20061109 Ver 1_CAMA Major Application_20060705

M...,, ^1

c5c Rita-fEaTG ?ooaoosGz?C',?„r? ?2y
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
D LD-I<09
REMVFb
June 9, 2006
Mr. Mickey Sugg
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
JUN A 4 m%
? MC.
Phone [phone]
Fax (91M251-4025
Re: Major CAMA Permit Application
Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment [CSE 2205-2206-2207]
Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County
Dear Mr. Jones:
Please find the Major CAMA Permit application documents for the referenced project.
Your review of these documents for completeness at your earliest convenience is greatly appreciated.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
W. Forman, Jr., P. .
Principal Engineer
Enclosures
JUL 0 5 2006
CC: Frank Rush, Town Manager, Town of Emerald Isle DENR - WATER QUALITY
Beverly Bigley, Town Administrator, Town of Indian Beach WEILWDSANDSTDRMWATERBRMCH
Betty Carr, Town Administrator, Town of Pine Knoll Shores
4
CSE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
R MWD
May 24, 2006
JUN 13 2006
REGULATORY
VM. M. PLD. 0Vc.
Mr. Charles Jones, Director
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue Phone [phone]
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 Fax [phone]
Re: Major CAMA Permit Application
Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment [CSE 2205-2206-2207]
Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County
Dear Mr. Jones:
Please find the Major CAMA Permit application documents for the referenced project. Included with the
application is a check for $475.00.
Your review of these documents for completeness at your earliest convenience is greatly appreciated.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
. Forman, Jr., P.E.
rincipal Engineer
Enclosures
CC: Frank Rush, Town Manager, Town of Emerald Isle
Beverly Bigley, Town Administrator, Town of Indian Beach
Betty Carr, Town Administrator, Town of Pine Knoll Shores
40,
• ',?W /> G ?eG?t e W4
Oroof HIV " ? ?#
<-* 'W JD
?U4 0 llfJ
X0(/6
AVb ?RGUgC?T
Y
?I7RgRANCH
to
CSE
C O A S T A L S C I E N C E & E N G I N E E R I N G
PO BOX, 1640 MOREHEAD CITY 14C 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
May 24, 2006
Town of Emerald Isle
7500 Emerald Isle Drive TEL: [phone]
Emerald Isle, NC 28594 FAX: [phone]
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle TEL: [phone]
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512 FAX: [phone]
Town of Indian Beach
PO Box 306 TEL: [phone]
Salter Path, NC 28575 FAX: [phone]
NC Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Regional Office
400 Commerce Avenue TEL: [phone]
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 FAX: [phone]
RE: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment [CSE 2205-2206-2207]
Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County
Authorized Agent Agreement
To Whom it May Concern:
This is to inform you that James W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. and Coastal Science & Engineering are
the Authorized Agent for the above-referenced project. Mr. Forman is authorized to act on behalf
of the applicant on matters related to the CAMA Major permit and related federal permits.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Frank Rush
Town Manager, Town of Emerald Isle
Beverly Bigley
Town Administrato own of Ii anQach
Betty Carr
Town Administrator, Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Personal Account Information Redacted

NCDENR
Date Type Reference
5/22/2006 Bill NCDENR 5/22/06
Wachovia Checking 2367 CAMA Major application 2205,2206,2207
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING (CSE)
NCDENR
Date Type Reference
5/22/2006 Bill NCDENR 5/22/06
5914
5/23/2006
Original Amt. Balance Due Discount Payment
475.00 475.00 475.00
Check Amount 475.00
475.00
5914
5/23/2006
Original Amt. Balance Due Discount Payment
475.00 475.00 475.00
Check Amount 475.00
Wachovia Checking 2367 CAMA Major application 2205,2206,2207 475.00

Major CAMA Permit Application
Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia
Beach Nourishment
Carteret County
May 24, 2006
Proposed by:
Town of Emerald Isle, Town of Pine Knoll Shores,
and Town of Indian Beach
Carteret County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Prepared by:
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
P. O. Box 1643
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT
TOWNS OF EMERAL ISLE, INDIAN BEACH, AND PINE KNOLL SHORES
