-90 days) protection for the
bridge.
3. Sand management is compatible with the Department of Interior's
management concepts for the refuge and seashore.
4. Sand management would not only protect the bridge but would mitigate
for the adverse effects on Pea Island caused by accelerated erosion.
5. Even in a worst-case scenario, the effects of sand management are still
positive, compared to a structural solution. For example, in the event
of a storm, the sand management plan provides flexibility to project
sponsors by allowing them to place sand where it is needed most to
correct for storm damage.
6. The sand management plan is a natural approach and can compensate for
natural sea level rise where hard structures may or may not.
7. Sand redistribution within the inlet after nourishment can only help
stabilize the bridge. This would not be necessarily true for sand
redistribution following groin and revetment construction, which may
threaten the structure.
8. Sand management provides and maximizes the opportunities for long-term
planning of the North Carolina Highway 12 transportation corridor.
Other considerations of the sand management plan are the following:
1. Sand management is an ongoing solution. However, sand management
needs will exist for any solution to Bonner Bridge protection.
19
2. There is some uncertainty in the cost of sand management. If there
were recurring severe storms, an unlikely event, then sand
management costs could increase significantly over the projected
costs. However, there are also great uncertainties in the costs of
constructing and maintaining a structural solution. For example,
in the event of structural failure, hard structure removal
generally costs two to three times the cost of its construction.
3. During a severe storm, there would be the possibility of serious
losses. However, such losses would occur with the NCDOT's proposed
terminal groin and revetment.
V. PERMITS REQUIRED AND RELATED FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
A. Permits
For any construction alternative, a right-of-way permit would be required
for the use of the Service and U.S. Coast Guard lands. Permit
authorization for dredge and fill activities would be required from the
Corps and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Coastal Management.
B. Federal Activities
The sand management plan would make use of sand available from the Corps'
routine maintenance dredging of the Oregon Inlet bar and channel and sand
accreting at the southern end of Bodie Island. The National Park Service
has informed the Service that subaqueous removal of sand from the southern
end of Bodie Island would be compatible with the purposes of the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area.
The amount of sand currently removed yearly from the local sediment budget
by the Corps' dredging, instead, would be restored to the littoral
downdrift system. Since 1983, this amount has averaged 719,000 cubic yards
of sand per year. This action would reduce the adverse effect of erosion
on Pea Island caused by the Corps' dredging.
Sand dredged from Oregon Inlet landward of the Oregon Inlet bar and Bonner
Bridge may also be available for beach nourishment. This sand is either
side-casted or piled on man-made islands near the channel where it may
erode back into the channel. The Wilmington, North Carolina, District
Corps plans to resume maintenance dredging activities June 20, 1989, on the
Oregon Inlet bar and channels removing approximately a total of 465,000
cubic yards of sand. As stated earlier, the Service and Department intends
to pursue with the Corps the need to insure that all sand removed from
Oregon Inlet maintenance dredging activities is placed on the northern
point and along the ocean shoreline of Pea Island.
20
VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
The Service contacted a number of agencies and individuals regarding the
subject project and considered their views in the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment. In particular, the Service consulted with the
National Park Service at Cape Hatteras and Atlanta Regional Office. The
Service and National Park Service hired as consultants five coastal experts
to obtain objective and scientific views of the expected impacts of the
terminal groin and revetment project proposed by the NCDOT. The
consultants officially met on April 26, 1989, June 8 and 9, 1989, and many
phone calls took place to discuss technical matters. The Service, the
National Park Service and their committee of expert consultants presented
the Sand Management with Optional Revetment Alternative to the NCDOT and
the Corps at a meeting in Atlanta on June 9, 1989.
Previous coordination with the Wilmington District Corps, who was
contracted by the NCDOT to write the May 1, 1989, NCDOT Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Terminal Groin and Revetment, was also helpful
in preparation of this document. Such consultation is accurately described
in the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment and included threatened species and
technical information exchange (i.e., aerial photographs and copies of the
preliminary draft documents).
VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public involvement in the proposal (March 31, 1989) by the NCDOT to
construct a terminal groin and revetment on the north end of the Refuge,
Dare County, North Carolina, has occurred in several ways. On April 6,
1989, the Wilmington, North Carolina, District, Corps issued a public
notice requesting comments on this proposal in conjunction with the NCDOT's
application for a Department of the Army permit. On April 18, 1989, the
NCDOT held a public meeting on this proposal at Manteo, Dare County, North
Carolina. On May 5, 1989, the NCDOT announced to the public that its
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was available
for public review. Thus, the public has received several opportunities to
become involved in this State/Federal regulatory/environmental analysis
process.
This Environmental Assessment was completed on June 16, 1989, and made
available for public distribution on that date to all parties known to have
expressed interest in the proposed terminal groin and revetment project
designed to stabilize the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and developed by the
NCDOT. A news release, coupled with announcements in local newspapers,
provided information about the availability of this Assessment. Copies of
the Environmental Assessment have been sent to Federal, State and local
agencies and representatives, and other interested parties and individuals.
Further information is available at the following address:
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
[phone]
21
LITERATURE CITED
Angley, W. 1985. An Historic Overview of Oregon Inlet. North Carolina.
Division of Archives and History, Research Branch, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Brooks, R. and M. Wilde-Ramsing. 1988. Bibliography of North Carolina
Underwater Archaeology. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Davis, N. 1989. Guard Duties. Coastwatch, February, 1989. University of
North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Inman, D. and R. Dolan. 1989. The Outer Banks of North Carolina: Budget
of Sediment and Inlet Dynamics Along a Migrating Barrier System.
Journal of Coastal Research, 5 (2):193-237.
Kearney/Centaur. 1987. "A reassessment of the economic feasibility of the
Oregon Inlet Project," prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Contract DACW 54-87-C-0029) by Kearney/Centaur, a division of
A.T. Kearney, Inc.
Loftfield, T. 1988. Prehistoric Oystermen of the Central North Carolina
Coast. In Sea and Land - Cultural and Biological Adaptations in the
Southern Coastal Plain, edited by James L. Peacock and James C.
Sabella, pp. 106-121. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
McCrain, J. 1988. Environmental Parameters on North Hatteras Island (South
Point), Dare County, N.C. North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1988. Oregon Inlet Bridge
Task Force Report.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1989. Construction of a
Terminal Groin and Revetment at Pea Island, Protection of the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12, Dare County,
North Carolina. State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact.
Phelps, D. 1983. Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal
Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina:
An Archaeological Symposium, ed. by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow,
pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
22
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District. 1980. Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina. Design Memorandum 2, General Design
Memorandum, Phase II, Project Design. September 1980.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. A Restatement of the Dredging Only
Alternative. Report No. 7. In Discussion of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Proposed Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project. Department.of the
Interior. National Park Service. Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
May 1986.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. A Restatement of
Alternative. Section 5 (pp. 70-77). In Discussion
Corps of Engineers' Proposed Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay
Department of the Interior. National Park Service.
National Seashore. December 1987. 82 pp.
the dredging Only
of the U.S. Army
Project.
Cape Hatteras
23
APPENDIX A
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1989, MEETING
15 Pages Follow
Appendix A
Minutes of the Interagency Meeting
on Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC
June 9, 1989, 10:30 a.m.
Agencies Represented: NCDOT, COE, FWS, NPS. See attached list of
attendees (Attachment 1).
Pulliam:
(Introduced FWS and NPS consultants)
Inman: (Introduced committee)
(Presents formal presentation. Uses flip charts and facsimilies of
Table 1 and Figure 3 in the Service's Environmental Assessment)
The 720,000 cubic yards of sand per year taken out of the system by
the Corps is a large fraction of the 930,000 cubic yards per year
moving southward off the south end of Bodie Island. The result is
an increased rate of erosion of Pea Island.
The direct threat to Bonner Bridge is due to increased dredging and
offshore disposal. Increased dredging since 1980 has resulted in
increased southerly migration of the island, 75 ft/y to 150 ft/yr.
avg. for the last 10-15 years and, with the March 1989, storm, to
180 ft/yr.
Over 10 years, this has resulted in Pea Island reaching the natural
2002 shoreline now. Impingement on Bonner Bridge is a direct
result,
The demand for sand transport at north side of the Inlet is
essentially same on south side of the Inlet,.
Offshore disposal results in amplification of the natural force of
erosion,
(Refers to visual aid from Attachment 2)
Approaches to the Problem:
1. Structural: a. irreversible,
b. doesn't address primary erosional cause.
2. Sand Management
a. bypassing.
b, cessation of offshore placement of sand is essential.
3. Combination
Sand management and bridge revetment for bridge could be
beneficial.
We think sand alone placed in the right places will do the job.
With our proposal, this sand will protect the bridge rapidly,
cheaply.
I emphasize that it's a misstatement that sand placed today
will be gone tomorrow.
Lofton: Are you saying offshore dumping is causing accelerated erosion?
How do you explain the loss of honies at Kill Devil Hills?
Inman: There is westward migration. The whole barrier system is migrating
westward.
Lofton: Has there been accelerated erosiun at Kill Devil Hills?
Dolan: I've been collecting data 25 years at some of the exact sites you
are talking about. Buildings that have been there for a long time
are bound to erode.
Lofton: Has there been accelerated erosion all along Kill Devil Hills?
Has erosion increased over what it was the previous 10 years?
Dolan: Every site along the outer banks has it's own erosion rate.
Overall, on the Outer Banks, the rate has slightly increased.
Inman: There's no doubt that the barrier is moving west.
It is moving westward at 16 ft/yr, average over a long time.
Natural shorelines do experience localized short-term accelerated
erosion and short-term slower erosion.
Harrelson: Did dredging cause the erosion of 1,200 feet in the last year?
Inman: The rate of erosion is related to waves. That was a 25-year storm
in March 1989. 16ft/yr. is an average rate. You need to begin to
plan with average rates.
Harrelson: A group of experts said the Corps of Engineers' dredging would
not cause erosion.
Inman: I think they said it would not cause erosion if the dredged sand
were placed on the beach.
2
Dean: We propose a 3-year program of sand management. This plan has two
elements of 3-year placement of material from the Corps' dredge and
from Bodie Island.
It is a centerpiece of our plan that dredged material be placed on
the beach.
The State of Florida has a law: "When inlet dredging occurs you
should.place dredged material on the shore downdrift." It does
not say "must" but it's a step in the right direction,
(Refers to table of sand volumes for sand management proposal,
Table 1 in the Service's Environmental Assessment)
Dolan: 700,000 is what we lost to the storm in March 1989.
So this plan would tolerate a 25-year storm.
Lofton: What if you get a 25-year storm for 3-years?
Dolan: That has not occurred in geophysical history.
Dean: This program allows tremendous flexibility to put more sand there
if needed. You can retrofit this program to fit the need.
O'Quinn: It would take 3 years to get back to year 2001?
Hankins: How much protection do you get?
Schmertmann: (Shows figure describing an outline of the northern end of
Pea Island following the proposed nourishment.)
800,000 gives you the protection you had before the March '89
storm. You grow from there.
Jarrett: Are you sure 80U,000 is enough? There's no way to retain the
shape. The shape shown won't stay, it's important.
Dolan; A significant amount will fill over near the bridge and coast guard
station.
O'Quinn: You get a net 5UO,000 by the end of the 1st year. You begin to
lose it as soon as you begin pumping,
Dean: At end of 3 years you have 700,000 on the point.
Dolan: The minimum is 700,000; the maximum is lots more.
Lofton; What are you proposing?
Dean: These figures. (Pointing at the chart, Table 1 in the Service's
Environmental Assessment)
3
O'Quinn: If dredging stopped after 3 years, do you still nourish?
Inman: After 3 years, if dredging stops, no.
Dolan: We used last storm as our model storm. We want a residual puss
of sand to protect from that storm.
Hankins: The point is that changes to this plan cost.
Dolan: The question is, to what degree do you want to protect against
probabilities?
Hankins: It's the responsible party that takes risk.
Dolan: We based our proposal on an assumption of a willingness to take
a 25-year storm risk.
Harrelson: DOT takes the risk.
O'Quinn: The groin is based on 65-year risk. This is a 25-year risk?
Dolan: Yes.
O'Quinn: We based ours on a 65-year storm.
Dolan: We need to make the point: whether you build yours or not, you
still have to do this sand management.
Jarrett: You're assuming dredging is the cause of the problem. South
Bodie Island accumulation is another loss of sand from the inlet
budget. There's also accumulation in the bay.
Jarrett: Point is that if dredging stops, you can't guarantee to the State
that risks are ini nor.
Inman: We can guarantee we'll replace losses from the last 10 years.
Jarrett: I don't know of anyplace where sand has been placed in an inlet
environment. You're asking State to invest in an experiment.
Dean: But it is based on historical data.
Lofton: Is that true that it's never been done?
Dean: Ponce de Leon Inlet had sand placed in an inlet with a firm
structure. At Masonboro there was no south jetty.
Lofton: Is it true that this has never been done?
4
Dean: That's right, there has never been sand management in an inlet
without a structure.
Jarrett: Corps of Engineers doesn't argue that sand ought to be placed on
the beach.
The method of using outpouring was a DOI idea.
We are dropping stuff in 20 ft. of water, there's no build-up,
granted it's not on Pea Island, but it's not lost to the system.
The Corps of Engineers says: We think sand dredging has impacted
Pea Island, The question is: Who's gonna pay for it?
The Corps of Engineers policy is that dredging is a Federal
project.
But, the Corps of Engineers, FWS, and the State have interests in
a solution.
The State has to know if FWS will pay part of ?t,
Baker: We recognize the decision has to be made on who's gonna pay.
Dolan: We can adjust the numbers to address changed risk.
If you want to pump enough sand, we could seal Oregon Inlet.
But the point is - it can do the job you want.
Jarrett: What's the problem with a groin?
Dolan: You're gonna have to bypass sand anyway.
Inman: (reads from list in Attachment 2, Structural Solution)
We have a list of several problems with the groin.
Once you try to stabilize an inlet, the problem goes down the
coast.
Jarrett: I'm not aware of anywhere an inlet has migrated away from
structures.
Inman: Look at Absecon Inlet.
Dean: At Assateague, the structure was extended,
Lofton: Using history - will the inlet move? Will it cause erosion?
5
Dolan: Once you put in a hard structure - if you have problems, you fix
them with hard structures.
Harrelson: Do you think it desirable to let the inlet migrate?
Jarrett: The State designed this bridge plan anticipating stabilization.
Will migration be acceptable to FWS?
Pulliam: This protection gives you options, it keeps your options open.
You're foreclosing options with the groin.
Wyman: Does the revetment/groin guarantee that the inlet will be
stabilized?
Dolan: One assumption is we're dealing with a National Park and National
Wildlife Refuge, and at the same time accomplishing protection.
Inman: May I continue? I.was saying how this structure locks us into
other structures.
You will have to build jetties when the channel migrates against
the groin.
You will get locked into a big system of structures.
I'm convinced that when you lock yourself into this structure, you
lock yourself into more structures.
The nourishment solution lets you go with sand where you need it.
We have not addressed the jetty decision here. That's been
addressed before by DOI and OMB.
We do say you can solve the erosion problem with this system.
Jarrett: P1 will end up going into the bay. The groin is designed to
handle 30 ft of scour. We could go in and fix it later.
Schmertmann: A lot depends on your assumption of wave attack and direction
of scour. The groin may have insufficient cross section.
Gantt: Are final designs for the groin completed yet?
Jarrett: Yes.
Gantt: May we have a copy?
Harrelson: This philosophical approach is in conflict with the Park
Service. The "let the inlet migrate, let the forests burn" -
policy don't get it here.
6
Wyman: What will it take to protect the bridge and highway?
Jarrett: Let's talk about the specifics of the operation.
Costs - hopper dredging costs us $4/yard. Off Va. the barge is a
3,600 yard class dredge. In O.I. it's 1,000 cubic-yard capacity.
These costs would be different.
The point is that this operation would have to be done in both
seasons. We try to open the channel late summer for fishing
season Oct, to April,
We dredge more in Jan. and Feb., sometimes in March.
You'll probably have to dredge year round. The pumping operation
would cost $4 to $5/yd extra to pump to the beach. May be $8 per
cubic yard extra. $4 to pump the beach is on the lower end of
the scale. It could involve more than 1 dredge. Then the
project will be costly.
Dean: We were wondering about back-side dumping.
Jarrett: The problem is digging a hole for 750,000 cubic yards.
Dean: We need to look at specifics. We took a 1-2 day look.
Jarrett: We did a look for DOT. It seems cost would be quite a burden.
The cost to North Carolina is yearly. The State wouldn't want to
do that.
Dolan: We assume it's inevitable that you're gonna have to bypass with or
without a structure.
Jarrett: I agree.
Dolan: I think you would agree that in a relatively short time, assuming
no permit problems, we could use a pipeline dredge to put 700,000
cubic yards at the base of the bridge. That would be step 1.
Step 2 would get to the 3-year plan.
Step 1 would protect bridge at low cost.
Technology or economics would not stand in our way.
O'Quinn: We're talking about a 65-year protection factor. With yours you
spend $16 million in 3 years and there's still no solution.
(Rapid discussion of the degree of protection provided).
Jarrett: We've estimated the groin cost at $15 million.
7
O'Quinn: Will the groin cause downdrift erosion?
Inman: We had some disagreement about that.
Lofton: What do you say?
Inman: Yes.
Lofton: And you sir, what do you say?
Dolan: The committee is concerned about it.
Lofton: And you sir?
Dean: No. But we're playing a game with this.
Inman: You're not getting anywhere taking polls. We could take polls.
Harrelson: Our concern is 5,000 people, not only the park and refuge.
Dean: I'd hope we could get to some resolution.
Jarrett: What is the depth of your system?
Dean: That's clouding the issue. The American Society of Civil Engineers
recognizes that dredged sand should be seen as a natural resource
and placed on-shore.
O'Quinn: The difference in price isn't so important.
I know we can put a groin in for $15 million. You don't know how
much is enough sand.
Dolan: If we can reach agreement to explore that, then we can come up with
numbers.
Lofton: We need some firm figures.
Dolan: We can generate some firm figures based on a defined level of risk.
Royner: What we're worrying about is what happens if we get sued.
In an aggregate way, the more structural a solution is, the more we
get sued.
I can't quantify it.
That's a factor that's on the scale. Does that tip balance to more
or less of a structural solution?
8
Jarrett: From DOT perspective, we'll get sued.
Harrelson: We've been at study for over a year on this.
Inman: I reiterate that your structure has future costs of future
structures.
Jarrett: That doesn't always happen. An example is Beufort Inlet.
Dolan: Let's get together and talk about room for agreement.
We probably have enough agreement to take step 1.
(Rapid discussion over timing of construction.)
Dolan: We can begin tomorrow.
Dean: P1 could be done immediately,
Dolan: We'd have nothing to lose by putting prism on the base of
the bridge now.
We could look at other alternatives in the meantime.
Jarrett: Any decision about action would be the State's. It may be a way
to prove our reservations about economics.
Lofton: It is true that experts said offshore disposal would not cause
erosion?
Jarrett: Inman, Dolan (1987) said more sand would come onshore
from disposal than the Corps of Engineers said would come
onshore.
Inman: Not true.
McDonald: (Generally agrees there's a problem). The Governor'says he's
got responsibilities.
Dolan: We can beat your schedule.
Jarrett: Why will bypassing work now and it wouldn't when the Corps of
Engineers proposed it with jetties?
Lofton: Thank you, Mr. Pulliam.
End
Prepared by FWS (L. K. Mike Gantt and Michael A. Fritz)
no review or concurrence by participants
9
Attachment 1
to
Appendix A
BONNER BRIDGE MEETING
June 9, 1989
Atlanta, Georgia
Name Agency Phone
John Christian FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Mike Gantt FWS - Raleigh [phone]
Dominic Dottavio NPS - Atlanta [phone]
Tom Jarrett COE - Wilmington [phone]
Jim Lofton Dept, of Admin.-NC [phone]
Tommy Harrelson NCDOT [phone]
Pete Royner DOI/SOL [phone]
Barbara Wyman DOI/FWP [phone]
James W. Pulliam, Jr. FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Bob Baker NPS - Atlanta [phone]
John Harrington DOI/SOL-Ser [phone]
Harold W, Benson FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Jerry Vits FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Warren T. Olds, Jr. FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Stephen Cofer-Shabica NPS - Athens [phone]
John C. Oberheu FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Dan McDonald State of NC [phone]
B. J. O'Quinn NCDOT [phone]
Archie L. Hankins NCDOT [phone]
Dennis Chase FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Alan Schriver FWS - Alligator River NWR [phone]
Bob Noffsinger FWS - Alligator River NWR [phone]
Mike Fritz FWS - Raleigh [phone]
Gary Hendrix NPS - Atlanta [phone]
Elaine Rice FWS - Atlanta [phone]
Dr. Robert Dolan University of VA [phone]
Dr. John Schmertmann Gainesville, FL [phone]
Dr. Robert Dean Gainesville, FL [phone]
Dr. Doug Inman La Jolla, CA [phone]
Attachment 2 to Appendix A
Consultants outline for Bonner Bridge Protection, June 8, 1989.
1. Statement of the Problem
1. The direct threat to Bonner Bridge and Pea Island is due to the
increased dredging and offshore disposal of sand from Oregon Inlet.
2. Increased dredging since 1980 has resulted in an increased
southerly migration of Pea Island from the natural rate of
75 ft/yr to 180 ft/yr; and an increased westerly migration of the
inlet from 16 ft/yr to 45 ft/yr.
3. Over 10 years this increased dredging has caused 1,000 feet of
erosion to Pea Island in excess of the natural rates. Without this
increased dredging, the present erosional state would not have been
reached until the year 20U2 A.D.
4. The practice of offshore disposal results in an amplification of
the natural forces of erosion which will also be brought be bear on
all possible ongoing remedial procedures.
II. Approaches to the Problem
1. Structures are irreversible and do not address the primary causes
listed above.
2. Stopping offshore deposition of sand is essential to any plan and
addresses the core problem.
3. A combination of sand management and bridge revetment would be
beneficial.
III. Structural Solution
1. Does not address the primary causes of inlet erosion.
2. There is considerable uncertainty of structural performance.
3. It is irreversible and locks the entire Outer Banks to a
continued structural solution.
4. Therefore, this is the first step to barrier island
stabilization rather than a policy of natural migration.
5. Migration of Bodie Island will impinge on the channel forcing
it south and undermining the groin or jetty.
6. Design of scour protection of structure is inadequate.
7. As long as offshore deposition continues, the erosion of Pea
Island will continue or increase beyond the present rate, and
onto Parks land.
2
8. Structural solution is inconsistent with DOI's stated policy.
IV, An Alternative to the Stabilization of Oregon Inlet with Structures
1, Sand management.
a. The placement of sand in amounts greater than the erosion
rates will result in accretion of the shoreline of Pea
Island.
b. A properly designed sand management program will provide the
material necessary to: (1) overcome the increased erosion
rates and return the inlet to its long-term natural migration
rates, and (2) reestablish conditions that would prevail if
offshore sand placement had not been carried out over the
past decade, This would allow an orderly design process for
the successor to the present Bonner Bridge.
c. An essential component of the Oregon Inlet sand management
plan requires by-passing all sands dredged from the
navigation channel.
d. There are no scientific or engineering principles preventing
the control of inlet migration and barrier erosion by proper
sand management procedures. Thus, sand management provides
the key to the transportation corridor.
3
V. Advantages
a. Not a permanent and irreversible commitment,
b. Easily fine tuned and modified.
C. Provides immediate protection for the bridge.
d. Compatible with DOI's management concepts because it provides a
natural solution.
e. Not only to protect bridge, but mitigate Pea Island (solve 2
problems)
f. Worst possible case still positive.
g. Sand redistribution within the inlet can only help stabilize the
bridge - vs not true with structure.
h. Sand management solution provides and maximizes the opportunities
for long-term planning of the transportation corridor.' You are no
locked into a single solution.
VI. Disadvantages
a. Uncertainty of economics - i,e., how much sand?
4
b. Sand management is an ongoing problem, but there are sand
management problems for any solution.
c. Possibility of serious losses during extreme storm.
Recommended Plan
A. Modify existing navigational channel dredging as follows:
1. Discontinue present practice of offshore disposal of sand dredged
from Oregon Inlet.
2. Place all sand dredged from the navigation channel on the northern
end of Pea Island.
3. Initially, concentrate sand placement in locations that will
protect southern 6UO feet of bridge.
B. Supplemental Nourishment
1. Implement a plan to transfer sand from the shoal on the north side
of Oregon Inlet to the south shore.
C. As a precautionary measure to limit the change due to severe storms,
strengthen and extend the bridge revetment as necessary.
5
APPENDIX B
REFUGE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENTS
Compatibility Determination: Sand Management with Optional Revetment
4 Pages Follow
Compatibility Determination: Groin/Revetment/Beach Nourishment
5 Pages Follow
Appendix B - 9 pages total

