20180699 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20180522

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 18, 2018
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MQY2,29
2018 DI
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
2 0 t 80 6 99
Karen Higgins, Compliance and Permitting Unit Supervisor
DWR - Water Quality Program
FROM: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
c/o Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Town of Kitty Hawk, et.al c/o NC Coastal Federation
Project Location: 3789, 3793, 3793, 3801, 3809 Moor Shore Road, Dare County
Proposed Project: Construct approximately 6251ft of wooden/vinyl sills to protect and restore
the shoreline.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by 06/08/18 to 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557 (fax: [phone]).
If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Yvonne Carver at (252)
264-3901. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY:
SIGNED
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
DATE
- "''Nothing Compares r
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
401 S. Griffin St., Ste 300 1 Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-3901 252-331-2951(fax]

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Town of Kitty Hawk, Roebuck Properties II LLC, Amy Wells,
Charles and Lisa Sullivan, Harry and Eileen Meraklis
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE:
3789, 3793, 3797, 3801, and 3809 Moor Shore Road,
Kitty Hawk, Dare
Co.; Kitty Hawk
Bay; Photo Index — 2006: 185-7222 (012, P12-13)
Latitude:
360 3'34.74"N
Longitude: 75041'52.51 "W
Latitude:
360 3'35.18"N
Longitude: 75041'52.59"W
Latitude:
360 3'35.46"N
Longitude: 75041'53.37"W
Latitude:
360 3'35.72"N
Longitude: 75041'53.84"W
Latitude:
36° 3'36.52"N
Longitude: 75041'55.85"W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA, D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit — 1) 03/09/16, Ron Renaldi;
2) 01/17/18 & 05/15/18, Y. Carver
Was Applicant Present —1) Yes -Agents; 2) No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received Complete - 05/07/18
Office - Elizabeth City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Town of Kitty Hawk
Land Classification From LUP — BR -1: Low Density Beach Residential
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Estuarine Waters and Public Trust Area
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public and Private
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing — Riprap, docks, pilings along shoreline /
West of Moor Shore Road; Single-family
Residences East of the road
Planned — Wooden/Vinyl Sills
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: .757year
Source - Applicant
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetland
N/A
N/A
N/A
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
N/A
N/A
N/A
(C) EW, PTA
N/A
1,875 sq. ft.
N/A
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 1,875 sq. ft. (0.04 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: N/A
(F) Water Classification: SC Open: Closed

Town of Kitty Hawk, Roebuck Properties II LLC, Amy Wells, Charles and Lisa
Sullivan, Harry and Eileen Meraklis
Field Investigation Report
Page 2
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Construction of off -shore wooden/vinyl sills and planting of
native marsh grass.
Proiect Settin
The proposed development site is a 159,500 -square foot open water area of the Kitty Hawk
Bay located west of Moor Shore Road in Kitty Hawk, Dare County. The proposed area has a
total of 7 parcels of land, of which 4 privately owned properties and 1 Town -owned property will
participate in a living shoreline project. Their combined shoreline is approximately 590 linear
feet (Ift) in length. The project site consists of a soft, sandy bottom and has water depths that
range from -0.06 to -1.33 feet. The northwestern section of the project area is comprised of
Big Cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alternif/ora) and Black
Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). Moving south along the shoreline, there are 2 existing
pier/platform structures with tie pilings, which are owned by property owners Robinson and
Meraklis. Near the Robinson pier other vegetation included the Swamp Willow, which is
commonly known as the coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana), and Arrow -arum (Peltandra
virginica). The Meraklis pier connects to an area of upland, grassy lawn. Continuing south
along the shoreline there is a sandy beach with trees/shrubs, including Red bay (Persea
borbonia), Red maple tree (Acer rubrum), and Marsh elder (Iva frutescens). At the southern
end of the project area there is a section of riprap revetment/jetty and a strand of the common
reed (Phragmites australis). East of the project area is SR 1216 (Moor Shore Road) and
private residences. The Wright Brothers Multi -Use Path, which is a mixed-use walk and bike
path, is located south of Moor Shore Road and connects to a CAMA access area at 3613
Windgrass Circle, Kitty Hawk.
The waters of the Kitty Hawk Bay are classified as SC (Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation,
Salt Water) by the Division of Environmental Management and are closed to shellfish taking.
The descriptive boundary for the project area is designated as Joint Waters and is in the
Pasquotank River Basin.
In the fall of 2016, an SAV survey was conducted by staff of The Coastal Federation and
Coastal Engineering. The SAVs noted were Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), widgeon
grass and redhead grass. It was reported that most of the SAVs were located further offshore,
in slightly deeper waters from the .project area; however, results from the survey showed
abundant beds of SAV with 68 quadrats containing SAV and an average cover of 25.3%.
A scoping meeting was held on March 13, 2017 at the Washington Regional Office to review
preliminary plans of the proposed wooden/vinyl sill project with representatives of State and
Federal review agencies. Because of concerns raised about the impact of the project to SAVs,
it was recommended that an alternative analysis be prepared to include wave energy modeling
and comparison between vertical structures and rock -based type specific to the project site.

Town of Kitty Hawk, Roebuck Properties II LLC, Amy Wells, Charles and Lisa
Sullivan, Harry and Eileen Meraklis
Field Investigation Report
Page 3
There was also concern in regard to usurpation of public waters and access through property
currently owned by the Town of Kitty Hawk.
A shoreline study was prepared by Jeff Hanson of WaveForce Technologies in August 2017, a
copy of which is included with the Project Narrative. It was reported that SAV near the pier at
the time of the study was a mix of milfoil and pond weed (Potamogeton). A sheetpile sill versus
a rock sill was recommended to reduce the footprint of the marsh sill to minimize the impact(s)
to any SAVs in the project area.
There are no National Register Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites within the project's area.
Development Proposal
The Town of Kitty Hawk, Roebuck Properties II LLC, Amy Wells, Charles and Lisa Sullivan,
Harry and Eileen Meraklis, in partnership with The Coastal Federation, propose to construct
approximately 625 Ift of wooden/vinyl sills in order to protect and restore the shoreline. The
sills will be 3' wide, and will be placed an average distance of 54' from NWL and a maximum of
78' from NWL. The water depths at the location of the sills range from -0.62' to -1.33'. The
sheets of the sills will have 2" gaps every 2' to allow for small marine life to pass through. Five-
foot gaps will be between applicable sills for marine life passage and water circulation. The top
of each sill will be an average of 6"-8" above mean water level. No fill is proposed, and erosion
control matting will be used during construction where necessary to cross wetland vegetation.
Reflectors will be attached to the sills, positioned every 50 Ift., and 3' above NWL. After the
sills are in place, Spartina cynosuroides, Juncus roemerianus, and other native vegetation will
be planted along the shoreline.
Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the sills will result in the filling of 1,875 sq. ft. of Estuarine Waters and Public
Trust Areas. Increased turbidity will occur at the project site on a temporary basis.
Submitted by: Yvonne B. Carver
Date: 05/15/18

Received
Moor Shore Road Kitty Hawk, NC DCM-Ec
Living Shoreline
Dare County, North Carolina
Project Narrative
Applicant:
North Carolina Coastal Federation
In partnership with
local residents, the Town of Kitty Hawk, N.C. Department of Transportation, Dare
County Soil and Water Conservation District and Coastal Engineering & Surveying,
Inc.
Prepared By:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation
637 Harbor Rd.
Wanchese, NC 27981
ESI
Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
4425 North Croatan Hwy.
April, 2018