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION
Contents
DCM MP - 1 Application
DCM MP - 2 Excavation and Fill
Narrative Description of Project
Introduction
Project Description
Methods of Construction
Purpose and Need
Environmental Protection
Sediment Compatibility
Stormwater Management
Compliance with Carteret County and CAMA Land Use Plan
Compliance with the N. C. Environmental Policy Act
Construction Easements
References
Application Drawings
Sheet 1 Project Location Map
Sheet 2 Reaches 1 & 2, Emerald Isle
Sheet 3 Reaches 3, 4, & 5, Indian Beach & Pine Knoll Shores
Sheet 4 Borrow Area, Core Locations & Bathymetry
Sheet 5 Borrow Area Cross Sections, A-A' & B-B'
Sheet 6 Borrow Area Cross Sections, C-C' & D-D'
Sheet 7 Typical Fill Sections, Emerald Isle
Sheet 8 Typical Fill Sections, Emerald Isle
Sheet 9 Typical Fill Sections, Salter Path / Indian Beach
Sheet 10 Typical Fill Sections, Pine Knoll Shores
Sheet 11 Beach and Potential Borrow Area, Sediment Characteristics
Sheet 12 Beach and Potential Borrow Area, Sediment Characteristics
Attachments
Attachment 1 Biological Opinion for the Use of Hopper Dredges
Attachment 2 Hopper Dredge Protocol for Atlantic Coast
Authorized Agent Agreement
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
1. APPLICANT
c. Project Name (if any) Bogue Banks Post-O helia
Beach Nourishment
a. Landowner: Town of Emerald Isle
Name: Frank Rush, Town Manager
Address: 7500 Emerald Isle Drive
City: Emerald Isle State: NC
Zip: 28594 Day Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Landowner: Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Name: Betty Carr, Town Administrator
Address: 100 Municipal Circle
City: Pine Knoll Shores State: NC
Zip: 28512 Day Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Landowner: Town of Indian Beach
Name: Beverly Biglev, Town Administrator
Address: P.O. Box 306
City: Salter Path State: NC
Zip: 28575 Day Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
b. Authorized Agent
Name: James W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Coastal Science& Engineering
Address: P.O. Box 1643
City: Morehead City State: NC
Zip: 28557 Day Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County: Carteret
b. City, town, community or landmark
Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores
and Indian Beach
c. Street address or secondary road number
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? X Yes _No
Within city above MHW: owned by state below
MHW
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay)
Atlantic Ocean
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE OF
PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities).
Excavation and filling by dredge and pipeline, beach
nourishment
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work or both?
Maintenance of existing project
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use?
Public use
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed project. If
more space is needed, please attach additional pages. See
attached under Project Description.
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract- Approximately 54,658 linear
feet of ocean beach
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL. MLW to +7 ft NGVD
d. Soil types(s) and texture(s) of tract
Beach Sand
e. Vegetation on tract: Primary and secondary dune
vegetation.
f. Man-made features now on tract
Dune walkovers, seawalls and fishing piers
g. What is CAMA Land Use Plan land classification
of the site?
Emerald Isle
Conservation Transitional
X Developed Community
Rural Other
Pine Knoll Shores
Conservation Transitional
X Developed Community
Rural Other
Indian Beach
Conservation Transitional
X Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
N/A
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? N/A
j. Has a professional archeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes _No
If yes, by whom? Tidewater Atlantic Research Inc.
Attached
k. Is the project located in a National Register Historic
District or does it involve a National Register listed
or eligible property?
_Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? _Yes X No
-Coastal (marsh) -Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(attach documentation, if available)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
All Bogue Banks wastewater treatment by on-site
systems.
n. Describe the location and type of discharges to
waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent,
"wash down", and residential discharges).