June 19, 1989

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION:
REVETMENT
SAND MANAGEMENT WITH OPTIONAL
Station Name: Pea Island NWR Date Established: April 8, 1938
Establishing Authority: Executive Order 7864
Purpose(s) for which Established: Pea Island NWR was established
as a "refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife."
Description of Proposed Use: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) has proposed that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation conduct sand management and construct an optional
revetment on the north point and beach on Pea Island NWR in order
to protect N.C. Highway 12 and the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge,
which spans Oregon Inlet. Both N.C. Highway 12 and the bridge
are important, not only to the local economy, but also to the
health and safety of over 5,000 residents of Hatteras Island and
3.5 million island visitors.
In April of 1989, a team of coastal experts were retained by the
FWS and National Park Service to review proposed alternatives to
protect the bridge and highway. The team included Dr. Douglas
Inman, Scripps Institute of Oceanography; Dr. Robert Dolan,
University of Virginia; Dr. Robert Dean, University of Florida;
Dr. John Schmertmann, Schmertmann and Crapps, Inc.; and Dr. David
Aubrey, Woods Hole Oceanography Institute. The team reviewed the
past and current conditions of the inlet and its relationship to
Pea Island NWR. It also evaluated the proposed alternatives and
developed this nourishment and optional revetment alternative.
Phase 1 of sand management calls for 3 years of intensive
nourishment at the northern end of Pea Island to immediately
protect the Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12 in the vicinity
of the Bridge by restoring land lost to the recent accelerated
erosion and the March 1989, storm. Phase 2 of the plan, which
begins in Year 4, calls for continued maintenance nourishment of
the northern end of Pea Island so long as the Corps continues to
dredge in the inlet. In Phase 19 there are 2 steps to
nourishment in each year. In step 1, the point is nourished, and
in step 2, the ocean beach is nourished.
In Phase 1, Year 1, step 1 would be the immediate and rapid
placement of 800,000 cubic yards of sand in the abandoned Coast
Guard harbor and on the northern point of Pea Island. The best
source for this sand is the southern spit of Bodie Island. That
sand is available in readily accessible large quantities and is
ofa quality- compatible with the natural sands on the northern end
1
of Pea Island. Approximately 230,000 yards of this sand would be
eroded from the point and would partially contribute to the
nourishment of downdrift beaches. The net nourishment of the
northern end of the island at the end of Year 1 would be
approximately 570,000 cubic yards. Also in Year 1, but less
urgent, would be the second step involving placement of 700,000
cubic yards of sand along the northern 3,000 feet of the ocean
shore of the northern end of Pea Island. This sand could be
taken from the southern end of Bodie Island, the ocean bar or the
navigation channel east of the Bridge, but the most economical
source would be the 700,000 cubic yards to be dredged from the
inlet bar by the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers.
In Phase 1, Year 2, step 1 involves the placement of 500,000
cubic yards of sand on the northern point of Pea Island. At the
end of Year 2, the net nourishment of the northern end of the
island would be approximately 8410,000 cubic yards. Also in Year
2, step 2 would involve the placement of another 700,000 cubic
yards along the ocean shore of Pea Island within 3,000 feet of
the northern point.
In Phase 2, Year 3, step 1 involves the placement of 300,000
cubic yards of sand on the northern point of Pea Island. The net
nourishment of the northern end of the island at the end of Year
3 would be approximately 910,000 cubic yards. Step 2 would
involve the placement of another 700,000 cubic yards along the
ocean shore of Pea Island within 3,000 feet of the northern
point.
In Phase 2, which begins in Year 4, beach nourishment would match
the volumes dredged from the inlet. If dredging were to cease at
any time after Phase 1, nourishment could be discontinued and
southward and westward migration rates of the northern end of the
island would continue at approximate the pre-dredging,
unaccelerated, or historical rates of 75 feet per year southward
and 16 feet per year westward. If dredging is discontinued and
later resumed, beach nourishment must also resume at equal
volumes of sand.
A contingencv plan will be implemented if a storm causing erosion
equivalent to the March 1989, storm should occur during Year
l.The storm would cause the erosion of approximately 470,000
cubic yards of the nourished sand. Therefore, Year 2 nourishment
at the northern point is increased to 900,000 cubic yards to
achieve the desired protection. Year 3 nourishment at the north
point would remain at 300,000 cubic yards. This contingency plan
displays the flexibility of the sand management strategy. Should
a severe storm occur at any time during or after the completion
of this plan, nourishment volumes could be adjusted to provide
the desired level of bridge and highway protection.
The project also involves an optional extension of the existing
revetment at the base of the bridge. The existing revetment
2
could be extended either northwest or southeast or both and
parallel to the bridge and highway. The revetment cross-
sectional dimensions and construction materials would be
approximately the same as the existing revetment, permitted by
the Service in 1986 and 1988 and completed in 1988.
The beach nourishment and optional revetment, respectively, will
protect the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and provide additional storm
protection for Highway 12 south of the bridge. This action will
allow for the development of a long-term solution for the
transportation needs of Hatteras Island, including new bridge
construction.
Anticipated Impacts: The concerns of the FWS and the anticipated
effects on Pea Island NWR are based upon the current
environmental conditions at Oregon Inlet and the predicted
changes in this dynamic area as a result of the nourishment and
optional revetment. The FWS has relied upon the expertise of
coastal scientist to formulate the basic changes that are
expected to occur during the life of the project. The effects of
these changes were then projected to identify their full impacts
on wildlife and habitat associated with the refuge. It is the
FWS's belief that this project will protect the bridge and reduce
the existing rate of erosion south of the project site. Reducing
erosion further south will protect N.C. Highway 12, the Salt
Flats Marsh, the refuge's only three waterfowl impoundments, and
the refuge's only agricultural field. The Salt Flats Marsh and
these three impoundments are important breeding and feeding
locations for a variety of waterfowl and marsh and water birds.
Historically, peak numbers of wintering waterfowl at Pea Island
NW'R have included 16,000 snow geese; 10,000 Canada geese; and
45,000 ducks. Pea Island NWR's beach and dunes provide nesting
areas for willets, oystercatchers, terns, black skimmers,
mallards, gadwalls, and black ducks. Decreased erosion occurring
over the entire length of the refuge beach will enhance nesting
and loafing areas for a variety of shorebirds, including the
threatened piping plover.
No loggerhead sea turtle nests have been confirmed within 1 mile
of Oregon Inlet in recent years, and this area presently is not
considered to offer suitable nesting habitat due to the high
migration rate near the inlet. However, the proposed beach
nourishment on the north end of the island may create suitable
nesting habitat for loggerhead turtles. If turtles are attracted
to this new beach, their nests may be negatively impacted by the
continuing beach nourishment occurring in this area. Because of
this potential negative impact, any nests laid in this area would
need to be relocated to other suitable areas on the island. This
could be done as-part of the refuge's on-going nest monitoring
and relocation program, thus mitigating any negative impacts.
Approximately .4 acre of maritime shrub upland habitat could be
lost due to optional revetment construction. However, the
proposed beach nourishment will slow erosion rates and decrease
the rate of loss of shrub habitat on the north end of Pea Island.
3
Determination: This use is compatible 1 This use is not
compatible (check one)
Justification: Oregon Inlet is a highly mobile inlet. It has
migrated over 9,000 feet south since it opened in 1846. Under
natural conditions it moves south at an average annual rate of 75
feet. Pea Island is receding to the west at an average 16.4 feet
per year, based on a 126 year record. During the period from
1981 to 1988, the southern migration rate of the northern tip of
Pea Island has increased from the historical rate of 75 feet per
year to 180 feet per year (Oregon Inlet Bridge Task Force Report,
NCDOT, august 1988). According to our consultants the increase
in the southern migration rate and western recession of Pea
Island is largely due to the maintenance dredging removal of
about 719,000 cubic yards per year of sand from the system. The
sand is being deposited in deep water off Pea Island. Placement
of the spoil in the deep water effectively robs the island of the
sand. This lost sand amounts to approximately 92 percent of the
net annual longshore transport of 771,000 cubic yards per year.
If the sand presently dredged from the inlet were being deposited
on the north end of Pea Island the present severe loss at the
north end would have occurred further into the future, likely
after the expected life of the Bonner Bridge. The beach
nourishment and optional revetment alternative will slow the
migration rate to the historical southward migration rate. Until
the significant loss of sand is added back into the sand budget
of Pea Island, there will be continued rapid erosion at the north
end of the island and accelerated recession of the island to the
west. This not only threatens the bridge, but also threatens
important refuge habitats and Highway 12 along the entire length
of the refuge.
Based upon the scientific team's engineering expertise-and
understanding of coastal systems, the nourishment and optional
revetment is the best alternative to protect, not only the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, but also N.C. Highway 12 and Pea Island
NWR. It will also maintain a more natural rate of migration that
is in keeping with on-going refuge management. Therefore, we
have determined that this project is compatible with the purposes
for which Pea Island NWR was established.
John Tay- Date
Refuge tanager
.
V" '
arold W. Benson Date
Assistant Regional Director
.J
June 19, 1989
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION: GROIN/REVETMENT/BEACH NOURISHMENT
Station Name: Pea Island NWR Date Established: April 8, 1938
Establishing Authority: Executive Order 7364
1 Purpose(s) for which Established: Pea Island NWR was established
as a "refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife."
Description of Proposed Use: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a terminal groin and
revetment and conduct beach nourishment on Pea Island NWR in order
to stop the southward migration of the northern portion of Pea
Island to protect the southern segment of the existing Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge and its southern approach of North Carolina Highway
12.
The project involves the construction, operation, and maintenance
of protective structures which would begin as a sloping rubble
revetment at the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station east bulkhead.
The revetment would cover 625 feet of shoreline before joining with
a free standing rubble-mound type structure, described as a
terminal groin, at a point where the existing upland area of the
island ends. The terminal groin would extend into the inlet before
gradually turning and extending seaward perpendicular to the
adjacent shoreline of Pea Island NWR. The total length of the
terminal groin will not exceed 2,750 feet. The groin will be
approximately 110 feet wide at the base and 28 feet wide and 8 feet
above mean sea level (msl) at the crest.
The NCDOT expects the revetment and terminal groin to stop the
southward migration of Pea Island and Oregon Inlet. They
also expect that a stable accretion fillet, encompassing
approximately 60 acres and extending approximately 3,000 feet south
of the groin, will form in the lee of the structure. By extending
into the inlet to approximately the April 1988 shoreline position,
the groin would create a wave shadow for the southern bridge
section and abutment.
The terminal groin and revetment design were based on the
engineering analysis performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the Manteo (Shallowbag Bay) Project jetties. The
groin and revetment are designed for a 65 year storm.
The project construction period will be approximately 12 months.
Construction is scheduled to begin in July 1989, assuming all
necessary permits and/or rights-of-way are obtained. Although
most of the construction will take place over water,
approximately 6 to 8 acres of refuge lands will be needed for
structure location, construction access, and materials and
equipment storage.
1
.1
Anticipated Impacts: The concerns of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and the anticipated effects on Pea Island NWR are
based upon the current environmental conditions at Oregon Inlet
and the predicted changes in this dynamic area as a result of the
terminal groin and revetment. The FWS has relied upon the
expertise of coastal scientists to formulate the basic changes
that are expected to occur during the life of the project. The
effect of these changes were then projected to identify their
full impacts on wildlife and their habitat associated with the
refuge.
It is the FWS's belief that the project as proposed by NCDOT is
likely to result in increased erosion south of the project site.
Although it is impossible to identify the area of greatest impact,
it is likely that the area 1 to 6 miles south of the project site
will receive the most erosion. This erosion could ultimately
affect the entire length of the island. The area where the
greatest erosion is expected is the location of the Salt Flats
Marsh and two of the refuge's three waterfowl impoundments. The
refuges only agricultural field planted for goose browse is also
located there.
The Salt Flats Marsh and refuge impoundments are important
breeding and feeding locations for a variety of waterfowl and
marsh and water birds. The refuge is the southernmost wintering
area for the greater snow goose and nesting area for gadwall
ducks. Historically, peak numbers of wintering waterfowl at Pea
Island NWR have included 16,000 snow geese; 10,000 Canada geese;
and 45,000 ducks. North American populations of pintail and
black ducks which use these impoundments extensively, have
decreased 46% and 40%, respectively, from the 1970's. The North
Carolina Canada goose population is also facing dramatic
decline,falling from over 200,000 birds in the 1960's to 15,000 in
1988-89.
If the rate of erosion increases and frequent overwash from the
ocean occurs, then much of the vital Salt Flats Marsh and the
refuge waterfowl impoundments could be inundated with sediment.
It is also likely that, if ocean overwash results from increased
erosion, N.C. Highway 12, the refuge waterfowl impoundments, Salt
Flats Marsh and agriculture field will be further threatened.
This could jeopardize important habitat and increase disturbance
to the waterfowl which utilize this area throughout the year.
The refuge is essentially the site of the northernmost nesting
concentration of loggerhead sea turtles. Pea Island NWR's beach
and dunes provide nesting areas for willets, oystercatchers,
terns, black skimmers, mallards, gadwalls, and black ducks.
Increased erosion occurring over the entire length of the refuge
beach could adversely impact loggerhead sea turtle nesting areas,
as well as nesting, loafing, and feeding areas for a variety of
shorebirds.
2
Determination: This use is compatible This use is not
compatible This use, with stipulations, is compatible -X
(check one)
The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility:
NCDOT will be responsible for nourishing the beach to compensate
for any erosion caused by the groin/revetment.
NCDOT will develop a bi-monthly monitoring methodology, approved
by the Regional Director, to determine the effectiveness of the
terminal groin and revetment and beach nourishment to stabilize
Pea Island to a point 6.0 miles south of the Bonner Bridge.
NCDOT and the Service will develop a mutually agreeable "historical
rate of erosion" based on the best available historical data,
records, evidence, and technology available from all necessary
sources, which is acceptable to and approved by the Regional
Director.
The NCDOT will provide advance written notification to the Project
Manager, c/o Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, concerning
commencement of all beach nourishment, outlining the time, method,
equipment and routes of access, to conduct nourishment operations.
Operations will not commence until the Regional Director has
reviewed and approved the plans for nourishment.
NCDOT will monitor the filling of the fillet along the south side
of the groin. If natural filling processes are inadequate, sand
nourishment will be used to create the fillet.
All wetland losses and damage will be minimized. Any unavoidable
losses or damage will be mitigated to the Refuge Manager's
satisfaction.
If the Regional Director or the Secretary of NCDOT determines that
the terminal groin and revetment are causing long-term-adverse
shoreline erosion or migration by interrupting or otherwise
affecting natural or normal sand migration, NCDOT will either
remove the structures or perform additional beach nourishment.
Any extension or other modification of the revetment or groin
will be viewed as a modification of the existing Right-of-Way
Permits and will require reevaluation.
Justification: It is the position of NCDOT that the project, as
planned, will stabilize the north end of Pea Island NWR without
• causing an increase in erosion south of the project site, thus
protecting the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and its southern approach
of NC Highway 12. However, in April of 1989, a team of coastal
experts were retained by the Fish and Wildlife Service to review
these proposed plans to protect the bridge. The team included Dr.
Douglas Inman, Scripps Institute of Oceanography; Dr. Robert Dolan,
University of Virginia; Dr. Robert Dean, University of Florida; Dr.
3
John Schmertmann, Schmertmann and Crapps, Inc.; and Dr. David
Aubrey, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The team reviewed the
historical and present day conditions of the inlet and its
relationship to Pea Island NWR. It also evaluated the potential
impacts of the terminal groin and revetment project.
The team has not concluded that erosin will not occur and believes
the project, as proposed, could cause accelerated erosion south of
the inlet. Oregon Inlet is a highly mobile inlet. It has
migrated over 9,000 feet south since it opened in 1846. Under
natural conditions, it moves south at an average annual rate of
75 feet. Pea Island is receding to the west at an average rate
16.4 feet per year, based on a 126 year record. During the
period from 1981 to 1988, the southern migration rate of the
northern tip of Pea Island has increased from the historical rate
of 75 feet per year to 180 feet per year (Oregon Inlet Bridge Task
Force Report, NCDOT, August 1988). According to our
consultants, the increase in the southern migration rate and
western recession of Pea Island is largely due to the maintenance
dredging of Oregon Inlet and removal of about 719,000 cubic yards
per year of sand from the system. This sand is being deposited in
deep water off Pea Island. Placement of the spoil in the deep
water effectively robs the island of the sand. This lost sand
amounts to approximately 92% of the net annual longshore transport
of 771,000 cubic yards per year.
If the sand presently dredged from the inlet were being deposited
on the north end of Pea Island, the present severe loss at the
north end would have occurred further in the future, likely after
the expected life of the Bonner Bridge. Until the significant loss
of sand is added back into the sand budget of Pea Island, there
will be continued rapid erosion at the north end of the island and
accelerated recession of the island to the west. This not only
threatens the bridge, but also threatens important refuge habitats
and Highway 12 along the entire length of the refuge.
NCDOT's proposed revetment and groin is put forth as the solution
to the erosion problems facing the bridge. Based upon the team's
conclusion that, the structure could increase the downdrift erosion
beyond the present situation, resulting in adverse impacts to
migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, beach nourishment is
required to offset these impacts. Therefore, it is determined that
this project is compatible with the purposes for which Pea Island
NWR was established, as stipulated, if proper beach nourishment is
conducted.
4
.l
Signature: Date: n ?J
John Tay or
R fuge Maag' er
W q
Concurrence: , ate: b ?l
APPENDIX C
ENDANGERED SPECIES - BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS
May 26, 1989
4 Pages Follow
June 19, 1989
7 Pages Follow
Appendix C - 11 pages total