Introduction and Project Need
Received
el V
iiti � Lei`
DCM-EC
Coastal ecosystems and communities are increasingly at risk from sea -level rise (SLR) and strong storms.
North American coasts are expected to experience increasing SLR and storm -surge flooding (Romero-
Lankao et al. 2014) and coastal habitats, such as marshes and reefs, are increasingly recognized for their
intrinsic capacity to improve coastal resilience in addition to other important ecosystem services
(Arkema et al. 2013). The North Carolina coast, with its extensive 2.1 million acre estuarine system—the
second largest in the continental U.S. — is on the frontlines of these challenges.
Estuarine fringing marsh shorelines are being walled off and degraded by vertical bulkheads and other
hard stabilization measures. Each year in North Carolina, many more bulkheads are constructed along
estuarine shorelines than living shorelines. As of 2013, records show that 125 living shorelines,
compared to 9,962 bulkheads (or more than 600 miles), have been installed (Puckett, N.C. Coastal
Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve, personal comm.). Living shorelines use a variety of
structural and organic materials, including wetland plants, to prevent erosion and stabilize the shoreline.
Living shorelines stabilize estuarine shorelines while maintaining the connectedness of upland and
intertidal habitats, thereby preserving natural ecological processes and providing valuable and
increasingly scarce marsh and nursery habitat.
Saltmarsh is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for red drum and three species of harvested
penaeid shrimps. This habitat benefits a mosaic of threatened/endangered species, managed species
and other commercially and recreationally valuable species, including speckled trout, flounder,
sheepshead, spot, croaker, forage fish and crustaceans via offering foraging and refuge habitats. Four
species managed under the federal Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and
state Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) will directly benefit from the living shoreline restoration
proposed: red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp
(Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). The red drum is also designated
as North Carolina's state saltwater fish.
In addition to the fisheries and habitat benefits of the proposed living shoreline at Moor Shore Road,
four coastal property owners and one town property will benefit from shoreline protection and
restoration through this project. Over the past year the landowners, federation and engineers from
Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc. have worked to develop a project design for approximately 625
linear feet of Moor Shore Road with the intent of stabilizing the shoreline and protecting this state
owned road. The design calls for an offshore sill paired with native marsh grass plantings.
Moor Shore Road, or SR 1216, is located along Kitty Hawk Bay in Dare County, North Carolina. Moor
Shore Road is an important community access point, state owned road and an emergency access route.
Over the past fifteen years, the marsh and shoreline buffering the road have been slowly eroding away,
with higher rates of erosion occurring during storm events (as reported by the landowners and observed
in aerial imagery). This state maintained road connects residents living along Kitty Hawk Bay to US 158
Highway and, is an important and critical emergency access when the oceanfront is flooded. The road
also serves as a mixed-use walk and bike path connecting to Tateway Park (a CAMA access point) and
houses many local marathons, bringing tourists, residents, local attention and revenue to the area. The
sidewalk extension of Moor Shore Road is a necessary link of Bay Drive to the South and Kitty Hawk to
the North and acts as an emergency ingress and egress access to the Dare County Outer Banks during

Received
:Y L3ij
severe weather. The stretches of marsh along Moor Shore Rd. are very narrow in some places, DGM-EC
eroded to a point where the road, and N.C. Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) right of way is
threatened. As a result, the proposed stretch of shoreline (Figure 1) has lost approximately 0.5 acres of
natural salt marsh as observed in aerial imagery between 2002 and 2015. A living shoreline project
along this stretch of shoreline will reestablish lost salt marsh while stabilizing the shoreline and
protecting the existing infrastructure while producing minimal impacts to the surrounding ecosystem.
Figure 1. A vicinity map of the proposed project with red line indicating the length of shoreline to be protected by
the living shoreline.
Due to the community uses, ecosystem impacts and need this area shows, the federation has worked
over the past year to form partnerships with stakeholders to design and fund the implementation of a
living shoreline project. This has resulted in NCDOT, Dare County Soil and Water Conservation District as
well as the town of Kitty Hawk recognizing the immediate need for this project. These stakeholders, in
partnership, recognize that the proposed structure, as described below, is of benefit to the public. As
such, all of the stakeholders have agreed to provide funding to implement this project. The Town has
appropriated funds through its annual budget; NCDOT has provided funding through a reimbursement
agreement with the town; Soil and Water has provided a grant through their Community Conservation
and Assistance Program; and the federation proposes to provide funds through a cost share grant from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assist landowners with implementing living
shoreline projects.

Existing Conditions
The proposed area consists of seven separate parcels of land including four privately owned properties
and one town owned property (Figure 1). The length of their combined shorelines is approximately 590
linear feet. One property has a dock and pier and portions (approximately 100 feet) of the shoreline
have rip rap that was placed by NCDOT to stabilize a section of shoreline that eroded and threatened
their right of way easement.
The upland portion of the property is comprised of a Spartina cynuseroides marsh transitioning to
maintained lawn and some sand and shrubby upland vegetation. There are pockets of Phragmites spp.
to the southernmost and northernmost ends of the proposed area. The wetland area contains isolated
clumps and some contiguous stands of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus).
The waters off shore are classified as special secondary fish habitat and are prohibited shellfishing
waters. An SAV survey was conducted in fall 2016 by the federation and Coastal Engineering. A total of
16 transects were run along the length of the shoreline, out 50 feet from the shore. Every ten feet along
the transect species and percent cover, using the Braun Blanquet cover classifications, were recorded. A
total of 96 quadrats were monitored. Results from the survey showed patchy yet abundant beds of SAV
with 68 quadrats containing SAV and average cover of 25.3 percent. Dominant SAV included Eurasian
milfoil, widgeon grass and red head grass. Most SAV was located further off shore, in slightly deeper
waters. The sill is sited to minimize impacts to SAV while restoring degraded marsh habitat.
A scoping meeting was held with permitting agencies in March 2017 to review the preliminary design
and to determine steps moving forward. Army Corps of Engineers representatives stated that the
project could go through their 291 process. National Marine Fisheries were concerned with impacts to
SAV and requested a more thorough look into the design that will create the least impact to SAV.
National Marine Fisheries also requested an energy analysis and wind rose to justify the need of sill
placement in areas with SAV. They stated they would prefer to have a 10 ft. buffer around any high-
density SAV areas.
Resulting from the scoping meeting, Dr. Jeff Hanson, former researcher at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and current owner of Waveforce Technologies, was hired to conduct a site suitability study for the
project. The results of his study and analysis are included as Attachment A. It was determined that the
hydrodynamic assessment requested by National Marine Fisheries at the scoping meeting would cost an
additional $20,000 and would serve as a financial road block to the project. Instead, a comparison
analysis between Moor Shore Road and Bay Cliff Community, a site with a vertical sill living shoreline
having similar fetch, energy regime and facing direction, was conducted. This analysis allowed Dr.
Hanson to determine the impact of the sill structure to the surrounding habitat (regional scour and
disturbance) and the design suitability for Moor Shore Road.
The main findings of the study conclude that Moor Shore Road is in need of protection to prevent
further loss of its shoreline. The study recommends a less aggressive form of erosion control than
bulkheading. Instead, it was recommended that a marsh sill with vegetative will work. A sheet pile sill
configuration was suggested to minimize the footprint of the structure, thereby minimizing the impacts
to SAV. The report also concluded that the sill at Baycliff had minimal localized impacts due to scour
around the sill pilings. Similar, minimal scour at Moor Shore could be expected.

Proposed Work
Proposed work requiring DCM CAMA Major permits includes the construction of an offshore low -profile
wooden/vinyl sill in segments as long as 100 linear feet, positioned parallel to the shore . The sill will be
placed on average 54 feet from shore. The project partners worked to place the sill so that it protected
the shoreline while minimizing any impacts to SAV (Figure 2). The slope of the shoreline is gradual
enough that it lends itself to planting marsh grasses without the need to bring in fill. Some minor
regrading may be needed. Once the sill is in place, Juncus roemorianus will be planted along the
shoreline with Spartina cynuseroides and other native vegetation.
Alternative Design Considerations
Length of the Sill
Originally, the sill was proposed to be 100' long and protect one landowner's property. However, given
the landscape of the proposed project it was determined that a single landowner taking action on their
100' shoreline would set off a cascade of events resulting in uncoordinated shoreline protection
measures being installed along the whole stretch of shore. Instead, the engineer and landowners
decided to come together and consider the entirety of the shoreline of Kitty Hawk Bay and Moor Shore
Rd.
After careful consideration and discussion the partners decided to restore the shoreline and protect it
with a living shoreline. This design supports their values of supporting a natural environment,
maintaining public access and increasing fisheries habitat. In addition, they saw examples of projects
where increased erosion occurred on properties adjacent to shoreline stabilization projects when it
wasn't done in a coordinated fashion, so it was in their best interest to work collaboratively.
For these reasons, the landowners came together and expanded their shoreline stabilization project
from a 100' single property project to a comprehensive, 625' community living shoreline project.
Vertical v. Granite Sill
The partners also considered an off shore sill constructed of granite instead of the vertical sill. It was
determined that a rock sill would not work at this site because it is too shallow to bring the material in
via barge and the contractors would not be able to easily work from shore to deploy the material. Also,
the footprint of the rock structure would have a larger impact on the soft bottom and SAV habitat in the
vicinity. A rock sill would require a 6 to 13 foot wide base to be structurally sound, whereas a vertical sill
will require a 3 foot wide base. Furthermore, the design selection was supported by the results of Dr.
Jeff Hanson's study which stated that an off -shore vertical sill coupled with the planting of native marsh
grasses as the preferred shoreline stabilization technique.
The vertical sill was the preferred option over a rock sill to minimize the impact and footprint of the
structure while providing the necessary shoreline protection.
Received
kI, u - ! 70
DMEC

