20061471 Ver 2_USACE Additional Info_20160119

Strickland, Bev
From:Bullard, Teresa R SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:42 PM
To:Steenhuis, Joanne
Cc:Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Moore, Daniel C SAW
Subject:NPS Harkers Island SAW-2006-40176 Additional Information (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments:Final_IP_404Permit_SAW-2006-40176-016_dec12015_clean copy.pdf; Harkers Island ltr
to NCDWR_10 Nov 2015.pdf; LetterFromNPS_20May2015.pdf; HINSILLSPC-01Rev4R_
9-14-2015.pdf
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Joanne,

Previously DWR permitted 1.82 acres for construction of the sill for the NPS project. From the original permitted project
2,700 feet of Rock Sill was completed (see attached letter from NPS dated 5-20-2016). The current 404 permit is also
attached. The sill that was permitted was 0.70 ac. and allowed for tidal flushing and avoided existing SAV found during
the SAV survey with NMFS. I also included an easier to read map.

I hope this is helpful and what you needed. If not, please call me back and I can work on getting you additional info.

Thanks,
Teresa

Teresa Bullard
Environmental Resources
Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
910-251-4725

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
1

CESAW-RG
Application SAW2006-40176-016
-

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT:
Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Finding for
Above-Numbered Permit Application

This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation,
Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings.

1. Application as described in the public notice.

APPLICANT: National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531

WATERWAY & LOCATION: The National Park Service (NPS), Cape Lookout National
Seashore (CLNS), Park Headquarters is located at the southeastern end of Harkers Island,
Carteret County, North Carolina. The location of the project site is along the northern
shoreline of the Park Headquarters property.

Project Area (acres): 0.66 (960 lf) Nearest Town: Harkers Island
Nearest Waterway: Core Sound River Basin: Neuse-Pamlico

LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude North: 34.687313
Longitude West: -76.527221

PROJECT PURPOSE:

Basic: The basic project purpose is shoreline stabilization.

Overall: According to the applicant’s Environmental Assessment (EA) the purpose of and
need for taking action is to evaluate and implement strategies to protect the facilities at Cape
Lookout National Seashore’s administrative site on Harkers Island and prevent adverse
effects to protected species, while allowing for appropriate recreational use, as directed in
the park enabling legislation, NPS management policies, the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and other applicable laws and mandates. In keeping with NPS conservation and
protection policies, there is an urgent need to attenuate the continuing erosion of park
shoreline property at Harkers Island and stabilize the shoreline to prevent further erosion.
Also in consideration of NPS policy, there is a need to preserve the natural appearance of
the shoreline to the extent possible.

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

PROPOSED WORK: The proposed project would involve the completion of a previously
authorized offshore stone sill with a trapezoidal cross-section. The stone would be class 2
riprap, approximately 24 inches in size, laid over geotextile fabric. The sill is designed to be
adjacent to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds without directly impacting any SAV
beds. The sill would lie at an elevation +3’ NGVD (mean high water) in water shoreward of
all SAV beds, and waterward of existing emergent marsh vegetation to the extent possible.
The proposed position, approximately 60 feet offshore, would allow development of
additional marsh vegetation in viable portions of the shallows between sill and shoreline.
Marsh grass would be planted along the water’s edge in these reaches to the extent feasible.
The top of the sill would be positioned approximately three feet above mean high water, and
openings would be incorporated for circulation to maintain water quality, for cross-
movement of aquatic organisms.

A deviation from the originally permitted plan is proposed to remove an existing tie-in and
leave the northwestern end open to promote hydraulic flushing. There will also be a
modification to the previously permitted northern tie-in to accommodate current erosional
conditions that have manifested since 2008. Please see attached map and sill design plans.

The previously authorized and constructed impacts include bulkhead and boat ramp repair:
This included the repair and replacement of existing bulkheads. Repair included excavation
behind portions of the existing bulkhead to inspect and repair holes, placement of a stone
filter layer and filter fabric, and construction of concrete splash protection along the top of
the wall. This work also involved replacement of portions of existing bulkheads which were
failing, as well as other selected portions where a new system was desired. The replacement
structure is a vinyl sheet pile system that was placed just outside the existing bulkheads.
The previous boat ramp was replaced with a new concrete ramp about 20’ wide. The
adjacent bulkhead was extended to accommodate the new ramp which was narrower than
the existing one. This also included the construction of a breakwater extension at the outer
opening of the basin entrance. This work has been conducted and is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the original permit.

Previous construction of the project permanently impacted 0.05 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands. The breakwater extension footprint covered approximately 1800 square feet (0.04
acre) of bottom in open waters. The current sill footprint covers approximately 1.53 acres
of bottom on the southern sill section waters, and the current request for reauthorization
would cover the remaining 960 lf (0.70 acre).

Avoidance and Minimization Information: The applicant provided the following
information in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic
environment: The sill will be constructed within the water of Core Sound adjacent to the
Harkers Island National Park Service land. Avoiding all impacts to Section 404/10 is not
possible since this project must be constructed in the water to alleviate shoreline erosion
caused by wave action. Impacts are being minimized by avoiding existing known SAVs
and peat layer outcrops surveyed prior to the construction of the previously constructed
portion of the sill to the south. Minimal amounts of fill are proposed to address erosion.
Removal of an existing tie-in and removal of the terminal tie-in are also proposed to
Page 2

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

maximize flushing and minimize effects on habitat continuity.

Compensatory Mitigation: The applicant did not offer a compensatory mitigation plan to
offset unavoidable functional loss to the aquatic environment. Impacts to open water
resources do not typically require mitigation.

EXISTING CONDITIONS: The shoreline of the NPS/CLNS Park Headquarters property
has been experiencing severe and persistent erosion for many years, primarily due to the
effects of wave action with occasional inundation at high tide and, to a lesser extent, wake
from boat traffic. As a result, there has been significant and continuing loss of high ground
property and damage to structures along the shoreline. The rate of erosion also presents an
imminent threat to structures and other park facilities in the vicinity of the shoreline. The
goal of the proposed action is to effectively and economically stabilize the shoreline to
prevent further erosion, while maintaining as natural a shoreline appearance as possible.

1.Authority.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344).
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1413).

2.Scope of Analysis. Analysis in this document is limited to wetlands, streams, and other
waters of the United States within the boundaries or the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project, the uplands immediately adjacent to those waters and/or wetlands, and the primary,
secondary, and cumulative impacts that the activities authorized by this permit would have
on those waters and associated uplands.

a.NEPA.

i.Factors.

(i)Whether or not the regulated activity comprises "merely a link" in a corridor type
project.
The project is a stand-alone shoreline protection project and is not “merely a
link”.

(ii)Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the
regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated
activity.
There may be some aspects of the upland facilities in the area that could affect
the location and configuration of the regulated activity. The capability of these
facilities at Harkers Island Visitors Center will determine the required volume
of material to be placed for protection.

(iii)The extent to which the entire project will be within the Corps jurisdiction.
Page 3

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

This entire activity to discharge material for shoreline protection is entirely
within jurisdicitonal waters fo the Unite States.

(iv)The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility.
The entire project is located on Federal lands and waters. The project is funded
entirely through federal funds and is therefore under complete Federal control
and responsibility.

ii.Determined scope.
Only within the footprint of the regulated activity within the delineated water.
Over entire property.

b.NHPA "Permit Area".

i.Tests. Activities outside the waters of the United States are/are not included
because all of the following tests are/are not satisfied:

Such activity would/would not occur but for the authorization of the work or
structures within the waters of the United States;

Such activity is/is not integrally related to the work or structures to be authorized
within waters of the United States (or, conversely, the work or structures to be authorized
must be essential to the completeness of the overall project or program); and

Such activity is/is not directly associated (first order impact) with the work or
structures to be authorized.