EHt Or
'4.., 1.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box.33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 26, 1989
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
E7
This responds to Public Notice CESAW-C089-N-028-0271, dated April 6,
1989, concerning the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
application for a Department of the Army permit to construct a revetment
and groin and excavate a work channel at Oregon Inlet at the north end of
Pea Island, Dare County, North Carolina. This is the report of the
Department of the Interior (Department) and is submitted in accordance
with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16.U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This report is to be used
in determination of Section 404(b)(1) compliance (40 CFR 230) and the
public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) as they relate to protection of fish
and wildlife resources.
According to the Public Notice, the applicant proposes to construct a
600-foot-long rubble revetment, reaching approximately 70 feet waterward
of the existing shoreline, beginning at the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard
Station bulkhead and extending to the northern end of Pea Island. From
that point, a 3,200-foot-long groin is proposed to be constructed extending
550 feet into Oregon Inlet before turning eastward into the Atlantic
Ocean. Approximately 73,000 cubic yards of quarry rock would be placed
waterward of mean high water. A 3,300-foot-long, 60-foot-wide, 5-foot-
deep work channel may be excavated from the U.S. Coast Guard- boat basin
westward and approximately parallel to North Carolina Highway L2. The
purpose of the proposed project is to protect from erosion the southern
abutment of the North Carolina Highway 12 Bridge.
Project area resources of concern to the Department are the following:
A
1. Pea-Island National Wildlife Refuge including: -
a. a wide variety of wildlife habitats in a complex of maritime
forest, maritime shrub, emergent estuarine marsh, sand dune,
and open-water estuarine habitats;
b. three managed waterfowl impoundments between 2 and 6 miles
south of Oregon Inlet;
C. possible feeding, loafing, and nesting habitats for the federally
listed threatened piping plover (Charadrius melod us) in dune,
beach, and overwash areas;
d. beach nesting habitat for the federally-listed threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta);
e. recreational and educational opportunities for 1.6 million refuge
visitors per year;
f. migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds using the
refuge; and,
g. other invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife species using
the refuge.
2. Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area including -
a. recreational and educational opportunities for 1.9 million
seashore visitors per year;
b. near-shore shallow-water oceanic habitats for a wide variety
of invertebrate, fish, bird, and mammal species;
c. beach nesting habitat for the federally-listed threatened
loggerhead sea turtle; and,
d. feeding, loafing and nesting habitats for the federally-listed
threatened piping plover.
The Department's evaluation of project-related impacts on the above-
listed resources included an analysis by a group of consultants on coastal
and marine geology, oceanography, and coastal engineering experts. The
following impacts are expected:
1. significant downdrift erosion of Pea Island, 1 to 4 miles south
of the groin;
2. disturbance or loss of wildlife habitats due to downdrift erosion
including:
a. beach nesting habitat for the federally-listed threatened
loggerhead sea turtle;
b. beach, dune, maritime shrub, and estuarine marsh and open _
water habitats for a wide variety of fish and wildlife species;
and,
c. waterfowl and other migratory bird habitats.
3. disturbance or ultimate loss of the refuge's northern tWo-managed
waterfowl impoundments due to downdrift erosion;
4. significant permanent loss of recreational fishing opportunities,
in the proposed construction area and due to downdrift erosion; and
5. loss of educational and recreational opportunities on the seashore
due to downdrift erosion.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed an evaluation
of the NCDOT's request for a Right-of-Way Permit to construct the terminal
groin and revetment on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Laws
governing administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System require
that before permits are granted for non-refuge related purposes, there must
be a determination that those proposed uses are compatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established. It was established in 1938
"as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife."
Specific objectives now include providing migratory waterfowl wintering
habitat, providing habitat and protection for endangered and threatened
species, providing habitat for natural wildlife diversity, and providing
opportunities for environmental education, interpretation and wildlife-
oriented recreation.
The Service expects that the proposed terminal groin and revetment will
result in downdrift erosion that will ultimately directly adversely impact
waterfowl management activities in the refuge's only agricultural field and
in two of the refuge's three impoundments, and in the erosion of sea turtle
and shorebird nesting habitat. For these reasons, we find that the
proposed project, as described, is not compatible with the purposes for
which the Refuge was established. (See Refuge Noncompatibility Statement-
Attachment A)
With regard to the Corps of Engineers' responsibilities under Section 7
ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, we disagree with the
finding of "no affect," on the threatened loggerhead sea turtle, and have
therefore developed a Biological Opinion on the revetment/groin
alternative (Attachment B).
Dune, wetland, shallow water, maritime shrub and maritime forest habitats
in the impact area of the proposed project are of high value for fish and
wildlife species and are relatively scarce on a national basis. The
Service's mitigation goal for such habitats is no net loss of in-kind
habitat values. After minimizing losses of such habitats, the unavoidable
losses should be replaced with similar habitat values so that populations
of the species associated with the habitats will remain relatively stable
in the area over time.
In consideration of this mitigation goal, the above-discussed natural
resource values of the project area and possible project-related impacts,
the Service concludes that authorization of this activity, as proposed by
the applicant, could result in significant adverse alteration or
elimination of important public trust resources. Further, the portions of
the project requiring deposition of rock material in waters of the United
States, if authorized, may be contrary to the guidance provided in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Federal Register 45(249):
85344-85357, December 24, 1980). These guidelines state that fill (i.e.,
rock) shall not be placed in waters of the United States when alternatives
that have less adverse impact exist.
Therefore, in order to provide for fish and wildlife resource conservation
and to protect other public trust resources in this area, the Department
recommends that a Department of the Army permit not be issued for the
project as proposed by the applicant.
Most of the project-related adverse impacts are avoidable. The
Department's consultants have recommended a beach nourishment and
revetment alternative which would protect the southern bridge abutment and
highway. This alternative involves a revetment constructed primarily on
uplands; will not exacerbate downdrift erosion; and, does not prejudice
future consideration of transportation solutions.
As we discussed with your representatives and State officials in Washington
on May 25, to be compatible, any solution to this problem must address the
increased rate of erosion on the north end of Pea Island and avoid the
adverse impacts of additional downdrift erosion, as discussed above.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this.report. The specific
comments of the National Park Service are also attached (Attachment Q.
Please note that the National Park Service fully supports the position in
this document.
Please inform us of any action you take regarding the proposed project.
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
cc:
North Carolina Department of Transportation (without attachments)

NT United States Department of the Interior
=?•-? _'^ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
is Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
`.? Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 19, 1989
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 12
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North ,Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
fl
Enclosed is the Biological Opinion for a Sand Management with Optional
Revetment alternative for protection of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and
North Carolina Iiighway 12 in the vicinity of the Bridge, as described in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service`s Environmental Assessment for the
project, dated June 20, 1989. In the event the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) decides to pursue this Sand Management with
Optional Revetment Alternative, this Opinion and its implementation would
fulfill the statutory requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
If the NCDOT decides to modify either the Terminal Groin and Revetment
alternative, as described in the NCDOT's Environmental Assessment for that
project, dated May 1, 1989, or the Sand Management with Optional Revetment,
as described in the Service's Environmental Assessment, then it would be
necessary to reinitiate consultation before any federal permit could be
issued.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the attached Opinion. Please
contact me directly if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
axcr,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
cc: North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh (with attachment)
?lH J
United States Deiiaartment of the- Intefior .
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
D w Raleigh Field Office
..,, Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 19, 1989
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer. . •
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O..Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
,.
r]
Tnr?:-?`? ra
{;.. Ll
This represents the Biological Opinion (Opinion) of the U.S._ Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species'..
Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The possible project
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) relates to the '
effects of implementation and maintenance of a sand management plan with
optional revetment at the north and of Pea Island, Dare County, North
Carolina, on the threatened loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). This
plan is described in the Service's Environmental Assessment dated June 20,
1989, as alternative number 2. -
A separate Opinion dated May 26, 1989, has been provided under separate
cover for the NCDOT's preferred alternative of a revetment and terminal
groin as described in the NCDOT Environmental Assessment dated May 1,
1989.
The purposes of the sand management alternative-are to: (1) protect the
southern terminus of the Bonner Bridge crossing'of Oregon Inlet-on North
Carolina Highway 12; (2) protect the last 600 feet of the bridge span; and,
(3) protect the segments of. North Carolina Highway 12 south of the bridge
threatened by erosion. This Opinion does not address requirements of
environmental laws other than the Act. This Opinion only addresses the
impacts of the project on sea turtles while on land. We believe that there
will be no adverse effect on sea turtles while in water but formal
responsibility for this determination rests with' the national Marine
Fisheries Service. We recommend that the Corps of Engineers (Corps)-
consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on this issue. A
complete record of this consultation is maintained and available for review
at the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
Project Description
The possible project consists of implementing a sand management program at
the tip of Pea Island and extending southward along the ocean beach and
includes an optional extension of the existing' bridge 'revetment: . This
alternative would involve a beach nourishment program that*would- initially
result in the deposition of 800,000 cubic yards of sand on the northern tip
of Pea Island to restore land lost as a result of the March 1989 storm and
another 700,000 cubic yards on the ocean shore to slow'weatward migration
of the Island, and. 5.t requires that all materials maintenance-dredged from
Oregon Inlet would be placed in this area. See Alternative 2 in the
Service's Environmental Assessment for more details.
Consultation History
On April 6. 1989, the Service received a telephone request from the Corps,
Wilmington District, for a list of federally-listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species which might occur within the project impact area. A
list was supplied by telephone at that time and confirmed by letter from
the Raleigh Field Office dated April 11, 1989. On 'April 14, 1989, the
Corps supplied the Service with a Preliminary Draft Biological Assessment
of potential impacts to federally-listed species for the proposed project.
The Service provided the Corps with comments on the preliminary draft
Biological Assessment by letter dated April 21, 1989. The Service's
comments stated that the preliminary draft Biological Assessment did not
provide information sufficient at that time to warrant the conclusion that
the proposed project was not likely to adversely affect any
federally--listed species. Recommendations were ?nade regarding additional
information necessary to make such a determination.
On May 4, 1989, the Corps delivered to the Raleigh Field Office of the
Service a copy of the State EA/FONSI issued by the NCDOT on May 1, 1.989,
that incorporated the Corps' Biological Assessment of potential impacts to
federally--listed endangered or threatened species within the project impact
area. The Biological Assessment determined that construction and
maintenance of the proposed project would not affect any federally-listed
species.
On May 26, 1989, the Service provided the Corps with comments on Public
Notice CESAW-0089-N--028-0271 concerning the State's projece. The Service
determined that the NCDOT's proposal would increase erosion rates on Pea
Island, causing adverse effects on numerous Refuge functions, including sea
turtle nesting, and that the proposed project is not compatible with the
purposes for which the Refuge was established. We, therefore, disagreed
with the Corps' finding of-. "no affect" on the threatened loggerhead sea
turtle and developed an Opinion that was signed by the Raleigh Yield Office
on May 26, 1989.
On June 8, 1989, the Corps wrote the Raleigh Field Office agreeing to not
contest the "may affect" determination of the Service and requesting
clarification of one of the reasonable and prudent measures included with
the incidental take statement. That measure required beach nourishment to
eliminate erosion and loss of nesting habitat resulting from the project.
The Service will provide clarification on this reasonable and prudent
measure this week.
This Opinion is being written on a Service proposal to the NCDOT entitled
Sand Management with Optional Revetment which is described in the Service's
Environmental Assessment.
2
Since the proposed sand management plan on the northern end of Pea Island
might create suitable sea turtle nesting habitat attracting "turtles to nest
in an area that is currently not suitable for sea turtle nesting, we have
determined that the Service's Sand Management with Optional Revetment
alternative may affect loggerhead sea turtlea and are providing this
Opinion with other documentation for this recommended alternative.
Biological Opinion
There are no breeding records for the piping plover (Cbaradrius melodus) in
the vicinity of the project and the project area provides little,* if any,
wintering habitat ,for this species. Although winter use by the piping
plover has been reported for the Oregon Inlet area, these winter sightings
are concentrated on the Bodie Island side, north of the Inlet. Therefore,
the Service's alternative will have no effect on the piping plover. Since
there are no breeding records for the Arctic' peregrine falcon (Falco '
peregrinus tundrius) in the vicinity of the project and the roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii) is only a rare visitor to the area, the Service's
alternative also will have no effect on the Arctic peregrine falcon and the
rosea.te tern..
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle '(Lepidochelys"kempii), hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochel s coriacea)
do not nest in the vicinity of the proposed project. Thus, the Service's
alternative will have no effect on the nesting 'activities of the Kemp's
ridley, hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles. Since the threatened green
sea turtle (Chelonia m das) has nested only rarely in North Carolina and
the only confirmed nesting of this species in Dare County was >30 miles
south of Oregon Inlet, the Service's alternative will have no effect on the
nesting activities of the green sea turtle. Concurrence for sea turtles
while they are in water must be determined by the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nests regularly in small
numbers on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. Based on Service file
records, annual nest counts over the last 10 years have ranged from 8 to
18. During the nesting season, a daily nest monitoring program is
conducted by the Service. Approximately 50 percent of the nests laid
during the 1984-1989 nesting seasons incubated and hatched naturally while
the other half were relocated to minimize anticipated losses resulting from
erosion on some portions of the Refuge's beaches.' There have been a few
(five) nests found during the last five years within the one mile segment
south of Oregon Inlet. However, this area currently is not considered to
be suitable nesting habitat due to overwash and the high migration rate of
the Inlet (Scott Lanier, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm.).
The natural creation of beach south of th*e project' due to the restoration
of the beach in the Inlet area as a result of the Service's preferred
alternative is expected to improve the sea turtle nesting habitat in the
3
currently eroding 'area on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. As a
result, fewer nests will have to be moved and more nests will be allowed
to incubate and hatch under natural conditions. This is a beneficial
effect that could be highly significant and result in an overall increase
in sea turtle resting on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Nevertheless, if loggerhead sea turtles are attracted to nests on the newly
created beach on the northern 3,000 feet of the Island, then nests may be
negatively impacted by the ongoing beach nourishment in this area.
Therefore, any nests laid in this area would need to be relocated to other
suitable areas on the island.
% Potential impacts to nesting sea turtles associated with the beach
nourishment part of the Service's alternative, even with the proposed nest
monitoring and relocation program, could include:
1. Neat burial or crushing of nests missed during monitoring; and,
2. Possible egg breakage or reduced embryo viability due to problems
incurred during or as a result of nest relocation.
After careful review of all information currently available for this
action, including the Service's monitoring and nest relocation program, it
is the Opinion of the Service that the sand management plan at the northern
end of Pea Island with optional revetment is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the loggerhead sea turtle.
It is likely that an overall Increase in sea turtle nesting will result
from the Sand Management with Optional Revetment alternative due to the
creation of new nesting beach areas. We do, however, believe that adverse
impacts from beach nourishment activities to individual sea turtle nests
may result in incidental take. The Reasonable and Prudent Measures
provided with the Incidental Take Statement below will reduce adverse
impacts to sea turtles.
Incidental Take
Section 7(b)(4) of the. Act requires that once a proposed agency action is
found to be consistent with Section 7(a)(2) of the Act and the proposed
action is likely to result in the take of some individuals of the listed
species incidental to the action, the Service will issue a statement that
specifies the amount or extent of the impact of such incidental taking. It
also states that reasonable and prudent measures, coupled with terms and
conditions to implement those measures, be provided to minimize such
impacts. Reasonable and prudent measures are requirements of the potential
applicant, in this case the NCDOT.
We have reviewed the biological information and other
to this Endangered Species Act action and, based on o
take is possible but should not exceed one nest. Thi
information relevant
r review, incidental
is inclusive of the
4
impacts of nest lo'sd to erosion 'and duma'ge or loss of eggs during 'nest
relocation. If it is discovered that incidental take of a nest occurs, the
Service's Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box 337269• Raleigh, .North Carolina
27636-3726 (919/856-4520) or, Law Enforcement Office' P.O. Box 33096,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3096 (919/856-4786) should be notified
immediately. In addition, if incidental take of more than'one nest occurs,
Section 7 consultation must be reinitiated immediately.':.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable' -and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to minimize the potential take.
1. Beach nourishment will not take 'place during the main sea turtle
nesting season, if possible.
2. If beach nourishment is conducted during *the sea turtle nesting season,
all nests laid within the active beach nourishment zone during the
90 days prior to and during beach nourishment will be 'relocated.
(Note: this could be done by expanding'the 6xist1ng'Refuge monitoring'
and relocation program through funding by the applicarit.)-.'
Terms and Conditions
Section 9 of the Act prohibits'the taking' of listed species without a
special exemption. In order to be exempt from the 'prohibitions of
Section 9 of the Act, compliance with the following' terms and conditions,
which implement the reasonable and prudent measures is essential:
1. The sea turtle nesting season in this area can start as _early as May l
and hatching may run through November.' 15 in some years. In addition,
sea turtle eggs can experience reduced viability'and hatching success
when they are relocated more than 6 hours after they are laid.
Therefore, beach nourishment should - occur between November 15 and
May 1, whenever possible.
2. Individual nests may take up to 90 days to hatch. If nourishment
becomes necessary during the May ' 1 to November 1.5 cea turtle
reproductive season, the Refuge Manager, Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge, P.O. Box 1969, Manteo, North Carolina'27954*'(919/473-11:31),'.
should be notified at least 90 days in advance of spoil deposition so
that any nests laid in the proposed nourishment area can be relocated
when they are first discovered, thereby reduci'ng'the impacts of nest
relocation..: .
3. During the sea turtle nesting' season, daily' monitoring of the beach
shortly after dawn is essential to -ensure any sea turtle crawls
indicating potential nests are sighted before they'are obliterated by
the next high tide. The design of such a' program must be approved by
the Service..
5
Conservation Measures
To further reduce cumulative effecto on threatened sea turtles, we request
that the Corps recommend that the applicant implement the following
conservation measures as part of the ongoing"project:
1. The applicant should, in consultation with the Refuge Manager,-Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge, provide appropriate means to expand
the Refuge's endangered species educational programs. This includes,
but may not be limited to, such items as posters, endangered species'
interpretive programs, and other educational materiald.*...
This completes consultation' under' Section 7 of the Act. If any
modifications or changes in this action ' are made which are not a part of
this consultation, or if other information reveals impacts of this action
which may affect listed species- or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, consultation must be reinitiated with this office:
Sincerely yours,
`icYwL
L. K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Cc:
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
.V
-.- a
r. .r{ r, D!°,; C:Ai°iA- 4:1i REV DATE 07/10/89
r•st.:TION ? Ii'`D FILE ) DF'-Cr°1r'ir°y40iP i=';,'tl:D % F'OF';i~AT NRD C.:(t'i°iA iII.XT F:t:D ; 00655
NF;T3 °r -i EN TERED THIS DATA, RE::t::toRD IS NO 00654 FRD DATA
.... ??.
F'i -; t:1 ", `,:? ..,,:::;,
? ' ;:??;: .:., '° r' i ?;C:t..1: i'`1 t:; Ti ta'T'.._C: F?:i::.r:: ,t:.i s 1`•! INLET INLET GR OIN COUNTY: 1',Ai-;1::: REGION:
A SSIGN ED TO: DA9 J OINT NOTICE: N
TYPE CERTIFICATION RECOMMEND DATE.''.,..'.' YYMMD0
404 PN : 401 RED: ISSUE: Y RECEIVED: 8906277
.,r'{r•rA ON LY: GC: ROADWAY r' F11 ... DENY: INITIAL REPOR0
SEC P: St-1F'F;EQ : 1-l01...) : FIi'`1AL.. RE PORT : 8907i :?
RECEIVI
O
E NG ST REAM: ATLANTIC OCEA N CLASS: S B BASIN: P A ,::•
C
MM
NT
SITE LO S:
CATED
ADJAC.:1..:idT ilWY i2 AT
HE::R:B1..:F';T.
DONNE R BRIDGE:: AT OREGON INLE'll
F'i-:t:1F`taSA L.. TO C:ONST.: A `C1..:i°ii='C.?F;ARY F;•'OAD AND OF:-Fri._t:?r=rl:i:l:NG AREA COVERING A TOTAL AREA
OF A PPROX . i ACRE
I"'Fti(.:IF'ta:::'hi L TO FILL APPROX. •<'{ .'.. 000 SU T OF t' l:)r:`z ; (AK Wl::: (L..FtNo
COPIES: 1,..ARC.(....t:;i: N (RA1.......i°i:Ll...i... i--T)t. M

MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
JUN 2 71989
TO: DEBORAH SAWYER
D. E. M.
FROM: David R. Griffin `
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR PERMIT AND/OR
DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT
DATE: June 23, 1989
MAJOR MODIFICATION
Attached is an application by , NC DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
which was received by me on 6/14/89
-- I am consi_dcrinq
this application complete, have acknowledged receipt, and have
begun processing.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

a 1*
/yll
Enclosures
• OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGE1-1ENT Lat:35146'18"N
MAJOR FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT Long:75°31145"W
MODIFICATION
1. APPLICANT'S NADIE N.C. DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE north end of Hatteras Island Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon Inlet, Dare County,
Photo ref. 138-466
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: DREDGE & FILL X CAI-1A X
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
(A) DATES OF SITE VISIT 3/28/89
(B) WAS APPLICANT PRESENT no
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: APPLICATION RECEIVED June 14, 1989
OFFICE Elizabeth City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) LOCAL LAND USE PLAN Dare County
LAND CLASSIFICATION FRO114 LUP Conservation
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED IN LUP "The
purpose of this class is to provide for effective, long-term
management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas."
(B) AEC(S) INVOLVED: OCEAN HAZARD X ESTUARINE SHORELINE
COASTAL WETLANDS X PUBLIC TRUST
WATERS
ESTUARINE WATERS OTHER
(C) WATER DEPENDENT: YES NO X OTHER
(D) INTENDED USE: PUBLIC X PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
(E) TYPE OF WASTE WATER TREATidENT: EXISTING N/A
PLANNED N/A
(F) TYPE OF STRUCTURES: EXISTING rip-rap around Bridge abutment
PLANNED temporary fill road and offloading area
(G) ESTIMATED ANNUAL RATE OF EROSION 1100' SOURCE applicant
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
AREA
(A) VEGETATED WETLANDS DREDGED FILLED OTHER
fill road and offloading 42,000 sq. ft.
area
(B) NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS:
(C) OTHER:
D) TOTAL AREA DISTURBED: _ 1 acre

8. PROJECT SUI0IARY: Applicant proposes to construct a temporary
fill road and offloading area covering a total of approximately 1 acre
adjacent Hwy. 12 Herbert Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, Dare Countv.
NC DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
BIO REPORT
Page 2
MAJOR MODIFICATION
N. C. DOT maintains Highway 12 and the Herbert Bonner Bridge
spanning Oregon Inlet in Dare County. Under CAMA permit 4138-89,
NC DOT recently received authorization to construct a 3850' stone
revetment/groin and a 3300' X 150' X -13' access channel just
east of Herbert Bonner Bridge.
NC DOT has requested to modify this permit to include the
construction of an approximate 50' wide by 250' long temporary
haul road and an 80' wide X 250' long temporary offloading area.
This is being requested in the event it becomes necessary to
offload the revetment/groin stone on the west side of Highway 12.
The area upon which the temporary road and offloading area is
proposed is coastal wetlands consisting of Spartina alterniflora,
Spartina patens and Distichlis sspicata. Scattered patches of
Iva, Baccharis, wax myrtle and honeysuckle exists on isolated
hummocks. A dense stand of Phragmites exists approximately. 30'
wide along Highway 12. The shoreline along the area where the
offloading pad is proposed has previously been rip-rapped with
stone. NC DOT indicates the temporary fill road and offloading
area can be constructed of mats or fill over the wetland area.
Following completion of the construction of the groin/revetment
the road and offloading area will be removed.
A Special Use Permit has been applied for by NC DOT from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the construction of the
road and offloading area.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Approximately one acre of coastal wetlands will be
temporarily filled for the road and offloading area construction.
Highway 12 traffic will experience slow downs and delays from
transportation equipment moving stone across Highway 12.
CAMA REVIEW
The conservation class in the 1987 Dare County Land Use Plan
provides for "... effective long-term management of significant
limited or irreplaceable areas. Thus, as long as the fill
material in the wetlands was temporary and the affected areas
were completely restored to their pre-fill conditions, the
project would be consistent with the 1987 Dare County LUP.
Submitted by: David R. Griffin
Date: June 23, 1989
? i_.:.?. ?,n: ?.. k:11::L l.-.i?c:.;U:ljV?=+L1wC :nil all^...
ticipited development activities, including co ?,LIv
lion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearingLf?o?r_
stoanwater control. If the requested informati El?)
not relevant to your project, write NIA (not L
plieable). Items 1-4 and 8A must be comp Itteall project:?,-
Nort
h Carolina p?parttnent .of Transportation b.
a. Name L_. R. Goode. Ph.D.. Pl•
P. O. Box 25201. C.
City Raleigtl.__ State NC
d'
Zip 27611 IDay phone [phone]
landowner or _ X_. Authorized agent e.
b. Project name (if any) N/A
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.

a. Street address or secondary toad number
b. City, town, community, or Landmark
D=n Inlet
C. County Mare
d. Is propozcd work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? no
e. Name of body of crater nearest project
-Atlantic Ocean
a. Describe all development :activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
Construction of terminal rain, revetment,
and construction access-channel
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
s?lp stabilization of shore in- both?
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
camuni ty
LJcxril?. tlx p,.a1m xl use of ttlc prO ICC"
faCility
Size of entire a^.:ct N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Elevation of tract above mean sea lev 1 or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum N/t
Soil tyFx(s) and tcxa -c(s) of tract N/A
Vegetation on tract N.44
f. Man-trade features now on tract N/A
g•
h.
i.
j•
What is the LAMA Land Use Plan Classifica.
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
X Developed Community
Rural Other
How NA is/the tract zoned by local government?
How arc adjacent waters classifted? N
Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? no
If so, by whom?
00-1
Complete thb section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of b?gmnga, facilities, or
structures proposed ??
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
C. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed N/A
c. If the propo;.cd project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and evasion control plan been
submiJtted to the Division of Land Resources?
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops.- N/A

• r , • 4
In addition to the completed application form, thA
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) of
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected properly. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
aovs sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 V2. x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site'or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal' Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113.229(d).
Name ll_ S_ Fish R Wildlifp Sprvirp
Address Elept of the lntprinr
Name react riurd
Address
Name
Address
!'1 1Ll v: a,,_ALe VC
for.,. work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing data.
A ,chcck for $100 made payable to the Depart-
; - meat of Natural Resources and Community
Devtlopment to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.GS. 113A-1 to 10).

Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the bat of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I furiher certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This ' the day of-
19.
X
Landowner or Authorized agent G°
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest yo
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3
8
u
I
u
,
s U
?.S¦•.•.. .,??,?O, RECEIVE
Ist + LSartN• sr.uWul . .lt.rf ?'?•.
w
sII ,.'?.? twrW. lull 111)Et9
11N..11• ar It• ce 1 11I1114II9, IIG..r
{ t 1 , ¦.11uot• c•IKrd ) Ot M
! !!M?•riSN t&(1 Gh . c.me..?? r tAll
?1 U
i , % r .«6r.a.?.,w? X J C AD MA I1. .rtA , N i
u PER UIh1ANSr 1 ` ?. . o t,y, wr
IF-1 w.¦1.11 % I! `.Nlrllq? ?) ,
•.f•r?,? j ?- , 1\11
ft am
0 fAN f
ct&
N4. wool
1 1 A'i. ? Hr?.•,M ? r•A
R
Nw M..¦r,. A.
aaG1c! ?u 1 - 11(111 W S
??fC:nton _ Ja i w1~-4 ,1a..,
% • * Mv..r 6.r-
L.. A.6". •.io.
t ???1pyila¦ /---/rll ,? o.wo 1 N. r..N.trNr• ) Vft P.6
aw ?+
.l w . u...r r r....I 03, /I•• SIG r t ?/ w..¦r„•? u LS61 it sw$ t
\ G•r¦r4 # Yr•o.lry' I ` II Rcw. ISLAND
,?CWtitM `?rr'i ¦ •7 ?... ?Irmtiu I i V/ \ ? airl.u
I in
WASHINGTON /\?.?.....,,n ! I.?..?,•tI D A R E ?,>cNlNa Pmtold
rArw `'`) T Y R R E L } I zN
I
MULL Of •ffitt C.i! NUI EQUALS AMON It IMIS '
? ttdsata•
_._cAn NATMUS fK*W
(p COO:t t? "d I.r f y t o / ,i r,rtA-
l ?G'L? i.?` .., 1 r ^' r ".+• . Ii? N a..:.?J:. a r•' .. ISLAND rv
CAPE I US NATION
S l) \?tl:J) )\: / SEASHOII A RE/ ?-
aTF"K PROJECT SRL
WA?IOau PEA ISLAND NATIONAL
.,.I•• ?1 DARE CO..
.
?1 \ 3• ?\ REVISED 6-12-09
fJ C D O T
DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS f
DARE COUNTY
II
Z, PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
_4 U OREGON INLET
SHEETS OF 2_ 3-89
1 F
..

ti ••
•

ti 1 1
ti ti ti ti
ti ti ti
x
ti
••'. 0 !
SHORELINE POSITION
APRIL 21, 1908
x ~
ti ti ? •?
ti
ti x
• • ti
ti
•• ~ ti
~ ~ r
• 1 ti
^? °? GRarv .?, APPROXIMATE POSITID.1 OF
ADJUSTED SHORELINE
RS DE
s *oo ~O?E`?ME ,gj9
WAY
•• ? r'. vO?????? STO?
EA
•, o
*01
• t/
"L .i• :. if ?
,. ti/ / ti ?• . ?J ti? yet.
/ •? ?,
/•: •? '•
IV
ti
?• ?. ••
REVISED 6-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
" DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS i
i :. DARE COUNTY '
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
i
AND REVETUENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET ?- OF *7 3-89
I
401 ARMOR STONE
zyt 2 LAYERS
,,,., r.. ?.Zt.rT ...w?. 1 TON STONE
'cstsR a- +t-d
1.5' FOUNDATION STONE s M #Ail
UNDERLAYER STONE \
500-1000 lb. 1.5
110 Q
1 , 'a1Yly ttZ '7SaM ?,a.@?.h?*/t cmn
SCALE 1" a 20' TYPICAL SECTION REVETMENT ?
CREST ELEV. +8.0; ?--
U?1DtltAyt?'.-WAL'DM* lrosy A&MA VIIAt At G•
T HIET '7IDT _ (>1 IL "wt ?lit s• a
ToK?'DcTr sloty i
',1 I I lot tsoEroT t? r n?'! _ ?1 A Y 2Y?
I I _ _ + ? r ?.c - RtoTIC1wK?
d 4A
'}? . 1'O VMt111T.oN •/ --- ...-V?tll) M MNMT?IM i ?°"`Y.
Caw 11L.
PIN. DEPTH -6.0 OR IOIER.
74 60 co ?o lo to is 10 co 40
so
NUIE: SCALE 1" Q 20 - --vi?rAl?ca to.?^?rT? ....:.T
Dimension and stone sizes are approxi-
mate and subject to revision during
design detailing.
NOTES:
1. Optional underlayer stone can
NOTES:
1. Optional Underlayer stone can
be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.G. +/- 2.58 with S.G
be 500 to 1000 lb. dense atone NUM:
with S.G. +/- 2.58 or marine
limestone 350 to 650 lbs. with See Sheet 4_ of r for quantities.
S. G. +/- 1.85 ..
2. Foundation stone can be quarry REVISED 6-12-09
run dense stone or marine
lilmstone-see specs for
gradation.
3. Underlayer atone for revetmentr '
section can be 4 to 365 lbs.
dense stone with S.G. 2.58
or marine limestone 30 to 265
lbs. with S.G. +/- 1.85
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DIRE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERUMAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
-S1iEET_?? OF __9 3-00

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TERMINAL GROIN AND REVETMENT AT THE
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND
TYPE OF UATERIAL QUANT ITY
1 Ton Granitic Armor Stone 4,100 tons
3.5 Ton Granitic Ardor Stone 36,900 tons
9.0 Ton Granitic Armor Stone 72,900 tons
145 lb. Marino Limestone Underlayor 3,800 tons
500 lb. Uarine Limestone Underlayor 11 000 tons
1500 lb. Harine Limestone Undorlayer 15,800 tons
Foundation Stone 62,300 tons
Excavation and Fill 75,000 cu. yds.
Marine Limestone Is 'optional, can be replaced by comparable
size (io linear dimensions) granitic stone.
REVISED 0-12-89
14 C D 0 T
I DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
RECEI??ED I PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND. REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
,'m 11{'89 i SHEET OF _1 _ 3_89
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CHANNEL AND BASIN
_1%10

SCALE: 1" = 800'
TYPICAL SECTION TOTAL DREDGED
• MATERIAL
W.S. MX.T, EL. 0,0
± -3.0 ^ v6.
E -
- r -'? ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
BASIN
T
i
ACCESS CHANNEL
ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
.NOT TO SCALE
=257 OOOCu. YDS.
REVISED 6-12-89 ;
N C D 0 T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETUENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET _,J:_ OF rI
AREA OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MATERIAL
c_ AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE
? COAST GU.pR? ' _ '

SCALE: 1" S 200'
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
ACRES 13.8 +/-
WETLANDS
U.S.COAST GUARD
ACRES = 7.7 +/-
REVISED 6-12-89

PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
? SLAtI? ?FU?E
• Q?P QV??
I ?t 1 ,

0
'd PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
i!
IVY
pc ??
Q?
19.
DENOTES WETLANDS ?•'
ACRES 1.0
SCALE: 1" = 200' PAhILICO SOUND
TYPICAL SECTION 'HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING AREA
50'IIOAD
80'OFFLOADING AREA
FILL MATERIAL 1 1;,
?_
/!I III = fff z flf - fit ? fit t Ws 111 = fit
GEOTECH FABRIC NOTE: HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING
AREA CAN BE CONSTRUCTED
IN WETLAND AREA OF MATS
OR FILL MATERIAL AS DEPICTED
REVISED 6-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMIN
AL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
NOT TO SCALE OREGON INLET
SKEET- OF -M 3-89
,i
i
'.'tea SfA7t u
"r W'y JUN 1 7 i939
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `=.i'jYr
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '` ..,
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
June 12, 1989 GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTN: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Modification to permit request for Oregon Inlet groin and
revetment, Dare County
On March 31, 1989, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
applied for a permit to construct a stone groin and revetment at the
northern end of Hatteras Island. The purpose of this project is to
arrest the southern migration of Oregon Inlet and afford protection
for terminal approaches of the Bonner Bridge/NC 12 route in the vicin-
ity of the Pea Island Wildlife Refuge.
New information has recently been brought to our attention which
may improve the efficiency of our construction process for the groin.
Two alternatives are currently under consideration.
First, the need to accomodate heavy barge traffic in the U.S. Coast
Guard channel and dock area may require dredging the access canal to a
maximum depth of 13 ft. and a basal width of 150 ft. Continued mainten-
ance dredging of the channel may be required during the construction pro-
cess.
Second, construction may be expedited by providing for equipment
and material offloading near the southwest corner of the Bonner Bridge
approach on Pea Island (see Figs. 6 & 7). A temporary access road
across NC 12 and the existing parking lot will facilitate movement of
supplies to the construction site. Approximately 13.8 acres of Refuge
lands will be required for this activity. In addition, an estimated
1.0 acres of coastal wetlands may be temporarily filled to support the
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
v
haul road and staging areas. We have already undertaken preliminary
coordination with Mr. John Taylor, Refuge Manager of the Pea Island
Wildlife Refuge regarding location of these temporary facilities.
We hereby request modification of our March 31, 1989 permit to in-
clude these two construction alternatives. By copy of this letter,
we are requesting review by the N. C. Office of Coastal Management and
issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of Environ-
mental Management, NRCD. Our Department is in the process of acquiring
a Special Use Permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for encroach-
ment on Refuge property and a copy of this permit will be forwarded to
your office upon receipt.
If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Jerry McCrain
at 919-733-7842. Your immediate attention to this matter would be
appreciated.
LRG/GRM/slg
Attachments
cc: Mr. John Parker, CAMA
--Mr. Paul Wilms, ATTN:
Mr. John Taylor, USFWS
Ms. L. K. Gantt, USFWS
Mr. Tommy Harrelson
Mr. George Wells, PE
Mr. Tommy Peacock, PE
Mr. W. M. Ingram, PE
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE
Mr. L. A. Sanderson, PE
Mr. John Smith, PE
Mr. Jim Greenhill, PE
Mr. C. 0. White, PE
Mr. G. R. McCrain
L. R. Goo , PhD, PE
f Manager, Program & Policy Branch
Sincerely,
41-11VII,
Mr. Bill Mills, DEM, NRCD

Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
,ticipated development activities, including construc.
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 14 and 8-9 must be completed for '
all projects.
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
facility

UMA 1- ? , r a.
North Carolina Department of Transportationb,
a. Name L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE-
C.
Address P. O. Box 25201.
City Raleigh State NC d.
Zip -27611 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or _X_ Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) N/A C.
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
a. Street address or secondary road number
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Oregon Inlet
c. County - Dare
d. is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? on
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Atlantic Ocean
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
Construction of terminal groin, revetment,
and construction access cMnne
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
s bil pa lon' of ho of k or both? ine
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
camunity
Size of entire tract N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum N/A
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract N/A
Vegetation on tract N1/A
Man-trade features now on tract N/A
f.
9.
h.
What is the LAMA Land Use Plan Classifica.
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
How NA is/the tract zoned by local government?
How are adjacent vraters classified? N/A
Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? no
If so, by whom?
i.
j•
t
-j! OLV V
mf,0- 100--z"ORM6
- 7 Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of b?i)?iings, facilities, or
structures proposed ??
b. Number of lots or parcels. N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) - N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed N/A
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitit/ed to the Division of Land Resources?
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement
,
buildings, or rooftops.
?. - List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
.Surfaces. _1/A
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmentalIAanagemend N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities. N/A
j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities. .
N/A
1. Describe location and type of di 4wgcs to
waters of the state (for examplersurface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, indusaial/commercial
cf/flluent, or "wash down").
m. Water supply source N/A
n. If die project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide nR/YA*' access.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor? N/A
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
3300' 150' 131±

31501± 601± 141±
3150'± 60'±

b. Amount of material to be excavated from
below water level in cubic.yards 265,000 cu.yds.
c. Type of material cap ' d
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land, swamps, or other .-wetlands? .25
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards none
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area t?
g. Location of spoil disposal area 4iA
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? N A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?/ N/A
If so, where? N A
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swampland; or water areas? no
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? Jts
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards 65,000 cu. yds. ±
m. Type of fill material ra=k
n. Source of fill material Marry
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
s
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled 1.0 acre
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? b striment
erosion control methods
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoc, or
hydraulic dredge)? drag] ine, crane,
durptruck
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project siteLle-S If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts. use of best
management practices an erosion features
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 11 W+
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level I nnn ' +
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet 1,1001±
d. Type of bulkhead material
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be p aced
below mean high water Ffi,nnn ru o c ±
f. Type of fill material rock
2
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 Vz x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7j.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency pcr-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal' Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113.229(d).
Name ll. S_ Fish & Wildlife Spryirp
Address f)ppt nf th- Tntarinr
Name II S rna?t r,?iarri
Address
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.