GRAPHIC SCALE
� r I monheo a
v
i..- -- TI5
.:PRELINBNAR T12 - ,.
w�
-' � ass oimnnwi � �` TACt-ir: a
KITTY HAWK TIC
BAY ,..s a
1
PRS\S T2
V I S osnr` rw im r +
�> 1.4 wn 'I'S Tt
19
lvt r T
;b� � z
Figure 2. A site plan of the proposed shoreline.
Avoidance and Minimization
1) If steps are not taken to proactively protect and restore the shore with a living shoreline,
erosion at the site will continue and the landowners will eventually take action to harden
the shoreline. By installing a living shoreline at the site existing marsh will be protected and
the shoreline will be stabilized from erosion events
2) Approximately 0.5 acres of new fringing marsh will be restored
3) Project and agency partners will be assured that the shoreline will not be hardened by
either bulkheads or revetments, which would result in the loss of existing fringing marsh or
mean that the existing fringing marsh had eroded away.
4) Shallow water habitats will be maintained and SAV will continue to persist both in front of
and behind the sill as shown in the comparative site in Dr. Jeff Hanson's study as well as at
other living shoreline projects including nearby Jockey's Ridge State Park where SAV has
successfully established behind the sill.
X�

Off -Shore Sill Construction
Approximately 625 linear feet of shore -parallel low profile off shore wooden/vinyl sills will be
constructed 54' on average from shore. The distance off shore was carefully considered in order to place
the sill in areas where there is no SAV. Where SAV cannot be avoided, the design was modified to
minimize impacts while still providing shoreline protection and enhancement. The breaker sills will be
constructed of treated pilings and whalers and vinyl paneling. Pilings will be driven into the sediment
not more than 10 deep', with vinyl paneling driven not more than 8' in the ground. The pilings will be
spaced at roughly 5' intervals center to center. The of vinyl sheets will have 2" gaps every 2' in length to
allow for small marine life passage. The top of the sill will extend on average 6"-8" above the mean
water level (Figure 3). In order to allow for marine life passage and water circulation a 5' gap between
one sill and the next will be provided at an interval of 1 every 90-100' in an overlapping placement. In
addition, wooden piles with reflective tape, extending a minimum of 3' above mean water, will be
placed along the sill at 50' intervals. The sheet piles will be driven into location with a vibratory
hammer. Construction materials will be taken to the field by the main road and taken from there to the
water by hand, small boat or by long reaching backhoes or excavators to the water, thus minimally
impacting the shoreline. In areas in where a long reaching backhoe must sit on top of existing marsh
stands, matting will be used to minimize impacts. The construction process will follow NCDOT's
minimum criteria checklist process and follow their standardized specifications.
TYPICAL SILUBREAKWATER SECTION
SCALE: N. T.S.
SEE PLANS FOR DISTANCE (35 AVE. TVP.)
R-rLCCTOR AT JUNCUS (J.ROEMERIANUS) PLANTED W -H SMOOTH CCRDGRASS
5:r INTERVALS (SPARTINA ALTRNAFLCRA) WITH -FIE INTERTIDAL ZCN=
WtOW MHW
(TYP-) -5 -Yr-.AVE.
I CREST OF SILL
- AT E" A.Ci4`JC
NFt'li
f
BOTTOM =.Lr V.
PRELIMINARY':
NOT FOR USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
OR RECORDATION
Figure 3. Preliminary drawing of the proposed off -shore low -profile sill. This figure is to serve as an example of an
offshore sill and the proposed sill will be constructed of either wood or vinyl.
Received
DCS -EC

Monitoring and Maintenance
As part of the grant requirements, monitoring will be conducted by the University of North Carolina
Institute of Marine Sciences and the North Carolina Coastal Federation. Monitoring will include percent
vegetation cover, topography, footprint and morphology of sill. The monitoring will be conducted before
construction occurs and will continue annually until three years after implementation. Long-term
maintenance of the structure will be assumed as a town responsibility. The town is assuming the sill as
part of their infrastructure. The town has required a formal easement from the landowners to ensure
access for maintenance purposes.

Received
MAY - 7 2CIP
DCM-EC
Attachment A
Pages to Follow

WavveForce
cechnoiogies
MOOR SHORE DRIVE SHORELINE STUDY
Project Report
Submitted to: Coastal Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
Submitted by: Jeff Hanson, PhD., WaveForce Technologies LLC
Updated: August 1, 2017 Received
DCM-EC

BACKGROUND
North Carolina has dynamic estuarine shorelines that often experience erosional degradation. Land is lost
by episodic storms, boat wakes, and tidal currents near inlets. These effects are enhanced by a rising sea
level. It is important to strike a balance between the need to provide public protection from these coastal
hazards and the need to maintain the integrity of the natural system. This is especially important in fragile
estuarine environments that provide essential nesting and feeding habitats for aquatic plants and animals,
including most species of local commercial importance.
Because of this continuing problem, North Carolina allows several options for shoreline stabilization.
Shoreline stabilization is defined as the use of engineered structures, vegetation, or land management
practices to protect a shoreline from further or future erosion. Although the most commonly used
method is a bulkhead, this is often the most detrimental to the environment and can result in significant
damage to the local ecosystem. Other methods, such as vegetation, oyster reefs, or marsh sills, have been
shown to improve local habitat rather than degrade it. An excellent overview of available options is
provided by the NC state division of Environmental Quality: http://deci.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-
management/coastal-management-estuarine-shorelines/stabilization/stabilization-options .
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to make recommendations on a proposed shore protection project along
Moor Shore Road or SR 1216, located along Kitty Hawk Bay in Dare County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Shoreline areas adjacent to both privately- and town -owned properties are included. The coastline
configuration, expected wave climate, and desired recreational uses are evaluated to provide guidance
on selecting appropriate shoreline stabilization plans for the Moor Shore site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will protect property along
Moor Shore Road. This state-owned road is an
important community and emergency access
route. Moor Shore Road connects residents
living along Kitty Hawk Bay to US 158 Highway,
thus providing critical emergency access when
the oceanfront is flooded. The road also serves
as a mixed-use walk and bike path connecting to
Tateway Park (a CAMA access point) which
supports many local bicycle events and
marathons, thus bringing tourists, residents,
local attention and revenue to the area. The
sidewalk extension of Moor Shore Road is a
necessary link of Bay Drive to the South and Kitty
Hawk Road to the North. This extension acts as
an emergency route for Dare County during
severe weather.
2
Figure 1. Kitty Hawk Bay Project Setting

Wa e� Force
techno?ogies
Although the site appears to be in a protected area in the back of Kitty Hawk Bay, the marsh and shoreline
buffering the Moor Shore Road site has exhibited significant erosion for many years. Project area detail
appears in Figure 2. The shoreline contained within the yellow box is the focus area for this project. The
red arrows indicate high -erosion areas that directly impact Moor Shore Road. The letters A -D show the
general location depicted in photos A -D in Figure 3. Moving along the shoreline from northwest to
southeast, the initial section is comprised mostly of big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) with tuffs of
black needlerush (Juncus roemeranus) offshore (Photo A), leading over to a sandy beach with a private
pier (Photos B and C) followed by a riparian riprap revetment (Photos C and D), which terminates in a
stand of the common reed Phragmites austrolis (Photo D). The submerged aquatic vegetation near the
pier appears to be a mix of milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) and pond weed (Potamogeton sp.). See Figure 4 for
additional detail on the vegetative components.
Figure 2. Moor Shore Road project location. Arrows show high erosion areas. Letters A -D refer to photos
in Figure 3.
Received
DC EC

Figure 3. Moor Shore Road project area photos. Letters A -D refer to locations on Figure 2.
Figure 4. Site vegetation: (a) southeast end Phragmites sp., (b) northwest end Sportina sp., and (c)
submerged Myriophyllum sp. and Potomogeton sp.
4

BAYCLIFF LIVING SHORELINE CASE STUDY
As a case study for living shorelines in Outer Banks environment, we look at a protection structure that
was constructed in 2010 for the BayCliff community on Colington Island, Kill Devil Hills, NC. BayCliff is only
4 miles away from the Moor Shore Road site and with a similar southwest wind exposure (Figure 5). Prior
to construction, BayCliff experienced extensive coastal erosion with loss of both personal- and
community -owned real estate property. The shoreline was virtually riddled with fallen trees resulting from
the storm impacts. Construction of a series of 12 vinyl sheetpile offshore breakwaters, or marsh sills,
along with vegetative replanting, has effectively stopped additional erosion with no additional loss of trees
while substantially increasing the area of established marsh and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
habitat (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Vicinity of Boycliff to Moor Shore Road
Received
M0-72'9
5 DCM-EC

Figure 6. Aerial view of BayCliff marsh sill structures.
Example photos of the BayCliff installation appear in Figure 7. Note planted black needlerush (Juncus
roemeranus) marsh grass has been expanding out to meet the sill. Furthermore, the calming effect that
the sill has on the wavefield is immediately apparent. It is remarkable that this project survived a direct
hit by Hurricane Irene in 2011 with zero damage to the structures, while all the neighboring piers were
essentially destroyed. Subsequently the structures have weathered several additional hurricanes and
storms including Hermine and Matthew during 2016. To date, the structures have required no
maintenance or repairs. It should be noted, however, that a few BayCliff homeowners opted not to have
the marsh sills installed in front of their properties. These gaps in protection still experience a significant
amount of erosion and tree loss.
N