Dredge slurry discharge of approximately 75% water
and 25% sand.
o. Describe the existing drinking water supply source.
Potable water in Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores and
Indian Beach are provided by municipal and private
water utilities.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be owner of said property, then forward a
copy of the deed or other instrument under which the
owner claims title, plus written permission from the
owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to a scale in
black ink on an 81/2" by 11" white paper. (refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a
detailed description).
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue line
prints or other large plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings). A site or location map is a part of plat.
requirements and must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
A list of names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and the
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. Upon signing this form,
the applicant further certifies that such notice has
been provided.
Name N/A
Address
Phone
Name N/A
Address
Phone
Name N/A
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA Permit # 124-01
USACE Permit # 200000362
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront or inlet areas.
• A check for $475 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A Statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10). If the project involves the expenditures of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
6. 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 conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I 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 certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the 25 day of May, 2006
Print Name
Signature
Town of Emerald Isle
Print Name
Signature
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Print Name
Signature
Town oflndian Beach
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the space
provided at the bottom of each form.
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to the 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.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities.
Average Final
Existing Project
Access
Channel
(MLW) or
(N WL)
Canal
Boat
Basin
Boat
Ramp
Rock
Groin
Rock
Breakwater
Other Fill
(Excluding
shoreline
Sabilization)
Excavation:
ODMDS
Length Width Depth Depth
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
+7ft
5408 370 -2ft NGVD
NGVD and
below
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards. 1,107,560 cy from
ocean borrow area ODMDS.
b. Type of material to be excavated. Medium Sand
See attached under Project Description Borrow Area
Characteristics.
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV's) or other wetlands? _Yes X No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards
None
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area
Ocean shoreline of the towns of Emerald Isle Pine
Knoll Shores, and Indian Beach.
b. Dimensions of disposal area
54,568 LF x 370 LF, approximately 460 acres. See
attached under Project Description Fill Placement on
Beach
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
_Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner. Easements for areas above MHW are being
obtained
d. Will disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes No
See attached Sheet 4 If yes, where? Future beach fill will be necessary for
maintenance and replacement

Form DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAV's or other wetlands?
_Yes X No
f. Does the disposal area include any area in the
water? X Yes No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Beach Nourishment Bulkhead Riff"
b. Length 10.4 miles, 54,658 LF
c. Average Distance water-ward of MHW
163 ft
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW
221 ft
e. Shoreline erosion during proceeding 12 months
3.9 cy/ft
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
N/A
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level N/A
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
See attached under Sediment Compatibility
i. Source of Fill material. ODMDS
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to the site?
X Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the water
319,980 cy
(2) Dimension of the fill area
54,568 LF x 370 LF
(3) Purpose of fill
Beach Nourishment
b. Will material be placed in coastal wetlands (marsh),
SAV's or other wetlands?
_Yes X No
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated material be kept on site and
erosion controlled? See attached under Project
Description Turbidity and Methods of Construction
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Trailing suction hopper dredge
c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? _Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
Town of Emerald Isle Signature
Town of Pine Kno Shores Signature
Town of Indian Beac nature
May, 25 2006
Date
A Submerged Cultural Resources Remote Sensing Survey of Three
Proposed Borrow Areas for the Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment
Project in Carteret County, North Carolina
Submitted to:
CSE Baird LLC
P.O. Box 8056
Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8056
and
Stroud Engineering, P.A.
Hestron Plaza Two, Suite A
151-A Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Submitted by:
Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc.