A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on'the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.GS. 113A-1 to 10).
14 f
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I furiher certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
,
This is the I;Z_ day of.
19 /
X
Landowner or Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3
0
0
L)
z
I
>r
u
u
S Srw,rdsn sill ; t IftY lucY 4r ;ill,
r swu arui
S
SW1? f°'" u
Wy Z10
MerArl M.IIpn/ '
' ! Skare ` ws t{S, A- S O/o 5 / COrdia
kilo t ? , SO$
Irobdla U "7 '' wl Is$ co 1 walwUtY t ,?
/ucnrrauu
J j Syld?cr ,t? p(? It, II 7 n.uaoii `. /CGN I
: c.ma.nt? l Araoll
i duo `%` Ellflcit?
lt , t
Gli SO . , , Rid b P t
{ % 1# I. C. S. `I NId1 W'kIM Br Pd1
II } , can Bak` ologs .nu?? rO r 11 o CUAASVS sr. ; to J 11
cr Ch 1 AD
„ PER UIM/CN$\ %• of rr,o'
iJrw' / Wknlall i ?• e.Y,dlfY`c.1\ 1 '• \
J / \ I `/ .. It?lla t ? NI`onlon ? \'tp?; ? ?? ? Pa.ollt vk\1• Duci
n f •,??? \ :?? cr4. h. ' rant ,
10 AN
I / r1S
Did$ to NaA •?"r',` I we.N hot MIMI I spot' Dwiio
wa' fre.wr h.
eui
?... J f1uDw NYrY
,J 3) ?Orurr/N. SOW"' ?v. ??IA.rrba. SpwJlwoAaw
lull D*VW Hills
• 4+Edenlon' ) _ ?Co
(A ' ulnpon r' u . ?•IYwwI a..A po„--
CKJAANI
2 --, nI•NO' 1 Na ll Ak.nNaliflal
d' ..krw.l,wrAA.cw •', t ?_??ttyflakay '• Nmlandbn9?forll.npl Mu toes O1
k,,,,,y 1 re.w.akpY..«! e s J 17-C
acYor, , ?/ W \ r 7 Lint Whalebone
Si ) East t flan, l
1 PieaUnl Gowo Ga?umDiat
f /I U / lake 1 • . ? NaIDa
M:rw n f
1 allows 64 , Sc1lpQ"no', ) e WoodU ?.' I ?I a Se. " \pDll
Y I II Cover •i 4 tA ISLAND
l o9 Galwoll J?'
hyffloulh CMIf ?' s ?'IYint fan I \ kA aloe
WAS H I N GTO Nrr?sr n. i ; Lending D A R E /) tlGrlr 1101 r pan ln/d
rl
PArrniLa/e•) T Y R R E L ) 264
1
o s fo Ja )p o
- SCALE Of MILES OW WA EQUALS WWI. 13 AYES'
RodietM
n
(D? of ti d" ' q ,_. . •. ? /? ,l ?k +? w. , ale ? •-?`\ "?{
h? 4001E ISLAND yr O Ji 7.1 Jilt.. 'f'( ,ur 1? 1?PEAr ,.? c,1-1 blow _
1yr1; ?.. ,,,h ,•...,•,ti. f'?„?JS,. \ ti;.J.?.?i ,d., ^ ?`;•. ,• "'1,3r 1.\. , ISLAND
CAPE JRAS NATION< \ `t? I? k
S \I!tk+?l) ?; i SEAS14OR A RE!
G
?.NFF.K o PROJEC sffE
?_UR0A0 "r~ LAND
wS ? ` l!h..iY?. ,
PEA ISLAND NATIONAL
>, wAwaa,l ? a - ?\ i
Imo{ ,«
O Ip. 1,101 _ . / DAIRE V 0
o .
1 ? REVISED G-12-89
?J C D 0 T
DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
Z, PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
sCAlt v '' ••`
OREGON INLET
2`- -p'u's SHEET I OF -?? _ 3-89
,•r? °R GR` APPROXIMATE POSITION OF
• ti 30;? ' ADJUSTED SHORELINE
ti
ti ?• h h ti ,? ?, •? .?
•`, ti 25.oO • , S?pSE?t 5 ?ge9 •.
? o
1otoo
1 •
h R ??
SHORELINE POSITION o
APRIL 21, 1909
h w•
•x w • .• y
h w• h •.
h ,h• .? w,
•„ •: • ,•
% X
% ti

Ncs
ti
ti
ti h
ti
pow-
o
o-? a
;/ / ?• ?: ?????` yet'
h

REVISED G-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS i
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERHINAL GROINS
AND REVETUENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON, INLET
SKEET 2 OF 7 3-89
401 ARMOR STONE
"f,u z ? 2 LAYERS
,? ?.. r~•• LAVVT 1 TON STONE
1 to 'CRt7T d. +(..C?
1.51 FOUNDATION STONE - 4 s FHA '
UNDERLAYER STONE
500-1000 1b. Zs/
-11?
•Y?. JO 4Y4p
?A Cb Ip to
1 -a1Yt+.+CL TAM 1.0?L?^'t•w CZL" t 14 `n7 '
SCALE 111 ,Q 201 TYPICAL SECTION REVETMENT
CREST ELEV. +8.
?• C UNDIt•tAyiA:Y1CK[-W-A too" ARMCK '?'tovC. A/G•
?} NIET?y ???. (y ft Mott 1)I . .
flT:l 3.a 7ou?'Dvtr S19cy I
liar _ ,?
2 R r - Q
,C
F, T
tIQiI I
, t7
7-A J
M ? ?y
?•„'I p . -- f•`OUNDATtON .. ? --- _ -••VAtll j•10 M?IMi t•IN 1 ? ??
fton? ' ? Cktyt A. ?
SOT TOM v?tay. MIN. DEPTH -6.0 OR IDRER. -
A LO GD Sp 70 !O ID 10 LO 70 40 So
ia,,, 4 tF.y
NOTE: SCALE 1" Q 201 V1?MNCt,
rl'YPTCAL SECTION GROIN
Dimension and stone si.zes are approxi- NOGBS•
crate and subject to revision during 1. ?opti.onal Underlayer stone can
design detailing. be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
NOTES: with S.G. +/- 2.58 with S.G
1. Optional underlayer stone can NOTE:
be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.G. +/- 2.58 or marine See Sheet of for quantities.
limestone 350 to 650 lbs. with --?-- r
S. G. +/- 1.85
2. Foundation stone can be quarry REVISED 6-12-89
run dense stone or marine
limiestone-see specs for N.C.D.O.T.
gradation. DIVISION OF IIIGIIWAYS
3. Underlayer atone for revetment DARE COUNTY
section can be 4 to 365 lbs. PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
dense stone with S.C. +/- 2.58 AND REVETMENT SOUTIi SIiORE
or marine limestone 30 to 265 OREGON INLET
lbs. with S.G. +/- 1.85 SIIEET -3 OF _a 3-00
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TERMINAL GROIN AND REVETMENT AT THE
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND
TYPE OF MATERIAL
1 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
3.6 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
9.0 Ton Granitic Armor Stone
146 lb. Uarine Limestone Underlayor
600 lb. Uarine Limestone Underlayer
1600 lb. tlarine Limestone Underlayor
Foundation Stone
Excavation and Fill
QUANTITY
4,100 tons
36,900 tons
72,900 tons
3,800 tons
11,000 tons
16,800 tons
62,300 tons
75,000 cu. yds.
Uarine Limestone is optional, can be replaced by comparable
size (le linear dimensions) granitic stone.
REVISED 6-12-89
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CHANNEL AND BASIN

SCALE: i" = 800'
TYPICAL SECTION
TOTAL DREDGED
MATERIAL =257 OOOCU. YDS.
W.S. M.L.T, EL. o.o
-3.0 A VG.
-- - - ? ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
,?
.2 o BASIN
REVISED 6-12-89 +
T -
ACCESS CIIANNEL
ALLOW FOR 2.0' OVERDEPTH
NOT TO SCALE.
N C D 0 T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROINS
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET OF r7

\ - • U ARD
? S . COAST G
U-
1SLNil , ??3 OE
AREA OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
,REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MATERIAL
AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE

PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE

SCALE: 1" = 200'
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
ACRES = 13.8+/-.
WETLANDS
U.S.COAST GUARD
"sz
ACRES = 7.7 +/-
REVISED 6-12-89

\\ ?? 'd PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
•
1? PQ` O t( w.
I
` ?
ti
? `

AND REVEMENT SOUTH SHORE
NOT TO SCALE OREGON INLET
SHEET_ OF -_7. 3-89
DENOTES WETLANDS
ACRES = 1.0
CALF: 1" = 200' PAMLICO SOUND
TYPICAL SECTION HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING AREA
GO'HOAD
80'OFFLOADING AREA
FILL HATERIAL I
a•
ill = rrr = Ill Ill ?/I rrt 5 Itr = ;? X11
GEOTECH FABRIC NOTE: HAUL ROAD AND OFFLOADING
AREA CAN BE CONSTRUCTED
IN WETLAND AREA OF BATS
OR FILL UATERIAL AS DEPICTED
REVISED 6-12-89
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMNAL GROINS

"IqEMOO
DATE:
HARRINGI
RETARY
Attached is a copy of the permit application and drawings
depicting the proposed work.
Application is being made, by copies of this letter, for a
401 Water Quality Certification and permits required from
the U. S. Army Corps of En
11 gineers.

James G. Martin, Governor
.1
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James S. Lofton, Secretary
May 26, 1989
Mr. William Ingram
N.C. Department of Transportation ,!!
Division of Highways Ee
Highway Building, 1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 JUN 0 519A9
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Jr; i_ nn-c , r•,rac r-
r
RE: SCH File #89-E-4220-0892; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for the Proposed Construction and Maintenance of a Terminal Groin and
Revetment on the North End of Pea Island for Protection of the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge and NC Highway 12 in Dare County
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the
State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local agencies in the course of
this review. Because of the nature of the comment(s), it has been determined that no
further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for compliance with
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development
Best regards.
JSL:jt
cc: Region R
Attachment
S' rely,
J e S. Lofton
116 West Jones Street* Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 *Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
w
? . sa ?'? STATF'aa+.
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
TO: Chrys Baggett -
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Doug Lewis 4
RE: 89-0892 EA/FONSI, Bonner Bridge, Dare County
DATE: May 25, 1989
The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has reviewed the proposed construction and
maintenance of a terminal groin and revetment for protection of
the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. The attached comments reflect some
specific concerns but have been resolved through discussions with
the Department of Transportation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
DL: mm
attachments
RECEIVED
NIAY 6 6 tutu
OOA
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 22, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lorraine Shinn
Regional Office Manager
THROUGH: Roger K. Thorpe, Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental
Water Quality Section, WaRO
Regional Supervisor o '?11 Y
Technician a..L -116 -
SUBJECT: A-95/EIS Review
Project #89-0892
Bonner Bridge
Dare County
The above subject document has been reviewed by this office for water
quality concerns. This project was reviewed for a 401 Certification
on April 17, 1989. It was recommended that the CAMA permit be issued
as well as the 401 certification with the following comment: . 'It is
also recommended that the waters be declassified from SB to SC by
virtue of the "Declassification of Stream Segments Which Are. Proposed
To Be Filled", May 29, 1979. This activity is a one-time filling of
greater than .5 acres.'
Also specified in the subject document is the 1.10 acres of common
reed marsh which will be filled due to the placement of the
revetment. The Division of Coastal Management has determined that
this area is not a coastal wetland and is therefore exempt from their
regulation. The area has not been delineated as a wetland. Due to
this activity not necessitating a CAMA permit, there is ,no requirement
for a 401 Certification for this area.
DS/cm
MT?mnPAn ntTm
TO: Melba McGhee
Planning and Assessment
FROM: Steve Benton <?
Division of Coastal Management
RE: SCH#?07 d b / '
DATE: S/ Z Z/
We have reviewed the above referenced clearinghouse document.
1 A consistency statement is not needed (project does not meet consistency
threshold)
2 A consistency statement is needed. Please notify us when all comments
are in.
3 The proposal is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program provided that all state authroization and/or permit requirements
are met prior to or during construction of the project.
4 A consistency statement will be prepared on the final document. Comments,
however, will be made on the draft document by our field consultant.
5 The project is not in the coastal area.
6 ? A CARA major permit is required. The decision on the permit will be the
state's position on the consistency of the project with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
7 The proposal will not affect the coastal area/or will have minimal, if
any, impacts on coastal resources.
8
9
A CAMA major permit has been issued on this project: Date
Permit No. The project is consistent provided all
conditions of the permit are met.
The applicant should contact the DCM Field Consultant in
(telephone no.) to arrange a pre-permit conference.
10 The proposal is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program.
11_z_ Additional Comments
The following comments are being submitted on this proposal:
Co 8?m?-lr M ?4-N. A?1??
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Benton
FROM: David R. Griffin
SUBJECT: SCH89-0892
DATE: May 22, 1989
I have reviewed the SSA/FONSI for the proposed terminal groin
and revetment at Pea Island, Oregon Inlet and offer the following
comments:
(1) NC DOT "designated" the free-standing rubble--mound
structure as a terminal groin. Very little difference exists
between a groin and a jetty. In the past, jetties at Oregon
Inlet have been denied Special Use Permits from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Although it is a point of semantics, it is
interesting that NC DOT designates the structure a groin.
(2) The design and engineering for the proposed groin and
revetment are based on studies carried out on the proposed
jetties at Oregon Inlet. Is this sound engineering and testing
practices?
(3) To install the apron for the groin 35' below MSL the
proposed site must be first excavated. This has not before been
mentioned. How will this be done? Where will the sand be
placed?
(4) The placement of spoil material from the access channel
access will need to be timed to avoid any impacts to nesting
shorebirds and sea turtles.
(5) No mention is made of the impact to the shoreline from down
wind the groin. NC Highway 12 approaches the shoreline rather
closely in several locations. Would the groin accelerate
down-drift erosion and-further threaten NC 12?
(6) No cost analysis for the terminal groin was given. It may
be the most expensive shoreline stabilization method.
(7) Although application has been made for a CAMA major permit
for the proposed groin, no permit has been issued. As proposed
the project is inconsistent with CAMA guidelines. The Coastal
Resources Commission may review NC DOT's application and take
action.
/yll
cc: P. Pate
File
y,EASE RETURN DOCUMENT WHEN REVIEW IS
COMPLETE. r

RECE1
MAY 11189
W;N1•kC
Stag of North Ca 1'
It %J lna
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
Sit North Salisbury Strect • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
,James G. Martin, Governor 05/09/89 George T .Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Saga Winslow
NC DNR&CD
Division of Marine Fisheries.,,
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, NC 27009
From: Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
Subject: Project Number SCH89-0892, Dated 05/01/89
EA/FONSI-Terminal. Groin & Revetment Pea Island, Oregon Inlet Hridg
Proposed by: NC Division of Highways in Dare County
The above listed document is being circulated to you for review
and comment by 05/16/89.
Type of Review Requested:
_ General Comments / FYI
Determination of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
NEPA / NCEPA Comments
Preliminary Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal / State Consistency Comments
Please contact me before the response due date if additional
review time is needed. Thank you.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
L?yx ,
signed
Date ..? /J
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carulina 27611-7687 'rclcphone 919-733.2293
An Equal C -Irtuniry Aifirmavv Action Employer
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
o i,

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
(C' I ('
TO
'7- REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ROM : 1 REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.

ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ,.? PER OUR CONVERSATION
C NOTE AND RETURN TO ME C PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
PLEASE ANSWER C FOR YOUR COMMENTS
PREPARE REPLY FO R MY SIGNATURE ` SIGNATURE
t_ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
1
`
qI
n ,

V

SE'?tCE

Kt,UJ Iw-

o.. FArt o
• 4 ?.. ??•

JUN 0 9 i9n--)
CR ()1Ii;LIT'f
State of North Carolina °pF'`''``? PIC:- I
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South O Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 2, 1989
Mr. L. R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E.
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Goode:
George T. Everett
Director
JUN •- 61989
[ICY 6
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges
receipt of your application for state approval for development of
property located south of Oregon Inlet, Dare County, N.C. It was
received on May 11, 1989, and appears to be adequate for
processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a
decision is July 25, 1989. An additional 75-day review period
may be necessary and if so you will be advised of the extension
and the new deadline.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be
posted at the location of the proposed development. Enclosed you
will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be
posted at the property of your proposed development. You should
post this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where
it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would be:
Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the
road right-of-way fronting your property; or at a point along the
road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your
property. Failure to post this notice could result in an
incomplete application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional
information is required, you will be contacted by the appropriate
state or federal agency. Please contact me if you have any
Route 6 Box 203, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone]
An Fnnml nnnnrhtnlw Alfi...., l- A...t,.-.
Mr. Larry R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E.
June 2, 1989
Page Two
questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy
of my field report and/or comments from reviewing agencies.
Cordially yours,
T. Gray Hauser, Jr.
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE III
TGH:yl
Enclosure: notice card
cc: John Parker
File
t:

O
J
W
1- m
U?x??
4
O
1?40 J
w w
LEM jr J
LLJ U
Om
o U
- 0
p Ly
w
' y CL
LLJ
w z
w
O
Z
U_
O J
a
:.) U a

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP gyp/ -, i V
- '
,
z
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-?}

FRPM. REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
j? NOTE AND FILE PER OUR CONVERSATION
C NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
-_-I PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE -_ SIGNATURE
`' -TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 7, 1989
JUN - .1i II
SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-CO89-N-028-0256 and State Permit No. 5193-A
Mr. L. R. Goode, Manager
Program and Policy Branch
Division of Highways CO ly
North Carolina Department of Transportation Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 14 U
Dear Mr. Goode:`
Reference your May 18, 1989, application for a modification to your
State/Federal authorization to excavate sand and deposit it on the beach on
the Atlantic Ocean, Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina. This
modification is to borrow material for continued beach nourishment from the
abandoned Coast Guard basin.
This modification has been coordinated with Federal review agencies and
has been found to be consistent with the provisions and objectives of general
permit No. CESAW-0080-N-000-0291. Therefore, you may continue your work in
strict accordance with the renewed State authorization and the specific
conditions provided to you by our letter of March 29, 1989.
Failure to comply with the State authorization or conditions of the
general permit could result in a violation of Federal law.
If any further change in your work is required because of unforeseen or
altered conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to show the change
must be sent promptly to this office and the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management prior to performing any such change or alteration. Such
action is necessary as revised plans must be reviewed and the authorization
modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Cliff Winefordner, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
eCha sHo is
ef, Regulatory Branch

Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Robert F. McGhee, Chief
Wetlands Section
Region IV
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
-2-
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. David Griffin
Elizabeth City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
ti. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

r TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1 ?
jp? I REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
\
-FRPM• REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.

ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
1 NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE L SIGNATURE
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: --- --

I
?Y .. SrAT[ o
State of North Ca l
?0?munity 'a
Department of Natural Resources and Development
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South • Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 2, 1989
0
D
Mr. L. R. Goode JUN 6 1989
Manager
Program & Policy Branch N1ANAGER
N.C. Department of Transportation pRCrRAPA & POLICY BRP
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Goode:
George T. Everett
Director
Attached please find a CAMA emergency permit authorizing the
excavation of spoil material east of the Herbert Bonner Bridge,
Dare County, to be used to nourish the north end of Hatteras
Island. Please review the permit and conditions carefully. You
will need to sign the permit in the bottom right hand corner.
Retain the top sheet for your records with the conditions and
plats; please return the yellow and pink copies to our office in
the enclosed envelope.
If you should have any questions and/or comments regarding
this matter, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
s?;aR-y .
David R. Griffin
DISTRICT MANAGER
DRG:yl
Enclosures
cc: G. Everett
P. Pate
J. Parker
A. Arnold
File
Route 6 Box 203, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
CAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL
GENERAL
PERMIT

as authorized by the State of North Carolina,
Department of Natural Resources and Community DeveloprrtertlHnd t?i?C?odstal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC 1 // 11 +u?
Applicant Name N.C. D.O.T. c/o L. R. Goode Phone Number
Address P Office Box 25201
City > 1a-1 gh State N r Zip 27 Al 1
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.) north end of Hatteras Island at Oregon
Type of Project Activity limergenny Beach Nourishment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pier (dock) length
Groin length
number
Bulkhead length
max. distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
cubic yards
Boat ramp dimensions
Other
?
_ -
-
- I
---1J

This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site
drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine,
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be-
come null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance.
The applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro-
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no
objections to the proposed work.
It-
6/2/89
5619 I'
I I i
i
i i
applicant's signature
I
permit officer's signature
7/2/89
issuing date expiration date
attachments Applicant's plats and conditions
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that NONE
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal application fee
Management Program.
SKETCH (SCALE:
t

O

D
0
u
1J\."I,1? i•l
SEGON /YLE7
?
TZMAL DEEM FAG JZ5000 CY'r'
eS AP?T=.AttCA
Ta I1E DRECGEA
p£NU?ES SPOIL
' p?$PosA? A?LF??
z?l

J
5[.At-E
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE QOUNTY
EMERGENCY DREDGING AND
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
SO. SHORE OREGON INLET
SHEET Z OF Z 5 -89
1

«. STAI£ o
r
??a?uwr+???
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South • Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
CONDITIONS FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT
OF THE NORTH END OF HATTERAS ISLAND
(1) Excavation shall identified on the attached plat. and must be
confined to the area
(2) No submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses ) will be
excavated.
(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) In issuing this permit, the State and Federal Governments do
not assume any liability for the following:
(a) Damages to other structures caused by thee or
authorized activity; and,
struct
(b) Damage claims associated with any future modification,
suspension, or revocation of this permit.
NOTE: On May 31, 1989, the Division of Environmental
Management gave a verbal approval for an emergency 401
certification for this project.
Route 6 Box 203, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STA7Z
?r?o 1
oL 4? ?_ p
J 1? u
J?
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor June 1, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W, Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMO TO: File
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section 6M
SUBJECT: Emergency Dredging
N.C. Department of Transportation
Oregon Inlet
Dare County
N.C. Department of Transportation contacted NRCD on May 26 to
request emergency authorization to dredge on the seaward side of
the Bonner Bridge in front of the Coast Guard Station at Oregon
Inlet. Spoils from the project are to be deposited on the sound
side of Bonner Bridge and approaches. This action is deemed by
DOT to be necessary for the protection of the highway and bridge
approaches from erosion which has recently occurred and is
anticipated later this year. This proposed dredging activity is
considered to be certified by Section 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 1333 which provides for fill associated with
emergency activities where structural property is in imminent
danger as a result of rapid recent erosion.
ST:BM/jho
cc: C ales Wakild
i11 Mills
George Everett
R. Paul Wilms
Jim :!ulligan
P.O. Box 17687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 30, 1989
MEMORANDUM
61-
TO: Files
FROM: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office ( 1
J
SUBJECT: Emergency 401 Authorization for Dredging in Oregon Inlet
On May 26, 1989, David Griffin of the Division of Coastal Management -
Elizabeth City Office called this office to request emergency
authorization to dredge on the seaward side of the Bonner Bridge in
front of the Coast Guard Station at Oregon Inlet. This is a
continuance, as proposed by the NC DOT, of a previous emergency
authorization to dredge on the sound side of the Bonner Bridge in
March of 1989. The spoils would be deposited at the same site of the
March dredging project. This office does not feel that this activity
is an emergency due to the length of time the activity has been
underway, the change of area of the activity, and the fact that no
channel obstruction exists. It was therefore recor,,nended to David
Griffin that the emergency authorization be denied.

v.jk! [ ;? iii p1 I1Y SEC 10?,
()pERAT10NS I--RA?
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS
113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION of Raleigh, N.C., filed an application on April
3, 1989, for a permit from the Division of Coastal Management to
develop in an Area of Environmental Concern and for certification
from the Division of Environmental Management that a discharge of
fill material in project wetlands will not violate applicable
water quality standards.
According to said application NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION proposes to construct a 3850' stone groin and
revetment with a 3300' X 60' access channel to stabilize the
erosion on the north end of Hatteras Island, Dare County, N.C.
A copy of the entire application and additional information
may be examined (or copies furnished upon request and payment of
reproduction costs) during normal business hours at the office of
David R. Griffin, Division of Coastal Management, located at
Route 6, Box 203, Elizabeth City, N.C., [phone], and/or
the office of Deborah Sawyer, Division of Environmental
Management, NRCD Regional Field Office, Washington, N.C., 27889.
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take
final action on this water quality certification on or before
May 13, 1989. The issuance of the CAMA Major Development permit
and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this projected
date depending upon the nature of the comments submitted and
subsequent hearings that may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in
writing to Mr. George T. Everett, Director, Division of Coastal
Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
May 3, 1989 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision,.and to
Mr. Bill Mills, Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box
27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to May 3, 1989 'for
consideration in the water quality certification decision. Later
comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered
up to the time of permit decision. Project modifications 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 request.
PUBLISHED ON: Tuesday, April 18, 1989

Ap,z i.g 21, 19 8 9
P. 0. Box 27687
RaiEigh, NC 27611-7687
Leah 0/z. I am waiting to you conce/zn-ing the gao.i.n pe2m.i.t,3 needed to pao.tec.t
the Oacgon Inict B2.idge. 7h.i6 may no,'- teem like an .inpo2.tan.t ma.tiea
to someone not i iv-ing in .th.i s a?zea Fu.t it -ia e,3,?eni i.ai that th-i,? la idge
?e ma,in.tained. I.t wouid of eou2.6e deva,3.ta.te uz eeonom-ica.Ley, lu.t it
would .totaiey .isoia.te uz /izom the ou.t.6.idc woltid. (Even with the &Zi.dge
we ate 3o ?a2 //Lom med.ieai /ac.ii i.t.ie,3 .tha.t a m.inoa eme zgency can .tuan
into a majo2 one ve2y qu.ick.Py. 7h-iz paz.t week we had a ch.i.ed with a
zevz,ze head .inju zy that even with .the &z.idge it .taken two and a hail '
hou2z to get to the hozpi.tai. I/ we have to take a /e22y ac2ozz the
.in.ee.t it wou.?d .take twice that amount o/ time. Nc ate watching aii
o/?ic.iaiz to zee how they handic .th-iz zi.tua.t.i.on and ate picading with
them to heap in any way they can to aczoive .th,i,6 zi.tua.t.ion.
s incelLciy,
calzo? Ba?ziey
RECEIVED
APR 2 a 1989
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
IF
Construction Co., Inc.
PO Box 1009, Buxton, NC 27920 • [phone]

/f1S 1vf£4S fo

FE C E I
4 '
4??.._.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District. Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington. North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-CO-ND-89-23-0016
March 17. 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN
MANTEO SHALLOWBAG BAY NORTH CAROLINA
CHANNEL TO OREGON INLET AND THROUGH CHANNEL TO MANTEo MAR 20 1`...)
(Dare County)
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : Raleigh, NC
The WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Wilmington. North Carolina,
proposes to perform EMERGENCY maintenance dredging in the Manteo Shallowbag Bay
Navigation Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. This emergency maintenance work is scheduled to begin
immediately and will require approximately 30 days to complete. The work will
require the removal of all material lying above the plane of 14 feet below mean
low water (MLW) within the designated limits shown on the enclosed drawing. The
estimated quantity of material to be removed from all areas is approximately
80.000 cubic yards of predominately coarse sand with lesser amounts of shell
fragments. The work will be accomplished by use of the Government sidecast Dredge
SCHWEIZER and/or the hopper vessel CURRITUCK. The material will be disposed of
adjacent to the channel by the SCHWEIZER and in an area deeper than 10 feet MLW
near the area to be dredged by the CURRITUCK.
Channel to Oregon Inlet. Dredging will be performed between mile 1.5 and mile
3.0.
Channel to Manteo. Dredging will be performed between mile 3.0 and mile 3.5.
A drawing showing the proposed work with disposal adjacent to the channel is
enclosed with this notice.
There is enclosed a list of Federal. State. and local agencies with whom these
activities are being coordinated.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) related to the authorized
maintenance of Manteo Shallowbag Bay. North Carolina. was filed with EPA on
April 20. 1979. and a final supplement to the FEIS was circulated for public
review on November 7. 1980.
No impacts to known archeological/historical resources or endangered species
will occur.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) General Water Quality Certificate Number 1332 was
issued on June 18. 1979. for emergency dredging due to unpredictable shoaling in
the coastal waters of North Carolina.
j r V
-2-
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program
of the State of North Carolina and has been coordinated with the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management.
The decision whether to perform this work has been based on an evaluation of
the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the
public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably
may be expected to accrue from the proposal have been balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal have been considered. including the cumulative effect thereof: among
those are conservation. economics. aesthetics, general environmental concerns.
wetlands, historic properties. fish and wildlife values. flood hazards. floodplain
values. land use, navigation. shoreline, erosion and accretion. recreation. water
supply and conservation, water quality. energy needs. safety. food and fiber
production. mineral needs. considerations of property ownership and. in general.
the needs and welfare of the people.
Under Emergency procedures. this public notice is being distributed to all
known interested persons concurrent with performance of work in'order to assist in
developing facts on which a decision may be made by the Corps of Engineers with
respect to the disposal of dredged material in navigable or ocean waters. For
accuracy and completeness of record, all data in support of or in opposition to
the proposed work should be submitted in writing setting forth sufficient detail
to support convictions. Any person who has an interest which may be affected by
the disposal of this dredged material may request a public hearing. The request
must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer immediately and must clearly
set forth the interest which may be affected and the manner in which the interest
may be affected by this activity. For further information, contact James Wells.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington. North Carolina. North Carolina. phone
number [phone].
John F. Miniclier. Jr.
Lieutenant Colonel.
Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
GEORGE T. IiURCH
Enclosures EXECUTIVE A'c;ISTA''T
4
M ?• w
LIST OF FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Assistant US Attorney
US Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Coast Guard
Regional Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Park Service
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Office of Chief Engineers
South Atlantic Division
All United States Senators and Representatives for State of North
Carolina
US Department of Health. Education and Welfare
Regional Director. Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreational Service
NC State Clearinghouse and Information Center
v
DIKED UNDERWATER
DISPOSAL AREA
r
7
Z
n
0
1
Z
F
1
?J
.
I W Ol.
L
M • ?
a
\\ 7
or map".
..
Qt ..,
M
J
O +\ C
> h Z
>z
ZO o
v?
M
.ww
c A
sou P4 ?\ `?tOGb36.D
M ;?! DRtoc?,?C, BY
ofolco Si DE <Asr DAL°.DG E/o2
f°
•
s"
,r
I?
M 4NI f 0 NnAI I OMIHCI
MORIN C AN(A IM
DREDGED MATE
DISPOSAL ISLAI
i hr
11.11 w. IIII

A to STATF o
N. n
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
RED, F
APR
AP-ly??GNI ?RSECTfp/V
George T. Everett
Director
Field Services
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
April 13, 1989
The Coastland Times
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 428
Manteo, North Carolina 27954
Re: NC DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN PUBLIC NOTICE
Dear Sir:
Please publish the attached Notice in the Tuesday, April 18,
1989 issue of the Coastland Times newspaper.
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 Portia Rochelle,
Division of Coastal Management, P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you shbuld
have any questions, please contact me at our Elizabeth City
office.
Sincerely,
David R. Griffin
DISTRICT MANAGER
DRG:yl
Enclosure
cc: John Parker
Portia Rochelle
File P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An [gital Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS
113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION of Raleigh, N.C., filed an application on April
3, 1989, for a permit from the Division of Coastal Management to
develop in an Area of Environmental Concern and for certification
from the Division of Environmental Management that a discharge of
fill material in project wetlands will not violate applicable
water quality standards.
According to said application NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION proposes to construct a 3850' stone groin and
revetment with a 3300' X 60' access channel to stabilize the
erosion on the north end of Hatteras Island, Dare County, N.C.
A copy of the entire application and additional information
may be examined-(or copies furnished upon request and payment of
reproduction costs) during normal business hours at the office of
David R. Griffin, Division of Coastal Management, located at
Route 6, Box 203, Elizabeth City, N.C., [phone], and/or
the office of Deborah Sawyer, Division of Environmental
Management, NRCD'Regional Field Office, Washington, N.C., 27889.
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take
final action on this water quality certification on or before
May 13, 1989. The issuance of the CAMA Major Development permit
and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this projected
date depending upon the nature of the comments submitted and
subsequent hearings that may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in
writing to Mr. George T. Everett, Director, Division of Coastal
Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
May 3, 1989 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision, and to
Mr. Bill Mills, Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box
27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to May 3, 1989 for
consideration in the water quality certification decision. Later
comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered
up to the time of permit decision. Project modifications 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 request.
PUBLISHED ON: Tuesday, April 18, 1989

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
a-o - n
TOS
P4
JC!/ REF. NO O ROOM, BLDG.
AWA Alb
F Mt REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTSt

t^IA, : ?. , .. ,, .
r" I
I

.. STA1F °?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES G. MARTIN P. 0. BOX 25201 JAMES E. HARRINGTON
GOVERNOR RALEIGH 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 17, 1989
Mr. John R. Parker, Jr.
Permits Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management
N. C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Parker:
SUBJECT: Dare County, NC 12--Emergency Dredging and
Shoreline Stabilization at South End of
Oregon Inlet
The North Carolina Department of Transportation-Division of
Highways makes application for Emergency CAMA and 404 Permits
as required for the above proposed work.
Recent storms have caused severe erosion on the north end of
Pea Island. In an effort to attempt to provide some
stabilization in this environmentall dynamic location and
protect NC 12, we propose to undertake a beach nourishment
project. It is proposed to dredge approximately 125,000 c.y.
of sand from the Pamlico Sound and discharge it onto the
beach area north of highway NC 12. The area to be dredged
from is a site which was selected with the help of
Mr. Robert Abernathy of the Division of Coastal Management.
We are in the process of obtaining the necessary special
use permit.
Attached is a copy of the permit application and drawings
depicting the proposed work.
Application is being made, by copies of this letter, for a
401 Water Quality Certification and permits required from
the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers.
r
Mr. John R. Parker, Jr.
Page 2
March 17, 1989
Your expeditious handling of this emergency request will
be appreciated.
Sincerely,
L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE
Manager, Program & Policy Branch
LRG/BJO/jcr
Attachments
cc: Regulatory Branch, Corps of Engineers
Mr. Paul Wilms, NRCD, ATTN: Mr. Bill Mills, PE
Mr. John Taylor, USFWS
Ms. L. K. Gantt, USFWS
Mr. Preston Pate, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Robert Abernathy, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. George Wells, PE
Mr. W. G. Marley, Jr., PE
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, PE
Mr. Harvey Ramsey
Mr. C. 0. White, PE
Mr. Jimmy Lee, PE
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE
uu i
1-11 O?
PS!
00
CS
-?c
01
Pet ?c,P
t
a?c?co
P?• P
e?
EGGS to
ease S >>3'L ?
O? G O
?G• e` a?a ?5 ?ateal
at S ?e?
l`?•
c?cpt t ??6,,? c??? Q? ?, o? Othcc o4 lgg9
ItMGGS• ?atecs le F??bn Pet
? c?`vc? a tcna` ,
VSG ®F ?e?c. fatc?
N11411 o ?rj o th oc F?`` a e? Pet
?enc Scot ??ea fat
al" ?e? G?eao
eph
E ? t c Wx ?N c4 ct`a?as of t?•c ???cecs
o arc on Scet?oo o
CPS
G•Q?Q a?(1 ?`? `S- ef
?. J?ecs cnt • S, P o?0
? ???o?
?p e`oQ ?6101%
DIVISION OF
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
FIELD OFFICES
Elizabeth City
108 South Water Street
Elizabeth City, N.C. 27909
[phone]
Washington
Box 1507
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
Wilmington
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
[phone]
Raleigh Central Office
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury Street
Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 276117687
[phone]
Morehead City
Box 769
3411 Arendell Street
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
[phone]
1-800-682-2632
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
[phone]
- Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
ticipated development activities, including construc-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1.4 and 8.9 must be completed for'
all projects.

d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Protection of Public Transportation
sa
Nor Carolina Department of Tr ansportationa
a. Name L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE- b'
Address P. O. Box 25201. C.
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 -1 Day phone [phone] d'
Landowner or _X- Authorized agent e
b. Project name (if any) N/A
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
a. Street address or secondary road number
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Oregon Tnlet
C. County Dare
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? No
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Atlantic Ocean__
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
-Emergencv Dredoing and Shoreline
Stabilization at South End of
Oregon Inlet
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
isting project, new work, or both?
Stahiliza ion of Shoreline
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Commt m i ty
Size of entire tract N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum N/A
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract N/A
Vegetation on tract - N/A
f. Man-made features now on tract N/A
9.
h.
L
j•
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
-X_ Rural Other
How is the tract zoned by local government?
N/A
How are adjacent waters classed? N/A
Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No
If so, by whom?
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed _ N/A
b. Number of lots or parcels - N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) NJ A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed- N/A
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
N/A
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops._ N/A
dJF, - NGUO I
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
surfaces. N/A
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management? N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities._- _N/A
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9-
h.
i.
J•
k.
1.
M.
n.
o.
P.
q•
Amount f material to be excavated from
below wfer level in cubic .yards 125,000 CY
Type of material sand
Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land, swamps, or other -wetlands? Yes
High ground excavation, in cubic yards None
Dimensions of spoil disposal area 1700' x 125' x 15
Location of spoil disposal area Along
j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
1. Describe location and type of diwharges to
waters of the state (for examplersurface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industriallcommercial
effluent, or "wash down"). N/A
m. Water supply source N/A
n. If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide new access. N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor? N/A
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
C??Area
b?acx?p?
rock jetty)
1700' X 125' IX 15'+
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
Do you claim title to the disposal area? N/A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?/ N/A
If so, where? N/A
Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swarniXand; or water areas? N/A
Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? No
Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
Type of fill material N/A
Source of fill material sand Deposits In Sound
Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? No
Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N/A
How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? N/A
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? Hydraulic Dredge
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site?NcL.- If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts.
e- -lie an- NONE =MME
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap N/A
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level NIA
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet NZ A
d. Type of bulkhead material N/ A
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material NT.? n
2
- . N,U?
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 1h x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal' Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113.229(d).
Name U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Address Dept, of Interior
Name U. S. Coast Guard
Address
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.GS. 113A-1 to 10).
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the day of y
19 '
X
La er or uthorized agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3