Figure 7. Sheetpile sill with vegetative planting at BayCliff community: (a) View during low water levels,
(b) Sill tripping waves during storm event Received
±Ny7 221-9
DCM-EC

BayCliff Survey Results
To determine the impact of the BayCliff sills on the local shoreline, including the establishment of marsh
habitat, a series cross -shore bathymetric surveys were performed. Each transect measured the water
depth as a function of distance from the shoreline. Furthermore, of extent of marsh grasses along each
transect was noted. Results in Figure 8 compare water elevation profiles across the closest sill depicted
in the Figure 7 photos, and an area directly adjacent to this without any sill structure to protect the
shoreline. It is immediately apparent that, compared to the no -sill transect, the shoreline has stabilized
shoreward of the Sill structure, with little evidence of wave scour. Furthermore, the seaward extent of
the marsh is substantially greater behind the sill than in the unprotected area, as the no sill transect
depicts an erosional scarp with a 2 -foot drop off around 20 feet from the shoreline.
1.00
0.50 Sill
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
0 20 40
BayCliff Shoreline Profiles
_Sin
- No Sill
X Siii Marsh
X No Sill Marsh
60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (ft)
Figure 8. Comparative cross -shore transects at BayCliff Community from May 2017, showing positive
impact of sills on shoreline enhancement and Marsh habitat. The mean waterline is at Depth = 0 and
intersects the shore at Distance = 0.
Gap Effects
As indicated, a few of the BayCliff residents opted not to invest in a shoreline protection structure. To
demonstrate the erosive effects of such gaps, we conducted a bathymetric and photographic survey of
the largest gap area in the BayCliff community. The site of these surveys is depicted in Figure 9. Note
that that there are large erosional cusps in the shoreline behind the gap. The results from three cross -
shore bathymetric surveys (North, Gap, and South locations on Figure 9) appear in Figure 10. In each
survey, the water depth was measured as well as the presence or absence of marsh and SAV habitat.
The survey results show that although there is substantially more buildup of bottom material around the
gap, it is completely devoid of either marsh or SAV habitat. Results of the shoreline photographic survey
in the region are depicted in Figure 11. Here is it clear that the shorelines behind the sills support
established marsh habitat while the shorelines in the gap region are clearly eroding. The ongoing loss of
living trees remains a problem in this area. What is likely happening here, as depicted by the yellow
arrows In Figure 9, is that the gap area forms a rip current during storms which effectively transports
eroded beach material offshore. A significant advantage of the marsh sills is the effective trapping of any
eroded material so that the sediment stays close to the shoreline.
8

Figure 9. Satellite image showing BayCliff shoreline where two property owners left a gap in the coastal
protection structure. See text for further description.
1
0.5
0
-0.5
Q.
c.+
-2
-2.5
-3
BayCliff Shoreline Profiles - Gap Effect
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance (ft)
North Sill
x North Marsh
O North SAV
-----Gap
South Sill
X South Marsh
O South SAV
120
Figure 10. Comparative cross -shore transects at BayCliff Community from June 2017, showing negative
impact of a gap in the shoreline protection structure on Marsh and SAV habitat. The mean waterline is at
Depth = 0 and intersects the shore at Distance = 0.
Received
E
WY - 7 20'?
DMEC

LOCAL WIND, WAVE AND WATER LEVEL CLIMATE
Essential to any soundside project design is a full understanding of the expected wind, wave and water
level climate for the site. Although there are limited wind and wave data for the exact project location,
the US Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility (USACE FRF) in Duck, NC has been measuring
conditions in Currituck Sound at comparable sites to the north. Computer simulations are used to turn the
USACE regional data into site-specific wave predictions. For water level extremes, USGS has maintained
regional measurement stations, capturing the most significant storm events in recent history.
Furthermore, USACE has assisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a 100-yearstorm
surge study of the region.
These observational and model data sets are used to help determine if a living shoreline structure is likely
to be successful in the Moor Shore Road environment. As a baseline, we will compare conditions at the
Moor Shore road project site with those at the BayCliff community project, just 4 miles away from Moor
Shore Road and with a similar southwest exposure (Figure 5).
Regional Bathymetry
Knowledge of regional bathymetry is essential for modeling of the local wave climate as well as
determination of optimal shoreline protection structures. The bathymetric profile in Kitty Hawk Bay is
perfect for supporting a living shoreline installation. As shown by the navigational chart of Figure 12, the
bottom surrounding the project site is 2-4 ft depth just off the shoreline gently sloping to average depths
of 4-5 feet. A 6-9 ft depth channel runs offshore of the site and is marked by navigational aids "4" and "6"
on the chart.
11
Received
tita Y - 7 2913,
D "BEY

s
4
�
a
S
TAW
CSA01
w
3
74
4
6 ra�aa,tu
,r^
...3
.uncaFT}
tu•� 6-
Aint CUT
AI 5 r
n 78
2
9
f 3
.O poklt har0or 6
5
6 a
t
S
7
5j 2
8 2 u
0 8- f�
h?
4: -� ` 4
Ki y Haw
2 e ,• 5. E 2
6
y 6 $hetttttai.Pl
7
7
5
6 3
6 5! ? Marsh
2 6 q
5
v
r ARV
4 4 2 r 2
J.
2 0
@ eeco-K i g A
9 3 G^` - a
G y 5
13G -1-i.
9'i 4 3 3
8
h 2 !
t 2
' 3 Long Pt 4 0µE
h 5C7
3 6 G' a p
� •4
3
6
5 (
3 t0
s
7 5 sy
6
3
9 g
4 4 Cy
4 8 3 Grs3
4 4
4 5
8 Fl R 45 16?t 4M1t2KH'
8 M Ysi
y 5 E_' °t F 3
h
NGV
6 'Coling'* on
4
5
Harbor
4 -
"`
11
9
4 4T '?FT
1
6
5 3
00 Colingto�
3
ecrz n ,s FT -
LTJQ6FT
Legend
0 0.5 1
z
Miles
� USGS -HWM -Irene
National Ocean Service - Nautical
Chart 12204
USGS - Water Level
Projection: NAD 83
Coordnate System: NC State Plane Zone 3200
u F
• USACE - Waves
Units: U.S. Feet
Figure 12. Regional nautical chart showing water depths in feet. The chart also depicts locations of USGS
and USACE data sets and High -Water Marks (HWMs) described in the text.
12

Wind and Waves
USACE Measurements
The USACE FRF has maintained a 35 -year record of wind and wave observations off the coastal research
pier in Duck, North Carolina. Although the ocean -side wave measurements are of no relevance to this
project, their 35 -year wind history nicely captures the expected wind climate for the region. This is best
visualized through a wind rose, appearing in Figure 13. The wind rose provides a histogram of wind speed
occurrence (%) as a function of wind direction.
The FRF wind observations depict a strongly bi-modal wind direction distribution for the region. The
strongest winds are from winter and spring storms, with winds primarily from the north and northeast.
Kitty Hawk Bay is well protected from these events and generally experiences lower than normal water
levels as northeast winds push water away from southwest -facing shorelines. The remainder of observed
wind events are from the southwest, which is a typical summer wind pattern resulting from flow around
the offshore Bermuda High. Southwest winds are typically in the 0-25 mph range, however can peak to
hurricane strength when tropical storms pass over the region. Wave forcing in this direction has a direct
impact on the Kitty Hawk Bay site and is the primary cause of the erosional problems noted above.
Wind Rose
/ N
8%
mph
65
50
40
25
12
0
Figure 13. Regional wind rose from US Army Corps of Engineers research pier in Duck, NC. Wind
directions reported in the 'From North' convention.
13
Received
DMEC

In addition to measurements at the USACE pier, a series of five instrument platforms have been installed
by USACE to form both cross -shore and alongshore arrays in Currituck Sound
(http://www.frf.usace.army.mil/ckSound/csa.htmi ), which is just to the north of the Moor Shore road
test site. The most relevant station for this study is station CSA01, as depicted on Figure 12 (Green Dot).
This station has been operational since March 2016.
A 14 -month histogram of wave heights from USACE FRF Station CSA01 appears in Figure 14. Note that this
period includes two notable storms; extra -tropical storm Hermine occurring on September 3, 2016 and
Hurricane Matthew on October 9, 2016. The mean wave heights for this site are only 0.8 ft with an
extreme wave height of 4.7 ft recorded during Hurricane Matthew.
Note that due to the small geographic area of the sound, it can generally be assumed that winds and
waves are directly aligned except as impacted by refraction around the shallow edges off the shoreline.
8000
7000
6000
v
5000
v
u
O 4000
6
v
E 3000
z
2000
1000
USACE CSA -01 (March 2016 - May 2017)
0'
0.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Wave Height Feet
Figure 14. Observed 14 -month wave height distribution at USACE station CSA01
14

