20221509 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20221101

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
November 1, 2022
MEMORANDUM
�nEQ
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
Office: 252-515-5416 (Courier 11-12-09)
gregg.bodnara_NCDENR.gov
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
Applicant: Town of Morehead City
Project Location: Sugarloaf Island (South of Evans Street)
Proposed Project: Excavate, sills, & wave attenuators
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Gregg Bodnar at the address above by November 22, 2022. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Brad Connell 252-515-5415.
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**
PRINT NAME
AGENCY
SIGNATURE
DATE
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Moorehead City, North Carolina 28557
NORTH CAROUNA -
Oepadment01EnWronmenmlQuality /� 252.808.2808

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: Morehead City
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project is located adjacent to Sugarloaf Island
south of Evans Street near downtown Morehead City Harbor Channel, Carteret County.
Latitude:34°43'4.89"N Longitude: 76142'38.13"W
INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE
Date(s) of Site Visit — none
Was Applicant or Agent Present No
Photos Taken — No
PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — cc: 10/4/22
Office — MHC
SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Morehead City
Land Classification from LUP —Developed
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA, EW, CW, ES
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — composting toilet
Planned -none
(F) Type of Development: Existing —dock and restroom facilities
Planned - shoreline stabilization and excavation
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: DREDGED FILLED INCORP/SHADED
(A) Shallow Bottom 20,000 ft' 80,552 ft2
(B) High Ground 35,708 ft2
(E) Total Area Disturbed: 136,260 ft2
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: SA; HQW Open: No
(H) Cultural Resources: None
Proiect Summary: The applicant wishes to excavate and construct a habitat
enhancement area protected by sills & wave attenuators within Bogue Sound &
Harbor Channel for public use adjacent to Sugarloaf Island in Morehead City,
Carteret County.

Field Investigation Report:
Sugarloaf Island
Page 2
Narrative Description:
The proposal is located adj acent to Sugarloaf Island within Bogue Sound in Morehead City, Carteret
County. This property is currently developed with a restroom facility and a dock. This proposal is
for public use.
The elevation of the high ground on the property is approximately 6' above the normal high water
level. Vegetation on the property mainly consists of native shrubs and Coastal Wetlands. There is
approximately 7,743' of shoreline on this 14-acre tract.
Water depths in the project area range from —0.5' to —12.0' nlw. The subaqueous substrate is firm
with shell. There is a Federal Channel in the nearby vicinity of the project area. There is not a
cultural resource in the project area. This waterbody is approximately 3,070' across at this location.
These estuarine waters are not classified as a Primary Nursery Area. Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is not present within the project area. However, historical data suggests the presence of SAV
habitat adjacent to the northwest side of Sugarloaf Island. This waterbody is closed to shellfish
harvest and is classified as SA; HQW.
Proposed Development:
The applicant is proposing to conduct excavation and construct shoreline stabilization within Bogue
Sound adjacent to Sugarloaf Island in Morehead City, Carteret County. A habitat enhancement and
monitoring component is also being proposed. This proposal is for public/government use.
The applicant is proposing to construct two sill structures made from proprietary materials. The first
sill would be adj acent to the northwest end of the island. It would be 5' wide and 840' long with 10'-
wide openings at 250' intervals. It would be sited in -2' nlw depth with 6" of exposure at low tide.
The second sill would adjacent to the southern shoreline of the island. It would be 5' wide and 2,764'
long with 10'-wide staggering gaps at 230' intervals. It would be sited in 2' nlw depth approximately
10' waterward of the shoreline, with 6" of exposure at low tide.
The applicant is also proposing a concrete wave attenuator revetment. It would be constructed
predominantly adjacent to the south side of the island and would wrap around the east and west ends
of the island, ranging from 40' waterward of the shoreline up to 400' offshore. This proposed
revetment would be 18' wide and 3,474' long with openings ranging from 27'-wide up to 200'-wide
at varying intervals. It would be sited along the -4' nlw depth contour with 3.6' of exposure at low
tide. The wave attenuator would have pilings with reflectors and lighting in order to alert vessel
operators of the structure's presence during periods of low visibility. These marker pilings would be
sited at the openings and at varying intervals along the wave attenuator.
The proposed wave attenuator revetment would tie into the shoreline on eastern terminus of the island
and transition into a traditional rip rap revetment. It would be approximately 35' south of the edge of
the Federal Channel and within the Federal Channel setback of Harbor Channel. This revetment
would also be 18' wide and 206' long. Immediately waterward of this shoreline armoring, the
applicant is proposing to excavate approximately 7,000 cubic yards. This 20,000 square foot
Brad Connell October 31, 2022 Morehead City

Field Investigation Report:
Sugarloaf Island
Page 3
excavation would tie into the -12' nlw depth within the center of the Federal Channel.
The excavated spoil material would be temporarily contained within a 3,000 square foot unvegetated
area immediately landward of the rip rap revetment. This spoil material would then later be utilized
for habitat restoration efforts in the nearshore areas of Sugarloaf Island, landward of the proposed
wave attenuator system's alignment. The intent of this proposed fill would be to enhance SAV and
Coastal Wetland habitats with associated native coastal riparian plantings.
Anticipated Impacts:
The proposed rip rap revetment would impact 3,708 square feet of Public Trust Area within the
Federal Channel setback of Harbor Channel. The proposal would excavate approximately
20,000 square feet of shallow bottom. It would fill 80,552 square feet of shallow bottom and
35,708 of high ground. The proposed shoreline stabilization structures would usurp
approximately 450,000 square feet of Public Trust Area and dramatically alter traditional marine
vessel ingress/egress to Sugarloaf Island.
Traditional marine construction equipment would be utilized during the construction of this
project. Temporary turbidity impacts are anticipated during the excavation activities within
Harbor Channel. This waterbody is not classified as a Primary Nursery Area. There is SAV
habitat present within the project area. This waterbody is closed to shellfish harvest.
Brad Connell October 31, 2022 Morehead City

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
Project Name: Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Owner: Town of Morehead City
Non -Profit Project Sponsor: North Carolina Coastal Federation
Consultants: Sea & Shoreline (S&S), Quible & Associates, P.C. (Quible), Dr. Ping Wang
(USF), Dr. Hannah Sirianni (ECU), Scott Bartkowski (Living Shoreline Solutions), Niels Lindquist
(Sandbar Oyster Co.), David Mallinson (ECU)
Vicinity and Background
Sugarloaf Island is a small island located in the downtown harbor area of Morehead City on
Bogue Sound. Historically, Sugarloaf was a coastal marsh island that was utilized as a dredge
disposal area in the 1920's and 1930's and perhaps on occasion afterwards up through the
1950's. The island has naturalized and hosts a broad range of coastal environments, such as
tidal flats, sand spits (east and west ends), maritime forest, an embayment, peat beds, erosion
escarpments (south side), heavily rippled sand bottom, tidal creek, coastal wetlands, low dunes
and ridges and oyster beds (north side). Sugarloaf is adjacent to the Federal Navigation
Channel on its north and east sides [See enclosed CAMA plans (Appendix A) and the USACE
Hydrographic Survey from 2019 (Appendix B)].
It has been clear that the island is being eroded at an alarmingly rapid rate. This is a result of
common wind and wave forces, tropical storm events, sea level rise, strong tidal flow, and boat
generated wake. The island not only supports a wide variety of coastal habitats that are being
threatened, but this island has become an important protective barrier for the harbors,
businesses, residences and the downtown waterfront area in Morehead City as a whole. Rapid
loss of the island has exposed portions of the downtown to direct wave impacts and would
continue to do so (if no action is taken) until the island is gone and the waterfront completely
exposed. Sugarloaf also offers recreational opportunities for locals and visitors. The island is
owned by the Town of Morehead City who allows and supports passive recreation. Boaters
enjoy tying up on the island to spend the day or to fish. Due to the steep erosion escarpment
and excessive amount of downed trees on the south shore, beach goers have used the ends of
the island and the north side in recent years. The Town has a public dock on the north side
where boaters can tie up or get dropped off to explore the island. Sugarloaf is also utilized by
the Town for Fourth of July fireworks.
Data Collection
In April 2022, Quible performed a bathymetric survey of the waters surrounding the island using
RTK GPS. This included using a single -beam ecosounder in addition to shooting beach profile
transects around the perimeter of the island. In addition, we surveyed the mean low water line,
mean high water, location of erosion escarpment, exposed peat beds, edge of coastal wetlands,
the tidal creek and other landforms.
The north side of the island is adjacent to a portion of the heavily utilized Federal Navigation
Channel. We have consulted with representatives of the US Army Corps (USACE) Navigation
Branch. Please see attached notes from a virtual meeting with USACE from June 3, 2022
(Appendix C). It is understood that there is a 52 ft setback from the edge of the Federal
channel on the Sugarloaf Island side. This line is shown on Sheets 2-4. The eastern tip of the
island extends into the Federal Channel. While USACE has no short-term plan to dredge the

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
channel, they have expressed support for dredging of this area if sponsored by the Town or
others. Any proposed work within the setbacks (including dredging or wave attenuation) would
need to be addressed through a "Section 408" review. The work proposed within the setback
and channel itself includes minor dredging, and living shoreline stabilization measures.
Hydrodynamic Modeling
Dr. Ping Wang, Oceanographer from the University of Southern Florida, was engaged to study
and model the wave and tidal forces and effects at Sugarloaf. In May 2022, Quible was present
to assist Dr. Wang and his assistant to set current and wave meters at Sugarloaf. They have
also obtained historic wind and water -level data to model existing conditions. An assessment
report by Dr. Wang (Appendix D) verifies that there are extreme erosive conditions on a normal
basis and that large storms result in rapid, large-scale erosion. This was already known and
can be clearly seen by the local community, but Dr. Wang's analysis has been influential in
determining the appropriate protection options for Sugarloaf. Our design takes into account the
results of Dr. Wang's analysis for specifying the height, stability, alignment and type of wave
protection device, but we have also had to draw from our experience in State and Federal rules
and regulations associated with permitting for restoration projects. The intent is to design a
viable project can be permitted and implemented under the Joint State -Federal "291" Process.
Cost is also an important factor, and some grant money has been secured which must be
utilized by the end of 2023. Vetting of this system has been done with the Town and all
stakeholders/consultants involved to date.
An interagency scoping meeting was held on August 10, 2022. Since the meeting, several
regulatory and resource agency representatives that were not able to attend the scoping
meeting have been provided all background information that others in attendance were
provided.
Proposed Project
Wave Attenuation Svstem
The dominant protective solution that is proposed to be utilized is the WAD® (Wave Attenuation
Device) system that would be configured along the alignment shown on Sheets 2-4 which is
close to the mean high water line from 2011 and is located at a bottom elevation of
approximately -4.0 (NAVD 88). The WAD® system is a concrete pyramidal unit with holes and
gaps. The structures will be cast in a staging area close to a mitigation or restoration project
and set in place by the use of barges with a crane or excavator. This system was developed by
Living Shoreline Solutions, Inc. (LSS) and has been successfully utilized in numerous projects.
The last sheet of the CAMA Plan set includes schematics of the system specific to Sugarloaf.
For the project, we have designed a two -row system (there are 2 and 4 row options) that will be
7 ft tall. This will allow the top of the WADs® to extend approximately 1.5 ft above current
MHHW. Excessively high tides and storm waves will top the units, but the majority of waves
energy will be dampened, even in those occasions. The units are hollow and have large
openings that provide an excellent source of fish habitat and a substrate for shellfish growth.
There will be periodic larger gaps in the WAD® arrays for boat and paddle craft passage. The
wave modeling suggests that large openings on the south and west sides should be minimized
to avoid creation of funnel-like gaps for that would present the ability for continued excessive
erosion. In addition to providing wave attenuation, the WADs® can help collect sediment that is
in suspension and they also provide a relatively quiescent habitat for SAV and fish. This, in
turn, helps build coastal wetlands and beaches that are otherwise susceptible to the ongoing
E

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
erosion.
Oyster Sill/Reef
In addition to the WADs®, in -water work in our permit proposal includes inner oyster sill/reef
building measures that have been developed by Niels Lindquist from Sandbar Oyster Co.
These consist of biodegradable products that provide an excellent media for oyster recruitment.
These are modular products known as Oyster Catcher TablesTm and Marsh MoundsT"'
Sandbar has designed these modular products that they also install and monitor. This system
will be installed approximately between the low and high tide lines in many areas (see proposed
alignment on Sheets 2-4) where oyster reefs will be part of the restoration efforts. As depicted
on the plan, this nature -based oyster reef system will include large gaps or openings to allow
water flow and passage of aquatic life. It is important to state that due to the dynamic nature of
Sugarloaf, the specific alignment will vary to some degree from what is shown on our plan
sheets, but it will be in the intertidal zone that will allow viable oyster reefs. The total length of
oyster reef media as shown on the plan is 3,604 LF. It is unlikely that this much oyster reef
media will be installed, but in order to maintain the flexibility to select ideal locations, we would
like to permit this much oyster sill/reef. Other Sandbar products made from similar materials
have been permitted through CAMA Minor Permits on Sugarloaf Island already in areas above
the mean high tide line. For those applications, the intent is to collect wind driven sand to assist
with dune establishment.
Native Plantinas
On sand flats and areas adjacent to coastal wetlands, native riparian plantings will be
incorporated. Plantings waterward of the MHW mark will primarily occur after the wave
attenuation systems have been deployed, however, areas above the MHW mark will be planted
sooner. The existing coastal wetlands on Sugarloaf include but are not limited to Juncus
roemerianus (black needle rush), Spartina alternaflora (smooth cordgrass), Spartina patens
(marsh hay), Schoenoplectus americanus (bulrush or three -square), and Distichlis spicata
(saltgrass). Native coastal wetland plantings will include some of these species. Upland
vegetation includes Spartina patens (marsh hay) Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar),
Morella cerifera (wax myrtle), Quercus virginiana (live oak), Baccharis halimifolia
(groundseltree), Uniola paniculata (sea oats) and Ammophila brevigulata (American
beachgrass). Many of these plants will be considered for upland native planting areas.
Submeraed Aauatic Veaetation
A project goal is to provide suitable SAV habitat and possible enhancement of SAV growth. On
Sheets 2-4, we have identified SAV Enhancement Areas that will be a direct result of wave
attenuation (protection). Water depths and existing substrate material are suitable for SAV, but
high the high energy regime now present prevents SAV growth, except for inside the north side
embayment area that is fairly -well protected. SAV mapping data obtained from NCDMF
suggests that there was some SAV present inside the embayment during the time of ground-
truthing and aerial mapping, but none was identified elsewhere. SAV surveying of shallow
waters around the east, west and south perimeters of the island was performed on June 12t" by
Brian Rubino (Quible) and Carter Henne (S&S). The SAV survey procedure included
development of pre -established transects (See Appendix E) with the intent of utilizing the
Braun-Blaunquet method of sampling if SAV was encountered. No SAV was encountered along
the transects or in areas between transects.
3