0
0
z
I
0
U
s I \ Sligo It. I ]c
I 1?' M Soo ?Ib ?\ d.n rl ??y /"\
M..+ t316Y ?' S + sh. oil
\ I1/\1 CaoN.
d1o ,y 1 WMI? ?mouY
rowrAlo Q 11 7 Y IB. p \'
1 N ,?wl? ., IN 11 ! 001 as o10
LNA?1 LI k am M ` ?rN111 \
I
11 .` , . >t. Rid iq? B
11; I my BolvIda.Cb.p. ?X 1 Y CQA to #rA I /idh ) ?
u PAR UIMI N " -y is R ?• m T,n? '? 1 Baht«Iwy
m11 ` Wih'dl • p`Nlwnla 611lA. ', I'' 4-
N.?r/
\l`? f aq 1r 1
H I!,
0 A N 1
c.l ow.att N.d w.wve I ll.al .f` 1rlh;.
! `. Nail. 1
Will I !
Pal 1.
t ! T e •••wwr«rti ""'M1R So Nahor ?wNoMI •dlrnl&MhA.a.r 11, r+fdo Il r7 S
? CNn niI 00, Kill Ball Mink
\. t Owrf? _? a 4du.rt..,?
.w«r1...4 A.
t B Tal l.n?h p I?IAN• / Awe N.p Has
I may Nwvloondlo \ 'j 1 \ ?'? 16.w64 voo.l_ 01 SITE
?'Idoyuw Iy ? s r? ., \ . ? ? 1? _. ? `.,? a Mul wM1MaN
1 Plo.toel Glow
11 t Colom?L? •R Lake l NMNr
1 G.vr.WoodUV I ^II IC l ?\
Tm UIh 2v' 1 „I w 84 Wall,
WASHINGTO lrYl^' ,•? 1 D A R E
r'n.r.. Lrty T Y R„ E L I
%s
w.aw f ? i I ?' •.w
Sc.?t Of rru ON rlcN lpwi lv?wll. U Hllli
BodMW
po"
Soole ISlANO r Y ,l?u tY, ,PEA n,
?• ?, iti h
Il) • '... `!? J r ."" ?? ?? CAPE RJ?S NATION \ ` 1?'` •'
\\ )\ SEASHOR RE
N
F?=pgoAW
.
DARE wMCNIt1 ?(? - -
•
1
N.C.D.0.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
EMERGENCY DREDGING AND
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
unle \? SO. SHORE OREGON INLET
SHEET_L_OF 2 3-89

,
i

v
Q
4
r
0
u
Z
0
0
u

O V6
SCALE
N.C.D. O. T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DARE QOUNTY
EMERGENCY DREDGING AND
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
SO. SHORE OREGON INLET
SHEET 7 -OF Z 3-89
,.J. Ncuu i
Z?
. C
Ta TAL DREDGING IZ5Wo cy le
DENOTES APPRCx.AREA
6.?.? Ta BE DEEDGFlA
® DENUT'ES SPOIL,
DISPOSAL AILEA
o X12 ??\ 1?
i
\?r ? 1
?,.
%

a

Lll;:DA T r°i t:>F.'"r:.;s'ti°1A/ 40i I:i::.. D° 0 4/17/84)
ACTION D FILE > Dr • C:AMi`;:;•O1 P P,`.;•WD ) FORMAT NRD FCi"ri iFt NEXT RCl:} . 006?;!rI::?
RECORD HAS BEEN CHANGED. REC ORD NO 00607 FRD D ATA
°' :.+..O : 0060 7 F'E-:(. J : NC )?CiT....f:iRl:::(;;ON INLET GROIN COUNTY: i::r;',R[i : REGIO N: 0--'
r;,:.SI
:,Ie:....D
TO: t}
JOINT ';`
NOTICE:
TYPE CER TIFI CATION RECOMMEND DATE..--,' YYMMDD
404 I ,
,.,t
,... • ?;i::..
? . r
:?. ISSUE: { RECEIVED: 09044),
CAMA ONLY: GC: DENY: INITIAL REPORT : i
i.; ° %'t::Ai°iA: `i .if:::(:: f°' : >Wl°'I'i:::f>) : i il:!l...i:) D: FINAL REPORT: 9904 i
RECEIVING
N STREAM: ATLA NTIC OCEAN CLASS: SB BAS IN: PAS
COMME
TS:
SITE LOCAT
ED AT NO
RTH
END OF HA T T'l..:F-;AS I
SLAND, PEA ISLAND
NATIONAL WILDL
TF[m:
REFUGE
PROPOSAL T O CONSTR UCT A 3850' STONE GRO IN AND REVETMENT W ITH A 3300' X 60,
AL:t.:ES•, l .:HrlNNI::.L.. TO i:• }'TAB:1:LIT.E. 'T'Hf::: EROS ION ON •TI"fE NO1:;.TL.( :: ND OF fiA..i...lERi1,? :!:Si...i=il''!..
PROPOSAL T O DREDGE 4. 5 ACRi....:. AND F:f:L..i... 5 .3 ACRES OF SHALLO W WATER
SEI.:. ATTACH ED MEMO. C.'Oi •!C(::.RN:I:NG DECLASSIF ICATION OF WATER,.-..'.'
i:;(:)E':f.f..:; (,, IARia....C;f:: N TR6if...°°i~i3:l...i... s°°Dt: I
R%E(
QaEZ ? 9 iv'sq
O?Ei?ATlGf?1;' ^`<<?NrM
• r
ti
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 17, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: William C. Mills, Environmental Engineer
Operations Branch
!?
THROUGH: Roger K. Thorpe,"Wateyr'Qua-Iity Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician ?CS?-0 a /c-
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: DFICAMA/401 Review
NCDOT - Oregon Inlet Groin
Project #00607
Dare County
After review of the above subject document, this office recommends issuance
of the 401 certification. It is also recommended that the waters be
declassified from SB to SC by virtue of the "Declassification of Stream
Segments Which Are Proposed To Be Filled," May 29, 1979. This activity is
a one-time filling of greater than .5 acres.
DS/cm
r
1`il`...4iYp'..y !_!i"%i.:f.:y1lr.:y/40 R+..'S,:' DATE i");h
1.tl"iA4 1 P f'',.`.?WD FORMAT ,.. i Ii,.?l:',i- NEXT .C ii ti l f`?i::Xi. f....t.:i:.: j ;.l??j,:i.0.::
(,r:;?i.f:(:?i•1 .?ry.(.:?.) i=.f.L_I::: `• T;f" ?+'?
ACTION .... ADD, :.f`{I...li DATA, R EC. ADDED .i.,:> 00606 000606 ;;.,1., DATA
PROW 00607 PRO..i = NC DOT-OREGON f.NL..L'..I GROIN COUNTY: ItA4't{::. REGION: 0'F%
ASSIGNED TO: 1:i,,;,. ...it.1.4:1`1 I•' i•11::?..L:f:1:::E: r:
TYPE CERTIFICATION RECOMMEND :(A ti I:::; YYt`°ii''ii)t
404 P'N: 40i RED: Y ISSUE: RECEIVED: 890405
l.,(lf'A ONLY: GC DENY: INITIAL REPORT: 890411
DF/C(" MA : ''i ''e::Ci' : ;;'WPRf::.t>) : HOLD: Y E° .f.NAL.. REPORT:
RECEIVING STREAM: ATLANTIC OCEAN CLASS: SB BASIN: PAS
COMMENTS:
SITE LOCATED AT NORTH END OF 4" A TTi..:RF'}is ISLAND, PEA ISLAND NATIONAL WTLDL!Fi:?:
REFUGE
ROPi..,:,,A... TO CONSTRUCT A •..'i850 i STONE GROIN AND REVETMENT WITH A 331:0 i t 60,
ACCESS CHANNEL TO STABILIZE THE EROSION ON THE NORTH END O i. l r"i T..i' i..: RA ISLAND
PROPOSAL TO DREDGE 4..5 ACRES AND FILL 5.3 (`i(::W" L.f...EaW lIr'i l EI:,''
HOLD FOR INFORMATION AND REVTEI.,d
COPIES: Wi''ii-;C1....[:;f:::i''!Tf;r"il.......?'i:l:i._i... ;:.._D"• '
PR I ? f 9c9)
T?;r
U ITY
rclc,l71Unf? r ECTIQ?',
I ,
4-
MEMORANDUM
TO: DEBORAH SAWYER
FROM: David R. Griffin
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR PERMIT AND/OR
DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT
DATE: April 4, 1989
f1 CULL i
{+r4G7 CV U
Attached is an application by NC DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
which was received by me on 4/3/89 I am considering
this application complete, have acknowledged receipt, and have
begun processing.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
/yll
Enclosures
OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
Lat:35146118"N
Long:75131145"W
1. APPLICANT'S NAME N.C. DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE north end of Hatteras Island. Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon Inlet, Dare County. Photo ref.
138-466
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: DREDGE & FILL X CAIdA X
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
DATES OF SI
3/28/8
(B) WAS APPLICANT PRESENT no
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: APPLICATION RECEIVED April 3, 1989
OFFICE Elizabeth City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) LOCAL LAND USE PLAN Dare County
LAND CLASSIFICATION FROM LUP Conservation
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRi:INTS IDENTIFIED IN LUP
"The purpose of this class is to provide for effective, long-term
management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas."
(B) AEC(S) INVOLVED: OCEAN HAZARD ESTUARINE SHORELINE
COASTAL WETLANDS PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
ESTUARINE WATERS OTHER X Inlet Hazard
(C) WATER DEPENDENT: YES X NO OTHER
(D) INTENDED USE: PUBLIC X PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
E) TYPE OF WASTE WATER TREATPEKNT: EXISTING N/A
PLANNED N/A
(F) TYPE OF STRUCTURES: EXISTING rip-rap around Bridge abutment
PLANNED 3850' groin & revetment and 3300' access channel
(G) ESTIMATED ANNUAL RATE OF EROSION 11001SOURCE applicant
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
AREA
(A) VEGETATED WETLANDS DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(B) NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS:
shallow-water sandy bottom 198,000 sq. ft. (-4.5 acre)
shallow-water sandy bottom 231,000 (-5.3 acres)
(C) OTHER:
(D) TOTAL AREA DISTURBED: _10 acres
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to construct a 3850' stone
groin and revetment with a 3300' X 60' access channel to stabilize the
erosion on the north end of Hatteras Island, Oregon Inlet, Dare
County.
N.C. DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
BIO REPORT
PAGE 2
BIO REPORT
The north end of Hatteras Island, forming the southern boundary
of Oregon Inlet, has recently experienced increased erosion form
northeast storm events. Historically, a littoral drift of sand has
occurred from north to south; the north side has experienced an
accretion of sand while the south side has experienced erosion. Sand
has continued to be deposited in the navigation channels in Oregon
Inlet leading to a continual program of maintenance dredging.
As indicated by the N.C. Department of Transportation, the north
end of Hatteras Island eroded at a rate of 180 ft./yr. between 1981
and 1988. Between April, 1988 and March, 1989, the north end of
Hatteras Island eroded approximately 1150 ft. This severe erosion has
destroyed a freshwater pond on the north end of the Island and forced
the U.S. Coast Guard to relocate their office north to Coquina beach,
Bodie Island.
Because of this erosion and the threat it poses to the Herbert
Bonner Bridge (Hwy. 12) spanning Oregon Inlet, the N.C. Department of
Transportation on March 20, 1989 applied for an emergency CAMA permit
to nourish the north end of Hatteras Island. On March 22, 1989, an
emergency CAMA permit was issued to NC DOT authorizing beach
nourishment on the north end of Hatteras Island with approximately
125,000 cubic yards of dredge material excavated from west of the
Bridge.
To further protect the Herbert Bonner Bridge, its southern land
abutment and the north end of Hatteras Island, the NC Department of
Transportation proposes to construct a 3850' long groin and revetment.
This structure would begin as a sloping revetment at the U.S. Coast
Guard Station basin bulkhead and continue approximately 600' along the
existing shoreline. At this point the structure would become a 60'
wide groin slowly curving around previous shoreline locations and then
extending approximately 1800' out into the Atlantic Ocean. The groin
would be constructed approximately 110' wide at its base and 28' wide
at its top and extend 8' above MHW. One to three and a half ton
granite stone will be used for the final layer with an underlayment of
limestone (see list in application). The sloping revetment would' be
constructed on property of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
NC DOT indicates it has applied for the necessary Special Use Permits
from the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and from the U.S. Coast Guard.
NC DOT - OREGON INLET GROIN
BIO REPORT
PAGE 3
NC DOT is also proposing the dredging of a 3300' long X 60' wide
X 5' deep access channel with a 200' X 200' X 5' deep basin in the
Coast Guard basin. This will be accomplished by hydraulic dredge and
the spoil material will be pumped onto the beach nourishment area on
the north end of Hatteras Island approved on NC DOT's emergency CAMA
permit. If necessary, this channel would allow the granite stone and
limestone to be brought to the site by barge. A temporary 300' long
bulkhead is proposed adjacent the basin to allow the offloading of the
material from the barges.
Once the revetment and groin is
sand will accumulate on the lee
naturally fill in an approximate area
3500 feet south of the groin. Once
in, NC DOT believes that the normal
will continue around the terminal end
constructed, NC DOT believes that
(south) side of the groin and
equalling 60 acres and extending
the lee side of the groin fills
north to south movement of sand
of the groin.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The construction of the revetment and groin will usurp
approximately 231,000 square feet (-5.3 acres) of coarse sand,
shallow-water habitat. An additional 198,000 square feet (-4.5 acres)
of similar habitat will be lost in the excavation of the access
channel.
Because of the extremely dynamic nature of Oregon Inlet, it is
next to impossible to predict the effect the groin will have on sand
movement. Given the predominant north-to-south movement of sand, a
groin located away from the Inlet would tend to collect sand on its
north side and lose sand on its south side. NC DoT believes when
constructed the groin will quickly "fill in" with sand on its south
side. No data are provided to support this contention and it is hoped
that this belief of NC DOT is based on solid, reputable data from
coastal engineers.
CAMA REVIEW
The Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is classified as a
conservation area in the 1987 Dare County Land Use Plan. This class
provides for effective, long-term management of significant limited or
irreplaceable areas. Development that would cause the loss of these
limited areas would not be allowed. The groin, as proposed and
believed by NC DOT, will not cause the loss of any land but would in
fact cause a build-up of land south of the groin. If this is true
then the project would not be inconsistent with the LUP. However, if
in reality, the groin causes increased erosion on Pea Island, then the
project may well be inconsistent with the land use plan.
Submitted by: David R. Griffin
Date: April 4, 1989
Please type or print. Carefully describe all an
ticipated development activities, including cc
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing
stormwater control. If the requested informatl
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not
plicable). Items 1.4 and 8-9 must be complete
all projects.
Describe the planned use of the project.
;true- Protection of Public
0 Slag Transportation Facility
r
vit :+ss a.
North Carolina Department of.Transportationb.
a. Name L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE'
Address P. 0. Box 25201. C.
City leigh State NC d
Zip 27611 JDay phone [phone]
Landowner or X_ Authorized agent'
e.
b. Project name (if any N/A
c. If die applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
a. Street address or secondary road number
NC 12
b. City, town, community, or landmark
nragon Inlet
c. County Dare County
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? No
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Atlantic Ocean
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier).
Construction of Terminal
G_ r Reyetuent and
Construction Access Channel
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-l.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
isting project, new work, or both?
Stabilization of Shoreline
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
C_Q munity
Size of entire tract N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum N/A
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract -N/A
Vegetation on tract N/A
f. Man-made features now on tract N/A
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
x Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
N/A
i. How are adjacent waters classified? _N/A
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No
If so, by whom?
Complete this section if the project Includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed N/A
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) _ N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed N/A
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
N/A
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops.- N/A
List the materials, such as snarl, paver stone, b. Amount of material to be excavated from 3
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved below water level in cubic yards 55,000 yds.
surfaces. N/A c. Type of material Sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
Ii. If applicable, has a stormwater management land, swamps, or other-wetlands? Yes
plan been submitted to the Division of En- e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards None
virorurhental Management? N/A f. Dumensions of spoil disposal area N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste C. Location of spoil disposal area
water treatment facilities. N/A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal areal
j. Have these facilities received state or local If not, attach a letter granting permission from
approval? N1A die owner.
k. Describe existing treatment facilities. i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenanccli N/A
If so, where? N/A
j. Does die disposal area include any marshland,
1. Describe location and type of discharges to swarnrXand,'or water areas? N/A
waters of the state (for examplcrsurface runoff, k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
sanitary wastewater, industriaUcommercial high water? Y s
effluent, or "wash down"). N/A I. Amount of fill in cubic yards 73 , 000 cu. vds. +
in. Type of fill material Rock
n. Source of fill material a ar
in. Water:.upply source N/A o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or'other
n. If die project is oceanfront development, wetlands? No
describe the steps that will be taken to main- p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N/A
twin established public beach accessways or pro- q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
vide new access. N/A site and erosion controlled? N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will r. What type of construction equipment will be
be the elevation above mean sea level of the used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
first habitable floor? N/A hydraulic dredge)? nragl i n , Backhoe

Y .
?r,r2f s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
equip-
t ? merit to the project site? Nn If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava- vironmental impacts.
tion or fill activitic; (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
3 300' 60' +5'
3,850' 60'+
F
47
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 3}$50'+
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level 1,000'+
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 monde,
in feet 1,100'+
d. Type of bulklhcad material Stone Ri prap
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water 73.000+
f. Type of fill material Rock
2
IO1IIi`NIN? O T???'ON
re-p.at vn ? ..r:-?.-..:?si4-aad- a?J??s?W??,? er-4,??:s.?.-? l
'In addition to the completed application form, the I
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
, .
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the decd or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, phis written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 Vz z 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7).0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113.229(d).
Name U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Address Dept. of Interior
Name U. S. Coast Guard
Address
Name _
Address
_A list of previous state or federal permits issued
' '-1 for 4 on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, penrrittce, and issuing dates.
_?r.dic?k-for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
,mss s ?`w ?
??f ' °-`• '' fit.; ?.? ?t ???'? . s ? ? .?`J•n
??w.B?Aiw?? - ?cvrw?+.?.?a+:..;.i r •-.;::.7?ii?t' . _Y?'t??K 'J'?r_ J
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
1 certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review regencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-u monitoring of project.
T S
This is the day of
19 ?' o
Landowner o Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3
F -c
s `, 5111 a + ?*•' APR 0 3'89
I 11 \'e3w nal Saul%mats • OM1 t lit
a -
tYdr s -f
ll? , 1.... ran a
\ ?S ` S r 11, a -, p,lerfilf • Corona - --_-
t _twur a 158 tl 'ucMn,ovle :, o
/ ' SSwO tf? 0 ISf ?11 ONbw ?' ' LaA?va
ArdsU
M tLit). t 11 1 r'
t C R N Ri0 H \ ?adr llefr,il
Ryl,n 1 O,lvrdtrr `\ ?To 1 v l Cou loh I loth 11
PER UIMANS- -9 IC R • v 014 trip, r?l• sarwednl
1! lrrrl1 1 w?nlNl , I) ?~ •odsl??c-
Y Atiolq l r? n0nbtl ?? 'Y\ ?owtllil s . OaO
IOWANJ r` ++? / vY.?n ' raml 1 1s
DwM \4 - Soot
or t, Nt0
W.& a!
?` i '.'?•? ?-?- r A. e
?
uY, Mrtmr4
trK.od t ?..?. -- - -?' ?arll L14t1i, Wf
7 ?... ? '?? ? N trt>a M, • A e.pvd ..?.+ ?aw.
1 7 5 i a....d n. Sot •I,. ra .
a t • II Debt Him&
'\ (!?1Dft r ....r Ctilmston",. .•-2 A.
% IM
{ 1 - h f art l
1Bill"BaY - Ne??t?d4?! ' r - II as Moth h? 1 CIA. SITE
/? l 5 tall l a,rlni 1 4
1 ?lultnl Gott E ? It I fe M,rDOr
64 t
Sc « s I
ell • waodlt/ I ?? it t 1 N , awo
Gn.,OJ? .. I •9 ' q
t '? e ? 1Cr n.d,tas v,
f timouth ?mhg ?,n I It V
WASHINGTON- Lardnl? 4 mw M°` pm Inlet
r, l D A R E
Y9 PMlcl "Ar; T Y R R E L L
IS - - - t
? ? I Shcpr
Wenan, ! t t-- -
0 5 10 fro
_-- -.?? Scat a MUS 007E MH EWAI.S APMX. 13 L
IOod s,""
/ Q
-. \ °/
--
13
a Aw us? PEA
?OOtE ISLAM l: r.f
?.....r r f ?? !? \ o:..r :i: 1 ISLAND rN
r ?- 1I fc???ll)! 'r GAPE t PAS NATION
1.:?... ?: SEASHOR AT RE
J S p -.
U
PROD Ea sITE
_c a F'` -1 0
1. 14
PEA ISLAND NATIONAL
lv_ p R? 1co.
!D rOr. 1.1 of
w e.wdw.• ? o -
1 ! e I
?j DIVISOR OF HIGHWAYS
\'y DARE COUNT`'
1 PROPOSED GROIN
xAIE AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
i OREGON INLET
__•...,? _? SHEET ?_ OF ?_ 3-89
c (L
O Jt
t b
a Rw xl,tt83 Sa..c"..L
CZ,
. ?? .r?•Tt ? i' .9i;t+?c(• r `111
- ? "ter / 4• ? .
ILIS6 PT
?$7? .a?j 5ibecu?C •y oc
r
118
f' '? i NalllQgl
J
?`C=O?T'eu DC Q '? 254oO
-? ?1v?Tio
. t?pgcl.V
\ 1
tau 'f row- `?. _ 3V+ou
f
pca? I?eo.D
SCALE I" _ IJOO'
IJ C D 0 T
DIVIS014 OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROIN
AI4D REVETMEI4T SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEET 2 OF r_ 3-89
i
i
40'
?
ARMOR STOVE
2 LAYERS '
1 TON STONE