11
Wave Energy Study
As we have a successful living shoreline project protecting the nearby BayCliff community, the question
to ask is how similar is the wave climate at these two sites? Can we expect a comparable level of
performance in Kitty Hawk Bay? It can be assumed that both sites experience similar wind forcing, being
geographically separated by only 4 miles. To address this issue, we turn to a shallow -water fetch -limited
wave calculation (Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984). It is important to use a shallow water wave
model due to the shoaling depths encountered near the project sites. As Figure 15 reveals, the depths
leading into the Moor Shore project site are shallower over a greater distance than those at BayCliff.
Furthermore, a fetch -limited calculation is required as the southwest wind forcing distances are limited
by the width of the sounds. Computed fetches and mean water depths for each site are provided in Table
1. Note that the intercoastal waterway channel is too far from the project sites to influence the wave
climate, and thus was not included in the mean depth computation. Using these parameters as input to
the wave model, predicted significant wave heights for a variety of southwest wind conditions appear in
Figure 16.
Table 1. Project Site Southwest Wind Fetch and Mean Water Depths
Project Fetch Mean
(mi) Depth (ft)
Moor Shore 9 5.8
BayCliff 7 7.2
Figure 15. Southwest wind fetch chart
15
Received
DMEC

5.0
4.5
$ 4.0
,r
3.5
= 3.0
m
2.5
ti4 2.0
H
1.5
1.0
0.5
Predicted Wave Heights
0.0
0 20
40 60 80 100
Wind Speed (kt)
—0 Kitty Hawk Bay —9 BayCliff
Figure 16. Wave height predictions during southwest winds at Kitty Hawk Bay and Baycliff project sites
The wave prediction results clearly show that, for southwest wind speeds greater than 20 kt, the wave
heights impacting BayCliff are higherthan those in Kitty Hawk Bay. As wind speed increases, the difference
in wave heights between the two project sites becomes larger. Hence it can be concluded that there is
generally less wave energy at the Kitty Hawk Bay project site over the expected range of conditions.
Water Levels
Although the living shoreline structures are not designed to protect property during extreme high-water
level conditions such as can occur during a hurricane, we include such information here to support the
planning process. We provide two types of data; (1) observations of water levels during significant storms
of record during recent history, and (2) results of a FEMA coastal storm surge modeling study for the
region. Note that all water levels are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD
88).
Hurricane Extremes
The two recent storms of record for the soundside region are Hurricanes Irene (August 2011) and
Matthew (October 2016). Both had a major impact on the Outer Banks; however, Irene was by far the
most devastating for soundside properties in our region of interest. The US Geological Survey (USGS) has
routinely collected high water mark information after these storms, and more recently has started
recording water level time series at key locations during these events. Two high-water marks were
16

collected from Hurricane Irene directly at the Moor Shore Project site (red dots in Figure 12). The observed
water levels at this site were 6.9- and 7.1 -ft. This can be compared to the time series of water levels
collected during Hurricane Matthew at the mouth of Colington Harbor (Yellow dot in Figure 12) and
depicted in Figure 17. The results show that Matthew brought a maximum water level of 3.19 ft and a
maximum unfiltered (with waves) elevation of 4.S ft at this location. During these elevated hurricane
conditions, the waves pass over the top of the shore protection structures, thus reducing the effect of the
structures in blocking wave energy from reaching the shoreline. This helps explain why the shore
protection structures appear to do so well in surviving hurricanes, while nearby piers are destroyed.
i 150U
SGS EXPLANATION
Water El—t-
-- Stu. Tde 1La.4. x Filtered) Water Elevat—
�-
imMirYmum RecardaUfe Water Ekvatian
Oam
roKnc P__.S(.iP.iw for a r./iQ%i� IYW Id • �� UMikered Water He—
A Narxnum Storm Tde Water Bevabon
Storm Tide Water Elevation, Latitude: 36.0179 Longitude: -75.7268 STN Site ID: NCDAR12668
Barometric Pressure, Latitude: 35.9100 Longitude: -75.5958 STN Site ID: NCDAR00009
6.00 31.0
m 5.00
c
c
0 200
Maximum llnfthered Water Elevatwn, feet above datum = 450 at 10/09116 03:44:05.75
Maxdtwm Storm Tide Water Elevation. feet above daft= - 3.19 at 30109/16 03:24:34
30.5
r
v
f
30.0 .8
4t
L
_C
29.5 -S
u
a`
29.0
u
E
0
4
t0
285
0.001 128.0
Oct -06-2016 Oct -07.2016 Oct -08.2016 Oct -09-2016 Oct -10-2016 Oct -11-2016 Oct -12-2016
00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00
Timezone: US/Eastern
Figure 17. Hurricane Matthew (October 2016) Measurements from USGS Colington Harbor Station (Yellow
dot on Figure 12 chart).
NC Storm Surge Study
The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program conducted an extensive study to update the coastal
storm surge elevations within North Carolina coastal waters (http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/). The study
provides updated coastal storm surge stillwater elevations and serves as the basis for new coastal hazard
analyses and updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The study utilized the Advanced CIRCulation Model for
Oceanic, Coastal and Estuarine Waters (ADCIRC) coupled with two-dimensional wave models to calculate
the combined effects of surge and wind -induced waves.
A key product resulting from the NC study are expected 100 -year flood levels along the NC coast. Results
for the Kitty Hawk Bay study area appear in Figure 18. Note that flood levels of approximately 3.9 feet can
be expected to occur approximately once in any given 100 -year period. Any co -existing wave activRideived
17
DCPA -EC

be on top of these elevated water levels. As previously indicated, the recent storm of record for this region
is Hurricane Irene from August 2011, which had measured high water marks (storm surge and waves) of
approximately 7 ft at this location.
N
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles "' E
s
FEMA
t00yr stihrater elevations are
from FEMA Region N Storm
Surge Study
Map is referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983. North
Carohna State Plane zone 3200
with units of US Feet
Legend
FEMA
100yr
SWEL
NAVD88
Feet
Figure 18. Computed 100 -year Still Water Elevations (SWEL) in feet for the Kitty Hawk Bay project area.
18
s`
g
9
3.66
e
$ 4T AM
�3AS
7.M
K y3A7 �3A*
S M 3�
346
s
.:
a &"
.66 � 3AG
3A7.1
346
� � 3A9 g 9
3A7S.p Y
a3.66 3347
43
� 3.66
, A9
3 �_
3.66
3M - S
3M
i
&91
$
3.6
O S
i11
3.64
461
x3.66
46 346
a
3!1
3.6
a
341
344
$ 347
346
s46
1L6
zi
341
346
,3.4
347
� 66 �
�
N
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles "' E
s
FEMA
t00yr stihrater elevations are
from FEMA Region N Storm
Surge Study
Map is referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983. North
Carohna State Plane zone 3200
with units of US Feet
Legend
FEMA
100yr
SWEL
NAVD88
Feet
Figure 18. Computed 100 -year Still Water Elevations (SWEL) in feet for the Kitty Hawk Bay project area.
18

SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review of existing shoreline configurations and the expected wind, wave and water level
climate, we determine that the proposed Moor Shore Road project site in Kitty Hawk Bay is in critical need
of a shore protection structure to prevent further loss of shoreline. Specific recommendations appear in
the following section.
Shore Protection Options
North Carolina allows for a variety of shore protection options, from passive vegetative planting to
aggressive bulkhead solutions. As the Kitty Hawk Bay shoreline is somewhat protected by a semi -enclosed
bay with mostly shallow water, a less aggressive form of protection is warranted. Hence, we recommend
a marsh sill configuration coupled with vegetative restoration. These structures are ideal for preventing
further erosion in low energy areas while promoting habitat rejuvenation.
A marsh sill is a shore -parallel structure that is designed to protect existing or newly planted wetland
vegetation. It can be constructed of rock, rubble, or a wood or wood/vinyl (sheetpile) structure. It is
placed just offshore of existing marsh to reduce shoreline erosion. If there is insufficient marsh on the
site, the sill is placed just offshore of where marsh would naturally occur and is subsequently planted. The
basic configuration of a sheetpile sill is depicted in Figure 19. As rock and rubble has (1) a larger footprint,
and (2) the tendency to become redistributed during storms, the sheetpile configuration has less impact
on SAV habitat and is more permanent and desirable.
Erosion Escarpment
Sheeting�e � Marsh
Normal High Water
Bolt
Normal Low Water
Figure 19. Sheetpile sill configuration (side view)
Received
?rl�? 7 2010
DCM-EC
The marsh sill works by dissipating incoming wave energy to reduce sediment transport and resulting
erosion. This allows marsh to become better established shoreward of the sill. Once established, the
marsh grasses further dissipate incoming wave energy. Marsh vegetation also increases the ecosystem
habitat and provides food for organisms such as algae and seaweeds, finfish and shellfish, mammals and
shorebirds. This stabilization method can be permitted through a CAMA Major or General Permit. A
complete list of the CAMA requirements for sheetpile sills appears as APPENDIX A.
19