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
Based on discussions during the scoping meeting and other subsequent discussions with the
project team and resource agencies, the proposed SAV enhancement areas will not be
immediately planted with SAV after the WAD system is installed. This will enable the protected
areas (landward of the WAD arrays) to naturalize for at least one year. This will allow any new
sedimentation patterns to stabilize and this will also allow us to evaluate whether there is any
natural recruitment before plantings occur. It is understood that these are high salinity waters
(>10 ppt) and the species that thrive in adequate environments in this region includes Halodule
wrightii, Zostera marina and to a much smaller degree, Ruppia maritima. Protected shallow
water habitats within nearby areas of Bogue Sound support these species and the intent is to
provide adequate protection, flushing, and water quality to this area that already provides
suitable depths, salinity, temperature and substrate. Anthropogenic impacts to this area from
boat wake and potentially from deep dredging for the INC Port are a likely cause of no current
SAV, in addition to the natural stressors that have caused most of the erosion problems (storms
and sea level rise).
After evaluating the natural recruitment potential (after Year 1), SAV plantings of Halodule
wrightii and Zostera marina will be considered. Any plantings would be done using a bare root
planting technique (Fonseca et al. 1998) throughout the entire injure and at 0.25 m intervals.
The source of SAV for future plantings will be from local cultivated stock to be developed by Sea
& Shoreline and transplanting from local donor beds. Survival of seagrass planting units at the
grounding sites will be determined one -month post -planting. Every four months thereafter,
seagrass shoot density and cover will be monitored via direct shoot counts, the Braun-Blanquet
cover/abundance procedure, and underwater digital. The perimeter of each grounding site, as
well as the depth of unconsolidated sediments will also be recorded on each monitoring event.
In addition, aerial photos will be captured shortly after seagrasses are transplanted, and at one
year and two years post -planting. Baseline (0 day) monitoring will be conducted on the day of
the final restoration action- after planting. Each planting unit will be counted, but will not be
reflected in percent cover or shoot density data. The restoration area will be visually surveyed
for planting unit survival on 30, 180 and 360 day events or until planting units coalesce and
survival of each individual planting unit is no longer detectable. If less than 75% survival has
occurred before the end of Year 1, then remedial planting should occur during the next available
planting period to bring the percentage survival rate to the minimum standard. After remedial
planting, the monitoring schedule will be reset to baseline. A second remedial replanting can be
done, if necessary, and will be determined by the chief field biologist.
Dredging
One proposed action that is not directly associated with habitat restoration is the dredging of the
east tip of the island, where the island has migrated in the Federal navigation Channel and
impact of this have been considered a major maritime safety concern by the Town. The east
tip of the island has been dredged in the past (last performed in 2012) and this portion of the
island is continuing to migrate into the Federal Channel. This has created a very narrow
navigable section of waterway that is heavily used by large and small vessels. As previously
mentioned, the dredging of this area (See Appendix C) was discussed with USACE Navigation
Branch, and they are supportive of this dredging. Please see the CAMA Plan Set (Appendix A)
for the limits of this proposed maintenance dredging. This material is dominantly loose quartz
grained sand. If this portion of work is performed under this permit and not under the USACE
blanket dredge authorizations for Federal Channels, this work will be performed mechanically.
A long reach excavator will dig the material from barge or from land and will place the material
on the island above the MHWL. This will incorporate the material back into the system of the
island. The nature -based protection plan discussed herein is designed to reduce erosion rates
0

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
and the continued migration of this end of the island into the channel. The plan includes a 206 ft
section of rock revetment that will tie into the emergent WAD® system, intended to further
protect this end of the island and to reduce future dredging needs.
Staging and Access
We have been in contact with the INC Port Authority about the ability to utilize a portion of their
property for WAD® fabrication and for staging and loading during the restoration work. This is
the ideal location for this due to the close proximity to Sugarloaf, existing staging and industrial
property and deep water. The Port indicated that they have sufficient space at their facility to
allow for this. The concrete WADs will be poured and cured at the Port and directly transported
by crane to a barge that will deliver the structures to the Project Area where they will be set in
place during a non, in -water work moratorium period of any given year. The Port facility may be
utilized as a transfer station for the oyster sill/reef materials as well, but it is more likely that the
bulk of this material will be delivered to Sugarloaf by smaller vessels. This is the same for the
native plantings.
Signage
We are proposing to mark the location of the emergent WAD® system with yellow reflective
markers, and we proposed to install timber piles with reflective "Caution Submerged Structure"
signage in the general locations shown on our plan set. A detail of these markers is included on
Sheet 5. This is a typical sign that USCG has prescribed in the past. Solar lighting may be
included on the top of the piles. In addition, there will be educational signage, at least in the
SAV enhancement areas that informs the general public of the ecological benefits of SAV.
Essential Fish Habitat
An analysis of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been an important component of work to date
as we plan to restore and enhance habitat that has been lost or significantly impacted due to
erosion. As defined in the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA), EFH's are considered "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity".
The Fishery Management Plans of the Mid -Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council identify a number of categories of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPC). While all of these habitat categories occur in this region, many are
absent from the project vicinity. Impacts (positive and negative) on habitat categories potentially
present in the project vicinity have been discussed above. They include estuarine water column,
aquatic beds, estuarine emergent wetlands, oyster reefs and shellbanks, palustrine forested
wetlands, seagrass (submerged aquatic vegetation) and state -designated areas of importance
for managed species (SA-HQW). It is also known that many migratory finfish species utilize this
area and the presence of the above referenced habitats is critical for them.
Recent remote sensing work by Dr. Hannah Sirianni (Dept. of Geography, Planning &
Environment, ECU) at Sugarloaf Island suggests the following losses of important habitat at
Sugarloaf Island between 2014 and 2020:
High Marsh: 12.7% loss
Low marsh: 11.8 % loss
A

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Project Narrative
Shrub -Scrub: 12.7% loss
There is an upcoming manuscript by Dr. Sirianni about this (currently in draft form);
Entitled, "Quantifying recent storm -induced change on a small fetch -limited barrier
island along North Carolina's Crystal Coast using aerial imagery and LiDAR" which will
be shared when published. Recent observed erosion rates have been observed to be
equal or worse and we have visually observed several feet of erosion in many places
on the east, west and south sides of Sugarloaf over the past year.
All work proposed and described above in association with this project will have a
positive impact to EFH, with the exception of maintenance dredging of the eastern tip
of the island. As stated above, the dredging is proposed as maintenance to resolve
navigational safety issues. The proposed dredge area is withing the Federal Channel
and is covered under maintenance dredge allowances already. This area will be
excavated back to pre-existing conditions and is only anticipated to have short term
turbidity impacts to the water column. It is understood that there will be an in -water
work moratorium for dredging and likely for placement installation of the wave
attenuation system which should mitigate for short term turbidity impacts.
There would be no known impacts to aquatic beds associated with the project. As
previously discussed, there have been no SAV beds in the recent past and no clam or
oyster beds in the footprint of the proposed work. Oyster beds on the north side of
Sugarloaf will not be impacted or disturbed and areas where we are proposing the
oyster sill/reef system does not currently support oysters, presumably due to the
higher energy regime, the erosive movement of sediment and lack of proper substrate.
The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate,
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. And, 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.
0

Quible
Quible & Associates, P.C.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONN ENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING • SUMANG
SINCE 1959
Date: 6/3/2022
Re: Sugarloaf Island Discussion With USACE, Navigation Branch
To: Sugarloaf Island Project Team
From: Brian Rubino, Quible 8 Associates, P.0 AC
This morning at 8 00 am. I attended a Webex meeting with the following representatives from USACE,
Navigation Branch, Wilmington District, to discuss our preliminary plans for Sugarloaf Protection and
Restoration:
• Mr. Robert Keistler, Chief, Civil Programs and Projects Branch
• Mr. Todd Horton, Chief, Waterways Management
• Mr. Brennan Dooley, Project Manager
PO Drawer 870
Qty Nowk INC 27QAQ
Phone [phone]
Fom 252-491 8146
web- qu"e,com
Prior to this meeting I had a discussion and had sent background project information via email to Mr. Keistler
provided a copy of our preliminary plan to date and described the project team and our collective goals to
protect the island and restore and create habitat while maintaining use of the island for recreation and as an
important wave break landform for the Town's waterfront. Please note that this meeting did not include USACE
Regulatory Branch representatives which wilt occur after the Town provides the greenlight for the plan as
proposed.
Setbacks
Regarding the Federal Channel, I was informed that this portion of the channel has a 52 ft setback for fixed
structures which may apply to the WAD system. We can adjust the WADS to meet this setback for our
discussion and consideration. They indicated that we could ask for some relief from this setback, especially it
we can show that what we are implementing can protect the channel, but there is no guarantee. Mr. Horton
provided us a link to maps that include coordinates of the setback that we can use.
USACE has no immediate plans to dredge this channel and they are aware that the east end of the island has
migrated into the channel. The controlling depth of this Federal Channel is -12ft. 1 was informed that the
channel had some level of maintenance dredging (by the Town) in 2011 and that was the last dredging that
occurred. They would support dredging of the east end of the island and elsewhere, but would need to issue a
permit through a "Section 408" review.
If there are not sufficient funds in the project budget to dredge, we can still permit this activity as a future phase,
but we should limit this to the east end of the island.
Formal Review
USACE, Navigation Branch will conduct their formal review once we submit the permit application package.
They will be provided a copy of our submission by the Regulatory Branch. : RECEIVED
SEP 29, "122
dCM-MHU ,,,TY
Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX D
RECEn✓ED
SEP 2 9 ZOZZ
')C&4'MHI) Clry

Sugarloaf Island Shore Protection Project
Progress Report submitted by:
Ping Wang, Ph.D.
June 20, 2022
Introduction
Sugarloaf Island is experiencing aggressive erosion along the south -facing sandy beach
and at the east and west ends. The interior of the island and the north -facing coast are composed
of marsh and oyster habitat. The overall goal of this study is to understand the cause of erosion
along the sandy beach and to develop a shore -protection measure using artificial reefs.
The Scope of Work for this study includes the following tasks:
Task 1: Field investigation and tidal current measurement:
Initial observations from time -series Google Earth photos suggest that tidal flow may play a
significant role in the erosion and accretion along Sugarloaf Island. It is more accurate and efficient
to measure tidal flow at the project site than simulating the flow field, which would require the
representation of the greater inlet and estuary system. Since tidal flow is largely periodical,
valuable data can be collected in a short term. A three-day field investigation and tidal current
measurement were conducted. The following information was collected:
a) Shoreline and nearshore morphologic characteristics,
b) Trend of erosion and accretion as observed in the field,
c) Sediment and bed form characteristics,
d) Tidal flow measurements at key locations.
Task 2: Numerical wave modeling and analysis of sediment transport and morphology change:
A wave model was constructed to simulate the wave field at the project site. The wave model was
used to evaluate various shore -protection design alternatives. The bathymetry data for the wave
model were collected by Quible & Associates. Since the project site is located within a mostly
enclosed water body, waves should be mainly generated by local wind. Measured wind conditions
at the nearby NOAA Station BFTN7 were used to compute wave conditions within the estuary.
Empirical formulas listed in the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual we"T used to calculate the
input wave conditions for the wave model. RF(:FpvPD
SEP 29
L)CM-MHD CITY

Several wave model runs were conducted including simulating wave field under existing
conditions, and with two alternatives of shore -protection design.
Analysis of sediment transport patterns and subsequent morphology change were based on field
observations, time -series aerial photos from Google Earth, computed wave field, and measured
tidal flow velocity. The results were used to guide the design of shore -protection measures.
Study Area
Sugarloaf Island is located within Bogue Sound, landward of the Beaufort Inlet, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The island is largely sheltered from open Atlantic Ocean waves by the
surrounding landmass. However, the rather long fetch to the west and modest fetch to the south
can generate short -period wind waves impacting the west- and south -facing coast. Furthermore,
the nearby wide Beaufort Inlet and the large and complex estuary system (Figure 1) may drive
strong tidal flow in the vicinity of the island. The coastal processes at Sugarloaf Island should be
dominated by the locally generated wind waves within the Bogue Sound and the tidal flow.
Figure 1. Study area. Sugarloaf Island (red circle) is located within Bogue Sound, landward of
the Beaufort Inlet and within a complex estuary system, North Carolina.
For the convenience of this study, the Sugarloaf Island coast is divided into several
sections, as (Figure 2):
1) a sand spit at the western end of the island, referred to as western spit in this report;

2) south -facing severely eroded sandy beach, referred to as aggressively eroding beach;
3) a sand spit at the eastern end of the island, referred to as eastern spit; and
4) north -facing marsh and oyster reefs, referred to as north marsh coast in this report.
Figure 2. Different types of coast along Sugarloaf Island.
The western sand spit is mostly intertidal, exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide
(Figure 3). The steep slope along the eastern side may indicate a trend of eastward (island -ward)
migration of the curved spit. Cohesive muddy sediment outcrops along the southwest side of the
curved spit (Figure 3), likely indicating a trend of erosion.
The south -facing beach is experiencing severe and ongoing erosion (Figure 4). A nearly 2-
m tall scarp occurs landward of the eroding beach. Fallen trees, both old (already dead) and recent
(still with green leaves), distribute along the entire section of the shoreline. This indicates that the
erosion has been occurring for a while and is still on -going. This section of the coast needs
protection against the aggressive erosion.
The eastern sand spit is relatively extensive, the highest part of the spit extends above high
tide (Figure 5). The steep slope along the northward (island -ward) side of the spit indicates a trend
of landward migration over the island -interior marsh. The landward migration is also illustrated
by the outcropping of the old marsh deposit along the shoreline. The landward migration is likely
driven by overwash under energetic conditions. Breaching features (red circle in Figure 5) can be
identified from the aerial photo. Presently, this section of the island hosts a relatively wide sandy
beach, although with a landward migrating trend into the interior wetlands.
r PCP1 PL1
SEP 2 9
ACM`MHI) ClrV.

Figure 3. The intertidal western spit, with outcropping of old marsh.
Figure 4. The aggressively eroding south -facing beach, with falling tree and a continuous scarp.