P. O. Box 2494
Washington, North Carolina 27889
3 February 2000
Abstract
Carteret County is planning to conduct a nourishment project to rebuild the
beaches along Bogue Banks. The proposed project will require borrowing
sand from three areas south of Pine Knoll Shores, Salter Path and Indian
Beach. In order to determine the proposed project's impact on potentially
significant submerged cultural resources, Stroud Engineering, P.A. and CSE
Baird LLC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc., (TAR) of
Washington, North Carolina to conduct a systematic proton precession
magnetometer and side scan sonar survey. The proposed remote sensing
survey was designed to locate and identify submerged cultural resources in
the study areas and generate sufficient data to make an initial assessment of
each target's significance and provide insight into the necessity for avoidance
or additional investigation. That survey was carried out between 7 and 13
December 1999. No magnetic or acoustic anomalies were identified in either
Borrow Area A or Borrow Area B-1. In Borrow Area B-2, 10 magnetic
anomalies were identified near the western end of the survey area. Seven of
those targets contained signature characteristics indicative of significant
submerged cultural resources. Because they could be associated with an
historic shipwreck, either avoidance or additional investigation to positively
identify the nature and significance of material generating the seven
anomalies is recommended. If avoidance of the area is possible, no additional
investigation should be necessary.

ii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract .............................................................................. ..................................................i
Table of Contents ................................................................ ..................................................ii
List of Figures ...................................................................... ................................................iii
Introduction ......................................................................... .................................................1
Project Location .................................................................. .................................................2
Project Research Objectives ................................................ .................................................4
Research Methodology ........................................................ .................................................4
Literature, Historical and Archival Research ................. .................................................4
Field Investigations ......................................................... .................................................5
Magnetic Remote Sensing ............................................ .................................................6
Acoustic Remote Sensing ............................................ .................................................6
Positioning System ...................................................... .................................................6
Data Analysis ............................................................. .................................................7
Historical Overview of Beaufort/Morehead City Vicinity .................................................7
Summary of Findings .......................................................... ...............................................14
Borrow Area A ................................................................ ...............................................14
Borrow Area B-1 ............................................................. ...............................................14
Borrow Area B-2 ............................................................. ...............................................14
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................... ...............................................33
References Cited .................................................................. ...............................................36

iii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Project Location Map .................................................................................. ......3
Figure 2. Magnetic contour map of Borrow Area A ................................................... ....15
Figure 3. Magnetic contour map of Borrow Area B-1 east end .................................. ....16
Figure 4. Magnetic contour snap of Borrow Area B-1 west end ................................. ....17
Figure 5. Magnetic contour map of Borrow Area B-2 east end .................................. ....18
Figure 6. Magnetic contour map of Borrow Area B-2 west end ................................. ....19
Figure 7. Magnetic Target B2-01 ................................................................................. ....20
Figure 8. Magnetic Target B2-02 .....................................................................................22
Figure 9. Magnetic Targets B2-03 and B2-04 .................................................................23
Figure 10. Magnetic Target B2-05 .................................................................................. ...26
Figure 11. Magnetic Target B2-06 .................................................................................. ...27
Figure 12. Magnetic Target B2-07 .................................................................................. ...29
Figure 13. Magnetic Target B2-08 .................................................................................. ...30
Figure 14. Magnetic Target B2-09 .................................................................................. ...32
Figure 15. Magnetic Target B2-10 .................................................................................. ...34
Introduction
Stroud Engineering, P.A., is working with Carteret County on beach
renourishment projects on Bogue Banks. The source material for the project
has been identified as three areas south of Pine Knoll Shores, Salter Path and
Indian Beach. In order to determine the proposed project's effects on
potentially significant submerged cultural resources, Stroud Engineering, P.A.
and CSE Baird LLC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc., (TAR)
of Washington, North Carolina to conduct a systematic proton precession
magnetometer and side scan sonar survey to locate, identify and assess the
significance of any underwater cultural material in the proposed borrow
areas.
The investigation conducted by TAR was designed to provide accurate and
reliable identification, assessment and remote sensing documentation of
submerged cultural resources in the prospective project areas in terms of the
criteria established in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1979, as amended. The results of the investigation will provide Stroud
Engineering, P.A. and CSE Baird LLC with the archaeological data essential for
complying with submerged cultural resource legislation and regulations.