The work outside of waters of the United States is not associated with the work within
waters. The project area consists entirely of waters of the United States.

ii.Determined scope. The scope of analysis subject to the Corps’ review under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of Clean Water Act, includes
navigable waters of Core Sound and the affected shoreline proposed for protection.

c.ESA "Action Area".

i.Action area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.

ii.Determined scope. The scope of analysis subject to the Corps’ review under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of Clean Water Act,
includes navigable waters of Core Sound and the affected shoreline proposed
for protection.

Page 4

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

d.Public notice comments. NA

(1)Commentors and issued raised.

Name Issue
NMFS EFH SAV Survey needed, Barge Buffer needed, and mitigation
for impacts to salt marsh.

(2)Site was/was not visited by the Corps to obtain information in addition to
delineating jurisdiction. 9 December, 2014 a site visit was conducted to review
additional areas of erosion.

(3)Issues identified by the Corps. Footprint of sill and tie-in was requested to be
minimized and removed.

(4)Issues/comments forwarded to the applicant. NA/Yes.

(5)Applicant replied/provided views. NA/Yes. Previous design was 1.07 acres of
impact area was revised to remove tie-ins and reduce footprint to 0.7 acre. The
proposed project was designed based on close coordination with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) due to the NMFS concerns over the potential impacts to
SAV’s and SAV habitat. This coordination resulted in a final alignment of the selected
alternative to avoid and minimize SAV impacts to the maximum extent possible. The
proposed project does not include any planting of SAV. Since the project was designed
to minimize all SAV impacts and will have minimal impact on SAV and wetlands,
project monitoring was not required.

(6)The following comments are not discussed further in this document as they are
outside the Corps purview. NA/ Yes.

3.Alternatives Analysis. *The Final EA was conducted by NPS in August, 2006 with a FONSI
determination.

a.Basic and Overall Project Purpose (as stated by applicant and independent definition by
Corps).
Same as Project Purpose in Paragraph 1.
Revised:

b. Water Dependency Determination:
Same as in Paragraph 1.
Revised:

c.Applicant preferred alternative site and site configuration.
Same as Project Description in Paragraph 1.
Revised:
Page 5

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Criteria.

Issue Measurement and/or constraint
SAVs Area of direct impact

d.Off-site locations were not considered, as off-site alternatives would not satisfy the
basic project purpose and need.

e.On-site configurations.

The applicant considered a large range of shore protection alternatives. The alternatives
descriptions and analyses described in the EA are summarized below:

1. Inner offshore sill without upland grading. This alternative involved the construction of a
stone sill, and would allow development of marsh vegetation between the sill and the
shoreline. The sill, in this alternative, would be located inshore in water between zero and
one foot below mean sea level, and would be located approximately 20 to 40 feet offshore.
The sill footprint would potentially have no impact on SAV but, due to its near-shore
location, would have considerably greater adverse impact upon existing communities of
emergent shoreline marsh. The exposed location and minimal size of the sill, along with the
narrow protective zone width, would limit this alternative’s long-term effectiveness in
preventing erosion and stabilizing the shoreline. The development of consistent vegetative
growth between sill and shoreline, a critical element for stabilization, would be uncertain.
This alternative was eliminated from further consideration due to the potential adverse effects
to marsh vegetation and a questionable effectiveness in stopping erosion and stabilizing the
shoreline.

2. Shoreline Grading and planting only. This alternative would involve grading of the
existing banks of Reaches 1 and 3 to a 3:1 maximum slope, and seeding and planting the
slopes with a graded mix of vegetation for stabilization. No other features would be
constructed within Reaches 1 and 3. This alternative’s principal advantages would be a
natural shoreline, and a relatively low anticipated cost. A moderate loss of existing high
ground would be required to create the desired slope gradient in order to balance cut and fill
volumes of earthwork. Based upon historic erosion of these shorelines in spite of the
presence of established natural vegetation, this alternative would be expected to offer a very
low level of protection from continued shoreline erosion. Without erosion attenuation, this
alternative would not be expected to effectively stabilize the shoreline. Frequent and
extensive maintenance, involving regrading and re-establishing vegetation, would likely be
required to maintain the shoreline in a stable condition. This alternative was eliminated from
further consideration due to a very poor anticipated level of effectiveness in satisfying the
primary issues of attenuating erosion and stabilizing the shoreline,

3. Grading and planting with reinforcement. This alternative would involve the regrading of
Page 6

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

the existing shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 for a 3:1 slope gradient from high ground into the
water. The new slope would be planted with a graded mix of shoreline vegetation in a sheet
reinforcing matrix similar to “Pyramat”, from high ground to –2.0 feet, below mean sea level.
A small line of riprap toe protection would be placed along the base. Both top and bottom
would be “keyed in” to existing grade, but the toe could still be subject to scour from wave
energy. Vegetation species would be varied, mixed, and merged for suitable growth along
the entire slope to the bottom intercept. By direct exposure to wave and wake energy,
especially during storm events, there is concern that this alternative would not stop erosion
and stabilize the shoreline and would require excessive maintenance. The existing shoreline
has been eroded significantly even in areas which were densely vegetated, due to the effects
of wave and wake action, and the vegetated slope, even when combined with matrix
reinforcing, may prove inadequate in the long term. Without erosion attenuation, this
alternative would not be expected to effectively stabilize the shoreline. Frequent and
extensive maintenance, involving repair and replacement of the reinforcing matrix and its
subgrade, and replanting, would likely be required to maintain the shoreline in a stable
condition. This alternative would largely satisfy the requirement for a natural shoreline, in
that the construction would involve only a vegetated slope, although the uniform gradient
would not be naturalistic. This alternative would not resolve the primary issues of
attenuating erosion and stabilizing the shoreline and thus was eliminated from further
consideration.

4. Upland rip rap. This alternative would involve the protection of the existing shorelines in
Reaches 1 and 3 with stone armoring. The stone would be placed to top out just above the
existing shoreline elevation and the top would taper down into high ground along the land
side. The armoring would slope downward and away from land at a 3:1 gradient, where it
would intersect the bottom and be entrenched 2 feet below bottom elevation. The stone
would be placed over a geotextile underlayment to help maintain consistent placement and to
hold a more consistent shape after construction. This alternative would meet the immediate
goal of attenuating high ground erosion; however, consistent maintenance would be needed
to avoid erosion which could quickly develop when the riprap is displaced or undermined by
wave energy. This alternative would stabilize the shoreline; however, it would not meet the
need for maintaining a natural shoreline since it would cover the natural shoreline with armor
stone. The armor construction would have adverse effects upon much of the existing
emergent marsh vegetation along the shoreline, and would likely impede the future growth of
significant extents of such vegetation. According to the EA provided by the applicant, this
alternative was eliminated from further consideration due to its failure to satisfy the NPS
policy of maintaining an environment reasonably true to its natural state.

5. Seawall. This alternative would involve the construction of a timber, masonry, or concrete
seawall along the entire “natural” shoreline of Reaches 1 and 3. The seawall would be
constructed along the existing water’s edge (ordinary high water), would be buried at least 2
feet below low tide level, and would extend vertically to the elevation of the existing high
ground along the shoreline. The cost of this alternative would be significantly higher than
the other alternatives. This alternative would provide immediate protection from shoreline
erosion above the wall, although the turbulence occurring along the outside base of the wall
would lead to increased bottom erosion and maintenance requirements. These factors would
Page 7

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

affect the stability of the seawall’s foundation and backfill and lead to extensive
maintenance, as demonstrated by existing conditions at the shoreline bulkheads. A seawall
would not satisfy the goal of a natural shoreline, in that it would create a highly visible hard
structure. The construction process, as well as the increase in turbulence at the base of the
seawall, would have adverse effects upon much of the existing emergent marsh vegetation,
and impede the future growth of such vegetation. This alternative was eliminated from
further consideration due to its failure to satisfy the NPS policy of maintaining an
environment reasonably true to its natural state and high costs.