Ap� p
. .may. -..� •.r .� �y
Figure 5. The partly supratidal eastern spit, with outcropping of old marsh.
The landward north -facing coast of the island is dominated by marsh fringed by oyster
reefs (Figure 6). The interior of the island is mostly coastal marsh with several tidal creeks. The
deep dredged channel for the North Carolina Port extends directly off the eastern tip of Sugarloaf
Island.
Overall, Sugarloaf Island is composed of south -facing sandy coast and north -facing marsh -
oyster reef coast. The south -facing coast is presently experiencing erosion due to energetic
conditions generated by local wind waves and likely tidal currents. The north -facing marsh coast
is well -sheltered from wind waves.
This section of North Carolina coast is quite vulnerable to impacts from tropical storms.
Figure 7 illustrates the passages of tropical storms, with strengths ranging from Tropical Storm to
Category 5 hurricane, within 100 km (-60 miles) from Sugarloaf Island. Since 1842, 100 tropical
storms passed within 100 kin of the study area. Six of the seven strongest hurricanes impacted the
greater project area in the past 25 years, including Hurricane Dorian in 2019, Matthew in 2016,
Isabel in 2003, Floyd in 1999, Florence in 2018, and Charley in 2004. It is acknowledged here that
the impacts of tropical storms to the project area are controlled by many factors, in addition to the
peak strength in terms of maximum sustained wind speed.
In addition to the summer tropical storms, the project site is also vulnerable to winter
storms, generated by passages of cold fronts. Compared to tropical storms, winter storms maybe
less intense in terms of wind speed and storm surge. However, they are much more frequent,
occurring every 2 to 3 weeks. Winter storms can also last longer than tropical storms.
RECFI1J';-=p
SEP 2,9 .1Y
ACM-MHD CITY

Figure 6. The north -facing marsh and oyster reefs, and island -interior marsh.
Figure 7. Passages of tropical storms within 100-km radius from the project site.
Sugarloaf Island experienced substantial morphology change over the past 30 years, as can
be observed from the time -series aerial photos from Google Earth (Figures 8 through 15). It is
worth noting that views from aerial photos, particularly those of intertidal zone, can be influenced

by the tidal stage at which the photo was taken. However, the supratidal zone is typically covered
with vegetation and can be identified consistently on time -series aerial photos.
Figure 8 illustrates the state of the island in 2019 (most recent Google Earth photo) with
the red line outlining roughly the shoreline position. Due to the intertidal nature of the western
spit, considerable uncertainty may be associated with the shoreline position there as identified from
the aerial photo. The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island should be stable due to the
low wave energy there. This stable shoreline position can be used to evaluate the accuracy of the
time -series aerial photos.
Figure 8. Google Earth photo of 2019. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
Figure 9 illustrates the state of the island in 2017 relative to the shoreline position in 2019
(red line). The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island remains at the same location, as
expected. The western spit migrated eastward for about 50 m. Some erosion occurred along the
south -facing sandy shoreline, particularly near the western end. The eastern spit migrated toward
the middle of the island. In other words, the overall area of Sugarloaf Island has significantly
decreased from 2017 to 2019. Hurricane Florence passed this area as a Category 2 hurricane in
2018. However, it is not clear if the change was mainly caused by Hurricane Florence, partly
because similar trend of morphology change can be observed in other years, as discussed in the
following.
RFCF_:dVPj)
SEP 2 9
DCM-MHLj

Figure 9. Google Earth photo of 2017. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
Figure 10 illustrates the state of the island in 2015 relative to the shoreline position in 2019
(red line). The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island remains at the same location, as
expected. The western spit appears to be relatively stable between 2015 and 2017 (Figures 9 and
10). The south -facing sandy shoreline, particularly near the western end, experienced erosion
between 2015 and 2017. The island -ward migration of the eastern spit also occurred during these
two years. The overall area of Sugarloaf Island has decreased from 2015 to 2017. Hurricane
Matthew passed this area as a Category 1 hurricane in 2016. However, it is not clear if the change
was mainly caused by Hurricane Matthew.
Figure 11 illustrates the state of the island in 2011 relative to the shoreline position in 2019
(red line). The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island remains at the same location, as
expected. The western spit appears to be relatively stable between 2011 and 2015 (Figures 10 and
11). The south -facing sandy shoreline, particularly near the western end, experienced considerable
erosion between 2011 and 2015. Substantial changes occurred at the eastern spit. The shoreline
was much farther seaward in 2011. The overall area of Sugarloaf Island has decreased from 2011
to 2015. Hurricane Arthur made landfall just to the east of the project area as a Category 2 hurricane
in 2014. However, it is not clear if the change, particularly at the eastern spit, was mainly caused
by Hurricane Arthur.

Figure 10. Google Earth photo of 2015. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale =100 in.
Figure 11. Google Earth photo of 2011. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
Figure 12 illustrates the state of the island in 2008 relative to the shoreline position in 2019
(red line). The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island remains at the same location, as
expected. The western spit had a quite different morphology and was further to the w FIe ii15

south -facing sandy shoreline experienced substantial erosion between. 2008 and 2011 (Figures 11
and 12). The eastern spit appears to be relatively stable between 2008 and 2011. The overall area
of Sugarloaf Island has decreased from 2008 to 2011. Based on Google Earth, the 2011 aerial
photo (Figure 11) was taken in December 2011. Hurricane Irene made landfall just to the east of
the project area as a Category 1 hurricane in 2011. Comparing the aerial photo taken in July 2011
to that in December 2011, it appears that Irene did not cause significant changes at Sugarloaf
Island. No other significant tropical storms impacted the project area between 2008 and 2011.
These suggest that the morphology changes as observed between 2008 and 2011 (Figures 11 and
12) may not be solely related to tropical storms.
Figure 12. Google Earth photo of 2008. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 in.
Figure 13 illustrates the state of the island in 2002 relative to the shoreline position in 2019
(red line). The marsh shoreline along the north side of the island remains mostly at the same
location, as expected. The western end of the island experienced significant changes between 2002
and 2008. It is likely that the 2008 aerial photo (Figure 12) was taken at a high tide and 2002 aerial
photo was taken at a low tide. However, the substantial changes can still be identified. The entire
south -facing sandy shoreline experienced substantial erosion between 2002 and 2008 (Figures 12
and 13). The eastern spit appears to be relatively stable between 2002 and 2008. The overall area
of Sugarloaf Island has decreased from 2002 to 2008. Hurricanes Alex in 2004 and Isabel in 2003
passed the project area proximally during this period of time. It is not clear if the morphology
changes were directly related to these two hurricanes.

Figure 13. Google Earth photo of 2002. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
Similar trend of change as described above from 2002 to 2008 was observed before 2002
(Figures 14 and 15). The western end of the island experienced significant changes, along with
erosion along entire south -facing sandy shoreline.
Figure 14. Google Earth photo of 1998. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
RECE11/FD
SEP 2 g ,
DCM-MHD

Figure 15. Google Earth photo of 1993. Red line marks the shoreline position estimated based on
the 2019 aerial photo. Yellow line scale = 100 m.
In summary, the area of Sugarloaf Island has been chronically decreasing since 1993, as
caused by the migration of shoreline along the west, south and east sides toward the interior of the
island (Figure 15). The north -facing marsh shoreline remained stable over the past 30 years. The
erosional trend does not appear to be dominated by a single, or several, energetic events such as
nearby landfall of a hurricane. During different periods of time, different spatial patterns of
morphology change, particularly at the western and eastern spits, were observed from the time -
series aerial photos. However, the overall erosive trend is persistent. The persistent chronic erosive
trend suggests that both regular processes and extreme energetic events contribute to the erosion
at Sugarloaf Island.
Methods
Detailed bathymetric and topographic surveys at Sugarloaf Island project area were
conducted (by Quible & Associates) to ensure accurate and up-to-date data for the wave modeling
and the designing of shore -protection measures. The Quible & Associates bathymetric and
topographic survey focused on the Island and nearby areas. Additional bathymetry data farther
away from the Island were digitized from the NOAA Navigation Charts for Bogue Sound, North
Carolina. The distal bathymetry data of mainly deeper water should not have any influence on the
wave modeling.
Measured wind data, including wind speed and direction, from January 2009 to December
2021, or over a 13-year period were obtained from a nearby NOAA station (BFTN7 -- 8656483) at
Beaufort, North Carolina (Figure 16) to determine the frequency distribution of wind speed and

direction. Specifically, the wind data, particularly the strong winds, were used to calculate locally
generated waves within the Bogue Sound. The NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) is roughly 3
km to the east of Sugarloaf Island.
Sugarloaf Island is well sheltered by surrounding landmass from the open Atlantic Ocean
waves. The waves that are causing shoreline changes are generated locally within Bogue Sound
by wind. The fetch- and depth -limited locally wind -generated waves were calculated based on the
methods described in the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual (Resio et al., 2006). The software
Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES), developed by USACE (Leenknecht et al., 1992),
was used for the calculation.
Tide data, both measured and predicted, from 2009 to 2021, were also obtained from the
NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) at Beaufort, North Carolina (Figure 16) to determine water
level conditions at the project site. Tidal water -level fluctuations have significant controls on the
water depths at the project site. Accurately representing the range of water level fluctuation is
essential to the wave -field modeling and design of shore -protection measures.
I
Rogue Sound
x
Bra ufort
Ii1 lei
6km
' 34 72N 76 8W NOAAADBC I NOAA OCS Esri DeLorrne j Esh DeLor
Figure 16. Location of the NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) at Beaufort, North Carolina.
The most up to date version (2020) of the Coastal Modeling System, the CMS,
(http://cimwiki.info/wiki/CMS), specifically the CMS -Wave model, was used in this study. The
CMS model, developed by the Coastal Inlets Research Program (CIRP) at the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), is an integrated suite of numerical models for simulatin flow, waves,
CEIVED
SEP 2 9 20V
DCM-NAND CITY

sediment transport, and morphology change in coastal areas (Buttolph et al., 2006; Reed et al.,
2011; Wu et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2011; Sanchez and Wu, 2011; Sanchez et al.,
2014). The CMS model has been broadly used by the USACE and many other researchers in
quantifying coastal processes (e.g., Demirbilek et al., 2015a, 2015b; Li et al., 2012; Beck and
Legault, 2012; Beck and Wang, 2019; Beck et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2011; Wang and Beck, 2012).
The CMS model is composed of four main parts, including flow, wave, sediment transport,
and morphology change. The four parts are coupled to ensure that the interactions among wave,
current, sediment transport, and morphology change are properly incorporated. In terms of
computation modules, the CMS is composed of two main components, CMS -Flow and CMS -
Wave. CMS -Flaw is a coupled hydrodynamic and sediment transport model designed to compute
depth -averaged flow and sediment transport due to tides, wind and waves. The CMS -flow solves
the conservative form of the shallow water equations and includes terms for the Coriolis force,
wind stress, wave stress (obtained from CMS -Wave), bottom stress, vegetation flow drag, bottom
and friction, and turbulent diffusion. Sediment transport and morphology changes are computed
in CMS -Flow. All equations are solved using the Finite Volume Method on a non -uniform
Cartesian grid. The CMS -Flow module is mostly used to compute flow fields associated with tidal
inlets and within estuaries. Due to the complicated water bodies and inlets associated with the
Sugarloaf Island project area, the flow field was not computed as limited by the scope of this study.
Instead, tidal driven flow along the south -facing shoreline was measured in the field.
The CMS -Wave is a spectral wave transformation model and solves the steady-state wave -
action balance equation on a non -uniform Cartesian grid. It considers wind -wave generation and
growth, diffraction, reflection, dissipation due to bottom friction, whitecapping and breaking,
wave -wave and wave -current interactions, wave runup, wave setup, and wave transmission
through structures. For this study, the CMS -Wave was used to compute the wave field around
Sugarloaf Island using the input wave conditions calculated with the local wind.
The CMS model construction, execution, and output analyses are facilitated by the graphic
interface, SMS (Surface Water Modeling System) (hUp://ci!p.usace.army.mil/products/sms.php).
SMS allows convenient construction of telescoping (CMS -Flow) and refined (CMS -Wave) grids
which provides high spatial resolution at crucial locations. The SMS also allows manipulation of
the very large dataset (e.g., several GB) generated by the model runs. Furthermore, SMS is capable
of generating high quality illustrations of the modeling results, such as vector plots of current field
and wave field. SMS can also generate high quality contour plots which are crucial for wave -height
change analyses.
Sugarloaf Island is a small island within a complicated water body connected to the
Atlantic Ocean through several tidal inlets (Figure 17). Simulating tide- and discharge -driven
circulation within this large complex water body and with adequate spatial resolution of the small
island can be very complicated and likely with large uncertainties. Limited by the scope of this
study, it is not realistic to construct a detailed flow model. Since the flow at the project site is

mainly driven by cyclic rising and falling of tides, a short-term field measurement should be able
to capture the essence of flow conditions more accurately than numerical modeling.
A short-term flow measurement was conducted along the south -facing Sugarloaf Island
shoreline. The field measurements were conducted from April 24t' 2022 to April 261` 2022. The
measurements were conducted at four locations along the south -facing shoreline (Figure 18).
Current meter S-4 was deployed along the western spit shoreline. Current meter S-3 was deployed
along the aggressively eroding sandy beach where a gentle shoreline curvature occurs. Current
meter S-2 was deployed directly seaward of the path to the shelter and open field which is used for
some activities. Current meter S-1 was deployed along the eastern spit. Current meters S-4, S-3,
and S-2 are deployed roughly 10 in from the low -tide shoreline. Due to the relatively extensive
shallow water near the eastern end of the island, current meter S-1 was deployed roughly 30 m
from low -tide shoreline. All the current meters were programmed to measure water level and
current velocity every 10 minutes. Average velocity and water level measured over a one -minute
duration was recorded. One Nortek Aquadopp Current Profiler (https:Hgeo-matching.com/adeps-
acoustic-doppler-current-profilers/aquadopp-profiler) and three Sontek Triton ADV
(https://sndl.ucmereed.edu/files/San Joaquin/Sensors _and _Loggers/S onTek/SonTek_ADV/Sont
ekTriton_Brochure.pdf) were used during the field measurements.
Figure 17. Complicated water body associated with Sugarloaf Island.
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 2022
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 18. Locations of current measurement conducted by this study. Insets: current meters used
in the field measurements.
Measured Nearshore Tidal Flow along the Sugarloaf Island
The tidal flow measurements were conducted from April 24a' through April 261h 2002.
Since the goal of the flow measurements was to understand the contribution of tide -driven flow to
beach processes, the current meters were deployed close to the shoreline, at about 10 m from the
low -tide shoreline except the east -most meter over a shallow shoal. Here, the measured water -level
variation and tide -driven flow are discussed.
The greater study area is characteristic of mixed semi -diurnal tides. Figure 19 illustrates
the predicted and measured tidal water -level variations for the month of April 2022 at the nearby
NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) at Beaufort, North Carolina (Figure 16). A small but variable
surge was measured during the entire month of April, i.e., the measured water level was higher
than the predicted. Tides at Sugarloaf Island should be very similar. The tides during the short-
term measurement roughly represent an average condition (Figure 19 red circle).
The Nortek Triton (S-4, S-3, and S-1) measured current velocity at one point in the water
column. The measurement location within the water column was influenced the tidal water -level
variation. The Nortek Aquadopp Profiler (S-2) measured current profile throughout the water
column. Due to the blanking distance of the equipment (0.3 m), near -bed velocity (i.e., within 0.3
m from the bed) was not measured. As discussed in the following, the measured current profile
was reasonably uniform throughout the water column. Therefore, the measured velocity by the
Nortek Triton should roughly represent the average velocity.

