20210596 Ver 1_Other Agency Submittal_20210806

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
r Yes r No
ID#* Version*
20210596
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Robert Tankard:eads\rbtankard
Select Reviewing Office:* Washington Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: * r
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r
New Project
r
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
r
More Information Response
r
Other Agency Comments
r
Pre -Application Submittal
r
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
r
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
(-- Yes C No
Please choose the commenting agency.*
r DCM Comments C DCM Permit
r DFM Comments C USFWS Comments
r WRC Comments C Other
Project Contact Information
Name: Maria Dunn
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
20210596 1
20170001(no dashes) 1
Project Name: Town of Kitty Hawk Shoreline Protection Project
Is this a public transportation project?
C Yes
(-- No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
(-- Yes C No C Unknown
County (ies)
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
dick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
CMDF_Town of Kitty Hawk_NCWRC".pdf 2.54MB
Only pdf or lqm files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:

Sign and Submit
W By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
■ I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
■ I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
■ I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ 1 understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
■ I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
T &a
Submittal Date: Is filled in autorratically.

ROY COOPER
MICHAEL S. REGAN
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dbvclor. L>ivisioi) afCousial
Aiuliagentent
June 23, 2021
MEMORANDUM:
FROM: Heather Coats, Beach & Inlet Management Project Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
127 N Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
(Courier 04-16-33)
heather. coats(rDNCD_ENR.gov
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill
Applicant: Town of Kitty Hawk
Project Location: From 8 Sea Bass Cir. (Southern Shores) to E. Helga St (Kill Devil Hills), adjacent to
the Atlantic Ocean in Kill Devil Hills, Dare County
Proposed Project: Applicant is requesting reauthorization of the Town's beach nourishment project to
include approximately 20, 970' of shoreline that spans the entire shoreline of Kitty
Hawk and to include possible 1000' tapers to 8 Sea Bass Circle to E. Helga Street.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 18, 2029. If you have any questions
regarding the proposed project, contact Heather Coats at [phone] when appropriate, in-depth
comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
**Additional comments may be attached"*
/ This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
of This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
PRINT NAME 4Our Io.-T. _)Dk>l n
AGENCY _ I� C/V
SIGNATURE
DATE ?-�,_ 2-0
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive F+:t_, Wilmington, NC 29405 919 7% 7215

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
FROM: Maria T. Dunn., Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: August 6, 2021
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for Town of Kitty Hawk, Dare County,
North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the pen -nit
application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is located along the
entire oceanfront shoreline in Kitty Hawk, NC adjacent the Atlantic Ocean. Our comments are provided
in accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128),
as amended, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(FCMA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712 et
seq.).
The Town of Kitty Hawk has submitted a NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) application for
a one-time nourishment event along the oceanfront shoreline as part of the Dare County Multi -Town
Shore Protection PIan. This event follows a 2017 event (NCDCM # 133-15, USACE SAW-2014-02204,
NCDWR #15-0460) and is proposed to occur during the summer of 2022, placing material along 3.9
miles of shoreline. The proposed design expands the project from the 2017 project to include two
potential tapers from 8 Sea Bass Circle in Southern Shores South to E. Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills if
done as a standalone project, placing approximately 1,521,645 CY of material along 20,970' of
oceanfront shoreline. The proposed construction template consists of variable width berm 32' to 144' at
an elevation of+6' NAVD88 with a 15:1 slope to tie into grade around -5' to -11' NAVD88. This
proposal also includes an engineered dune design that increases crest elevation to +18' NAVD88
(previously +14' NAVD88) with a crest width of 25' fronted by a 4:1 slope (previously permitted at a 3,1
slope) to tie into elevation +6' NAVD. Sand fencing is proposed only in areas of dune erosion.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
All material would be obtained from `Borrow Area A", located approximately 5 to 6.5 miles offshore
within the Outer Continental Shelf in federal waters managed by the Bureau. of Ocean Energy
Management (BOHM) with `Borrow Area C" as a backup. Within Kitty Hawk, the total fill area below
MHW is 5,177,401 ft2 (118.86 acres) and the total fill area above MHW is 3,065,462 ft2 (70.37 acres).
Native beach material for Kitty Hawk had a mean grain size of 0.38 mm, with 0.9411/o silt, 6.38% granular,
l .64% gravel, and 2.0% carbonate. The applicant proposes to conduct these activities during the summer,
which encompasses sea turtle and shore bird nesting seasons.
The NCWRC is very familiar with the project proposal, having participated in scoping meetings for this
project as well as involvement with the previous two nourishment projects. We have assessed the project
for impacts to wildlife resources, particularly coastal waterbirds, sea turtles, and beach invertebrates.
Federally protected species that utilize the area include piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus), red
knot (Calidris canutus rufa), roseate tern (.sterna dougallii dougallii) and Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys
kernpi), hawksbill (Eretmochelys lmbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Conducting nourishment activities during the nesting
shorebird moratorium, April 1 — August 31, and the sea turtle nesting moratorium, May 1 — November 15,
or until the last known nest has hatched, may have an adverse effect on some individuals even if measures
are taken to minimize impacts. These moratoria were established to protect threatened and endangered
species that use the shoreline for foraging and nesting. Although we understand weather during the winter
months will make the project more difficult, the impact of this project and the cumulative impact of other
projects during the nesting season may adversely affect wildlife resources.
A summer month construction schedule includes the time of peak migration for beach nesting shorebirds.
These birds forage in the project area during their migration along the Atlantic shore. Potential impacts
may include direct disturbance of birds as a result of continuous construction activities and decreased
recruitment of invertebrates that provide food. Placement of material on the beach during the stunmer
season would decrease invertebrate populations, especially if beach nourishment work is done in
subsequent years. Placement of material on the beaches outside the summer months would minimize
these impacts. It is unclear from the permit application the definition of the long-term management
program, the triggers that would initiate another nourishment activity, and the anticipated frequency of
events. Frequency of nourishment events greatly affects invertebrate recruitment and beach recovery.
Dredging, especially by hopper dredges, during May through November would increase the likelihood of
sea turtle t4kc , incidents. The Nutional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) limits the number of incidental
takes of sea turtles by dredge activity in the Southeastern United States. While we understand the new
South Atlantic Region Biological Opinion (SARBO) has altered many management measures for dredge
activities, further discussion on how to deter incidental take of sea turtles during hopper dredge use,
protocol in case of sea turtle capture, potential tagging methodology for captured sea turtles, and
notification protocol will be discussed during pre -construction meetings. The previous nourishment event
for Dare County experienced significantly higher than expected interactions with sea turtles, including 74
trawl relocations and 2 lethal dredge takes. Any dredge activity allowed during nesting season must
anticipate these interactions and plan accordingly. Consistent tagging, reporting, and release protocols are
expected and should be detailed during preconstruction meetings.
Additionally, the placement of material on beaches may disrupt turtle nesting by causing lost nesting
opportunities, destruction of unmarked nests (not all eggs can be successfully located by nesting
monitors), and the misorientation of hatchlings due to artificial lights used at night on construction
equipment. Misorientation could be minimized with the use of directional LED lights that have a
predominant wavelength of about 650 m-n. Lighting on the beach at night should be minimized to what is
necessary for safe operations and if equipment used on the beach at night do not have the proper LED
lights, operation should occur under acceptable lights without the use of traditional lights and