The methodology employed by TAR combined state of the art technology,
experienced personnel and an investigative technique designed to generate
appropriate historical and remote sensing data. Fieldwork activities
associated with the project were carried out between 7 and 13 December 1999.
Analysis of the remote sensing data identified 10 anomalies within the
western part of Borrow Area B2. Seven of those targets contained signature
characteristics indicative of significant submerged cultural resources and were
recommended for further investigation. No magnetic or acoustic anomalies
were detected in Borrow Areas A or B1.
Coordination for the survey was provided by Bill Forman, Stroud
Engineering, and Phil McKee, CSE Baird. The field project staff included Dr.
Gordon P. Watts, Jr., the principal investigator, archaeologists Raymond
Tubby and Steve Brodie and archaeological assistants Mark Padover and Mike
Phillips. Data analysis, historical research and report preparation were carried
out by Gordon Watts, Raymond Tubby and Robin Arnold. All members of
the project staff exceed the minimum standards for archaeological personnel
identified by the Department of Interior and the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History.
2
Project Location
The three Carteret County Borrow Areas are located south of Bogue Banks
between Atlantic Beach and Emerald Isle. Borrow Area A forms an "L"-
shaped polygon south-southeast of Salter Path and Indian Beach. Borrow
Area B-1 is a long rectangular polygon offshore of and roughly parallel to the
shoreline of the west extremity of Atlantic Beach and Pine Knoll Shores.
Borrow Area B-2 is a long rectangular polygon offshore of and roughly
parallel to the shoreline of Salter Path, Indian Beach and eastern Emerald Isle
(Figure 1).
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates, NAD 1983 for Borrow Area A are:
Point Northing Easting
A 331043.56 2624077.59
B 341655.89 2623855.74
C 341761.05 2628865.86
D 338728.96 2628929.75
E 338861.61 2635193.01
F 331281.44 2635354.35
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates, NAD 1983 for Borrow Area B-1 are:
Point Northing Easting
A 350432.77 2670926.10
B 348405.98 2656162.79
C 346614.84 2644048.87
D 344906.79 2644085.74
E 346309.33 2656016.78
F 348359.78 2670922.61
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates, NAD 1983 for Borrow Area B-2 are:
Point Northing Easting
A 340961.55 2610140.28
B 342151.31 2616103.44
C 345657.97 2640081.60
D 343904.64 2640269.91
E 340397.98 2616480.06
F 338957.74 2610391.36
3

d
O
L
Q
i
O
L
i
O
R7
.?
r
S
r °
8

C vrI
d
PCI
d
7
O
{t1
0

d
W
L
Q
3
O
i
L
O
7
O
N
as
7
co
O
w
cu
I
m
d
Cu
L
Q
7
O
L
L
O
0.4
cl
?r
O
:C7
V
O
a
.O
^il
n
r4
O1
i-+
•N
w
4

Project Research Objectives
The Bogue Banks Borrow Area survey was initiated in order to comply with
the criteria of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
through 1992 (36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties), the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987 (Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines, National Park
Service, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 3, 4, December 1990, pages 50116-50145)
and the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (Federal Register 48, No. 190, 1983). In keeping with the
intent of that legislation and associated regulations Stroud Engineering and
CSE Baird determined that a remote sensing survey would be necessary to
assess the potential impact of proposed project activities on submerged
cultural resources in the project areas. The remote sensing survey conducted
by TAR was designed to identify magnetic and/or acoustic anomalies that
might be generated by shipwreck resources, assess the potential significance of
each one and determine the necessity for additional investigation designed to
generate data to support a preliminary determination of National Register of
Historic Places eligibility.