6. Riprap at the base of outer bulkheads. This alternative would involve the placement of
riprap along the base of existing outer bulkheads along Reach 2. The stone would be placed
to top out just below the tops of bulkheads which directly face the sound, and would slope
downward away from the bulkhead faces at a 3:1 gradient, where it would intersect the
bottom and be entrenched 2 feet below bottom elevation. The stone would be placed over a
geotextile underlayment to help maintain consistent placement and to hold a more consistent
shape after construction. This alternative would help resist wave impacts to the bulkheads
with the intent of reducing maintenance requirements. Its footprint could have adverse
impacts on small areas of submerged aquatic vegetation. This alternative was eliminated
from further consideration due to limited anticipated benefits as compared with expected
bulkhead maintenance without the riprap.

7. Geotubes. Early discussions included the concept of placing sand-filled fabric geotubes
along the shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 for the purpose of attenuating erosion and stabilizing
these non-bulkheaded shorelines. Although the initial cost of geotubes would likely be less
than that of “hard” structures serving a similar purpose, there are critical disadvantages to the
use of geotube construction in this setting. Disadvantages include degradation of the fabric
due to exposure to weather and solar radiation, and fabric damage caused by wave action,
floating debris, vessels, and vandals. Such degradation and damage could lead to rapid and
extensive failure of the shoreline protection over a relatively short term. Since a durable and
reliable method of protection is required along these steadily- and rapidly-eroding shorelines,
the use of geotube construction was considered not appropriate for this project, and this
alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

f. No Action Alternative. According to the EA provided by the applicant, the No Action
Alternative would involve no change to the current status of shoreline management. There
would be no construction of new shoreline protection measures—only continuing repair and
maintenance of existing seawalls, bulkheads, and structures. Erosion of high ground along
the shoreline would be expected to continue, and high ground acreage would continue to
decrease, under the No Action alternative. Continuing erosion would eventually threaten
structures along these reaches, including roads, parking areas, trails, and buildings located in
the vicinity of the shoreline. This alternative would not satisfy the goals of attenuating
erosion, stabilizing the shoreline, and protecting existing structures. With no action, the
shoreline would remain unstable and additional high ground acreage would be lost to erosion.
This future loss would not be recoverable, and would, in addition to the reduction of land
acreage, diminish the extent of native forest and shoreline vegetation along these reaches.
The No Action alternative would allow the shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 to remain in their
Page 8

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

current natural state, but they would continue to erode and migrate inland. This alternative
would satisfy the requirement for maintaining natural shorelines at these reaches, but would
fail to satisfy the goals of stopping erosion and stabilizing the shorelines. With no action,
erosion and shoreline migration in Reach 3 would continue unabated. Beach access would
continue to be available to the public only to the extent the continuing changes in this area
would maintain the existence of a beach. Thus, this alternative does not meet the purpose and
need for this project.

g. No Permit Required Alternative. Complete avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters
would not be practicable due to the location and distribution of the jurisdictional waters and
wetlands within the project area. The proposed impacts are necessary to improve the
existing facility to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project.

h. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
Offshore Sill. This is the applicant’s preferred alternative. This alternative would involve
the continued construction of an offshore stone sill of trapezoidal cross-section. The stone
would be North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) class 2 riprap, a dense
stone up to 24 inches in size, laid over geotextile fabric. The sill footprint would lie one to
two feet below mean sea level in water shoreward of virtually all submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds, and waterward of existing emergent marsh vegetation to the extent
possible. Its position, approximately 30 to 60 feet offshore, would allow development of
additional marsh vegetation in viable portions of the shallows between sill and shoreline.
Marshgrass would be planted along the water’s edge in these reaches to the extent feasible.
The top of the sill would be positioned approximately one foot above ordinary high water,
and openings would be incorporated for circulation to maintain water quality, for cross-
movement of aquatic organisms

This alternative would be expected to effectively satisfy the goal of attenuating erosion and
stabilizing the eroding shorelines. The extension and maintenance of the offshore sill, with
increased development of a vegetative zone behind the sill, would be expected to effectively
stabilize the shoreline in these reaches. The offshore positioning and low profile of the sill
would initially dissipate wave energy, and emergent and high-ground vegetative growth
would reduce ordinary wave and wake energy, as well as the heavy impacts of major storms,
on the shoreline. The development of additional vegetative and root mat growth between the
sill and shoreline, initiated by a practicable level of marshgrass planting along the water’s
edge, would increase shore protection over time, and further reduce erosive effects. The
combination of stone sill and vegetative zone would reduce the intensity of wave energy
imposed on either element alone. Some turbulence and bottom erosion would be expected
along the outer and inner bases of the sill, requiring occasional repair with respect to
maintaining overall stabilization. The effects of severe storms would likely require more
extensive sill repair, particularly during early stages of plant growth in the vegetative zone.

A low sill profile would be used to maintain sightlines between shore and open water;
however, the sill would be visible above water level at all normal tide times. With the low
sill profile and its separation from the shoreline, and the development of vegetation between
Page 9

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

sill and shore, the shoreline would take on a natural appearance, particularly as viewed from
land. Although the sill would be visible from boats offshore, it would become progressively
less apparent as the vegetation zone develops. Initial planting of marshgrass, to the extent
feasible, would help initiate additional growth.

Public boating and boat access in areas along the shoreline would tend to become
substantially more hazardous and difficult due to the hard sill structure of this alternative.
Although the development of marsh vegetation landward of the sill would help define the
sill’s location, accessways would need to be made clearly apparent to boaters for safe
movement through the shore protection zone.

Public boat access would not be affected by this alternative in that there are no public access
areas within existing sill areas. The boat ramp and basin west of the sill and are reserved for
official use only.

Public beach access would not be affected by this alternative in that there are no public beach
areas within the sill area.

Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis: The proposed alternative “Offshore Sill” is the
applicant’s preferred alternative and is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative for this project. The proposed project was designed based on close coordination
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) due to the NMFS concerns over the
potential impacts to SAV’s and SAV habitat. This coordination resulted in a final alignment
of the shore protection project that avoids and minimizes SAV impacts to the maximum
extent possible.

4.Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (NA)

a.Factual determinations.

Physical Substrate.
See Existing Conditions, paragraph 1.
Work performed under this permit may result in impacts to subtidal estuarine
bottoms during construction of the shore protection structures and filling activities
associated with the boat ramp and bulkhead. This activity may result in changes to
project area water depths but the impacts to the aquatic environment should be
minimal.
Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity.
Addressed in the Water Quality Certification.
Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity: Work performed under this permit
may result in short-term impacts to currents, water circulation, and fluctuation
within waters of the United States in the immediate project area. These effects are
expected to be minor and limited to the authorized impact area. Effects on salinity
Page 10

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

are not likely to occur as a result of activities authorized under this permit.
Suspended particulate/turbidity.
Turbidity controls in Water Quality Certification.
Work performed under this permit may increase the level of suspended
particulates and turbidities within the project area during construction. However,
these impacts should be short-term and minimal. Special permit conditions will be
required to further avoid and minimize these types of impacts. In addition,
suspended particulates or turbidity levels will be at or below maximum levels
prescribed by the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality.

Contaminant availability.
General Condition requires clean fill.

Aquatic ecosystem and organism.
Wetland/wildlife evaluations.
There should not be any long-term adverse impacts to habitat for aquatic
species, including Manatees, as a result of permitted activities under this permit.
During construction, migratory fish species should quickly relocate to available
habitat outside of the project area. By letter dated May 7, 2015 the USFWS stated
the with inclusion of its Manatee Guidelines, the USFWS concurs with the NPS
determination that the action is not likely to adversely affect species designated as
threatened, endangered, or their designated critical habitat. By letter dated
September 30, 2015 NMFS concluded that the modifications to design, construction
techniques, and marsh acreage increase adequately offset any impacts to
unvegetated, estuarine bottom.
Proposed disposal site.
Public interest, paragraph 7.