Further support for this type of structure comes from the successful use of a sheetpile vinyl sill at the
BayCliff community, just 4 miles from the Moor Shore Road project site. As demonstrated, BayCliff
receives more wave energy than is expected at Moor Shore Road and the BayCliff Sill project has fully
stabilized the shoreline and expanded the marsh habitat.
Project Recommendations
Our recommendations for the Moor Shore Road soundside protection project are to construct a series of
overlapping sheetpile sills. The sills should be placed approximately parallel to the shoreline, no more than
20 feet seaward of the normal high-water mark. As there is insufficient marsh grass along this shoreline
to further reduce wave action and erosion, the region behind the sills should be planted with a mix of
appropriate native emergent vegetation to blend with existing marsh grasses adjacent to the project.
Examples include cordgrass (Spartino sp)., rice cutgrass (Leerzia oryzoides), and black needlerush (Juncus
roemeronus). These plantings should be planned for late spring as the lowest wave energy for the region
occurs in early to mid -summer.
References
Coastal Engineering Research Center (1984). Shore Protection Manual, Eqns. 3-39 and 3-40, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg Mississippi.
P

APPENDIX A. NORTH CAROLINA SHEETPILE SILL CONDITIONS
(a) The sill shall be positioned no more than 20 feet waterward of the normal high water or normal water
level or 20 feet waterward of the waterward edge of existing wetlands at any point along its alignment.
For narrow waterbodies (canals, creeks, etc.) the sill alignment shall not be positioned offshore more than
one sixth (1/6) the width of the waterbody.
(b) Sills authorized under this General Permit shall be allowed only in waters that average less than three
feet in depth along the proposed alignment as measured from the normal high water or normal water
level.
(c) Where the Division of Coastal Management staff determine that insufficient wetland habitat exists
along the permittee's shoreline to provide adequate shoreline stabilization, the permittee shall be
required to plant appropriate wetland species landward of the sill structure as directed by the Division of
Coastal Management staff.
(d) Construction authorized by this general permit shall be limited to a maximum length of 500 feet.
(e) The sill shall be constructed with an equal gap between each sheathing board totaling at least one inch
of open area every linear foot of sill. The sill shall have at least one five-foot opening at every 100 feet.
The sill sections shall be staggered and overlap as long as the five-foot separation between sections is
maintained. Overlapping sections shall not overlap more than 10 feet.
(f) The height of the sill shall not exceed six inches above normal high water or the normal water level.
(g) Offshore sill sections shall be set back 15 feet from the riparian access dividing line. The line of division
of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in front of the
property, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore
at the point the upland property line meets the water's edge. The setback may be waived by written
agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when the two adjoining riparian owners are co -applicants.
Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of the sill begins, the applicant shall obtain a
written agreement with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and submit it to the Division of
Coastal Management prior to initiating any construction of the sill.
(h) Sills shall be marked at 50 -foot intervals with yellow reflectors extending at least three feet above
mean high water.
(i) No backfill of the sill or any other fill of wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas, or high ground
is authorized by this general permit.
(j) No excavation of the shallow water bottom, any wetlands, or high ground is authorized by this general
permit.
(k) The sill shall be constructed of vinyl or steel sheet pile, formed concrete, timber, or other suitable
equivalent materials approved by the Division of Coastal Management.
Received
21 Kr - 7 29'"
DMEC

(1) Perpendicular sections, return walls, or sections that would enclose estuarine waters or public trust
areas shall not be allowed under this permit.
(m) The permittee will maintain the sill in good condition and in conformance with the terms and
conditions of this permit or the remaining sill structure shall be removed within 90 days of notification
from the Division of Coastal Management.
22

Received
ON MP -1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit �� -�c
p
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Town of Kitty Hawk
Moor Shore Road Living Shoreline
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
AndyStewart*
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
*Town Manager for the Town of Kitty Hawk
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed. See attached information.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
Last Name
549
Kitty Hawk
NC
ZIP
Country
hone No.
FAX No.
27949
Dare 7252
-
261- 3552 ext.
CF= P.O. Box 276
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
101 Veterans Memorial Dr.
Kitty Hawk
NC
27949 -
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name North Carolina Coastal Federation in parnership with
Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Michelle
Clower
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Natalie
Garrett
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
CF= P.O. Box 276
Wanchese
NC
CE&S =P.O. Box 1125
Kitty Hawk
ZIP CF = 27981
Phone No. 1
CF
Phone No. 2 CE&S
CE&S = 27949
252 - 473
- 1607 ext.
252 - 261 4151
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
PLS#L-3241 & PE 014071 (Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc.)
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
27981
CF = 637 Harbor Rd.
Wanchese
CE & S = 4425 North Croatan Hwy
Kitty Hawk
NC
-27949
Email
[e-mail] (North Carolina Coastal Federation), [e-mail] (Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc.)
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Dare
Moor Shore Rd.
1216
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
(None) & Keeper's Hill - Sections 1 & 2
Kitty Hawk
NC
27949 -
Phone No.
Lot No. (s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- ext.
I I I See attached information.
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Pasquotank
Kitty Hawk Bay
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
❑x Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
Albemarle Sound
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
[]Yes [:]No
work falls within.
Immediatly North of the tract is vacant wetlands connecting to private residences. Immediately to the South of the tract
Town of Kitty Hawk
4. Site Description
a.
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
-600'
159,500 sq. ft.
c.
Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
See attached Addition Information to Supplement Application.
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
0-5 ft. ❑NHW or ®NWL
e.
Vegetation on tract
Native trees, wetland grasses and shrubs in addition to grassed lawns (see attached narrative).
f.
Man-made features and uses now on tract
The tract consists of Moor Shore Road, privately owned houses, one dock and rip -rap to the Southern -most end. Moor Shore Road serves
as access to houses in western Kitty Hawk, is an emegency access route when HWY 168 is flooded and houses annual marathons. The road
also provides access to a public walking and biking path South of the tract. The dock is privately owned.
g.
Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Immediatly North of the tract is vacant wetlands connecting to private residences. Immediately to the South of the tract
consists of private residences and a publicly owned walking and biking path. The gapped section in the middle of the tract, owned by Vaughan
and Hannah Robinson is a residential.
h.
How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
BR -1 (Beach Residential 1)
EZYes ❑No ❑NA
j.
Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k.
Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. []Yes ❑x No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I.
Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 3 of 4) Received APPLICATION for
i'
�'fli Major Development Permit
EC
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? D C M- ®Yes []No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? �J �r 9Yes []No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? []Yes [ENo
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
For Lots 21, 22 = septic
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
For Lots 21, 22 = Town of Kitty Hawk water system
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
Grassed swales
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ❑x Public/Government
©Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The purpose of the project is to stabilize the shoreline at Moor Shore Rd. and increase its resiliency by installing a living shoreline project.
This project will be a benefit to the ecosystem by creating fisheries habitat and protection.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
The breakwaters will be installed with water jet and hand tools and a long reach excavator if necessary, although not expected.
Equipment will be stored on adjacent properties. See attached narrative for additional information.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Construction of wooden/vinyl sill and the planting of native grasses, see attached narrative.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both?
New work.
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? ®Sq.Ft or ❑Acres
Approximately 2,000 sq. ft. submerged water disturbance (area of sill) with an approximate 1,500 sq. ft. staging area.
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established use of? Existing public access will be maintained.
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
There are no proposed discharges resulting from this project.
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? [--]Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes [:]No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ®No [INA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 :- 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 4 of 4) APPLICATION for 1,1'
Major Development Permit
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP -1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (t) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name (See attached information) Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
General Permit 62499, Permittee Name: Harry Meraklis, Issued 2/11/14 General Permit 59841, Permittee Name: NCDOT, Issued 5/14/12
General Permit 13786, Permittee Name: NCDOT, Issued 3/17/95 NOT INCLUDED: General Permit 68634, Permitee Name: Vaughan & Hannah
Robinson Issued: 2/16/18
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
1 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further ce Ify that the infor ation provided in this application its truthful to th/e1 best of my knowledge.
Date ( / r Print Name . 1 b(7/w
Signature l '' "
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP -2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP -5 Bridges and Culverts Received
❑DCM MP -3 Upland Development
®DCM MP -4 Structures Information
ME C
252-808-2808 .- 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE Received
NIAY - 7 2018
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION
DMEC
Moor Shore Road Co -Applicant List in Addition to the
Town of Kitty Hawk
Continued with
same numbering
as above:
parcel
stnum
stname
subdivision
firstn
lastn
EMAIL
1
18226219
3789
MOOR SHORE
KEEPERS HILL SEC 2
LLC
ROEBUCK
PROPERTIES II
[e-mail]
2
18226220
3793
MOOR SHORE
KEEPERS HILL SEC 2
AMY D
WELLS
[e-mail]
3
18226221
3797
MOOR SHORE
KEEPERS HILL SEC 2
CHARLES V JR
I
SULLIVAN
csu11ivan12522email.Com
4
18226222
3801
MOOR SHORE
KEEPERS HILL SEC 2
HARRY J
MERAKLIS
[e-mail]
Continued with
same numbering
as above:
firstn
lastn
Mailing Address
1
LLC
ROEBUCK
PROPERTIES II
1816 Rivershore Rd. Elizabeth City, NC
27909
2
AMY D
WELLS
3749 Herbert Perry Rd. Kitty Hawk, NC
27949
3
CHARLES V JR
SULLIVAN
3797 Moor Shore Rd. Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
4
HARRY J
MERAKLIS
3801 Moor Shore Rd. Kitty Hawk, NC 27949