Research Methodology
Literature, Historical and Archival Research
In order to generate historical data to facilitate identification of shipwreck
remains in the Beaufort/Morehead vicinity, records from a variety of
repositories were examined. At the Underwater Archaeology Unit in Kure
Beach, the archaeological site files were surveyed for both historic and
prehistoric submerged archaeological sites in the Beaufort Inlet area. Similar
surveys of site file inventories were also conducted in the Anthropology
Department Research Laboratory and the Program in Maritime History and
Underwater Research at East Carolina University in Greenville, North
Carolina.
A literature and archival investigation was also initiated by a survey of
secondary source materials associated with the historical development of
eastern North Carolina. The survey focused on documentation of activities
such as exploration, colonization, development, agriculture, industry, trade,
shipbuilding, commerce, warfare, transportation and fishing that would have
been contributing factors in the loss of vessels in the vicinity of the proposed
borrow areas. In examining each of these factors special attention was
devoted to activities associated with navigation in the vicinity of Beaufort
Inlet.
5
Preliminary wreck specific information was collected from such secondary
sources as: The Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks (Berman 1972);
Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807 - 1868 (Lytle and
Holdcamper 1952); Disasters to American Vessels, Sail and Steam, 1841-1846
(Lockhead 1954); Shipwrecks of the Civil War, The Encyclopedia of Union
and Confederate Naval Losses (Shomette 1973); Shipwrecks of the Western
Hemisphere (Marx 1971); Shipwreck Encyclopedia of The Civil War: North
Carolina, 1861-186 (Spence 1991) and other published materials. Additional
information was also generated by a survey of selected North Carolina
newspapers, the Wreck Information List of the U.S. Hydrographic Office,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and maritime records
associated with Beaufort and Morehead City. Select historic maps and charts
preserved in the collections of the National Archives Cartographic Branch in
College Park, MD and North Carolina repositories of cartographic data were
also examined.
Relevant sources of shipwreck data preserved in the North Carolina Division
of Archives and History in Raleigh; Underwater Archaeology Unit of the
Division of Archives and History at Kure Beach; the Steamship Historical
Society, Baltimore; Mystic Seaport Museum, Connecticut; the National
Archives and the Mariners Museum at Newport News, Virginia were
surveyed for site specific data associated with the Beaufort Inlet, Bogue Bank
and Shackleford Bank areas. TAR personnel also contacted and interviewed
the head of the Underwater Archaeology Unit, area archaeologists, historians
and other individuals knowledgeable in maritime history and shipwreck
research to solicit their assistance in generating wreck data.
Field Investigations
To reliably identify submerged cultural resources, TAR conducted a
systematic remote sensing survey of the proposed borrow areas identified in
the Scope of Work. TAR personnel utilized 31-foot and 25-foot vessels to
conduct the survey. In order to fulfill the requirements stated in the Scope of
Work, TAR employed both magnetic and acoustic remote sensing equipment.
A combination of magnetic and acoustic remote sensing equipment represent
the "state-of-the-art" in submerged cultural resource location technology and
offers the most reliable and cost effective method of locating and identifying
potentially significant targets. Data collection was controlled using a
differential global positioning system (DGPS). The DGPS produces the highly
accurate coordinates necessary to support a sophisticated navigation program
and assure reliable target location.
6
Magnetic Remote Sensing
An EG&G Geometrics 866 dual channel proton precession magnetometer
capable of plus or minus 0.1 gamma resolution was employed to collect
magnetic data in the survey areas. To produce the most comprehensive
magnetic record, data were collected on a two-second interval and the sensor
was deployed and maintained in the water column at a depth of 10 to 12 feet
above the bottom surface. An analog recorder provided a continuous
permanent record of the magnetic background and target signatures. Because
of the historical nature of the area, magnetic data were collected along
transects spaced on 100-foot intervals and recorded on both an analog recorder
and as a data file associated with the computer navigation system. Data from
the survey were contour plotted using QuickSurf computer software to
facilitate anomaly location and definition of target signature characteristics.