.��.. a
ri
fM 1�Li1.1 E�#LR W 1WMW �l'1� lR --
_ I�IIY
— p.64m+1 — venfp—...YmnW
Figure 19. Measured and predicted tides at NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) at Beaufort, North
Carolina during April 2022. The red circle indicates the duration of field measurement by this
study.
The water -depth variation and tidal -driven flow measured at the west -most station S-4 are
shown in Figure 20. This location is just seaward of the tip of the western spit. The water depth
varied from 1 to 2 m at this location which is roughly 10 in from the low -tide shoreline. Due to the
close proximity to the shoreline, the tidal flow is largely parallel to the coast. The tidal -driven
current at this location is dominated by the ebb flow directed to the east. The peak ebb flow reached
over 60 cm/s, while the peak flood flow was less than 20 cm/s, or less than 1/3 of the ebb velocity.
The weak flood flow is likely controlled by the shadowing of the entire island, particularly the
protruding shoreline directly to the east. This ebb -flow domination should contribute to the
eastward migration of the western spit as observed from the time -series aerial photos (Figures 8-
15).
Figure 20. Water -depth variation and tide -driven flow measured at the west -most location S-4.
SEP �, 9 jj
DCM-MHD CITY

The water -depth variation and tidal -driven flow measured at station S-3 are shown in
Figure 21. The water depth varied from 1.2 to 2.2 in at this location which is roughly 10 m from
the low -tide shoreline. Due to the close proximity to the shoreline, the tidal flow is largely parallel
to the coast. Opposite to the S-4 station, the tidal -driven current at this location is dominated by
the flood flow directed to the west. The peak flood flow reached over 70 cm/s, while the peak ebb
flow was less than 20 cm/s, or less than 1/3 of the flood velocity. The weak ebb flow is likely
controlled by the shadowing of the western part of the island. This change from ebb domination at
station S-4 to flood domination at S-3 is likely responsible for the large bedform features between
these two stations observed on some of the aerial photos, likely taken at low tide (Figure 22).
Therefore, tidal flow and its spatial variation play a significant role in the morphology change in
the Sugarloaf Island area.
Figure 21. Water -depth variation and tide -driven flow measured at location S-3.
The water -depth variation and tidal -driven flow measured at station S-2 are shown in
Figure 23. The water depth varied from 1.1 to 2.2 m at this location which is roughly 10 in from
the low -tide shoreline. Due to the close proximity to the shoreline, the tidal flow is largely parallel
to the coast. Similar to the S-3 station just to the west, the tidal -driven current at this location is
also dominated by the flood flow directed to the west. The peak flood flow reached over 60 cm/s,
while the peak ebb flow was less than 30 cm/s or less than 1/2 of the flood velocity. The difference
between the flood and ebb velocities is smaller than that at station S-3. The Nortek current meter
at station S-2 is capable of measuring current profile at 0.1 m interval with a 0.3 m blanking
distance. An example current profile is shown in Figure 24. The velocity was quite uniform
throughout the water column. Therefore, the point measurements at S-4, S-3, and S-1, should
provide a reasonable representation of average velocity through the water column.

Figure 22. Large bedforrns (lower left) visible on the 2017 aerial photo. Red line marks the
shoreline position as depicted from the 2019 aerial photo.
Figure 23. Water -depth variation and tide -driven flow measured (at 1 rn from the bed) at location
S-2.
PF-CI~IVED
SEP 2 9
DCM-MHD CITY

1.6
1.2
1.0
a
W 0.8
a,
M 0.6
04
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Velocity (cm/s)
Figure 24. An example of current profile measured by the Nortek profiler.
The water -depth variation and tidal -driven flow measured at east -most station S-1 are
shown in Figure 25. The water depth varied from 0.9 to 2.0 in at this location which is much further
from the low -tide shoreline than the previous 3 locations, —30 m versus 10 m. Different from the
previous 3 locations, the flood and ebb currents have similar peak velocities, reaching about 30
cm/s, although flood flow was slightly stronger. Another significant difference between this
location and the previous three is that the peak velocity was much smaller, mostly less than 30
cm/s versus 60 cm/s.
In summary, based on field measurements over two tidal cycles, the tidal -driven flow along
the south -facing Sugarloaf Island coast can be quite strong, reaching up to 70 cm/s. More
importantly, different flow patterns were measured at different locations. At the western end of the
island at location S-4, i.e., along the western spit, the ebb flow is much stronger than the flood
flow (Figure 20). While along the middle section of the island at locations S-3 and S-2, the flood
flow is much stronger than the ebb flow (Figures 21 and 23). At the eastern end of the island, i.e.,
along the eastern spit, the flood and ebb flows are of similar peak magnitude but substantially
lower than the peak velocities at the other three locations. The rather strong tidal -driven flow, in
addition to the spatial pattern, should be carefully considered in the design of shore -protection
measure and in habitat restoration.

Figure 25. Water -depth variation and tide -driven flow measured at the east -most location S-1.
Wind -generated Waves within Bogue Sound
Sugarloaf Island is well sheltered from the open Atlantic Ocean waves. However, wind
generated waves within Bogue Sound can be significant and play a major role in causing erosion
along the south -facing coast. During the field investigation on April 251h, 2022, the wind speed
was slightly above average based on the measurements from the NOAA station (BFTN7 -
8656483), choppy waves were observed along the shoreline (Figure 26). As discussed in the
following, much higher waves can be generated during storms.
Wave generation within an enclosed water body such as Bogue Sound is strongly
controlled by the wind fetch. The south -facing coast of Sugarloaf Island is exposed to wind fetch
in two general directions (Figure 27). The wind fetch to the west can be quite long, over 20 km.
However, this wind fetch is restricted to a small range of angle, between 262 to 275 degrees. The
wind fetch to the south can also be significant, on the order of 2 km. Although much shorter than
that to the west, the fetch to the south spans a large angle range, from 155 to 254 degrees. The
wind from other directions, e.g., from north and east, has very limited fetch and should not play a
significant role in wave generation.
In order to calculate wind -generated waves within Bogue Sound, the southerly and westerly
winds were compiled into seven angle brackets for statistical analysis. The wind direction as
reported by the NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656493) was rounded to degrees. For the southerly
wind, five 19-degree angle brackets were established, including 155-174, 175-194, 195-214, 215-
234, and 235-254. For the westerly wind, two 6-degree brackets were established, including 262-
268 and 269-275 (Table 1). Overall, based on the 13-year measured wind conditions, 429% of the
time the wind approaches from the above directions. The fetch distance was measured along the
RFCFIVED
SEP 2 9 M?
DCM-MH[) CITY

middle angle within each bracket. Average wind speed and the average of the top 1 % fastest speed,
representing storm conditions, were calculated within each angle bracket.
Figure 26. Wind waves along the eroding Sugarloaf Island shoreline during the field
investigation. The wind speed was slightly above average.
Figure 27. Wind fetch to the west and to the south.

In addition to statistical wind conditions, the extreme conditions of tropical storm and
hurricane strength wind was also used in the wave calculation (Tables 2 and 3). It is worth
emphasizing that the tropical storm and hurricane strength wind were not based on statistical
analyses of the actual measured conditions. Rather, they were mostly schematic aiming at
estimating potential extreme conditions. Out of the seven wind direction brackets, tropical storm
strength wind speed was measured in three of the brackets over a very short period of time (Table
1), while hurricane strength wind was never recorded during the 13-year period from 2009 to 2021
despite the passages of several hurricanes within 100 km radius as discussed above (Figure 7).
Furthermore, the average of the top 1 % fastest wind within each bracket was much slower than
the threshold velocity for tropical storm although maximum measured wind speed can exceed that
(Table 1).
Table 1. The seven wind -direction brackets used in the computation of wave generation within
Bogue Sound.
Wind direction
racket (degrees)
Percent
occurrence
(%)
id -point
Direction
(degrees)
Maximum
measured
wind speed
m/s)
verage top
1 % measured
wind speed
(m/s)
Average
measured
wind speed
(m/s)
155-174
3.87
165
21.8
11.9
4.2
175-194
6.52
18.5
25.6
13.1
4.6
195-214
12.27
205
17.2
10.9
4.8
15-234
10.85
225
12.4
8.2
3.1
35-254
7.79
245
13.1
7.4
2.8
62-268
0.95
265
12.4
7.3
2.0
69-275
0.69
272
10.0
6.1
1.7
The calculated wind -generated waves within Bogue Sound are listed in Tables 2 and 3. In
order to estimate potential extreme wave conditions, the threshold wind speeds for tropical storm
(17.4 m/s) and Category 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s) were also used in the calculations in addition to
the measured wind speed for all the relevant directions. It is worth noting that the fastest wind
speed that was reported at the NOAA station (BFTN7 - 9656483) over the 13-year period from
2009 to 2021 was on the order of 26 m/s associated mainly with the passage of Hurricane Florence
in 2018. Hurricanes Dorian in 2019 and Arthur also generated tropical storm strength wind speed
briefly. However, these winds were mostly from the east and had very short fetch for Sugarloaf
Island.
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 2022
0CM-MID CITY

The average wind speed within each angle bracket was used to represent normal conditions.
under normal conditions, the locally wind generated waves are quite low (mostly less than 0.1 m
high) with wave period shorter than 1.5 s (Tables 1 and 2). These small normal weather waves
should not play a significant role in causing beach erosion.
Table 2. Computed wave height and period for southerly approaching wind.
wind speed (m/s)
Direction
(deg)
wind fetch
(km)
wave height
(m)
wave period
(s)
Average (4.2 m/s)
165
1.85
0.09
1.15
op 1% (11.9 m/s)
165
1.85
0.28
1.72
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
165
1.85
0.44
cat 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
165
1.85
0.9
2.62
Average (4.6 m/s)
185
1.55
0.09
1.14
op 1% (13.1 m/s)
185
1.55
0.29
1.69
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
185
1.55
0.4
1.9
cat 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
185
1.55
0.85
2.49
Average (4.8 m/s)
205
1.75
0.1
1.2
op 1% (10.9 m/s)
205
1.75
0.25
1.63
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
205
1.75
0.43
1.97
cat 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
205
1.75
0.89
2.58
Average (3.1 m/s)
225
2.35
0.08
1.11
op 1% (8.2 m/s)
225
2.35
0.21
1.6
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
225
2.35
0.48
2.15
cat 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
225
2.35
0.98
2.81
Average (2.8 m/s)
245
2.3
0.07
1.06
op 1% (7.4 m/s)
245
2.3
0.19
1.52
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
245
2.3
0.48
2.13
cat 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
245
2.3
10- 97
2.79

The average of the top 1 % fastest wind speed within each angle bracket was used to
represent energetic storm conditions. Waves higher than 0.2 m with periods of roughly 1.7 s can
be generated by these winds from the south (Table 2). Due to the much longer fetch to the west,
the storm wind can generate much higher waves of nearly 0.5 m with much longer period of up to
2.8 s (Table 3).
Under the schematic tropical storm and hurricane strength wind conditions, high waves can
be generated within Bogue Sound. For the southerly approaching wind, the relatively short fetch
of -2 km limits the wave height and period that can be generated by the extreme wind. For tropical
storm strength wind, the southerly wind can generate waves between 0.4 to 0.5 m high with period
of about 2 s (Table 2). For hurricane strength wind, waves nearly 1 m high with period approaching
3 s can be generated. Due to the much longer fetch of over 20 km to the west, the extreme wind
from the west can generate high waves within Bogue Sound. For tropical storm strength wind,
waves nearly 1 m high with period reaching 4 s can be generated. For hurricane strength wind
from the west, waves reaching 1.5 m high with 5 s period can be generated. It is worth noting again
that these are schematic conditions that have not been measured over a 13-year period from 2009
to 2021.
The above computed wave conditions as listed in Tables 2 and 3 were used in the wave
modeling discussed in the following. These waves, particularly the energetic ones, served as design
conditions for evaluating the design of shore -protection measures.
Table 3. Computed wave height and period for westerly approaching wind.
wind speed (m/s)
Direction
(deg)
wind fetch
)
wave height
(m)
wave period
(s)
Average (2.0 m/s)
265
25
0.13
1.51
op 1% (7.3 m/s)
265
25
0.49
2.8
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
265
25
0.93
3.92
at 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
265
25
1.46
5.05
Average (1.7 m/s)
272
19
0.1
1.34
op 1 % (6.1 m/s)
272
19
0.39
2.49
tropical storm (17.4 m/s)
272
19
0.91
3.73
at 1 hurricane (33.0 m/s)
272
19
1.45
.82
RFCFNF1)
SEP 29 2012
DCM-MHD CITY

Water Level Variations within Bogue Sound
Another major factor influencing nearshore processes and beach erosion, and subsequently
the design of shore -protection measure, is the water level. Water level is particularly important in
the design of artificial reefs for wave energy reduction. Water level variations measured at the
nearby NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) over a 13-year period from 2009 to 2021 were analyzed
to determine the water levels used in the wave modeling.
The various tidal water levels obtained from long-term measurements at NOAA station
(BFTN7 - 8656483) are shown in Figure 28. The Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) is 0.52 in
below Mean Sea Level (MSL), while the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) is 0.56 in above
MSL. This yields a tidal range of 1.08 m. The highest storm surge measured during the 13-year
period from 2009 to 2021 was 1.66 m above MSL, generated by the passage of Hurricane Florence
in 2018. This is consistent with the highest water level measured at this station, at 1.68 m above
MSL. The highest Florence surge occurred at a lower tide of -0.21 in below MSL. The highest
water level was the result of a rising tide (0.24 in above MSL) and a significant surge (1.45 in
above MSL), although not at the maximum surge of 1.66 in. As discussed earlier, the fastest wind
speed was also measured during the passage of Hurricane Florence, but from the east.
Datums for 8656483, Beaufort, Duke Marine Lab, NC
.:Il figures in meters relative to P.ASL
I
gM}HFiW: 0.557
0.5 MHW:0.47 DHQ:0.087
NAVD88: 0.112
MSL o V11 4664 MN 0.'-o46 , GT 1 .-�'ii _iAN
r
-0.5 MLW. -0.478 MLLW. -0.521
_LilrC1: 0.044
1
-I -
Datunis
- NOAA: NOS?Cf3-OPS
Figure 28. Various tidal water levels at NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483).