:

Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
See Paragraph 7.e.
The cumulative impacts associated with this project should be minor. Impacts

associated with this project should not cause or contribute to significant degradation
individually or cumulatively, and therefore have little potential for secondary or
cumulative impacts beyond the immediate project area.

Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
See Paragraph 7.e.
The secondary impacts associated with this project should be minor. Impacts
associated with this project should not cause or contribute to significant degradation
individually or cumulatively, and therefore have little potential for secondary or
cumulative impacts beyond the immediate project area. A rise in sediment turbidity
would be expected with this project while under construction, but should be
temporary in nature

b.Restrictions on discharges (230.10).

Page 11

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

i.It has/has not been demonstrated in paragraph 5 that there are no practicable or less
damaging alternatives which could satisfy the project's basic purpose. The activity
is/is not located in a special aquatic site (wetlands, sanctuaries, and refuges,
mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle & pool complexes). The activity
does/does not need to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose.

ii.The proposed activity does/does not violate applicable State water quality
standards or Section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards (based on
information from the certifying agency that the Corps could proceed with a
provisional determination). The proposed activity does/does not
jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered
species or affects their critical habitat. The proposed activity does/does
not violate the requirements of a federally designate marine sanctuary.

iii.The activity will/will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of
waters of the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life
stages of aquatic organisms' ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and
recreation, esthetic, and economic values.

iv.Appropriate and practicable steps have/have not been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem (see
Paragraph 8 for description of mitigative actions).

The February 6, 1990, Corps/Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) established procedures to determine the type and level of
mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative;
second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters
and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts
to the extent appropriate and practical. To determine "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, measures should be
selected which are appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts, and
practicable in terms of cost, logistics, and technology in light of the overall
project purpose.

The proposed project was designed based on close coordination with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) due to the NMFS concerns over the
potential impacts to SAV’s and SAV habitat. This coordination resulted in a
final alignment of the selected alternative to avoid and minimize SAV impacts
to the maximum extent possible. The proposed project does not include any
planting of SAV. Since the project was designed to minimize all SAV impacts
and will have minimal impact on SAV and wetlands, project monitoring was not
required. No mitigation is required due to the proposed construction
methodology, the avoidance and minimization of impacts, and all impacts are to
open water and not special aquatic sites.
Page 12

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

5.Public Interest Review: All public interest factors have been reviewed as summarized here.
Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered. Public
interest factors that have had additional information relevant to the decision are discussed in
number 7. See Section 8.
+ Beneficial effect
0 Negligible effect
- Adverse effect
M Neutral as result of mitigative action
+ 0 - M
Conservation.

Land and waters are currently federal in ownership and

jurisdiction.According to the EA, the 1916 NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1) commits the
Park Service to making informed decisions that perpetuate the conservation and
protection of park resources unimpaired for the benefit and enjoyment of future
generations.
Economics.

The proposed project would provide minor, long-term site-specific
beneficial effects to the economics of NPS/CLNS. This alternative would avoid the
eventual major adverse economic impacts of the No Action alternative, by stabilizing
the shoreline and preventing the shoreline migration in Reaches 1 and 3 which would
threaten park facilities near the shoreline. The initial cost of Alternative A would be
offset to a moderate extent by the eventual cost of protection, repair, replacement, or
loss of facilities that would be threatened by continuing shoreline migration. A minor
level of regular sill maintenance, and allowance for more extensive repair after major

storms, would be required for long-term benefit to economics.
Aesthetics.

The proposed project would add a stone offshore sill which would be
visible above water level. This artificial element would initially adversely affect the
natural aspects of these shorelines, but would create a more stable zone between sill
and shoreline where natural vegetation could become established. Initial plantings of
marshgrass along the water’s edge, where feasible, would help initiate additional
growth in the vegetative zone and speed the establishment of natural shoreline
vegetation. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be required for effective
plant growth in the vegetative zone, due to the erosive effects of turbulence along the
inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive
repair. Vegetative growth would be expected to fill a majority of this zone, and would
include a natural graded mix of emergent and high-ground species. Once the
vegetative zone becomes established, it would blend visually with the sill and replace
the existing eroded, sparsely-vegetated shorelines with a stable, better-vegetated
transition from open water to high ground. The existing gradients and shoreline
characteristics would not be changed by grading, and vegetation would be allowed to
fill the growth zone to the extent possible. Alternative A would provide a moderate,

long-term site-specific beneficial effect to natural shoreline.
General environmental concerns.
Temporary impacts during construction are
expected to be minimal. Construction of the project should enhance the overall
environment in the project area over the long term and provide recreational public

benefits.
Wetlands.

With its offshore stone sill, the proposed project would reduce the
adverse impacts of direct wave energy on existing emergent wetlands in Reaches 1 and
3. The sill would diffuse wave energy before it could strike the shoreline, and provide
Page 13

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

a larger and more stable growth zone for emergent, as well as high-ground,
vegetation. The sill would be placed in an alignment designed to minimize direct
impacts of its footprint on either emergent wetlands (landward of the sill) or beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), located waterward of the sill. Initial plantings of
marshgrass along the water’s edge, where feasible, would help initiate additional
growth in the vegetative zone. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be
required for effective wetland development, due to the erosive effects of turbulence
along the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more
extensive repair. The establishment of a consistent growth zone would in turn improve
shoreline stability with development of a continuous root mat and vegetative mass
shielding and holding the soil in place. The resulting wetland communities would be
much larger and more contiguous in form than existing communities. There would be
minimal adverse effects to existing SAV communities due to construction of the sill,
caused by temporary turbidity and sediment re-deposition during placement of the
stone. Although there would be virtually no placement of stone directly upon SAV
beds, the completed sill would create a line of turbulence and increased
turbidity/sediment re-deposition immediately adjacent to its outer (and inner) toe.
These effects would inhibit the growth of SAV in the immediate vicinity of either toe,
and could adversely effect edges of the existing beds which would lie near the sill in
Reach 3. Based upon a similar installation at Festival Park, Manteo, NC, there would
be potential for additional development of SAV landward of the sill as the vegetative
zone forms between sill and shoreline. This would result in a potential balance, or net
increase, of SAV community acreage depending upon growth inside the sill. This

alternative would provide moderate, site-specific long-term benefits for wetlands.
Historic properties.
According to the EA and FONSI, one prehistoric
archeological site, 31CR2, the Shell Point Site, is within the shoreline protection
project area and required inspection to determine its condition, importance, and
eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park
Service Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) conducted field investigations at the
Shell Point site between March 5, 2007 and March 15, 2007. In a letter report dated
April 24, 2007 the NPS transmitted its findings to the SHPO. In a letter dated May 7,
2007 the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the NPS

conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Fish and wildlife values.
There should not be any long-term adverse impacts to
habitat for aquatic species, including Manatees, as a result of permitted activities
under this permit. During construction, migratory fish species should quickly relocate
to available habitat outside of the project area. By letter dated May 7, 2015 the
USFWS stated the with inclusion of its Manatee Guidelines, the USFWS concurs with
the NPS determination that the action is not likely to adversely affect species
designated as threatened, endangered, or their designated critical habitat. By letter
dated September 30, 2015 NMFS concluded that the modifications to design,
construction techniques, and marsh acreage increase adequately offset any impacts to
unvegetated, estuarine bottom.
Flood hazards.

Work performed under this permit may be located within areas that
are subject to flooding risks from Hurricanes, wind tides, and storm surges. The

proposed project should provide increased shore protection from these events.
Floodplain values.

Work performed during this project may temporarily impact

flood control functions and floodplain values but should be localized and short-term.
Land use.