Page 3
wavelengths. Even with the intensive monitoring for nesting turtles, a percentage of nests are still
expected to be unsuccessful due to missed nests or relocation failures. Some indirect impacts may include
an increased disturbance of nesting females and reduced availability of suitable nesting habitat due to
changes in the beach's physical characteristics, such as increased escarpment formation, increased
compaction levels, and other changes.
Any plans that move the seaward toe of the frontal dune system significantly waterward the existing dune
profile of the beach is concerning, especially as it approaches the MHW line. Due to beach equilibration
after project completion, the width of the public trust beach after such proposals would likely be less than
the current beach width or the desired beach width firom previous seasons. Because of the dynamic nature
of the ocean shoreline, the design of the dunes should not expand significantly but mimic the profile of
previous stable beach conditions to reduce the likelihood of escarpments and the ultimate loss of sea turtle
nesting habitat and recreational beach. Escarpments along the beach would likely increase in size,
frequency and duration if the beach width is reduced so tides reach the dunes and erode the dune face
more readily. Escarpments would need to be managed so they are no greater than IS" in height for a
maximum distance of 100'. Management of these areas would need to be conducted outside sea turtle
nesting season as much as possible unless it is determined their presence precludes nesting activity. Final
beach berm profiles should not be lipped or elevated higher at the MHW line than landward the MHW.
Beaches with profiles that raise as they interface with the ocean create "bowls" or areas of inundation that
is detrimental to sea turtle nests.
The current proposal includes an engineered dune system. There are several areas where a trough on the
backside of the dune is shown or it does not connect to existing elevations creating a valley behind the
dune (Stations 30+6, 40+24, 20+3, 50+28, 160+00, 169+70, 189+87). Any backslope on newly
constructed dunes and beaches or any troughs that exist between the constructed area and the frontal dune
system obstructs the line of sight for a turtle. This obstruction may hinder the adult female from finding
the ocean, leading to additional post nesting exhaustion. The obstructed line of sight also may prevent
hatchlings from orienting to the ocean or physically block their path, leading to increased predation and
death from extended time on the ,shore. There have been several instances recently where adult female
turtles have traversed over dunes onto the backside and needed assistance to return to the ocean.
Therefore, the areas on the plans that demonstrate a trough will be present after construction or do not tie
into existing elevations should be corrected to more adequately imitate a natural beach. It is understood
this type of design should be incorporated in the engineering phase but may need some on the ground
adjustments due to the dynamic nature of ocean shorelines and the time from project review to
implementation.
The current proposal has changed the waterward dune face from a 3:1 slope (permitted) to a 4:1 slope.
This more gentle slope does not mimic natural dune systems as well as the 3:1 slope and serves as less of
a deterrent to sea turtles who may more easily traverse the dunes. The NCWRC recornmends continuance
of the 3:1 slope design.
In addition to our statements on wildlife resources present in the project area, the concern for nourishment
activities during their nesting seasons, and the presence of troughs and valleys behind the engineered dune
system, the NCWRC offers the following for any permitted activity regardless of the time of year:
• Information including pipeline alignment, equipment access, and any survey
information, if necessary, should be provided prior to project start. This is generally
done in a pre -construction meeting with state and federal agencies.
• Beach quality material that is compatible with native beach material and meets the NC
Division of Coastal Management's (NCDCM) sediment criteria is essential. If during