In order to determine the water levels for wave modeling and the design of shore -protection
measure, a rather simple and straightforward statistical analysis of the measured water level was
conducted. In addition to the maximum surge level measured during the 13-year period, the
average of the top 20 and the top 0.1 % measured surge levels were determined. The six water
levels used in the wave modeling are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Six water levels used in the wave modeling.
Water levels
Elevation relative to MSL (m)
LLW (Mean Lower Low Water)
-0.52
MSL (Mean Sea Level)
0
HHW (Mean Higher High Water)
0.56
Average of top 1% measured surge
0.75
Average of top 20 measured surge
1.15
IM aximum measured surge
1.66
Simulated Wave Field under Existing Conditions
A project -scale wave model was constructed based on the detailed bathymetric and
topographic survey conducted by Quible & Associates. A small grid -cell size of 3X3 m was used
to ensure adequate spatial resolution and for the design of the artificial reef system. The modeling
domain is shown in Figure 29. The large bathymetry variations particularly along the north and
east sides of Sugarloaf Island are created by the dredging projects associated with the North
Carolina Port directly to the east. The topographic variations of Sugarloaf Island are related to the
land fill associated with historic dredging.
The seabed slope seaward (west) of the western sand spit is quite gentle with relatively
extensive shallow water. The seabed slope along most of the south -facing eroding shoreline is
quite steep, with water depth (relative to MSL) reaching 2 m within 30 m from the MSL shoreline.
A shallow shoal occurs seaward (southward) of the south -facing eastern sand spit, while the north -
and east -facing part of the sand spit dips into the dredged channel rather rapidly. The north -facing
marsh coast also has a steep slope into the dredged channel (Figure 29). These bathymetry
characteristics, partly natural and partly artificial, play a significant role in the design of the
artificial reef system layout for wave -energy reduction.
A total of 168 wave runs were conducted, including the 7 incident wave angles with 4 wave
conditions each (Tables 2 and 3) at 6 water levels (Table 4) (7x4x6=168 runs). In the following,
computed wave fields from 3 of the 7 incident angles, 165, 225, and 265 (Ta4l 2 apd: �, gray
SF.11 ,19 r J 2 ?
DCM-MHD CITY

highlights), are discussed. The rest of the incident waves is either less energetic or quite similar to
these three. Since beach erosion tends to occur under higher water level conditions, two of the
higher water levels, MHHW and 1.15 in surge (average of the top 20 surge levels over the 13-year
period) (Table 4 gray highlight), are discussed. Because waves generated by average wind
conditions are quite low with very short period and should not play a significant part in causing
beach erosion, wave fields associated with average conditions are not discussed here.
Figure 29. Bathymetry of the project -scale model.
The modeled wave fields associated with the 165-degree incident wave at MHHW level
are shown in Figure 30. The upper panel shows the wave field generated by the average of top I%
fastest wind. Overall, the waves along Sugarloaf Island are lower than 0.2 in. Due to orientation
of the island, the wave height along the protruding western shoreline is greater than that along the
eastern shoreline. Figure 30 middle panel shows the wave field generated by tropical storm
strength wind. The waves along Sugarloaf Island can reach 0.3 m. The eastward wave -height
decreasing trend also occurs. Figure 30 lower panel shows the wave field generated by Category
1 hurricane strength wind (lower threshold). Waves of up to 0.5 in high occur along the Sugarloaf
Island shoreline with a rather significant eastward decreasing trend, from 0.5 in at the western end
to 0.3 in at the eastern end. It is worth noting again that this hurricane strength wind is considerably
faster than the fastest wind speed measured at the nearby NOAA station (BFTN7 - 8656483) over
the 13-year period between 2009 and 2021. The relatively high wave at the southwestern end of
the island (a subtle headland) contributes to the aggressive beach erosion there. The eastward
wave -height decreasing trend and the subsequent longshore transport gradient explains the erosive
trend along the middle section of the island and the shallow shoal seaward of the eastern end,
where the eroded sand likely deposited.

The modeled wave fields associated with the 165-degree incident wave with a 1.15 in storm
surge arc shown in Figure 31. As compared to the previous MHHW case (Figure 30), the deeper
water results in less friction -induced and refraction -related wave energy dissipation and
subsequently higher waves along the shoreline. The eastward wave -height decreasing trend is still
modeled and with a greater rate, as compared to the MHHW case. Under a typical storm condition
represented by the average of the top 1 % fastest wind, the wave along Sugarloaf Island reaches
0.3 m (Figure 31 upper panel), versus 0.2 m at MHHW level. Under tropical storm strength wind,
the waves along Sugarloaf Island can reach 0.4 m (Figure 31 middle panel), versus 0.3 m at
MHHW level. Under the Category 1 hurricane strength wind (lower threshold), waves along the
shoreline can reach 0.6 m (Figure 31 lower panel), versus 0.5 m for the MHHW level.
The modeled wave fields associated with the 225-degree incident wave at MHHW level
are shown in Figure 32. The upper panel shows the wave field generated by the average of top 1 %
fastest wind. Overall, the wave along Sugarloaf Island is lower than 0.1 in. The lower wave height,
as compared to the 165-degree case (Figure 30 upper panel), is caused by the lower wave at the
model boundary (Table 2) and more energy loss due to refraction for the more obliquely incident
wave. A major difference between this case and the 165-degree case is that the waves arrive at the
shoreline at a greater oblique angle. This would drive more active longshore sand transport. Due
to orientation of the island, the wave height along the protruding western shoreline is higher than
that along the eastern shoreline, similar to the 165-degree case. Figure 32 middle panel shows the
wave field generated by tropical storm strength wind. The waves along Sugarloaf Island can reach
0.3 m, arriving at the shoreline at an oblique angle. The eastward wave -height decreasing trend
also occurs. Figure 32 lower panel shows the wave field generated by Category I hurricane
strength wind (lower threshold). Waves of up to 0.4 in high occur along the Sugarloaf Island
shoreline at a high oblique angle and with a rather significant eastward decreasing trend, from 0.4
m at the western end to 0.3 m at the eastern end. Similar to the 165-degree case, the relatively high
wave at the southwestern end of the island (a subtle headland) contributes to the aggressive beach
erosion there. The eastward wave -height decreasing trend combined with a high oblique incident
wave angle would drive a substantial longshore transport gradient. This sand transport gradient
may contribute significantly to the development of the shallow shoal seaward of the eastern end.
The modeled wave fields associated with the 225-degree incident wave with a 1.15 in storm
surge are shown in Figure 33. As compared to the previous MHHW case (Figure 32), the deeper
water results in less friction -induced and refraction -related wave energy dissipation and slightly
higher waves along the shoreline. The reduced degree of refraction also results in a more oblique
wave angle near the shoreline. The eastward wave -height decreasing trend is still modeled and
with a greater rate. Therefore, as compared to the MHHW level case, the storm surge case results
in a greater longshore sand transport gradient due to higher nearshore wave and larger oblique
wave angle. Under a typical storm condition represented by the average of the top 1 % fastest wind,
the wave along Sugarloaf Island is mostly less than 0.1 m (Figure 33 upper panel), similar to the
MHHW level case. Under tropical storm strength wind, the waves along Sugarloaf island can reach
0.3 in (Figure 33 middle panel), similar to the 0.3 in at MHHW level. Under the Category 1
hurricane strength wind (lower threshold), waves along the Sugarloaf Island shoreline can reach
0.5 in (Figure 33 lower panel), versus 0.4 m for the MHHW level. RF0f7n ri::r,
Sf P 2 9 rN'.?
DCM-MHD CITY

n
41 11r Irl V! 111I it 111 I- fl �r •
'`(yll " 11 i..I II I1� I 11 i-.I ',., , Ir „ , •
At
III 1 Ill1 IEII 1� `
.•
I- -_
L
owl P91. „:
1
W.
II CIE I
-
I i II �I:'i
............
.III�
1 r ' I r l I
-
.l
1 l l ..1 Ld 1.i,Unl l .tul .1:-.1.
L.. -i.t t �1 .1, l 1 1 1 1 } 1 1 1 ! I 1 1 �• I I
1
__
s
Figure 30. Computed wave fields of the 165-degree incident wave at MHHW. Upper: H= 0.28
m, T = 1.72 s. Middle: H = 0.44 m, T = 2.00 s. Lower: H = 0.90 m, T = 2.62 s. Zooming in (e.g.,
to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

i�-� Yyf � � 1. F✓
i`
Figure 31. Computed wave fields of the 165-degree incident wave with 1.15 in storm surge.
Upper: H = 0.28 m, T = 1.72 s. Middle: H = 0.44 m, T = 2.00 s. Lower: H = 0.90 m, T = 2.62 s.
Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.
RECTIVEb
SEP 29 �
DCM-MHD CITY

�1
......
Figure 32. Computed wave fields of the 225-degree incident wave at MHHW. Upper: H = 0.21
in, T= 1.60 s. Middle: H = 0.48 m, T = 2.15 s. Lower: H = 0.98 m, T = 2.81 s. Zooming in (c.g.,
to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figure 33. Computed wave fields of the 225-degree incident wave with 1.15 m storm surge.
Upper. H = 0.21 m, T = 1.60 s. Middle: H = 0.48 m, T = 2.15 s. Lower: H = 0.98 m, T = 2.81 S.
Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.
SEP 2 9 2022
DCM- AHD o ry

For both the 165- and 225-degree incident cases, some wave energy diffracts around the
western tip of the island and reaches north side (Figures 30 through 33). The wave diffraction is
more significant for the more oblique 225-degree wave and under elevated water level due to storm
surge. The diffracted wave also plays a role in the overwashing and eastward (island -ward)
migration of the western spit.
The modeled wave fields associated with the 265-degree incident wave at MHHW level
are shown in Figure 34. Compared to the southerly approaching cases discussed above, this
westerly incident wave propagates roughly parallel to Sugarloaf Island. This results in a much
higher wave along the western end of the island than along the sheltered eastern side. Furthermore,
the much longer fetch to the west results in much higher input wave with much longer period at
the model boundary (Tables 2 and 3).
The upper panel of Figure 34 shows the wave field generated by the average of top 1%
fastest wind. The wave along Sugarloaf Island reaches 0.3 m at the western end. The wave height
decreases to less than 0.1 m toward the eastern end. Figure 34 middle panel shows the wave field
generated by tropical storm strength wind. The waves reach 0.5 m at the western end, arriving at
the shoreline at a large oblique angle. The wave height decreases to less than 0.1 m along the
western end of the island. Under a Category 1 hurricane strength wind (lower threshold), waves of
up to 0.6 m high occur along the western end of Sugarloaf Island at a high oblique angle. The wave
height decreases to lower than 0.3 m along the eastern end of the island. Overall, this largely shore -
parallel incident wave arrives at Sugarloaf Island shoreline with a highly oblique angle. This,
combined with a large eastward decrease of wave height, results in a substantial gradient of
longshore sand transport rate. This should be the dominant mechanism driving the erosion along
the western spit and the western portion of the beach erosion.
The modeled wave fields associated with the 265-degree incident wave with a 1.15 in storm
surge are shown in Figure 35. As compared to the previous MHHW case (Figure 34), the deeper
water results in less friction -induced and refraction -related wave energy dissipation and slightly
higher waves along the shoreline. The reduced degree of refraction also results in an even more
oblique wave angle near the shoreline. The eastward wave -height decreasing trend has an even
greater rate due to the higher waves at the western end. Therefore, as compared to the MHHW
level case, the storm surge case results in an even greater longshore sand transport gradient due to
higher nearshore wave and larger oblique wave angle, in addition to a larger rate of eastward wave -
height decrease. Under a typical storm condition represented by the average of the top 1 % fastest
wind, the waves along the western end can reach 0.4 in (Figure 35 upper panel), versus 0.3 m at
MHHW level. Under tropical storm strength wind, the waves at the western end of the island can
reach 0.6 m (Figure 35 middle panel), versus 0.5 m at MHHW level. Under the Category 1
hurricane strength wind (lower threshold), waves at the western end can reach 0.8 m (Figure 33
lower panel), versus 0.6 m for the MHHW level. It is worth noting again that this hurricane strength
wind is considerably faster than the fastest wind speed measured at the NOAA station (BFTN7 -
8656483) over the 13-year period between 2009 and 2021. Therefore, the 0.8 m wave should
represent an upper limit for the Sugarloaf Island project area.

Figure 34. Computed wave fields of the 265-degree incident wave at MHHW. Upper: H = 0.49
in, T = 2.80 s. Middle: H = 0.93 m, T - 3.92 s. Lower: H = 1.46 m, T = 5.05 s. Zooming in (e.g.,
to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.
RFCC-ItIED
S£F 2 9 2022
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 35. Computed wave fields of the 265-degree incident wave with 1.15 in storm surge.
Upper: H = 0.49 m, T = 2.80 s. Middle: H = 0.93 in, T = 3.92 s. Lower: H = 1.46 in, T = 5.05 s.
Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Since the 265-degree incident wave propagates roughly parallel to Sugarloaf Island, a
considerable amount of wave energy reaches between the island and mainland shoreline to the
north. Elevated water level due to storm surge allows more wave energy to reach this area. This
pattern of wave focusing at the western spit should be the dominant mechanism driving its
eastward migration.
Proposed Alternatives for Shore Protection
The design of shoreline protection measure was based on the understanding of existing
wave and current conditions, as discussed above. The overall goal is to modify the existing
conditions to significantly weaken or eliminate the mechanisms that are causing beach erosion
along the south -facing shoreline and the island -ward migration of the western and eastern spits.
Here, a brief summary of the findings from the field investigation, tidal current measurement, and
wave modeling is provided to serve as the basis for the design of the shore -protection measure.
Based on the field investigation, the migration of the western and eastern spits towards the
interior of the island takes the morphology form of landward migrating beach ridges, with a steep
slope landward (Figures 3 and 5). This is also confirmed by the time -series aerial photos (Figures
8 through 15). Breaching is also observed at the eastern spit. In terms of process, the typically
landward migration of beach ridges is driven by overwash under the combined conditions of high
wave and elevated water level. For the Sugarloaf Island case, it is not realistic to eliminate elevated
water level caused by storms. It involves a much larger spatial scale than Sugarloaf Island. Locally,
the overwash can be significantly reduced or eliminated by substantially reducing wave height,
particularly under storm conditions.
The aggressive beach erosion along the south -facing shoreline is mainly caused by the
relatively high wave generated locally within Bogue Sound by strong winds during storms,
particularly winds from the south and west. Under normal (average) conditions, the locally wind -
generated waves are too low to initial significant sediment transport. Under storm conditions, the
south -facing shoreline is exposed to waves of over 0.5 in high. More importantly, a substantial
eastward wave -height decreasing trend occur under almost all the conditions. This wave -height
decrease, combined with an oblique incident wave angle from the west, results in a persistent
eastward -decreasing gradient in longshore sand transport rate. This active nearshore sediment
transport and the longshore transport gradient can be significantly weakened by reducing the wave
height arriving at the shoreline and eliminate the wave -height gradient.
The strong tidal flows, of up to 70 cm/s, directly along the coastline contribute to
transporting sediment away from the beach and prevent beach from accreting. Based on field
observation, tidal flow within the surf zone is not strong enough to initiate sediment motion.
However, sediment can be mobilized by breaking waves and transported alongshore by tidal
currents. Furthermore, the strong tidal flows can have a negative impact on habitat restoration in
RF'EIVED
9EP 29 2027
DCM-MHD CITY