CRI Vr a.. , ?. o

t ? •
1
w+

1.5' FOUNDATION STONE UNDERLAYER STONE
500-1000 1b. z.s
a o to L
30
SCALE 1" = 20' -TYPICAL SECTIOTJ REVETMENT

CREST ELEV. +8.0

. U11D1RWYGSI_YTOW?OOS>< 1?1- A1ttCA t+rwC NG.
? NtET -7IDE r_5.1t .?K I? f?z? 3• c to.+? ixn? .o?y

' 2 ti

LM G-
_• lei t

?' : X11 iz :' z'
Vol ?w r&r-Tor '
5d • 071 CT wa

DK1.0 K
?
'
V
vttll ?O MtrT?.'T? •?.`
Fo
N
N 5.10N •
?p117M ?tlt?. C1t1*1 Rl
7fl LO i0 ?O 10 • t0 ID 10 to 30 40 SO
SCALE 1" = 20' m sE GROIN
Dimension and stone sizes are approxi- NOTPS:
ante and subject to revision during 1• optional Underlayer stone can
design detailing. be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.G. +/- 2.58 with S.G
N=S:
1. Optional underlayer stone can
'
E:
NO'T
be 500 to 1000 lb. dense stone
with S.G. +/- 2.56 or marine
See Shee`
for quantities.
c of
limestone 350 to 650 lbs. with -
S. G. +/- 1.85
2. Foundation stone can be quarry
run dense stone or marine
liar-stone-see secs fo:-
r n T
gradaticn. - - - :. .:= ?NW?? C
Under1--yer store =c^ revet;-e-n', COU'JT•
secticn can be U tc 3r?5 lbs. - ?FOSE= TERMINAL GROIN
dense stone with S.C. +;- 2.5F
SOUTH SHORE
or rn L limest _n 26= ='7C,. E'
_ •?
lbso with S.G. S.i-EET 3 OF _6 3-89
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TERMINAL GROIN AND REVETMENT AT THE
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND
RECEIVED
APR 0 3'89
UWA - cc
TYPE OF MATERIAL QUANTITY
1 Ton Granitic Armor Stone 19,200 tons
3.5 Ton Granitic Armor Stone 92.900 tons
145 lb Marine Limestone Underla!ver ti,500 tons
500 lb Marine Limestone Underlayer X5,000 tong.
Foundation Stone (Marine L/S) 42,500 tons.
Roadway Stone (Marine L/S) 5,500 tons
Excavation and Fill •75,000 cu. yds.
Marine Limestone is optional, can be replaced btu comparable
size O e linear dimensions) granitic stone.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CHANNEL;AND BASIN
L) N D
VA
P P ,r-
mac'
?N?NNEL
AO?E?S
TEMPORARY BULKHEAD
o?
N??G
A , `"
TYPICAL SECTIONS N.T. S.
TOTAL DREDGED
W.S. IKLT. cc ao MATERIAL $ 51,000 cu. yds.
-.3.0 AYG
?:? ?ti•` EL. -e.o
BASIN
WS. AL.T. EL.O.O
-•- ± -3.0 AVG.
ACCESS CHANNEL
N C D 0 T
DIVISON OF HIGHWAYS
DARE COUNTY
PROPOSED TERMINAL GROIN
AND REVETMENT SOUTH SHORE
OREGON INLET
SHEETS OF 6_ 3-89
: ?-
-CALE : I" =600'

SCALE I" = 200'
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
sr = S. 17
. S. COAST GUARD
/1cREs = 7.7±

AREA OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT I r-?
REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MATERIAL 1
AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE
PEA ISLAND
WILDLIFE REFUGE
A w. SLVt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES G. MARTIN P. O. BOX 25201
GOVERNOR RALEIGH 27611-5201
March 31, 1989
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Proposed Terminal Groin and Revetment,
South Shore, Oregon Inlet, Dare County
fl?Il 1, 3'39
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
construct a terminal groin and revetment at the north end of
Pea Island in an effort to stabilize Oregon Inlet in the
vicinity of Highway 12 and Bonner Bridge in Dare County.
This plan of protection has become necessary because of erosion
at the north end of Pea Island which recently accelerated from
an annual rate of 180 ft/yr measured between 1981 and 1988 to an
equivalent annual rate of 1150 ft/yr between April 1988 and
March 1989. During the severe northeast storm that occurred
between March 6th and 10th, 1989, the north end of Pea Island
lost 350 to 400 feet of shoreline. Since April 1988 this
accelerated erosion has destroyed the fresh water pond at the
north end of the island and resulted in the loss of approximately
32 acres of land owned by both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Coast Guard.
The erosion now poses a serious threat to NC Highway 12 where it
approaches the Bonner Bridge and to the southern abutment of the
bridge itself. Due to the economic importance of the bridge and
Highway 12 to the local economy as well as the importance of this
transportation facility to the health and safety of over 5000
residents of Hatteras Island, the N. C. Department of Transportation
decided to implement one of the plans developed by the Oregon
Inlet Task Force in August 1988.
District Engineer
Page 2
March 31, 1989
The protective structures would begin as a sloping rubble revetment
at the Coast Guard Station bulkhead. The revetment would cover about
600 feet of shoreline before joining with a free-standing rubble-
mound type structure, designated as a terminal groin, at a point
where the existing upland area of the island ends. The terminal
groin would project about 550 feet into the inlet before gradually
turning and extending seaward perpendicular to the adjacent
shoreline of Pea Island. This proposed alignment, which is shown
on the attached drawing, would place the groin near the position
the north point of Pea Island occupied in April 1988. The total
length of the terminal groin, measured from its juncture with the
revetment, is about 3200 feet.
The purpose of the revetment and terminal groin is to impede the
southward movement of Pea Island and Oregon Inlet. A stable
accretion fillet, encompassing approximately 60 acres and extending
3500 feet south of the groin, is expected to form in the lee of the
structure. The extension of the groin into the inlet to approxi-
mately the April 1988 shoreline position would provide a wave
shadow for the southern bridge abutment. The erosion of over
1000 feet of shoreline at the north end of Pea island since
April 1988 has exposed the southern bridge abutment to direct
attack of ocean waves.
Once the fillet forms in the lee of the groin, which will likely
occur during the construction period of the groin, natural sand
transport around the inlet via the offshore bar should continue.
Therefore, the groin is not expected to have any detrimental
impacts on island processes south of the fillet. Numerous
examples of this type of fillet development are available at
other project sites including: Fort Macon State Park near
Beaufort Inlet, NC; the south side of Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida;
and the south side of Masonboro Inlet.
Other than stabilizing the position of the north end of Pea Island
and Oregon Inlet, the proposed plan would not affect inlet
navigation. Shoaling and shifting of the inlet's ocean bar
channel will continue. By stabilizing the position of Oregon
Inlet, however, the revetment and groin will greatly lessen the
potential need for bridge replacement at Oregon Inlet in the
immediate future. If Oregon Inlet is not prevented from
migrating southward, a replacement bridge would have to be
extended an additional 4000 to 5000 feet south to accommodate
future inlet movements.
District Engineer
Page 3
March 31, 1989
In order to assist the construction process, an access channel
for supply vessels may be required off the northern end of
Pea island (see drawings, Sheet 5). This channel will function
as an alternative to land based routes needed for transport of
materials to the site.
Our Department is in the process of obtaining the necessary
Special Use Permits from the Department of the Interior, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and from the U. S. Coast Guard. Copies
of these permits will be forwarded to you upon receipt.
Application is hereby made to the Department of the Army for
permit approval to allow work to proceed. By copy of this letter,
we are requesting review and issuance of a CAMA permit by the
office of Coastal Management and issuance of 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management, NRCD.
Given the importance of this project to the health, safety and
welfare of our residents and visitors along the Outer Banks,
your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Jerry
McCrain at 919-733-7842.
Sincerely,
c?
LRG/GRM/jcr
Attachments
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
M s.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
t'9 r .
John Parker, CAMA
Paul Wilms, ATT: Mr.
John Taylor, USFWS
L. K. Gantt, USFWS
Tommy Harrelson
George Wells, PE
Tommy Peacock, PE
W. M. Ingram, 'PE
A. L. Hankins, PE
L. A. Sanderson, PE
John Smith, PE
Jim Greenhill, PE
C. 0. White, PE
G. R. McCrain
L.'R. Goode, Ph.D., PE
Manager, Program & Policy Branch
Bill Mills, DEM, NRCD
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-0089-N-028-0271 April 6, 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS,
Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201, has applied for a
Department of the Army permit TO CONSTRUCT A REVETMENT AND TERMINAL GROIN,
INCLUDING EXCAVATION OF A WORK CHANNEL, ON THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, OREGON INLET,
NORTH END OF PEA ISLAND, Dare County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during onsite visits by representatives
of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show the
proposed construction of a sloping-rubble revetment, reaching approximately 70
feet waterward, beginning at the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station bulkhead and
extending for approximately 600 feet to where the existing upland portion of
the island ends. From this point, a 100-foot-wide, rubble, terminal groin is
to extend approximately 550 feet into Oregon Inlet before gradually turning
and extending oceanward perpendicular to the beachfront. This proposed
alignment would place the groin near where the shoreline of Pea Island was in
April 1988. Since that time, nearly 1000 feet of beach shoreline has eroded.
The total length of the groin, measured from its junction with the revetment,
is to be approximately 3200 feet. A total of approximately 73,000 cubic yards
of quarry rock is to be placed waterward of the mean high water (MHW)
elevation contour. A stable accretion fillet, encompassing approximately 60
acres, is expected to form in the lee of the structure.
The groin will not have any detrimental impact on island processes south of
the worksite as natural sand transport across the inlet will continue after
the fillet has formed. Examples of this type of fillet development are
present at Masonboro and Beaufort Inlets, North Carolina and Ponce de Leon
Inlet, Florida. The groin will not have any affect on inlet navigation as
shoaling and shifting on the inlet's ocean bar channel would continue. To
assist construction of the revetment/groin, in lieu of using land based routes
for transport of materials, a 3,300-foot-long, 60-foot-wide, work channel may
be excavated by hydraulic dredge to a depth of 5 feet, mean low water (MLW).
The approximate 55,000 cubic yards of material (sand) excavated to establish
this channel would be used for beach nourishment in the area that has eroded.
The purpose of the design is to impede the southward movement of Oregon Inlet
and the subsequent erosion of Pea Island. The work is to provide protection
-2-
from erosion for the southern N.C. Highway 12 Bridge abutment and Oregon Inlet
Coast Guard Station and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge properties. The
erosion, presently threatening the highway and bridge, is a serious threat to
the economy, health and safety of more than 5,000 residents of Hatteras
Island. Plans showing the work are included with this public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management for their
review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the applicability
of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management or
their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration and the North
Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources, pursuant to the
State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army permit will be denied if any required
State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No Department of
the Army permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received
and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to
furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies
directly to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of
Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment
period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider
this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
I
I
-3-
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
-4-
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
April 28, 1989.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before April 24, 1989, Attention:
Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Cliff Winefordner, until
4:15 p.m., May 8, 1989, or telephone [phone].
I
(? ?. .1 ` 11 l`? Ily
' \`Q •'1 ` nlr.:,:' l;•t..ar-.?i?`?.?'y'r r?'t •1 ?1, i i
•S6
.y ir?r.,l,v 1, ??i 41.1 t,.f. v?rr'L Uf ?? i Ifllwurr v..k•
? ?'-•' ? 'b1?r,4f. r;i ll'• I??I '/ ?t?? Ai !? e. ?Ir,,n•..lef ,fr
/ .I f? 1? G? ? 'lr i 1 Gmart2{ , ? ?4 I tlufl? ?, ',
it , r rw ?' ?`` r• , ! r?Iv ? i i },1 f? ?'?. ? 1. r'f:'I?/:;rr? "r^"'
1 1' _/ U4.I?M, • ?I ?' r?.r /... ,T'Li??.1?` ? Ywll +r'f { `y '
{,w. ? 1!.I.i \ 1 Iti _ ,, 1 ,. l 4} 1 .. \l,, O.n;l N, ua
` w 1 If / r
???1 ,?'?,,•...?? I ?+.?.'..?'?? ,?i ? ? ?v.}.?`i'1'?f.'1?r ? vr,?? I.?II,??r??
1n ?A N } f '• f 4 ti{ ?•. . i?` r of lrri . (..•
+ L4" ,.tl r lls.¦ r

U $CA'

W.",
' , ? i ^ >': ?s« w •. f. ? / 11/'.s. i rl .? •,>. ' 1y1. r t f { •?/ow •.ww w.w
01' ?f ? 'la.l ro?l•w?, IUII
? r?a ? , : I Oe.v H(YI
r 1411x"' " . _. n..N?...,?, -.?,,.._.. ' i ,..:? ?.:?.. t ?. /..?1 " {?l: ?,.?.,.,?- " -- --?._.._---..
I? ....- •.V./: Y•y ??tI. I1f Mi.I Ilfr'y 1 1,., '??/ijD-111Y1 f.yy. K».! 1 1 +y? ?
-(I'roe Nrl :w r.l ?.. 1 ..-M' lr nr.iil V- .?rrr -+./i.,• 11.t Il.aa1 i y M {
,.1 1 ? 1 r i •1• li lyr o,. - l,u ? ly!
yM iw,Itr.yJ??•'n'rhu.. .ir?n.,..,.r ?1q•?`f Yf-..M41v,? , \?9 ?M0
1 Iy 1'.: •. r•l. V. H i M iwlN
1'rrl/.1 d,f4. I ? l? f ?
.•....F. III ?
?ILI
I 1"`>s
M , ,0 f? qj 1
. fY?'.w•rW e.VI .M!N}I/q:tn4 ?{lWf'T-w fl
,.+ .. .. -( WWIMt? ;y?l Yi: 0.Lr11fN M1N.h .+Mitr ? ...._-... Y, ?1U ?N IJN
?? ' / •--•`••'?u ? /. '?'1 n'.J"f .V.t.11'e?NMl:trt-/.JrfrA>?7.?IrM1?yj?FF•w. ....?...._ ._ ...v.....__
1
v..yrr...l..,f,?? ?•.. +..: '.-. _ .•M ...r11Pp+.J t:w YU;Nr: fy?1?r'o.+..yl'^?;; ' '' 'i_?`
?? IiI?A?`-_? _..? r? »..?r.rM 1?(i•M n4 w'ql:#-,%y ?/' * 1///1 ,
?.? t ?,/,rl ???"?T? '? ?.'l ~???^M? ?+1f ?y??."? ?'. ? ?I ?/ ?1`tti l,?.i.;(??."Y 1•-•` \? ': 'r'?y`x ' ? •'"?"'1- 1
L Ilul'4f ,/ 3! ?i s?j 1 I b!Z"e :?;' r I ?' I r , 1 •..••1,J1'• .-r... ?fawr?,•p'?_-- Yfy,.,,?F ' .
rt.rr °??I .L R.M, t1.4?1{)1•i ??«'??:i? ``? r .
.. '-? %- ? . r i ?i' 7 f. h .. r?;Y• {?•?'1t?M6:r`?:)1' ? . _' , fj

T, R
J:1:49Jp rlnyitJYl^l
j lr
OF U:ICiN4?A`CS
RLDgING AND
("OREI,I?4fi STA011,1ZA111:ON
ly
SHORE OREQUN INLET

a

N ?•
io?
-y
I (tr? i f _-ti Tw?? G ?? 4 f4 1'?y y,?.• }/'l?f/! {''^.
? ? I _ t ?' r sv if ?1 1 •
1J. ?_,'. ? ;y ' r;?` I???it 1? t. ? t ?:7i ??r•;/ ??If 1 •?

Y' P
lk?
Jw

rf• .rs,,•
, I.
t
...
z. .?
f
1 _
,'
7 14' , t f f ..1
,? ? 'f?rA 71.yN :C
w

r
yf,t. 2 '' a> .. ., 1

Ap ),1,1?fr1 =a.yc•.
%v o

e
_ r•?'t'00

?! I
1.- ?a?i?o?,
t_!
ri{Ai: ?IEl1t.'
; CAL ,1400'
if (t HWAYS
HARE COUNTY
r"fk. P"),';1; D
R?EVETPEN`!' SOUTH SHC
I)? ,t9irrlr '1
HEEir_.L_ OF ?? 3-89

ARMOR STOPIF. '
LAYEAS !
I TON STONE ??

- -
? r
?
?
'S
N? i
•ii ty? ? . `l I ???1 s/ .+M'
}
"? M
?^
LZ ? fly}•?.
?•... ?
x
w? +w. ' it
_
r
r i,.# IL
1 t•,.i Ili 1, ?,-.1 /t' f l?rl e.. ..ti _y
,e
I I

J

.L (A1.? ?Yr ?{„ 1
711
- "IF I?I
i?t l.? Y. w: '?b'4} t,?7tw 4'. e%l')•

?
?
{ ? ? ?•I I 1 ? ?
i 1 }' Yt I 1 ,

.
I? ? I
. . .. .>,..
;

I i

11 :Nu 40
A
U: SCALE 1"

gum-
};'.'jI.1'dr'T' :,f;Ul?? '.'"c; r,
.1
?
` lr
}r•?r i j ? .,,
????,'71 1 ..
.
.
_

NOTES ' i

.

Ulm In S . A ST,;, OF 3-89
.".1
r: ",'Vi l ER I At.
t i^ = ?. t'. cat 'rite .. _ .. ...t.'.i r•. _
C] UN Sf I `T Y
.????U tong
?Z . 701a n
r t>?.(??! tQlt?
:; ,:OCI corlE
...,, 171 P it ( 4
I I.'Y1( (1;;
t1
OF 3--9

c`l?iti',.1'' (.t;.';i:.,`1tII'.?,' 'I ,i..'(.... "rt?`??'?:.?.. I?sJ`. L'•Fs?.if1?5
n r?
r

1•
• ? yt.
y'. y
?rrr;y.

0 (1 .........a 'Ar ??•.?? Lr E''
J
BA.-"IN
H '
?1Ci;^aS C"MMINNEI,
, 14 f4
k _ ?C
;?'nStL Tz;FtrgZ?JAL ;1H'?.[,i
:?RErQIv' ri?Lu'?? 1 _ ?
?fp"yfr" • --

J

}''l:n{?J(,..
f
ih `\ ?•,\ \

\ .
. tt)

I

i

i

- ------- -- ---
i
`