Page 4
constriction non -compatible material is placed on the beach, nourishment activities
should stop, state and federal agencies should be notified, and it should be determined
if the dredge needs to move to an alternative location within the borrow source to
obtain compatible material. Additionally, state and federal agencies should assess the
non -compatible material for removal to determine if mitigation is required.
Compatibility includes grain size, percent fines, calcium carbonate, color, and clast
count. Concerns may be stated and remediation requested even if the material meets
the sediment criteria but changes the habitat suitability of the beach. This includes
high concentrations of shell hash, compaction, and color of material.
The application includes and engineered dune system. The NCWRC supports the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommendations on dune construction and beach
profiles. These recommmendations minimize misorientation of nesting females and
hatchlings, increasing nest success. A nesting female sea turtle is not deterred from
nesting on newly constructed areas with a gentle slope of 5:1 or less. A 3:1 slope is
preferred. Any backslope on newly constructed dunes and beaches or any troughs that
exist between the constructed area and the frontal dune system obstructs the line of
sight for a turtle and may cause significant stress. Therefore, any new or modified
material placed on the beach should tie into the existing profile in a manner to not
create backslope or troughs. If existing profiles exhibit topography conditions that
lend themselves to this situation, the area should be remediated prior to project
implementation.
• Visual surveys for escarpments along the project area must be made immediately after
completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1 Escarpments that
interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100
feet must be leveled and the beach profile reconfigured to minimize scarp formation
by May 1.
Shoreline stabilization measures, including dune planting and sand fencing, have
recently been conducted within the project area. This management tool should be
taken into account when planning nourishment activities. Consideration should be
given to existing vegetation and structures, as well as any proposals post nourislunent.
Just as with any activity on the shore, measures should be in-iplcmOnted to follow
existing regulatory definitions and rule and minimize wildlife impacts. Guidance can
be received by the NCWRC and USFWS regarding dune planting and sand fence
installation. Sanding fencing should be at the toe of the frontal dune and not extend
well onto the beach. In general, the NCWRC requests activities occur as much as
possible outside the sea turtle nesting season and that contact continues throughout
this project or any other upcoming planting events during nesting season. As an
education and guidance tool, the following link can be referenced:
h s:llcoiitent.ces.nesu.edu/restoration-and-mans ement-of-coastal-dune-ve etation
While the NCWRC understands the engineered design and permit must be based upon
survey data from a set date and point, we must also recognize ocean front shorelines
are very dynamic. Therefore, it is requested that prior to conducting nourishment
activities, a survey is conducted approximately three months prior to the final
construction design to provide an accurate representation of the beach profile.
Adjustments may need to be made after the survey to compliment the intent of the
permit as well as to protect environmental and public resources.

Page S
In conclusion, the NCWRC is concerned with the increased frequency and extent of beach nourishment
and the potential cumulative impact of these projects to shoreline habitats, especially when conducted
during nesting season for such an extensive area of shoreline. This project along with other projects in the
area will disrupt a significant amount of nesting habitat during one season. Our preference would be for
the project to be constructed outside of the sea turtle and shore bird nesting seasons. However, due to the
circumstances of the proposal, we will not object to the issuance of the permit provided measures to
minimize impacts to wildlife resources are included and NCWRC is allowed to work with our federal
partners and the contractor to ensure the most effective mitigation strategies are employed. These
strategies include but are not limited to sea turtle trawling procedures (true relocation versus non -capture
trawling), incidental capture protocols, nighttime construction guidelines, and monitoring protocols.
Overall, our agency supports the guidelines and specific recommendations within the U SF W S's
biological opinion (BO) and believes that document is an important source of information to outline
permit conditions. Our agency will coordinate with them and the applicant to ensure understanding of
allowances, conditions, and measures needed to minimize impacts to wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for this permit application. We understand projects of
this nature require extensive coordination and are looking forward to future communications. If there are
any comments, questions, or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at maria.dunn La)ncwildlife.org