the subtidal area. Therefore, reducing tidal flow velocities directly seaward of the beach and in the
areas of habitat restoration is necessary.
The proposed shore -protection measure was designed based on the above understanding.
The artificial reef system, WAD (Wave Attenuation Device), will be used to reduce wave energy
arriving at the shoreline. The WADS array will also significantly reduce the tidal flow velocity
landward of the artificial reef. The location of the WADS array is slightly seaward of the locations
of the current measurements. Two alternatives were examined using the wave model constructed
by this study.
The Alternative 1 WADs array layout is shown in Figure 36. The artificial reef WAD
system will be installed along roughly 1.5 m contour. The WADS array is largely continuous, but
with two wide gaps. A wide 115-m wide gap is designed directly seaward of the walkway to a
shelter and an open field on the island. The purpose of this gap is to allow vessels to access the
shoreline at this location for activities, e.g., 4t' of July firework. It is worth emphasizing that this
section of the shoreline is presently experiencing likely the most aggressive erosion. The second
gap is designed at the southeast -facing section of the shoreline. it is 60-m wide and facing
southeast. The top elevation of the artificial reef system is designed at MHHW.
Figure 36. Layout of Alternative i artificial reef (WADS) array for wave -energy reduction.
The computed wave fields for the Alternative 1 WADs array layout are shown in Figures
37 through 39 for the three wave conditions discussed above. Only the wave fields associated with
the MHHW level are shown and discussed here. Since the WADs extend to MHHW level, minimal
overtopping of the short --period wind wave occurs. In other words, the WADs array blocks almost

all the wave energy arriving at the shoreline landward of the reef, except under Category I
hurricane strength wind. Some wave overtopping occurs, particularly for the 265-degree incident
wave.
A major issue relating to the Alternative 1 design is the large gap directly seaward of the
shelter and open field. The 115-m gap allows waves to arrive at the shoreline with practically no
energy reduction. Given that this section is presently experiencing the most aggressive erosion,
this complete lack of protection over a long stretch of the shoreline is quite problematic. For this
reason, Alternative 1 is not recommended. In addition, significant wave overtopping, not
illustrated and discussed here because this Alternative is not recommended, occurs when the water
level is higher than MHHW.
Based on the results of Alternative 1 wave modeling as illustrated and discussed here
(Figures 37 through 39), two improvements are necessary. First, the 115-m wide gap needs to be
narrowed. The large wave height gradient due to the lack of wave protection there may worsen the
existing aggressive erosion problem there. Second, the artificial reef units need to extend above
the MHHW level to offer adequate protection during storm conditions with a surge, which
constitute a major mechanism that causes the beach erosion and overwash at the western and
eastern spits.
The Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative, revised based on the results from Alternative
1) is designed based on the above understanding, with the goal of significantly improving the
deficiencies as discussed above. The top elevation of the artificial reef (WAD) unit is raised to
0.45 m above MHHW to offer improved protection under storm surge conditions. In order to avoid
substantial increase of the WAD unit height, the WADs array is moved slightly landward to 1.2 in
contour from the previous 1.5 in contour (Figure 40). This results in even narrower spacing
between the WADS array and the shoreline along the south -facing section. However, due to the
much gentler slope at the western and eastern spits, there is still substantial spacing between the
WADS array and the shoreline for habitat restoration there.
The most significant modification from Alternative 1 is the substantial reduction of the gap
width at the shelter and the open field (for activities). The gap is reduced from 115 in to 60 m, or
nearly by 50%. In addition, a shore -based reef system will be installed in the surf zone to help
anchor the shoreline. The gap to the east was not changed.
In order to mitigate potential trapping of tidal flow between the WADs array and the
shorelinc, a 10-m spur is designed at the four ends of the two gaps to divert the tidal flow seaward.
REeE1VED
SFP 29 ?0?.2
E)CM-MHD CITY

Figure 37. Computed wave fields of the 165-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 1
WADS layout. Upper: H — 0.28 m, T = 1.72 s. Middle: H = 0.44 m, T = 2.00 s. Lower: H = 0.90
m, T= 2.62 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figure 38. Computed wave fields of the 225-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 1
WADs layout. Upper: H = 0.21 m, T = 1.60 s. Middle: H = 0.48 m, T = 2.15 s. Lower: H = 0.98
m, T= 2.81 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details1}eld.
SEP 2 9 2022
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 39. Computed wave fields of the 265-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 1
WADs layout. Upper: H = 0.49 in, T = 2.80 s. Middle: H = 0.93 m, T = 3.92 s. Lower: H= 1.46
m, T — 5.05 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figure 40. Layout of Alternative 2 artificial reef (WADs) array for wave -energy reduction.
The computed wave fields associated with the Alternative 2 design are shown in Figures
41 through 46. The same three wave conditions as discussed above for Alternative 1 are illustrated
and discussed here. In addition to the MHHW level, the wave fields associated with the substantial
storm surge level of 1.15 m (i.e., the average of the top 20 surge levels over the past 13 years) are
also illustrated and discussed.
Figures 41 through 43 illustrate the modeled wave field for the Alternative 2 WADs design
under MHHW level. Since the WAD units extend 0.45 in above the MHHW level, no wave
overtopping occurs with the only exception for the waves generated by the westerly approaching
hurricane strength wind (Figure 43 lower panel). Some overtopping of this high and long -period
wave occurs. It is worth noting again that this extreme wind and subsequently wave conditions has
not been measured over the past 13 years.
The 10-m spurs on both sides of the south -facing gap offer some wave protection
particularly for the oblique incident waves, i.e., 225- and 265-degree waves (Figures 42 and 43).
This is in addition to design goal of diverting tidal flow seaward to prevent trapping between the
shoreline and the WADS array. Overall, considerable amount of wave energy still arrives at the
shoreline. This is inevitable due to the need of vessel access at this area. However, compared to
the Alternative 1 design, the zone of relatively high -wave energy is much narrower. A shore -based
artificial reef system is proposed to mitigate this problem by anchoring the shoreline there.
RECEIVED
SEP 2 g 2022
DCM-MHD CITY

Figure 41. Computed wave fields of the 165-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 2
WADs layout. Upper: H = 0.28 m, T — 1.72 s. Middle: H = 0.44 m, T = 2.00 s. Lower: H — 0.90
m, T = 2.62 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

r G
!t f
MEo• r
L
- n—ir. / `tlFAbbR9Silh�,•i- tr-.. . ,
RECEIVED
S E P 2 9 ?Cj l
DCM-MHD CITY
Figure 42. Computed wave fields of the 225-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 2
WADS layout. Upper: H = 0.21 m, T = 1.60 s. Middle: H — 0.48 m, T = 2.15 s. Lower: H = 0.98
m, T= 2.81 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figure 43. Computed wave fields of the 265-degree incident wave at MHHW for Alternative 2
WADS layout. Upper: H = 0.49 m, T = 2.80 s. Middle: H = 0.93 m, T — 3.92 s. Lower. H = 1.46
m, T— 5.05 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figures 44 through 46 illustrate the modeled wave field for the Alternative 2 WADs design
with a substantial storm surge of 1.15 m. As discussed earlier (Table 4), this represents the average
of top 20 surge levels measured at the nearby NOAA station over a 13-year period. This rather
extreme storm surge would submerge the WADs array, with a water depth of 0.15 m above the
WAD crest. Various degrees of wave overtopping occur for all incident wave conditions, in
addition to the wave transmission through the 60-m wide south -facing gap. However, the slightly
submerged WADS array still significantly reduced the incident wave energy landward of the array.
The wave heights landward of the WADs array are mostly lower than 0.2 m, in comparison with
wave heights of up to 0.7 in seaward. The roughly shore -perpendicular 165-degree incident wave
generate by hurricane strength wind results in the highest wave landward of the WADs (Figure 44
lower panel). This is likely due to wave shoaling over the submerged artificial reef In comparison,
for the highly oblique incident waves from 225 and 265 degrees, the wave shoaling is much
subdued and is replaced by wave refraction over the submerged reef. This results in substantially
reduced wave height landward.
The east -facing gap seaward of the east end of the island does not result in significant wave
transmission simply because it is facing the direction of wave propagation. Some wave diffraction
occurs for the shore -perpendicular 165-degree incident wave (Figures 41). The degree of wave
diffraction is reduced under storm surge condition when the WADS array is submerged. For the
south -facing gap, shore -based reef system is needed for storm surge condition.
Similar to the MHHW level case, the 10-m spurs on both sides of the south -facing gap
offer some wave protection particularly for the oblique incident waves, i.e., 225- and 265-degree
waves (Figures 42 and 43). However, the wave -height reduction is less than the MHHW level case
due to the submergence of the spurs.
Overall, the Alternative 2 WADs array design provides solid protection of the entire
Sugarloaf Island shoreline, reducing the height of waves to less than 0.2 in under almost all incident
wave conditions, as well as at storm surge levels of up to 1.15 in which equals the average of the
top 20 measured surge levels over a 13-year period. The slightly permeable WAD units would
block most of the tidal flow from reaching landward of the array. In addition, the spurs at the gaps
would divert flow seaward and prevent potential trapping of current between the WADs array and
the shoreline. The 60-m gap that is needed for activities directly seaward of the shelter and open
field would allow significant wave energy to reach this section of aggressively eroding shoreline.
Beach and intertidal -based reef system is proposed to anchor the shoreline.
RFCEIVFD
SEP 29 t iy?
DCM-MHD CITY

r is Irl 1 f
� J.
fY{ C
dc
'1lflllirr?Jr
111f1 I il! it
' IlllSil111'rlfllrl
+;
'�1'11151111111r11f,1!
ry l'111517'3111r111 yy
_ .``I lllr rlf"+•
.Sllfll
S'1l'511111tS111}I1111:
t1�114111111FS111f11111
.� II' rl�
ck111141i11711lIt11!I111!
1155i11151115i1!1711l11111'1117i1
����-�
11�t��
IIl1115111111!l11111I11111151}IIlIr -
114111SI11111111111f I11f111F11t1i 11
r+ 1-t`:_I'�'I�r � � '
Illlfllilrt�r ;t;'r
111 k11111d I I111151EfiIt11}1111111711t3f
tf 1 17'Ilrf''rt-rl r 'r
11
111111151115t! 11II411111111511'i+I5 t11f111111111.11111i'IIt11f'!rr1
I If I1111111}11111511111�1111111' It41S111i1111111t
'r:�.
It111 a 11 fl llrt ttl rr ��r
I ltlllf 11114471s1 SSS ll'114fIiS1F1' I'Ittl4f1151111flllllflttfit
I !'IlI5Sll1t11'11i111'i 1111- II'1111t11 FlIIIIIrr1I
l-I IIIrffYlfll
1'1111ifffllllfl/,•/�,
Figure 44. Computed wave fields of the 165-degree incident wave with 1. IS m storm surge for
Alternative 2. Upper: H = 0.28 m, T = 1.72 s. Middle: H = 0.44 m, T = 2.00 s. Lower: H = 090
m, T = 2.62 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

1
r
. . .
----' �Sa L.a:��.i.,.e.,c:r`.,i?tr_.ue.e!.ra.:r:..;d�..ii�af•-.:i�.a .-,r .C�.-:... . . . . .... . . .... , ..... , ,
RFOr"PD
SEP 2 9
DCM-MHD C1TN
Figure 45. Computed wave fields of the 225-degree incident wave with 1.15 m storm surge for
Alternative 2. Upper: H = 0.21 m, T = 1.60 s. Middle: H = 0.48 in, T = 2.15 s. Lower: H = 0.98
m, T= 2.81 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

Figure 46. Computed wave fields of the 265-degree incident wave with 1.15 m storm surge for
Alternative 2, Upper. H = 0.49 rn, T = 2.80 s. Middle: H = 0.93 m, T = 3.92 s. Lower: H = 1.46
m, T — 5.05 s. Zooming in (e.g., to 200%) on the figures to view the details of the wave field.

REFERENCES
Beck, T.M. and Legault, K.R., 2012. Dredging optimization of an inlet system for adjacent shore
protection projects using CMS and GenCade. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Coastal Engineering. ASCE Press, Management, 34.
Beck, T. M. and Wang, P., 2019. Morphodynamics of Barrier -Inlet Systems in the Context of
Regional Sediment Management, with Case Studies from West -Central Florida, USA. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 177, 31-51.
Beck, T.M., Wang, P., Li, H. and Wu, W,, 2020. Sediment Bypassing Pathways between Tidal
Inlets and Adjacent Beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 36, 897-914.
Buttolph, A.M., Reed, C.W., Kraus, N.C., Ono, N., Larson, M., Camenen, B., Hanson, H.,
Wamsley, T., Zundel, A.K., 2006. Two-dimensional depth -averaged circulation model CMS-
M213: Version 3.0, Report 2, sediment transport and morphology change. ERDC/CHL TR-06-9,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 149 pp.
Davis R.A., 1994. Barriers of the Florida Gulf Peninsula. In R.A. Davis (ed.), Geology of
Holocene Barrier Island Systems. Springer-Verlag, 167-206.
Demirbilek, Z., Lin, L., Hayter, E., O'Connell, C., Mohr, M., Chader, S., and Forgette, C.,
2015a. Modeling of Waves, Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport for Protection of Wetlands
at Braddock Bay, New York. ERDC TR-14-8, pp.122.
Demirbilek, Z., Lin, L., Ward, D.L., and King, D.B., 2015b. Modeling Study for Tangier Island
Jetties, Tangier Island, Virginia. ERDC TR-14-8, pp.110.
Larson L., Camenen, B., Nam, P.T., 2011. A unified sediment transport model for inlet
application. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 59, 27-39,
Leenknecht, D., Szuwalski, A., and Sherlock, A.R., 1992. Automated Coastal Engineering
System User's Guide, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS,
373pp.
Li, H., Lin, L., and Burks -Copes, K.A. (2013). Modeling of coastal inundation, storm surge, and
relative sea -level rise at Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal
Research, 29(1), 18-30.
Lin L., Demirbilek, Z., Mase, H., 2011. Recent capabilities of CMS -Wave: A coastal wave
model for inlets and navigation projects. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 59, 7-15.
Reed, C.W., Brown, M.E., Sanchez, A., Wu, W., Buttolph, A.M., 2011. The Coastal Modeling
System Flow Model (CMS -Flow): past and present. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue
59, 1-7.
Resio, D.T., Bratos, S.M., and Thompson, E.F., 2006. Meteorology and Wave Climate. EM
1110-2-1100 (Part II Chapter 2), US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. RUcTDVED
SEP 2 9 2022
QCM-MHD CITY

Sanchez, A., Wu, W., 2011. A non -equilibrium sediment transport model for coastal inlets and
navigation channels. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 59, 39-49.
Sanchez, A., Wu, W., Li, H., Brown, M., Reed, C., Rosati, J.D., and Demirbilek, Z., 2014.
Coastal Modeling System: Mathematical Formulations and Numerical Methods. ERDCICHL
TR-14-2, pp. 104.
Wang, P., Beck T.M., and Roberts T.M., 2011. Modeling regional -scale sediment transport and
medium -term morphology change at a dual inlet system examined with the Coastal Modeling
System (CMS): A case study at Johns Pass and Blind Pass, west -central Florida. Journal of
Coastal Research, Special Issue 59, 49-60.
Wang, P., and Beck, T.M., 2012. Morphodynamics of an anthropogenically altered dual -inlet
system: John's Pass and Blind Pass, west -central Florida, USA. Marine Geology, v. 291-294,
162-175.
Wu, W., Sanchez, A., Zhang, M., 2011. An implicit 2-D shallow water flow model for inlets and
navigation projects. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 59, 15-27.