Work performed under this permit will be consistent with Local Land Use
Plans and local zoning to the maximum extent practicable. In a letter dated October
12, 2006, The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management concurred with a
consistency determination from the Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) finding
that the proposed shoreline project and boat basin rehabilitation project at Cape
Lookout National Seashore’s administrative site located at the eastern end of Harker’s
Page 14

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Island, NC would be consistent with the State’s coastal zone management program.
Navigation.

Work performed under this permit should not result in unreasonable
interference with navigation or the right of the public to riparian access by the
existence or use of activities authorized by this permit. Some activities may
temporarily affect routine navigation routes, but these areas will be specifically

marked pursuant to U.S. Coast Guard specifications.
Shore erosion and accretion.

Work performed under this permit is designed to

reduce shore erosion and increase accretion.
Recreation.

Work performed under this permit may have an appreciable effect in
the coastal area, including an increase in providing access to the water and an
increase in water-borne recreational activities. These activities may include boating

and the associated recreational fishing, crabbing, and bird watching.
Water supply and conservation.

No appreciable effect.
Water quality.

A Section 401 Water Quality Certification #061471 was issued on
January 11, 2007.

Energy needs.

No appreciable effect.
Safety.

No appreciable effect. Some activities may temporarily affect routine
navigation routes, but these areas will be specifically marked pursuant to U.S. Coast

Guard specifications.
Food and fiber production.
No appreciable effect.
Mineral needs.

No appreciable effect.
Considerations of property ownership.

Lands are currently public lands.
Needs and welfare of the people.
No appreciable effect.

6.Effects, policies and other laws.

a.NA

b.Endangered Species Act. NA

The proposed project:

i.Will not affect these threatened or endangered species:
Any/.

X
ii. May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect:
Species: By letter dated May 7, 2015 the USFWS stated the with inclusion of
its Manatee Guidelines, the USFWS concurs with the USACE determination that the
action is not likely to adversely affect Manatees, and will have no effect on other
species designated as threatened, endangered, or their designated critical habitat.

iii.Will/Will not adversely modify designated critical habitat for the .

iv.Is/Is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the.

The Services concurred/provided a Biological Opinion(s). By letter dated May
Page 15

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

7, 2015 the USFWS stated the with inclusion of its Manatee Guidelines, the USFWS
concurs with the USACE determination that the action is not likely to adversely
affect Manatees, and will have no effect on other species designated as threatened,
endangered, or their designated critical habitat.
.

c.Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat will/will not
result from the proposed project. The proposed project was designed based on
close coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) due to the
NMFS concerns over the potential impacts to SAV’s and SAV habitat. This
coordination resulted in a final alignment of the selected alternative to avoid and
minimize SAV impacts to the maximum extent possible. The proposed project
does not include any planting of SAV. Since the project was designed to minimize
all SAV impacts and will have minimal impact on SAV and wetlands, project
monitoring was not required. By letter dated September 30, 2015 NMFS concluded
that the modifications to design, construction techniques, and marsh acreage increase
adequately offset any impacts to unvegetated, estuarine bottom.

d.Historic Properties. The proposed project will/will not have any affect on any
sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or
otherwise of national, state, or local significance based on letter from SHPO/\[
\]. According to the EA and FONSI, one prehistoric archeological site, 31CR2, the
Shell Point Site, is within the shoreline protection project area and required
inspection to determine its condition, importance, and eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service Southeast
Archeological Center (SEAC) conducted field investigations at the Shell Point site
between March 5, 2007 and March 15, 2007. In a letter report dated April 24, 2007
the NPS transmitted its findings to the SHPO. In a letter dated May 7, 2007 the
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the NPS
conclusions and recommendations of this report.

e.Cumulative & Secondary Impacts. The geographic area for this assessment is the
Core Sound watershed. The cumulative and secondary impacts associated with this
project should be minor. Impacts associated with this project should not cause or
contribute to significant degradation individually or cumulatively, and therefore have
little potential for secondary or cumulative impacts beyond the immediate project
area

f.Corps Wetland Policy. Based on the public interest review herein, the beneficial
effects of the project outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project.

g.(NA) Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
has/has not yet been issued by /State/Commonwealth.

h.Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency/permit: Issuance of a State permit
certifies that the project is consistent with the CZM plan. There is no evidence or
Page 16

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

indication from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management that the project
is inconsistent with their CZM plan.

i.Other authorizations.

j.(NA) Significant Issues of Overriding National Importance. explain, if any

7.Compensation and other mitigation actions.

a.Compensatory Mitigation

i.Is compensatory mitigation required? yes no \[If “no,” do not complete
the rest of this section\]

ii.Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? yes no

(i)Does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? yes no

iii.Is the impact in the service area of an approved in-lieu fee program?
yes no

(i)Does the in-lieu fee program have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? yes no

iv.Check the selected compensatory mitigation option(s):
mitigation bank credits
in-lieu fee program credits
permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
permittee-responsible mitigation, on-site and in-kind
permittee-responsible mitigation, off-site and out-of-kind

v.If a selected compensatory mitigation option deviates from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6), explain why the selected compensatory
mitigation option is environmentally preferable. Address the criteria provided in
§332.3(a)(1) (i.e., the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the
location of the compensation site relative to the impact site and their
significance within the watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation
project): if the mitigation does not deviate, make that statement. Do not leave
this section blank.

vi.Other Mitigative Actions.

8.General evaluation criteria under the public interest review. We considered the following
within this document:

Page 17

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

a.The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work.

b.There are no unresolved conflicts as to resource use. ( There are unresolved
conflicts as to resource use. One or more of the alternative locations and methods
described above are reasonable or practicable to accomplish the objectives of the
proposed structure or work but are not being accepted by the applicant.) ( There are
unresolved conflicts as to resource use however there are no practicable reasonable
alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the purposed work.)

c.The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects, which the
proposed work is likely to have on the public, and private uses to which the area is
suited. Detrimental impacts are expected to be minimal although they would be
permanent in the construction area. The beneficial effects associated with utilization of
the property would be permanent. .

9.Determinations.

a.Public Hearing Request: NA No request was made for a public hearing.

I have reviewed and evaluated the requests for a public hearing. There is sufficient
information available to evaluate the proposed project; therefore, the requests for a
public hearing are denied.

b.Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The proposed
permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations
implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the
activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct or
indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR
Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing
program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For
these reasons a conformity determination is not required for this permit action.

c.Relevant Presidential Executive Orders.

i.EO 13175, Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians. This action has no substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes.

ii.EO 11988, Floodplain Management. Not in a floodplain. (Alternatives to
location within the floodplain, minimization, and compensation of the effects
were considered above.)

iii.EO 12898, Environmental Justice. In accordance with Title III of the Civil
Right Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898, it has been determined that the
project would not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use
Page 18

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or
national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or low-
income communities.

iv.EO 13112, Invasive Species.
There were no invasive species issues involved.
The evaluation above included invasive species concerns in the analysis of
impacts at the project site and associated compensatory mitigation projects.
Through special conditions, the permittee will be required to control the
introduction and spread of exotic species.

v.EO 13212 and 13302, Energy Supply and Availability. The project was not
one that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy,
or strengthen pipeline safety. (The review was expedited and/or other
actions were taken to the extent permitted by law and regulation to accelerate
completion of this energy-related (including pipeline safety) project while
maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.)

b.Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Having reviewed the information provided
by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental
impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required.

c.Compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines. NA

Having completed the evaluation in paragraph 5, I have determined that the proposed
discharge complies/does not comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines.

d.Public Interest Determination: I find that issuance of a Department of the Army permit
is not/is contrary to the public interest.

Page 19

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

PREPARED BY:

________________________ Date: 17 November, 2015
Tyler Crumbley Project Manager

REVIEWED BY:

________________________ Date: 17 November, 2015
Dale Beter

Chief, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office

APPROVED BY:

________________________ Date:
Kevin P. Landers Sr. Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commanding

Page 20

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
National Park Service, Harkers Island
Action ID SAW-2006-40176-016

1.In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the
applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Manatee Guidelines, and strictly
adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/mammal/manatee_guidelines.pdf.