r
MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION
Site Characteristics:
Size of Property:
Roebuck: 3789 Moor Shore Road: 21,000 sq. ft.
Wells: 3793 Moor Shore Road: 22,500 sq. ft.
Sullivan: 3797 Moor Shore Road: 25,500 sq. ft.
Meraklis: 3801 Moor Shore Road: 28,500 sq. ft.
Robinson: 3825 Dory Court: 26,000 sq. ft. (not included in total)
Town of Kitty Hawk: 3809 Moor Shore Road: 62,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 159,500 sq. ft.
Length of Waterfront
Roebuck: Approx. 114 li. ft.
Wells: Approx. 45 li. ft.
Sullivan: Approx. 54.5 li. ft.
Meraklis: Approx. 53 li. ft.
Robinson: Approx. 40 li. ft. (not included in total)
Town of Kitty Hawk: Approx. 325 li. Ft.
TOTAL: Approx. 591.5 li. ft.
Distance to Structure
Meraklis: 277'
Sullivan: 247'

MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
Received
(''IH i — ! IL iib
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION
DCM-EC

ID
le*
Image U 5. Geotogicaf Sure: y
-tK
Dab -.2161993 36'033&—K 75'41'595e*W rev 0 ft v all 1157 rt
1#0*A
Cok
"s,
a�aW,y Dale, 1124WI7 3 '03' S D-, N ]5'42'00 92' W I C

4
MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
Received
kW - 7 231.3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION DCM-EC

v
MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION

273
MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
DCM-EC
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION

MOOR SHORE LIVING SHORELINE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION
Adjacent Riparian Landowners
1. Lucille S. Stokes
Address: 408 Beacon Dr., Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
2. Vaughan & Hannah Robinson
Address: 423 West Bridge Lane, Nags Head, NC 27959
3. Forbes, F. Everette Trustees & Forbes, Fay R.
Address: 4090 Caplock Court, Middleburg, FL 32068

Form DCM MP -2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Received
DMEC
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP -1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
1. EXCAVATION 0This `section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ®This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
C. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/06
Access
Other
Channel
(NLW or
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
approx. 625 Ii.
Width
approx. 3'
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION 0This `section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ®This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
C. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ❑No DNA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP -2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 2)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ❑This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP -4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ® Brea kwater/Sill ❑Other:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
54'
e. Type of stabilization material:
Vinyl and wood sill 8 native marsh grass plantings.
b. Length: - 625 li. ft. maximum, contengient upon adjecent property owner approval
Width: -3'
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
78'
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
3Yes ❑No 0 N
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
Approximately .75'/ year
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. h. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap No proposed fill.
Breakwater/Sill see MP -4 Other
i. Source of fill material.
No proposed fill.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes [:]No ❑NA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b
controlled?
No fill. Erosion control matting will be in place during construction.
C. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d
[]Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Reflectorg will be attached to vinyl/wooded sill T above NWL
with wood and reflectors, stationed every 50 Ii. ft.
not 0% r
Date 30
r��
Project Name '
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
[]CW ❑SAV []SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Dump truck, small bulldozers, possibly a long reach excavator,
manual labor, small boat for hauling equipment, wetland matting
(i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? []Yes ❑No []NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
See attached narrative for details.
Applicant Name
pyo Lc
Applicant Signature
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP -4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Received
D M -EC
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP -1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina: b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community ❑Yes []No
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating [-]Yes ❑No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(ii) Number of slips existing
i. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
[]open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
[]Open water; no dredging required
[]Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length:
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
❑Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? []Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? ❑Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ("wet slips") only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats:
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes []No
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

i
Received
Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4)
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
[]Yes ❑No DCI EC
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
[]Yes []No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
[]CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes []No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including covered lifts) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP -2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a• (i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ❑This section not applicable
a. Length 625 li. ft. maximum, contengient upon adjecent b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
property owner approval 54'
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
78'
16. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s):
[]Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
b. Number
c. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
7. GENERAL
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
South = 0' - 15' depending on owner approval North = 0'-15'
depending .
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
See attached information.
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes []No [INA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
perpe dicular to existing pier aligned with shoreline,
see attached information
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
0.5' - 1.25'
Wooden poles with reflectors attached to breakwaters/sills extending 3' above structure / NWL, every 50'.
B. OTHER []This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
Please see attached plans, narrative and additional information.
�P/�' 0 A
Date Received
Project Name (� (�
kA'FzQ-- DVM"EV
Applicant Name
Applicant Signature
252-808-2808.-- 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/27/06
f
1

MAJOR PERMIT FEE MATRIX
Applicant: Town of Kitty Hawk, Stokes, Roebuck Properties, Wells, Sullivan, Meraklis;
Moor Shore Road Living Shoreline
Selection
Development Type
Fee
DCM %
DWQ %
(14300 1601 435100093 1625 6253)
(24300 1602 435100095 2341)
I. Private, non-commercial
❑
development that does not
$250
100%($250)
0%($0)
involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands
oro en water areas:
11. Public or commercial
❑
development that does not
$400
100%($400)
0%($0)
involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands
oro en water areas:
Major Modification to a
$250
100%($250)
0%($0)
CAMA Major permit
Ill. For development that
involves the filling and/or
excavation of up to 1 acre
of wetlands and/or open
water areas, determine if A,
B, C, or D below applies:
III(A). Private, non -
E]
commercial development, if
$250
100%($250)
0%($0)
General Water Quality
Certification No. 4097 (See
attached) can be applied:
III(B). Public or commercial
❑
development, if General
$400
100%($400)
0%($0)
Water Quality Certification
No. 4097 (See attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water
Quality Certification No.
$400
60%($240)
40%($160)
4097 (see attached) could
be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional
review and written DWQ
concurrence is needed
because of concerns
related to water quality or
aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water
®
Quality Certification No.
$400
60%($240)
40%($160)
4097 (see attached) cannot
be applied:
IV. For development that
1
El
involves the filling and/or
$475
60%($285)
40%($190)
excavation of more than
one acre of wetlands and/or
Men water areas:

DETAIL FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
2' o c
An
aC
WOODEN BLOCKS 6 s6 MARINE CRADE it
(+ ADD. INFO) WHALER TREATED TO 2.5 CCA PILE 1' NIDE GAP AT INTERLOCK
/a' TIMBER
ears FROM TOP D0WN 12'
PLAN VIEW FOR WATER FLOW (TYP)
W DIAMETER X 12 FOOT ON BREAKWATER
PILES 10 FEET ON STRICTURES WHERE
() 3/4' TIMBER BOLTS APPLICABLE WATER'
DEPTHS OCCUR:
3/4- TIMBER
QS' MAX BOLTS -Y'}--•
ABOVE N.W.L. MEAN WATER
LE
I I�ulll�_n
AVERAGE BOTTON 255. SHDEEP I I 255.10'
-1 I I r80TTOFA
ELEVATION I ICr
VINYL SHEET j, `Ej,,
RILE I , SHEET PILE � LEVAnaN I
SECTION 1-�L ELEVATION
Nor m scuE SILL 1 BREAKWATER DETAIL
LEGEND:
SAV LEGEND
0 - SIR SET IRON ROD
DATE OF SURVEIL 10/28/16
OO -ER EXISTING IRON ROD
S21'06'42"E
0 - EIP EXISTING IRON PIPE
o - 15x SAV
O -CALC CALCULATED PT
C2
A - PK NAIL
IS -20X SAV
W - WATER METER
586'41'32"E
R/W - RIGHT OF WAY
119.86
EDP - EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EJ x-ssX SAV
(MV) - MAIN VALVE CONC. MONUMENT
C4
M.B.L.= MINIMUM BUILDING LINE
1672.54
- FIRE HYDRANT
S24'38'19"E
- POWER POLE
41.06
- APPROXIMATE MARSH GRASSES
41.06
-•• - CAMA WETLANDS UNE
C6
CO, POWER POLE
146.84
i-- GUY WIRE
N34 -45-51"W
X93.99 WATER DEPTH
70.44
—P— OVERHEAD POWER LINES
69.76
LINE TABLE
P.C. H, SL 251
LINE LENGTH I
BEARING
L3 62.61
I
S21'06'42"E
L41 120.62
S70'0249"W
REFERENCES:
M.B. 4, PC. 8 D.B. 971, PG. 551
D.B. 1233. PG- 500 D.B. 1923, PG. 0277
P.C. H. SL 251D.B. 1780, PG 461
D.B. 1824, PG. 127 D.8. 603• PG 386
D.B. 1749, PG. 331 O.B. 1541, PG 149
P.C. 8, SL. 398 P.C. B, SL. 171
D.8, 971, PG 551 D.B. 373, PG. 482
P.C. 8, SL 398 P.C. C. SL 748
P.C. 8, SL 399 D.B. 1105, PG. 609
D.B. 1069, PG. 572 P.C. C. SL 74B
D.B_ 2156, PG. 787 O.B. 1753, PG 470
D.B. 2172, PC. 31
SURVEY, FILE S2460 BY COASTAL
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.,
ENTITLED. SURVEY FOR MILDRED P.
FORMAN, LOT 20 & 20A. KEEPERS
HILL SECTION 2, pTOWN OF KITTY
SURVEY, FLE� 31 lgY7d ZSIIAI.
ENGINEERING & SIRVEYIA IN C..
ENTITLED, -SURVEY F0�
LANCASTER• LETT OWN OF .KE PERS
HILL SECTION 4.
HAWK% SURVEY DATE 1-7-1
INDEX
SHEET LSIOO — CAMA PERMIT DRAWING
.H../ ME V
TYPICAL SILLBREAKWATER LAYOUT GRAPHIC SCALE
100' MAX. 80 0 40 80 160
10' MAX. Z
NOT TO SCA1E
TYPICAL SILL/BREAKWATERSECTION IN FEET } ��Ci �0'(E �•^ It
1 inch = 80 ft, YRS\�
`/1�
P.C. H, SL 251
CURVE TABLE
RFR.ECTOR AT
CURVE
LENGTH
RADIUS
CHORD
BEARING
C2
48.72
25.00
41.37
586'41'32"E
C3
119.86
1672.54
119.83
S28'48'46"E
C4
123.85
1672.54
123.82
S24'38'19"E
C5
41.06
1672.54
41.06
521.48-53"E
C6
69.98
146.84
69.32
N34 -45-51"W
C7
70.44
146.84
69.76
N62'09'34"W
C8
41.87
14(5.84
41.73
N84'04'18"W
C9
45.40
146.84
45.22
S78'54'18"W
CIO
142.64
177-87
138.85
S87'20'50"E
C11
92.281
737.50
92.22
S62'51'20 -E
REFERENCES:
M.B. 4, PC. 8 D.B. 971, PG. 551
D.B. 1233. PG- 500 D.B. 1923, PG. 0277
P.C. H. SL 251D.B. 1780, PG 461
D.B. 1824, PG. 127 D.8. 603• PG 386
D.B. 1749, PG. 331 O.B. 1541, PG 149
P.C. 8, SL. 398 P.C. B, SL. 171
D.8, 971, PG 551 D.B. 373, PG. 482
P.C. 8, SL 398 P.C. C. SL 748
P.C. 8, SL 399 D.B. 1105, PG. 609
D.B. 1069, PG. 572 P.C. C. SL 74B
D.B_ 2156, PG. 787 O.B. 1753, PG 470
D.B. 2172, PC. 31
SURVEY, FILE S2460 BY COASTAL
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.,
ENTITLED. SURVEY FOR MILDRED P.
FORMAN, LOT 20 & 20A. KEEPERS
HILL SECTION 2, pTOWN OF KITTY
SURVEY, FLE� 31 lgY7d ZSIIAI.
ENGINEERING & SIRVEYIA IN C..
ENTITLED, -SURVEY F0�
LANCASTER• LETT OWN OF .KE PERS
HILL SECTION 4.
HAWK% SURVEY DATE 1-7-1
INDEX
SHEET LSIOO — CAMA PERMIT DRAWING
.H../ ME V
TYPICAL SILLBREAKWATER LAYOUT GRAPHIC SCALE
100' MAX. 80 0 40 80 160
10' MAX. Z
NOT TO SCA1E
TYPICAL SILL/BREAKWATERSECTION IN FEET } ��Ci �0'(E �•^ It
1 inch = 80 ft, YRS\�
`/1�
NOTES:
1. DENOTES 15' SUFFER, TYPICAL
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
OR RECORDATION
S�Jcll
pR� ( T2 PROPOSED SILL (TYP
\M� T 1 WgN.Ng EXSITING RIP RAP AND
a6 2S RIP RAP JETTY
1S �ys T4 NOTE
.�3 T3 ©,�
®v94 ,� N- T5
IF 1
`Lq h
ik WCILIE S STOKES. I �•. I �I o'
D.B. 1069, PG. 572 MA �' `Q�
y (VACANT LAND — —
ALC --R/w
CALC 16
\ N
LUCILLE S STOKES
D.B. 373, PG. 482
PG B, SL 171
F
P
T1
KITTY HAWK TIO Ff ao�
S
o ,
BAY -IV 9°ss
T8T9
E% 0?'
a
:e
TO T7
°�y
°• , 9t 36s
� �o /• / 5 �g�o'f�t
6
( i t X
NIP 1 41
FORBES. F EVETT TRUSTEES
& FORKS, FAY R
!I
D.B. 1333.
PG.• 8 �
1
T16 I ./
t /
�q4
q
vt \ CALC� !�
4 CtO. p
u�91 �' /'
3
poi •\ / o � � 1
RAYMOND A. &
CAROLYN S. WILLIAMS
og' / D.B. 1624, PG. 127
r
�oqy aps /
ME
u
21A -19-'5
577.42\
A
P.C. H, SL 251
SEE PIANS FOR DISTANC�(�5' AVE TYP.)
RFR.ECTOR AT
AINCOS (J.FiOEMEfaAMUS) PLANTED MiH SMOOTH CORDORASS
31
N/1
(SARI MA ALTERNAFLORA) MIN THE INTEiROAL ZONE
ROEBUCK' PROPERTIES II, LLC
(TYR)
BELOW MHW
Is' TTPaIf.
1a{MASSi}!
,y,s JC
CREST OF SU.
AMY WELLS
AT S' ABOVE
J
y
2
NNW
BOTTOM ELEV..
11 5
NOT m SOME
NOTES:
1. DENOTES 15' SUFFER, TYPICAL
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
OR RECORDATION
S�Jcll
pR� ( T2 PROPOSED SILL (TYP
\M� T 1 WgN.Ng EXSITING RIP RAP AND
a6 2S RIP RAP JETTY
1S �ys T4 NOTE
.�3 T3 ©,�
®v94 ,� N- T5
IF 1
`Lq h
ik WCILIE S STOKES. I �•. I �I o'
D.B. 1069, PG. 572 MA �' `Q�
y (VACANT LAND — —
ALC --R/w
CALC 16
\ N
LUCILLE S STOKES
D.B. 373, PG. 482
PG B, SL 171
F
P
T1
KITTY HAWK TIO Ff ao�
S
o ,
BAY -IV 9°ss
T8T9
E% 0?'
a
:e
TO T7
°�y
°• , 9t 36s
� �o /• / 5 �g�o'f�t
6
( i t X
NIP 1 41
FORBES. F EVETT TRUSTEES
& FORKS, FAY R
!I
D.B. 1333.
PG.• 8 �
1
T16 I ./
t /
�q4
q
vt \ CALC� !�
4 CtO. p
u�91 �' /'
3
poi •\ / o � � 1
RAYMOND A. &
CAROLYN S. WILLIAMS
og' / D.B. 1624, PG. 127
r
�oqy aps /
ME
u
21A -19-'5
577.42\
A
EXSI
SF D ro
~00
4E m
EIR
50' POWER
EASEMENT
Vn SULtWAN, JR \\ DHARV.MER
r.2'
SA SUW 1923, PG 2'
C B. SL 399
EXSInNG
SFD
MARSH
P.C. H, SL 251
31
N/1
20
ROEBUCK' PROPERTIES II, LLC
D.B. 1541, PG 149
1a{MASSi}!
,y,s JC
PG B. SL 399
AMY WELLS
D.B. 2156, PG, 787
J
PC. B. SL 399
EXSI
SF D ro
~00
4E m
EIR
50' POWER
EASEMENT
Vn SULtWAN, JR \\ DHARV.MER
r.2'
SA SUW 1923, PG 2'
C B. SL 399
EXSInNG
SFD
MARSH
P.C. H, SL 251
31
1a{MASSi}!
,y,s JC
p
{pl
m
�ff
ff
k
z
a
N
V
a
�
TOWN OF KITTY HAWK
D.B. 1749, PC, 331
z
VACANT LAND
0
0
F.
U
p�
\�,'45.32'
i
a
CI
`c
)AO IR N28.00'20"W
o
o
p7
62.00'
°
j�Dpey
27 228
N
VAUGHAN C. ROBIN NF
RICHARD
W
HANNAH S ROBINSON
FRI�EON
D.B. 2172, PG. 31
D.B. 1753, PG. 0470
A
0.
PC. B, SL 398
PC. B, SL 398
>
U
X
3
OT
a
DATE -"'
E;-
ao�.
xn:01J/NC16
LS -100