APPENDIX E
PFCEIVFD
DCM-MHD CITY

FIN/M
2 9 202?
HID CITY

APPENDIX F
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 IOZ?
DCM-MHD CITY

i "191 vprl
SEP 2 9 ZflzZ

SEP 2 9 apt
OCA4,A HD CIT

RECE�V\D
SEP 2 9 / /
OCA4-Mill) CITY

RECF:'l/GD
SEP 2 9 [022
DCM-MHD CITY

RECEI V ef)
SEP 2 9 2uZ?
DCA4`A4HI) CITY

RECF fkif=D
SEP
DCM-MHL) CITY

%
dG2.
9G2r\� D
.3 E
DOM.MHD CITY

�k
I
RECEIVED
SEP 29 : o
DCM-MHD CITY

I
pi
m
RECFIVED

J
E.f..
a
E
F'n
CL
u
W
�o
0
a
OL
E
m
x
w
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 ZON
DCMI-MHD CITY

'r-
SEP 2.9
1r'?
DCM-MHD CITY

RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 Z02Z
U(:M-MHD CITY

DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Morehead City
Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mr. Christopher
Turner, Inerim Town Manager
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Dr. Lexia
Weaver, NCCF
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
1100 Bridges St.
Morehead City
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28557
USA
252 - 726 - 6848 ext.
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent(Contractor Information
Business Name
Quible & Asscoiates P.C.
Agent! Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Brian
Rubino
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City State
870
Kitty Hawk NC
ZIP
Phone No. i
Phone No. 2
27949
252 - 491 -
8147 ext.
ext.
FAX No
Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
&466 Caratoke Highway
Powells Point
NC
27966 -
Email
[e-mail]
<Form continues on backs SEP 2 g 1 IV
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.necoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Carteret
None- Island in Bogue Sound (downtown Morehead City)
N/A
Subdivision Name
city
State
Zip
NIA
Morehead City
NC
28512 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
252 - 726 - 6848 ext.
I I ,
a, in which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
White Oak
Bogue Sound
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural []Manmade ❑Unknown
Bogue Sound
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes ❑No
work falls within.
Morehead City
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
7,743 ft
607,744 sgft (13.95 ac)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
6 ®NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Uplands: Quecus virginiana, Juniperus virginiana, Morella cerifera, Baccharis halimifolia
Wetlands: Juncus roemerianus, Spatina alternaflora, Spartina patens, Schoenoplectus spp, Distichlis spicata
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Public dock with floating platform (north side), bathroom with composting toilet, storage structure
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Marinas, restaurants, commercial businesses, public streets, parks and residential home sites.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Floodplain (FP)
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes MNo
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next pages
RECEIVED
SEP 29 20%)
CITY252-808-2808 . 9-888.4RCOAST www.nccoastalmanagemenf ne

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes [:]No
Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes [--]No
{Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
There is only one composting toilet and no other wastewater treatment
o Describe existing drinking water supply source.
None
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
None
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®PubliclGovernment
❑PrivatelCommunity
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daity operations of the project when complete.
The purpose of this project is to protect the island and assoicated shoreline from heavy, ongoing erosion and to restore
essential fish habitat. This will be a living shoreline project that involves an outer wave attenuation system and intertidal
oyster reefs. There will also be native plantings in the intertidal zone and upland areas. There is also minor dredging
proposed on the east end of the island that has migrated into the Federal Navigation Channel. Excavated material form the
east end will be incorporated back into the island above the mean high tide line.
c, Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Barges with a crane, dumptrucks, excavator, skid steer, handtools
d. List all development activities you propose.
All activities are associated with island protection and habitat restoration. The island is used recreationally, but perhaps
more imporatant, the island has protected adjacent properties and Town infrastructure from storms and normal erosion. The
island has suffered from rapid erosion at alarming rates If nothing is done in the near future to protect this important
resource, it wil Ibe lost. The accompanying materials include exhibits documenting erosion in recent years
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 0,82 ❑Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
None
i Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? [-]Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. REUNED
<Form continues on backs SEP 29
252-806-L808 .. 1.888-41l all www.nCeoi�_�z,e'wrr� riagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application fort, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a A project narrative
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and crass -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d, A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e, The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR,
f A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Residence At 9111, LLC Phone No.
Address P.O. Box 2418, Morehead City, NC 28557
Name NC State Ports Authority (Attu. Mr Todd Walton) Phone No.
Address P.O. Box 9002, Wilmington, NC 28402
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N-C- Environmental Policy Act (N-C-G-S- 113A 1-10), if necessary- If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of stale and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date
Print Name
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development EP t
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM-MHL) CITY
tz�2-808-2808 .. . ­88-41[RCOAST .. www.ncc u"� Lad,r�.grraged,-, nt.net

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Farm DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Rock Sill: 206
ft
WAD® Sill:
Length
Oyster Table
3,474 ft
Sill: 3,604 ft
Rock Sill: 18
ft
WAD® Sill:
Width
Oyster Table
18 ft
Sill: 5 ft
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
Depth
9. EXCAVATION ❑ This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards. sand dominated
approx. 4,000 cu yds
c (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas
To remove material that has migrated into the Federal
Navigation Channel and has become a navigation hazard
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards-
approx. 3,000 cu yds
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ®This section not applicable
a Location of disposal area b. Dimensions of disposal area
Above MHWL on the island (see CAMA Plan for detail) irregular shaped largely unvegatated areas: 32,000 sq ft
(above MHWL)
C. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
d. (i) Wili a disposa[ area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, where?
other upland areas on the island
e, (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh f, (i) Does the disposal include any area A the water?
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), ❑Yes ®No DNA ���
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the EIVED
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
SEP 2 9 202Z
252-808-2808 :: 9-888-4RCOAST :: w vw.nccoastaiman�!gement.net rib" ed: 12126106
dM-MHD CITY

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
This will help replenish sand in areas that are suffering from
heavy storm erosion No fill prposed in wetlands.
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ❑This section not applicable
(if development is a wood groin, use MP-4 - Structures)
a Type of shoreline stabilization:
❑Bulkhead ®Riprap ®BreakwaterlSiil ❑Other:
C. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL, WADs: 40 ft, Oyster
Tables: 15 ft, Riprap: 0
b, Length: 2,716
Width: 18
d, Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: WADs 240 ft
NHW, Oyster Tables: 40 ft, Riprap: 0
o Type of stabilization material: f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
Concrete WAD® structures, Biodegradable Oyster Tables, Rock months?
g Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level,
Bulkhead backfill N/A Riprap 0
Breakwater/Sill WAD& 66,906 sq.ft. Other Oyster Tables:
18,020 sq.ft.
i, Source of fill material,
Hollow concrete WAD& structures that will be fabricted and oyster
reef media
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
4-16 ft (rate varies in different portions of the island (aerial
photos and in -person surveying)
h. Type of fill material.
Hollow concrete WAD® structures and rock. The bottom is open
(not a solid bottom and there are large openings for fish
passage and flushing).
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) WRI fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No DNA b
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of till
(i) Will fill material be placed In coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e 9, dragline,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
An important part of this project is to plant native herbaceous Barges with crane, dumptruck, skidsteer, excavator
vegetation. This will be planted in the intertidal zone in some
locations and in open bare sand areas.
c (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equiµmpp l to projP.lot
®Yes ❑No RNA site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA `" ' k=D
(6) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
252-808-2808 ::-88t?-4RC0�4ST :: www.nccoastalmana�remant.net i 2126106

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill* Page 3 of 3)
There will be several pilings (see locations on plan) with
reflective signage and solar lights on the top. This will be
coordinated with USCG to ensure that the type of solar lights,
signage and height of piles conforms with the appropriate
standards,
Date
Project Name
Applicant Name
Applicant Signature
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
RE+C F-;'vEp
SEP 2901_?
DCM-MHD CITY
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12126106

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION
Name of Property Owner Requesting Perniit: Town of Morehead city
Mailing Address:
1100 Bridges St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone Number: [phone]
Email Address: [e-mail]
certify that I have authorized auibie & Associates; Sea & Shoreline and NC Coastal Federation
Agent ! Contractor
to act on my behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA permits
necessary for the following proposed development:
Sugarloaf Island Protection, Stabilization and Habitat Restoration
at my property located at Sugarloaf Island, Downtown Morehead City Waterfront
in Carteret County.
l furthermore certify that / am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to
Division of Coastal Management staff, the Local Permit Officer and their agents to enter
on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application.
Property Owner Infor a on:
1 Si ature
Print or Type Name
Tine
�t_�t 20 22
Date
This certification is valid through 12 1 31 1 23
RECEIVED
SEP 29 A,)
DCM-MHb CITY

APPENDIX H
5EP 2 9 2o?,,
DCM_MHD ClrV

Quible
Quible & Associates, P.C.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING • SURVEYING
SINCE 1959
September 20, 2022
NC State Ports Authority
2202 Burnett Blvd
Wilmington, NC 28402
RE: CAMA Major Permit Application
Sugarloaf Island
Morehead City, NC
To whom it may concern:
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web: quible.com
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
As adjacent riparian property owner to the above referenced project, it is required by NCDEQ, Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) that you be notified of the proposed work that requires CAMA Major
Permit. As depicted on the accompanying site plan, the proposed project includes protection and habitat
restoration of the shoreline on Sugarloaf Island adjacent to the Bogue Sound, Morehead City Harbor, and
NC State Port. Please see included Site Plan and permit application for details.
Should you have no objections to this proposal, please check "I have no objection to this proposal' line,
sign and date, on the included Adjacent Riparian Owner Statement. Please return this statement to Brian
Rubino, Quible & Associates, P.C., P.O. Drawer 870, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949 as soon as you can. You
can mail the original back to me, or you can scan and email back to brubino(@Quible-corn . I can also be
reached at 252-491-8147.
Should you have comments to this proposal, please send your written comments to the CAMA Field
Representative, Mr. Brad Connell, 400 Commerce Ave-, Morehead City, NC 28557. Written comments
must be received within 30 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to respond in either method within 30
days will be interpreted as no objection.
Sincerely,
Quible and Associates, P.C.
Brian Rubino
RFCPVl=p
S E P `f Oo
J)CAA-MHA . . T"Y

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to Town of Morehead City 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at Sugarloaf Island
(Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on Bogue Sound & Morehead City Harbor, in Morehead City, Carteret , N.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(Individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by
me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information) (Adjacent Property Owner Information)
Signature
Brian Rubino (Quible & Associates - Agent)
Print or Type Name
PO Box 870
Mailing Address
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949 _
City/State/Zip
252-491-8147 / [e-mail]
Telephone Number/email address
Date
*Valid for one calendar year after signature*
Signature*
NC State Ports Authroity
Print or Type Name
2202 Burnett Blvd
Mailing Address
Wilmington, NC 28402
City/state/Zip
Telephone Number/email address
Date* RECEIVED
(Revised Aug�repl9
DCM-MHD GITY

Quible
Quible & Associates, P.C.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING • SUPVEYING
5INC E 1959
September 20, 2022
Residence at 911, LLC
PO Box 2418
Morehead City, NC 28557
RE: LAMA Major Permit Application
Sugarloaf Island
Morehead City, NC
To whom it may concern:
P O Drawer 870
Kltty Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web: quibie.com
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
As adjacent riparian property owner to the above referenced project, it is required by NCDEQ, Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) that you be notified of the proposed work that requires CAMA Major
Permit. As depicted on the accompanying site plan, the proposed project includes protection and habitat
restoration of the shoreline on Sugarloaf Island adjacent to the Bogue Sound, Morehead City Harbor, and
NC State Port. Please see included Site Plan and permit application for details.
Should you have no objections to this proposal, please check "I have no objection to this proposal" line,
sign and date, on the included Adjacent Riparian Owner Statement. Please return this statement to Brian
Rubino, Quible & Associates, P.C., P.O. Drawer 870, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949 as soon as you can. You
can mail the original back to me, or you can scan and email back to brubinoCa7guible.com . I can also be
reached at 252-491-8147.
Should you have comments to this proposal, please send your written comments to the CAMA Field
Representative, Mr. Brad Connell, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557. Written comments
must be received within 30 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to respond in either method within 30
days will be interpreted as no objection.
Sincerely,
Quible and Associates, P.C.
Brian Rubino
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 2022
DCM`MHD CITY

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to
Town of Morehead City 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at Sugarloaf Island
(Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on Bogue Sound & Morehead City Harbor, in Morehead City, Carteret , N.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(Individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by
me. (If you wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information) (Adjacent Property Owner Information)
Signature
Brian Rubino (Quible & Associates - Agent)
Print or Type Name
PO Box 870
Mailing Address
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Cify/StatelZip
252-491-8147 / [e-mail]
Telephone Number/email address
Date
Signature*
Residence at 9th, LLC
Print or Type Name
PO Box 2418
Mailing Address
Morehead Citv. NC 28557
City/StatelZip
Telephone Number / email address
RECEIVED
Date*
(Revised Aug. 26!i�) 2 9 1
*Valid for one calendar year after signature*
DCM-MH0 ;.;'TY