2.Dredging is not authorized.

3.Barges and other construction equipment are not allowed to operate within 25 feet of
existing SAV.

4.The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities. For
further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at
[phone].

5.All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.

6.The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if,
in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work
shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee
will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or
alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States.

7.The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public’s right
to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the
permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the
authorized work for reason other than safety.

8.Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized
land-clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this
project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within waters or
wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.

9.Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit,
no excavation, fill or mechanized land-clearing activities shall take place at any time in the
construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
Page 21

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

connected with this project.

10.All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the permittee
shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone], Ext. 526 or
[phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances
Control Act will be followed.

11.Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or wetlands
shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace
quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing activities), or
unsightly debris will not be used.

12. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.

13. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each
of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project with
a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be available at the
project site during construction and maintenance of this project.

14. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to
prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit
area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar
appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and
the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must remain in full
compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina
General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4).

15. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related discharge. Increases such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.

16. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its
expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such
time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre-project condition.

Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of
Page 22

CESAW-RG-__ (Application: SAW- SAW2006-40176-016)
-
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the
Above-Numbered Permit Application

Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee’s discovery of the violation.
Page 23

M£NT OF rh
F�
O 9
� O
7 ]7
9
ARCH 3 �0A
IN REPLY REFFR 10-
05/20/2015
Ms. Teresa R. Bullard
NATIONAL
United States Department of the Interior SERAV U
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
Biologist, Environmental Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Ms. Bullard:
The Environmental Assessment for Cape Lookout National Seashore Harkers Island Shoreline
Protection Project has been internally reviewed and is in full compliance for the continuation of
the rock sill construction to begin in 2015 per the SAW -2006-40176-16.
In recapping this project, actual construction began in 2008 with over 2,700 feet of rock sill
being completed. However, the entire project was not completed due to funding constraints.
After Hurricane Sandy, additional funding was finally secured to continue the structure for
another 900 linear feet, per the original environmental assessment listed as "Description of
Proposed Action" on page 4 - item 1.2.
Please feel free to contact Mike Baker, Chief of Maintenance at 252-728-2250 Ext 3011 should
any additional information be needed.
Sin c e
Patrick M. Kenney
Superintendent
TAKE FR1 DF-®
INAM ERJCA,7,!�

r
5
n
3
2
iiIL■
t� 1-
a _
L II' LM Oil
! - ■ � _ � _ _ � � �. � ins ■ _ '
■ ■
i u I
r �■ .� t. -
L
AIL
IF
wzr
IF1
` GING
L �111 56 ie Iff
-
�- ZA
! -
•
_ VIII
•. - 1 1 `1l. j.1 Ca
, I
Rowe
remp
'I L
" i1 II ■ r � ■� n
• Ac
Ce., ' Rq CES � � �_ � � - � 41, � � � � ! � � � �.. � / �' I -
•. S s
.,
1A 2114 J;EL ArL
I - 0% 61 . ;x� i ra
GING16-1
, w 1 i ■
♦ E -
J0 J
115
♦ - ■ Ir
ImI
w- 44-111 1*/ R 06
17 /
1� S 1
Ak-
./n
NP
x/ I
\ ■ iii
%� �. �� ` _■R_ \f\\ _ ■/ _ �., y/►moi i',�/ �-/ /�� ).��� `
MI
r
/
-ATEND THE EXISTING NORTH STONE SILL LINE 2L
THAT PARALLELS THFr`SHORELINE AS SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
REMOVE THE EXISTI" NORTH SILL STONE TIE-IN BETWEEN THE PARALLEL
PORTION AND THET E -IN WITH THE EXISITNG SHORELINE. THE NORTH STONE
SILL SHALL Bg-REMOVED TO THE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AND SUBJECT
TO THE CO T-RACTING OFFICER'S APPROVAL. THE EXISTING NORTH SIL TONE
M Y B S INT E CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW NORTH STONE SILL.
NORTH SILL LINE 2A
21 NORTHING FASTING
0+64.00 351541.7970 2743855.6137
1+64.00 351444.4613 2743832.6841
3+25.56 351289.7534 2743879.2295
4+23.92 351191.9450 2743868.7977
5+26.43 351089.4323 2743868.6921
8+03.14 350826.3775 2743782.8506
8+78.14 350751.6654 2743789.4119
NORTH SILL LINE 2C
PI NORTHING EASTING
8+37.45 350773.5072 2743752 . 3590 STAINLESS
STEEL NUT
9+30.00 350681.3082 2743760.4560 & WASHER
-LLL
o m p;'cn c a -_---
co co 0- ; b C
co Co 0 PI 5+26.43 +2,1 J
-
��
NORTH STONE SELL ■
2A (NEW)
1 1/11 1/11
NYLON WASHER
%" DIA.
STAINLESS STEEL
CARRIAGE BOLT
NYLON
WASHER
N
DANGE
SIGN
- 3" STD
PVC PIF
I I
DETAIL ALUMINUM 6" �r ii
C-�� NOT TO SCALE SIGNI-I ii
u
TYPICAL SIGN TYPICAL PERMANENT MARKER
p` FOR STONE SILL FOR STONE SILL
�01 NOT TO SCALE C-O,I NOT TO SCALE
NOTE PERMANENT MARKERS:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL PERMANENT
MARKERS ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF EACH STONE SILL
STRUCTURE AT 50 -FOOT INTERVALS AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH U.S COAST GUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AIDS TO
NAVIGATION.
NOTES :
1. SURVEYING AND MAPPING BY: GEODYNAMICS
310 A GREENFIELD DR.
NEWPORT, NC 28570
2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NGVD 29
3. ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL.
4. ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NCGRID (NAD83)
5. FIELD WORK PERFORMED MAY 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
SURVEYED JANUARY 2005.
EXISTING
GROUND SOUND SIDE
EL 3.0' NGVD
2.5
STONE 4'
(NCDOT
CLASS II) EL 3.0' NGVD LANDWARD SIDE
SOUND SIDE 2.5 .: 2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
1� 1 EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
GEOTEXTILE
SECTION A -A EXISTING
TYPICAL SECTION STONE SILL
GROUND
NOT TO SCALE
35'
4' STONE 4,
(NCDOT
CLASS II)
2
,11
-------ter---����
GEOTEXTILE -
EXISTING
GROUND TYPICAL SECTION STONE SILLS W/ GAP
NOT TO SCALE
2.5
1
SECTION B -B
LEGEND
--� SAV LIMITS (2015)
gZ7�7EXISTING MARSH (2015)
9aD EXISTING PEAT OR "BLACK ROCK" (2005)
ol,nr7-I NEW STONE SILL OR BREAKWATER
J.U.1-1.11
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
w
M
O
�
ri
v)
w w
U) 0
O
J SE
Qw<
LANDWARD SIDE
LD
EL 3.0' NGVD
�
2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
oQ�=
z
Y�
EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
ocl'o
0wz
r
O
w
z
UOO
�
wUU
r
5
n
3
2
iiIL■
t� 1-
a _
L II' LM Oil
! - ■ � _ � _ _ � � �. � ins ■ _ '
■ ■
i u I
r �■ .� t. -
L
AIL
IF
wzr
IF1
` GING
L �111 56 ie Iff
-
�- ZA
! -
•
_ VIII
•. - 1 1 `1l. j.1 Ca
, I
Rowe
remp
'I L
" i1 II ■ r � ■� n
• Ac
Ce., ' Rq CES � � �_ � � - � 41, � � � � ! � � � �.. � / �' I -
•. S s
.,
1A 2114 J;EL ArL
I - 0% 61 . ;x� i ra
GING16-1
, w 1 i ■
♦ E -
J0 J
115
♦ - ■ Ir
ImI
w- 44-111 1*/ R 06
17 /
1� S 1
Ak-
./n
NP
x/ I
\ ■ iii
%� �. �� ` _■R_ \f\\ _ ■/ _ �., y/►moi i',�/ �-/ /�� ).��� `
MI
r
/
-ATEND THE EXISTING NORTH STONE SILL LINE 2L
THAT PARALLELS THFr`SHORELINE AS SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
REMOVE THE EXISTI" NORTH SILL STONE TIE-IN BETWEEN THE PARALLEL
PORTION AND THET E -IN WITH THE EXISITNG SHORELINE. THE NORTH STONE
SILL SHALL Bg-REMOVED TO THE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AND SUBJECT
TO THE CO T-RACTING OFFICER'S APPROVAL. THE EXISTING NORTH SIL TONE
M Y B S INT E CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW NORTH STONE SILL.
NORTH SILL LINE 2A
21 NORTHING FASTING
0+64.00 351541.7970 2743855.6137
1+64.00 351444.4613 2743832.6841
3+25.56 351289.7534 2743879.2295
4+23.92 351191.9450 2743868.7977
5+26.43 351089.4323 2743868.6921
8+03.14 350826.3775 2743782.8506
8+78.14 350751.6654 2743789.4119
NORTH SILL LINE 2C
PI NORTHING EASTING
8+37.45 350773.5072 2743752 . 3590 STAINLESS
STEEL NUT
9+30.00 350681.3082 2743760.4560 & WASHER
-LLL
o m p;'cn c a -_---
co co 0- ; b C
co Co 0 PI 5+26.43 +2,1 J
-
��
NORTH STONE SELL ■
2A (NEW)
1 1/11 1/11
NYLON WASHER
%" DIA.
STAINLESS STEEL
CARRIAGE BOLT
NYLON
WASHER
N
DANGE
SIGN
- 3" STD
PVC PIF
I I
DETAIL ALUMINUM 6" �r ii
C-�� NOT TO SCALE SIGNI-I ii
u
TYPICAL SIGN TYPICAL PERMANENT MARKER
p` FOR STONE SILL FOR STONE SILL
�01 NOT TO SCALE C-O,I NOT TO SCALE
NOTE PERMANENT MARKERS:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL PERMANENT
MARKERS ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF EACH STONE SILL
STRUCTURE AT 50 -FOOT INTERVALS AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH U.S COAST GUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AIDS TO
NAVIGATION.
NOTES :
1. SURVEYING AND MAPPING BY: GEODYNAMICS
310 A GREENFIELD DR.
NEWPORT, NC 28570
2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NGVD 29
3. ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL.
4. ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NCGRID (NAD83)
5. FIELD WORK PERFORMED MAY 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
SURVEYED JANUARY 2005.
EXISTING
GROUND SOUND SIDE
EL 3.0' NGVD
2.5
STONE 4'
(NCDOT
CLASS II) EL 3.0' NGVD LANDWARD SIDE
SOUND SIDE 2.5 .: 2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
1� 1 EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
GEOTEXTILE
SECTION A -A EXISTING
TYPICAL SECTION STONE SILL
GROUND
NOT TO SCALE
35'
4' STONE 4,
(NCDOT
CLASS II)
2
,11
-------ter---����
GEOTEXTILE -
EXISTING
GROUND TYPICAL SECTION STONE SILLS W/ GAP
NOT TO SCALE
2.5
1
SECTION B -B
LEGEND
--� SAV LIMITS (2015)
gZ7�7EXISTING MARSH (2015)
9aD EXISTING PEAT OR "BLACK ROCK" (2005)
ol,nr7-I NEW STONE SILL OR BREAKWATER
J.U.1-1.11
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
v z
J
LLJ
w U
Z
wz�
zwo
z LL
w0
z
U)O
0
°COz
Q U
U) J
w
M
O
�
H
w
v)
w w
U) 0
O
J SE
Qw<
LANDWARD SIDE
LD
EL 3.0' NGVD
�
2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
oQ�=
z
Y�
EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
ocl'o
0wz
r
O
w
z
UOO
�
wUU
U
U
1--
>0111
glllll
c0
o
a
o
wEr
w
C/)
J V
z=
O
Q
z
o
w
z O
a
Z
w
o
z
w
Q
w=
I
CC U
2
}
LP
M
o
0
N
Lu
m
cc
C)
Q
U
X
w
U �-
=
x
C) J
U
X
o
Orn
v z
J
LLJ
w U
Z
wz�
zwo
z LL
w0
z
U)O
0
°COz
Q U
U) J
w
M
O
�
H
w
v)
w w
U) 0
O
J SE
Qw<
LANDWARD SIDE
LD
EL 3.0' NGVD
�
2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
oQ�=
z
Y�
EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
ocl'o
0wz
r
O
w
z
UOO
�
wUU
U
U
1--
>0111
LU
c0
o
a
o
wEr
w
C/)
J V
z=
O
Q
z
o
w
z O
a
Z
w
o
z
w
Q
w=
I
CC U
2
}
LP
M
o
0
N
Lu
m
cc
C)
Q
U
X
w
U �-
=
x
C) J
U
X
o
Orn
v z
J
LLJ
w U
Z
wz�
zwo
z LL
w0
z
U)O
0
°COz
Q U
U) J
z
1"=50'
50 0 50 100 150
SCALE IN FEET
$FILEA$
JU
CV
Cf)Q
CV
�U)
oz
zJ
PLATE
NUMBER
C-01
$DATE$ $TIME$
w
M
O
_[--
v)
w w
U) 0
O
J SE
Qw<
LANDWARD SIDE
LD
EL 3.0' NGVD
QLDO
z w
a
2 EL 1.51' NGVD (MEAN HIGH WATER)
oQ�=
�1
Y�
EL -0.2' NGVD (MEAN LOW WATER)
ocl'o
0wz
---- ----------
---
z -
w��
z
UOO
wUU
U
1--
>0111
mzw
c�Lu�
a
Q u)U
wEr
w
J V
z=
O
Q
z
z
1"=50'
50 0 50 100 150
SCALE IN FEET
$FILEA$
JU
CV
Cf)Q
CV
�U)
oz
zJ
PLATE
NUMBER
C-01
$DATE$ $TIME$

Environmental Resources Section
Ms. Jennifer Burdette
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
November 10, 2015
NC DEQ - NC Division of Water Resources
401 Wetland & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Burdette:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS),
Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harkers Island Section, is seeking concurrence for a
modification of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification associated with Corps Action ID
Number: SAW -2006-40176. The purpose of the requested modification is to complete the
unfinished portion of the shoreline protection project in Harkers Island, Carteret County, North
Carolina. Enclosed are five (5) copies of the Application for Department of the Army Permit,
five (5) copies of the updated sill design, five (5) copies of the Public Notice and a check in the
amount of $240 (check #1436).
The southern portion of the originally proposed sill structure was constructed in 2008;
however, due to funding constraints, the northern portion was never completed. Since 2008, the
portion of the shoreline that was not protected by the partially completed sill has experienced
severe and persistent erosion, primarily due to the effects of wave action with occasional
inundation at high tide and, to a lesser extent, wake from boat traffic. As a result, the NPS now
proposes to complete construction of the sill, with minor modifications, as described below, to
avoid impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). The entire project was previously
authorized by a Department of the Army (DA) permit (SAW -2006-40176) and associated 401
water quality permit.
The proposed project completion would include placing stone riprap within approximately
0.70 acres of open water to continue the sill structure along the east side of Harkers Island. The
approximate length to complete the sill is 950 linear feet. The original design to complete the sill
included tying the sill back into the bank at the northernmost point. However, after receiving
comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service about possible SAV impacts associated
with this segment of the project, an SAV survey was conducted. The results of the survey
indicated that SAV is present within the proposed tie-in area; therefore, the sill design has been
modified to leave the northern end open to avoid impacts to existing SAV and to allow for
additional tidal flushing. This modification reduces open water impacts from the 1.07 acres
described in the original DA permit application to 0.70 acres.