APPENDIX I
RECFNED
SEP 2 9 �J22
DCM-MHD CITY

a
�
z
�C}
z
x
o
��
❑ n
;
Z
J
�
n
o
un,
uni
O
inn
Lrl
U
OC N
Z 00
00
00
00
00
00
Z
a
00
> ei
00
00
W
J
( j
N
N
N
N�
r%4
N
•-1
J
N
00
F- N
r fV
00
❑ Z
V
Z
LU V
Z
U
Z
U
Z
w V
Z�
w V
Z
D
Q
CC
V❑
N
W U
Z
W U�
z❑
n
n
N
In
J d
❑ }r
Q
O[
�
r
p[
H
�_
H
J
O g
D V
0C
�_
H
N �_
Ln
❑ 00
�
V
W CL
F"
p
Q 00
a N
y
Z
Q r11
U
`
Z
¢
�)
LLU V
00 U
00 U
w U
LNLI U=�
w Z
V
H
w V
w V
Q
o
N LLJ
O
❑
l7 ❑
❑
❑
C7 ❑
l7 ❑
CJ n
Z ¢
C]
a= 0
3 ❑
G ❑
3: Z
-p
cD J
a W
LL ¢
❑_ ¢
a
a
❑ ¢
❑ Q
Z N
W
oo ¢
¢ H
❑ ¢
¢
J
¢
�
Y
O
W
W
of
N W
N W
x=
W
W
m=
V
w
x x
w
W
m=
W
O
tia
c
x
p Z
Q Z❑
x
w
=
0 w
x y
p w
p w
=
m w
m w
a z
O O
Q w
J
w
m=<
wCL
m wLLJ
n¢
w
0 w
m a~
m Q✓
0 0-
0�
>
D-
ao W
J
o�
0 O
p oC
O
O
0
0 0
0 0
0
CD 0
cn CC¢
O W
O O
O
CD O
NLLJ
a l7
,°n'
n
�
�
a
a
U
w Z
IL
n
.-�
N Z
Ln
Ln
❑
U)
~
Ln
~
Ln
~
cn
~
an
I-
H
a
H
H r
H
H
H
F-
n
+n
to
to
Ln
N
in
cn
V
V)
v
J
V
U
v
a Q
0-¢
a a
a Q
a¢
Q a
a a
m a
a a¢
a¢
a
a a
a a
a a
a a
¢
w w
w w
W w
W w
a W
a w
a w
w
a W
a w
a w
a w
a w
a w
a w
U
W
N W
W
W
= w
= W
= W
W
x W
= W
T W
= W
= W
= W
= W
'N
-4 cc
Ln W
M w
ri w
w
w
a'
OC
CC
LL'
N a'
0<
rq 0
0 o
g 0
g Q
Q o
0 0�
o;
o
Ln o
1 0
m o
a o
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
a
.�
01
rn
00
00
00
00
In
n
n
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
o
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
0
o
lc:r
m
N
tD
a
N
m
m
cY
IT
n
N
ul
Lit
N
0
rn
tD
to
rn
n
Ln
rn
n
n
m
N
0
Ln
Lr)
tD
Ln
�-D
0
w
W
n
n
00
00
00
m
o
-4
-4
m
Ln
to
00
O1
a
-q
N
m
Rt
Ln
a
0
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LD
LO
to
to
co
to
�D
cD
n
n
r,
n
n
n
o
rn
rn
rn
rn
m
rn
m
rn
rn
M
ai
m
rn
0
1--4
r-1
w
to
tD
tD
ua
ua
cD
w
to
co
w
to
m
0o
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
�
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
en
m
m
m
m
m
rn
7#
tD
w
w
tD
tD
eD
W
tD
tD
LO
W
tD
Z
00
in
a
tD
L/I
Z
Z
W
ff
Z
V
V
U
J
Z
U
U
rA
❑
J
J
J
J
❑
❑
m
Q
L]
❑
V
W
W
W
W
LL
w
W
¢
W
❑
w
o
H
mO[
w
w
Z
¢
Q
w
w
Z
a
Z
w
O
CC
O
O
0r
O
x
p
J
J
O
O
O
J
Z
J
=
Q
O
LL
u
u
LL
LL
Z
LV
(D
Z
W
LL
°°
a
O
Z
z
O
0
¢
U
w
LA
O
O
z
a,
w
a
z
n
a
z
z
J
z
¢
z
z
a
a
c
3
�
U
H
=
)
in
Z
Q
°�
3:0
O
Q
oc
O
w
w
O
O
U-i
O
J
a
O
H
oc
of
F-
�
A
V)
F-
E-
U
C
w ro
a
v ¢
m
�
Ln
to
n
00
a)�
.�-i
�
.m-+
�
.�-i
4
O O Q t
CL U U Ln

a
e
C
ro
u
0
a
N
N
0
u
a
LA
N
C
m
a
J
J
0
U
O
C14
�
r
N
Z
to Q
0
N en
x �+
z
CO wLL,
0
CL
LO
0
N
x
m
o
CL
O
rq
�
n
N�
Z
O
o
co
+n
z
w
l7
Ln
Ln
00
N
LLJ u
z
V) �_
w:
p a
w
no=
m L U
O LY
1Co
--I C
cn
N
Z
a=
>
w
rC°
Lf1
Ln
Ln
00
N
V
�z
1-
V
Q
w
w
=
C
00
M
X
CO
oC°0°
CL
Ln
Ln
00
N
LJ
Z
�_
u
¢
w
x
w
[C
C
0
M
x
Cp
CL
Ln
00
N
U
Z
u
a
w
x
w
LY
C
O
-1
�--q
x
m
oz�COo°�Z)
CL
n
m0
Ln
00
CN
r i
Vcr_0
z
z
0
�
]L
H
w
LU
'n
w
a
R
m
O
P.
in
0000
N
U
Z
u
a
w
2
LJJ
CC
C
00
o
X
Co
Cl
r•
Ln
0000
N
U
Z
r_
u
a
w
2°
w
CC
w
w LLJ
(A
0
°�
CC
z
M
w
J
LL
O
"t
00U
NU
Z
Z
0
l7
z
�
~
D
m
0
N
a=
-
O
CD
.-I
n
in
0000
N
Z
U
a
w
U5
CL:
C
~
D
U
co
0¢
N
a=
w
0
CD
r-I
n
Ln
0000
N
V❑
Z
U
w
w
CC
J
m
r
z
O7
fV
N
0
ICT
00
N
Z
Z
o
C7
Z
cc
C
'
m
N1
Ln
LU
M
�
a
w
a
w
ry
L/1 r
p U
Q o
CL w~
= LLI
V) Cr
o�
o�o��
LU
=
n
O
Ln
w
LU
f-
V)
Ln
Z
Q
Ty
r
U
❑
wLU
w
w
0
H
�.n
,n
Z
>
LU
m
;2��2
ryLn
r
u
❑
w
w�
�e
o
H
Ln
cif
Z
LLJ
m
Z
a
u
c7�
Ln
06
U
❑
w
CC
o
H
Ln
v7
Z
>
LU
n
��
r
r
u
❑
w
w>
w
0
Ln
Z
LJ
VI
u
❑
w
w>
a:
0�
2vLtn
co
r-
Ln
V)
Z
LJ
tA
J
w
Z
Lu
a
(n
r14
U
❑
�
w
=
o
J
w
Z
w
or
a
(14
U
❑
w
w
o
J
w
Z
Li E
a
��
U
❑
w
w
o
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
a
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
r
n
m
00
Ln
N
N
.-r
O
Ln
r
M
.-i
00
n
Ln
Lo
CF
m
.-!
0)
00
(n
ff)
00
�4
00
a
m
00
00
00
00
00
n
m
00
00
n
Ln
L0
00
O
m
%10
rn
rn
0
m
Ln
I.D
(3)
c
r-L
o
0
0
0
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
n
n
n
00
00
00
00
00
a)
rn
rn
0)
os
o
0
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
lQ
La
to
LO
LO
l0
L9
LD
lD
L,Q
lD
DdDO
00
00
00
I
00
I
00
00
00
00
w
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
M
w
%D
1.0
w
w
w
t0
Lp
LD
L�
�n
Ln
>
>
Of
w
tY
V
V
Z
H
Of
V
J
LU
F
ac LLJ
CL
l7
c
C
V
.�
J
H
w
a
C7
c
C
❑
a
LL!
cc
g
LL
�
o
V
m
r-I0
Ln
O
V
a
z
z
°;
>
w
0
O
U
a
z
Z
w
>
ozc
(,
Z
°
d
X
LL,
cc
LU
=
O
w
2
CL
o
]
Lu
❑
C7
cr
=
❑
a
W
w
Q
w
z
3y
H
u
V
w
❑
Ne
u
❑
w
LL
z
z
o
H
Q
Z
�_
§i-
J
J
Ln
Z
n
O
m
LL
l7
m
J<
J
N
Z
a
0
2
LU
LD
Co
LLI
L)
a
z_
J
p
a
U
Z
tr
Oz
a
LG
n
00
0)
0
r-4
N
m
Ln
0
n
00
O1
O
.-I
r-I
.--4
.--1
rV
N
N
N
fV
rV
rV
N
N
N
m
i
❑
Cl-I.;
r
L`LI
o
U
i
LU
Ir
N
C/-j
.}
U

APPENDIX J
'RED�,v�D
tie tig �.ati�
DGMr��

STATE Melanie Rrthttr 3p
Tii
Carteret County Register of Deeds
CS Date 03/pp./P00? Tine 15:51:00
' Gfi 935325 rage 1 of 3
NOAC7#RQ INA
WARRANTY DEED
COUNTY OF CARTERET Parcel M 638500799727
THIS DEED, made this the 9-5.0` day of March, 2002, by Stowe -
Pharr Mills, Inc., a North Carolina corporation with its principal
place of business in Gaston County, North Carolina, hereinafter
called "GRANTOR," to the Town of Morehead City, a North Carolina
municipal corporation, whose address is P. 0. Drawer M, Morehead
City, North Carolina, hereinafter called "GRANTEE;"
WITNESSSTH THATt
GRANTOR,' for TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable consider-
ation, hereby acknowledged as paid and received, has bargained and
sold, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey to
GRANTEE, their successors and assigns, certain land described as
follows:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF CARTERET TOWNSHIP OF MOREHEAD
Being all of that part of the eastern part of an island
or tract of land above the highwater mark, which island
• is known as Sugarloaf Island (also called `Crab Island,"
"Crab Shoal" and "Morehead Island"). The property
• • conveyed is bounded on the North by a slough or "cut"
known as Morehead Channel, on the South by Bogue Sound,
p x on the East by the confluence of Bogue Sound and Morehead
] B V/ 't W
.+ Channel and on the West by the lands formerly owned by
George R. Wallace and Grace Taylor Wallace and includes
all riparian rights incident thereto and is more particu-
larly described as follows:
•
N K -4 BEGINNING at a point at the East end of Sugarloaf Island
(also called "Crab Island," "Crab Shoal" and "Morehead
Island"), said point being South 260 25' East, 1,051 feet
from the southeast intersection of Evans and South 4th
800K__93� - i:)A , , . 3z5
MR

.rl
t
-2-
Streets according to the official plan of Morehead City
(Map Book 1, page 139, Carteret County Registry) and
running thence along the highwater mark of Bogue Sound
South 630 30' West, 106 feet; North 78' .15' West, 195
feet; South 62' 30' West, 282 feet; South 50' 30' West,
225 feet; North 89' 35' West, 664 feet; South 74' 00
West, 250 feet; South 79' 00 West, 393 feet; South 61'
40' West, 378 feet; North 78' 00' West, 100 feet to the
Wallace and Taylor southeast corner; thence with
Wallace's and Taylor's East line crossing the island,
North 6' 05' East, 667 feet to a point in the highwater
mark of the slough known as Morehead Channel, which said
point bears South 65' 35' West, 2,062 feet from the
southeast intersection of Evans and South 4th Streets
according to the official plan of Morehead City (Map Book
1, page 139); running thence with the highwater mark of
the said slough, North 53' 30' East, 306 feet; North 200
20' East, 195 feet; North 49° 45, East, 270 feet; South
89' 551.-East, 476 feet; South 61' 30' Bast, 265 feet;
South 72' 00' East, 1,011 feet and South 40' 00' East,
260 feet to the point of BEGINNING, containing 37 acres,
more or less.
This description is intended to convey all of Sugarloaf
Island (also known as 'Cram Island," "Crab Shoal,' and
"Morehead Island") which is above the mean highwater mark
of Sogue Sound and Morehead Channel, with the exception
of the property previously owned by George R. Wallace and
Grace Wallace Taylor located at the West end of said
island. No warranties are made as to any part of the
above described land which may lie below the mean
highwater mark.
The foregoing tract of land is the same as set out in
that deed dated July 13, 1983 from Pharr Yarns, Inc. to
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc. which is recorded in Book 483,
page 439, Carteret County Registry.
TO HAVE AND 70 BOLA said land and any improvements thereon,
and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, to GRANTEE,
their successors and assigns, forever.
And GRANTOR covenants with GRANTEE that it is seized of said
premises in fee and has the right to convey the same in fee simple;
Boo APAGE L _—

r
-3-
that the same are free and clear of all encumbrances, and that it
do hereby forever warrant and will forever defend the same against
the lawful claims of all whomsoever.
Wherever used herein, the singular shall include the plural,
the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be
applicable to all genders as the context may require.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, GRANTOR has signed and sealed this Deed.
ATTEST:
*Jamsoward, Se etary
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF G a S tp
STOWE-PHARR MILLS, INC.
J. M. Carstarphen, Pr sident ll�
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid do hereby
certify that James Howard personally appeared before me this date
and acknowledged that he is Secretary of Stowe -Pharr Mills, Inc.,
a corporation, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by
its President, sealed with its corporate seal, and attested by
himself as its Secretary.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal, this the �'Cday of
March, 2002.
My commission expires: --
:,, :o�..
nogTrf c �191i �nur
J fr
�k jam, ; t� ;
The foregoing cerlincals(s) of Notary Publics) _Ward
�+
certified W tre correct. This instrument and This certirt-
QT/t,
cete are duly rec;Jr.1pred of the date end time and in
•'
the Book and Bags shmvn on the rirst Aga hereof.
'f1gL1G_ c;
i lr wr,Ft ds �i
By
OOKq�
1 �.

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX L
RfCv-N�Q
')0't2.
�CM���D CITY

E Brian Rubino
From: Perry, John M <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Brian Rubino
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sugarloaf Island, Morehead City
Hi Brian,
Received. Sorry for the confusion with the prefile notification. See my previous email for comments on the process.
Thanks.
John Perry
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
From: Brian Rubino <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Perry, John M <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Sugarloaf Island, Morehead City
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
John,
I don't believe your were able to make our scoping meeting for this project, so I had submitted the 401 pre -filing and did
not receive a received receipt. It was both for this project and another shoreline protection project at Fort Macon. Are
you able to confirm receipt of this? I am separately going to send you the one for Fort Macon as well.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian D. Rubino, P.G.
Vice President
Quible & Associates, P.C.
8466 Caratoke Highway, Bldg 400
Powells Point, NC 27966
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
t 252.491.8147
f 252.491.8146
www.guible.com
R�Ge1\i SID
5,E?
2 9 jz ?_7
pC�_��D CITY

r-.i
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or
taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.
From: Brian Rubino
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 1:45 PM
To: 401PreFile <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Sugarloaf Island, Morehead City
Hi,
I am resending this since I did not see that I received a receipt when I emailed this last week.
Thanks,
Brian
From: Brian Rubino
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 2:14 PM
To: 401prefile@ ncdenr.gov
Subject: Sugarloaf Island, Morehead City
Good Afternoon,
This email is to serve as a NC DWR Pre -Filing Notification request for Sugarloaf Island Protection, Restoration and Living
Shoreline. Please see attached Conceptual Plans, Project Narrative and Photos. We had an interagency scoping meeting
on Wednesday August 10t1', but I do not believe that a NCDWR representative was able to attend. Please confirm
receipt of this notification and let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian D. Rubino, P.G.
Vice President
Quible & Associates, P.C.
8466 Caratoke Highway, Bldg 400
Powells Point, NC 27966
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
t 252.491.8147
PF��t\IFD
C;li'Y

�
�
N
a
O 0 U 0c
! C p
C C
W E
H P7
N.S