-2 -
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Ms. Teresa Bullard of my staff by at [phone] or by
email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
,t
Jennifer L. Owens
Chief, Environmental Resources Section
Enclosures

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
December 1, 2015
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW -2006-40176-016
US Department of the Interior
Attn: Mr. Patrick M. Kenney
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
Dear Mr. Kenney:
In accordance with your written request of March 24, 2015, and the ensuing administrative
record, enclosed is a signed copy of your Department of Army (DA) Permit to discharge dredged
or fill material in order to complete an unfinished shoreline protection project associated with the
Cape Lookout National Seashore in Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Any deviation in the authorized work will likely require modification of this permit. If a
change in the authorized work is necessary, you should promptly submit revised plans to the
Corps showing the proposed changes. You may not undertake the proposed changes until the
Corps notifies you that your permit has been modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and specific conditions are important. Your failure
to comply with these conditions could result in a violation of Federal law. Certain significant
general conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2020.
b. You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence and complete
work.

-2-
c. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits to your worksite
as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and conditions.
You should address all questions regarding this authorization to Mr. Tyler Crumbley at the
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Thank you in advance for completing our Customer Survey Form. This can be
accomplished by visiting our website at http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey and
completing the survey on-line. We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to
complete a survey each time you interact with our office.
FILENAME: 2NDXOUTLTR. SAW-2006-40176.KENNEY.doc.l2a.doc
Sincerely, CESAW-RG-L/CRUMBLEY/tms/s
CESAW-RG-L/BETER
MAIL
CESAW-RG/FILE
Dale E. Beter
Chief, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (with Special Conditions & Plans):
Chief, Source Data Unit
Attn: Ms. Sharon Tear
NOAA/National Ocean Service
1315 East-West Highway, Room 7316
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Mr. Pete Benjamin
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn: Mr. Fritz Rohde
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

-3 -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief
Wetlands Protection Service — Region IV
Water Management Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Mr. Todd A. Bowers
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Attn: Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn: Mr. Pace Wilber
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

HPLY T®
ATTFN ION OF;
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-9343
December 1, 2015
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW -2006-40176-016
US Department of the Interior
Attn: Mr. Patrick M. Kennev
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
Dear Mr. Kenney:
In accordance with your written request of March 24, 2015, and the ensuing administrative
record, enclosed is a signed copy of your Department of Army (DA) Permit to discharge dredged
or fill material in order to complete an unfinished shoreline protection project associated with the
Cape Lookout National Seashore in Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Any deviation in the authorized work will likely require modification of this permit. If a
change in the authorized work is necessary, you should promptly submit revised plans to the
Corps showing the proposed changes. You may not undertake the proposed changes until the
Corps notifies you that your permit has been modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and specific conditions are important. Your failure
to comply with these conditions could result in a violation of Federal law. Certain significant
general conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2020.
b. You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence and. complete
work.

-2-
c. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits to your worksite
as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and conditions.
You should address all questions regarding this authorization to Mr. Tyler Crumbley at the
Wilmington. Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Thank you in advance for completing our Customer Survey Form. This can be
accomplished by visiting our website at http://per2.nwp.usace.gmy.mil/survey and
completing the survey on-line. We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to
complete a survey each time you interact with our office.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Beter
Chief, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (with Special Conditions & Plans):
Chief, Source Data Unit
Attn: Ms. Sharon Tear
NOAA/National Ocean Service
1315 East-West Highway, Room 7316
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Mr. Pete Benjamin
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn: Mr. Fritz Rohde
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

-3 -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief
Wetlands Protection Service — Region IV
Water Management Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Mr. Todd A. Bowers
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Attn: Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn: Mr. Pace Wilber
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

aa"
11,5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT i"Ec.
Permittee: National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore
Attn: Mr. Patrick Kenney
Permit No.: SAW -2006-40176-016
Issuing Office: CESAW-RG-L
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The
term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction
over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding
officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the
National Park Service seeking Reauthorization of a Department of the Army permit to complete an unfinished
shoreline protection project associated with the Cape Lookout National Seashore in Harkers Island, Carteret County,
North Carolina.
Project Location: The project consists of completion of a previously authorized offshore stone sill with a
trapezoidal cross-section (Final design attached). The stone would be North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) class 2 riprap, approximately 24 inches in size, laid over geotextile fabric. The sill is designed to be
adjacent to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds without directly impacting any SAV beds. The sill would lie
at an elevation +3' NGVD (mean high water) in water shoreward of all SAV beds, and waterward of existing
emergent marsh vegetation to the extent possible. The proposed position, approximately 60 feet offshore, would
allow development of additional marsh vegetation in viable portions of the shallows between sill and shoreline.
Marsh grass would be planted along the water's edge in these reaches to the extent feasible. The top of the sill
would be positioned approximately three feet above mean high water, and openings would be incorporated for
circulation to maintain water quality, for cross -movement of aquatic organisms.
A slight deviation from the orgininally permitted plan is authorized to remove an existing tie-in and terminal tie-in to
promote hydraulic flushing.
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 2020. If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for
consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the
terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted
activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition
4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it
without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may
require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity
authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate

the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the
site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the
space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the
conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of
the certification is attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed
necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of
your permit.
Special Conditions:
SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant
to:
(X) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U:S.C. 403).
(X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
() Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by
law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability
for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted
activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken
by or on behalf
of the United States in the public interest.
2

c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by
the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary
to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the
circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false,
incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public
interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification,
and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in
33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an
administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the
initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered
by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those
specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by
this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity
or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a
request for an extension of this time limit.
Your sighs tare below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and
condition/,,6f this permit.
(PERMITTEE) (DATE)

This permit becomes effective when the, Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has
signed below.
z,
(DISTRICT ENGINEER) KEVIN P. LANDERS, SR., (DATE)
COLONEL, U.S. ARMY
DISTRICT COMMANDER
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is
transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the
property. To validate -the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with
its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
OFFICE: 1986 - 717-425
4
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
National ]Park Service, Harkers Island
Action 1D SAW -2006-40176-016
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus,
the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and
strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at
hM?://www.fws.gov/ne-es/mammal/manatee guidelines.pdf.
2. Dredging is not authorized.
3. Barges and other construction equipment are not allowed to operate within 25 feet of
existing SAV.
4. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities.
For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
at [phone].
5. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
6.- The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, -or
if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove,
relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the
United States.
7. The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's
-right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by
the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent
to the authorized work for reason other than safety.
* 8. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as'to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach. of -waters or wetlands.

9. Except as authorized by this permit or any USAGE approved modification to this
permit,'no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in
the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
10. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
11. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants
except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing
activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
12. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.
13. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide
each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this
project with a copy of this.permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project.
14. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary
to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the
permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation.of silt fencing or
similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of
earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must
remain in full, compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statutes Chapter I I 3 Article 4).
15. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase
in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
16. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its
expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such
2

time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.

------------
L
I
I
IMaio--ar�omL �: nn c
MlnO HLtlOt4'H0iw;,VA
SN33'll�1+3 30 Sd!!(YJ
LYk19p H33h12LLi AhLtl S(I
W K
W 3
3 ` o
ry
ZOin W
a � o
N
oz W saran
ITS H-Wom
OTik)U}� HIHO z'AIATNYJ
W hdL12198✓15 _tlllYdvS
tYVYALbH llION001 }M
5
4
3
O
ww
ww �:
a: !
o W
O
u, �L
z
O wl
rn
00
�u
-J
zl
aLLo
a�
ON
,
1
�Sz a�xo
�aay-
.Z
S
fd
I
INH
pont
G
o
�
O
i FF.Ml
~�WN -
me��ae�
^� e
a m m r U 2