All magnetic data were correlated with the acoustic remote sensing records.
Acoustic Remote Sensing
A 500 kHz Klein 521 high resolution side scan sonar was employed to collect
acoustic data in the survey area. During the survey, the side scan sonar
transducer was deployed and maintained at a 10-foot elevation above the
bottom surface. Because of the historical nature of the area and the
requirements for collecting magnetic data, acoustic data were also collected
along transects spaced on 100-foot intervals. Sonar range scales were selected
to provide a combination of 100% coverage of the survey area and high target
signature definition. Acoustic data were recorded on a two channel wet-paper
recorder and tied to the magnetic and positioning data by the computer
navigation system event marking program.
Positioning System
A differential global positioning system (DGPS) was used to control
navigation and data collection in the survey areas. The system has an
accuracy of plus or minus three feet, and can be used to generate highly
accurate coordinates for the computer navigation system. Differential
corrections were received from the United States Coast Guard Beacon at Fort
Macon, North Carolina. A Furuno GP-35 differential global positioning
system was employed in conjunction with on-board IBM compatible 486-66
BSI and Pentium 233MMX ProStar computers loaded with a Coastal
Oceanographics Hypack navigation and data collection software program. All
magnetic and acoustic records were tied to positioning events generated by
Hypack. Positioning data generated by the navigation system were tied to
7
( magnetometer records by regular annotations to facilitate target location and
anomaly analysis. Annotations included lane number, date, start and end of
lane, direction and target identification.
Data Analysis
To ensure reliable target identification and assessment, analysis of the
magnetic and acoustic data were carried out as it was generated. Using
QuickSurf contouring software, magnetic data generated during the survey
were contour plotted at 10 gamma intervals for analysis and accurate location
of the material generating each magnetic anomaly. Magnetic targets were
isolated and analyzed in accordance with intensity, duration, areal extent and
signature characteristics. Sonagram signatures associated with magnetic
targets were analyzed on the basis of configuration, areal extent, target
intensity and contrast with background, elevation and shadow image.
Data generated by the remote sensing equipment were developed to support
an assessment of each magnetic and acoustic signature. Analysis of each
target signature included consideration of magnetic and sonar signature
characteristics previously demonstrated to be reliable indicators of historically
significant submerged cultural resources. Assessment of each target included
recommendations for additional investigation to determine the exact nature
of the cultural material generating the signature and its potential National
Register significance. Historical evidence was developed into a background
that identified possible correlations with magnetic targets. A magnetic
contour map of each survey area was produced to aid in the analysis of each
target. All targets were listed and described and a map produced that showed
their location within the project area.
Historical Overview of Beaufort/Morehead City Vicinity
Among the earliest residents of Shackleford Banks and Cape Lookout during
the late 1600s and early 1700s were whalers,' who established a series of
temporary camps and shelters amid the dunes. By the 1720s, Cape Lookout
and Shackleford Banks became a more permanent base of operations for New
England whalers (Angley 1982:5). When Beaufort was appointed as "a port
for the unloading and discharging [of] vessels," in 1722 it was clear that
successful development would also depend on trade entering and clearing
through Beaufort Inlet (Paul 1970:370-373; Angley 1982:8). Unlike many of the
inlets along the North Carolina coast, Beaufort Inlet was relatively stable and
offered a safe and deep channel for ship traffic (Stick 1958:312).
8
Not all of the vessels bound for Beaufort were successful in navigating the
inlet. In November 1718, the pirate Blackbeard lost two vessels on or near the
bar. Both the ship Queen Anne's Revenge and the sloop Adventure were
run aground, perhaps deliberately. Many of the crew of the Queen Anne's
Revenge and the Adventure were abandoned on Shackleford Banks while
Blackbeard and a hand-picked crew sailed for Bath in the remaining sloop.
Although Beaufort remained a relatively unimportant port during the 18t"
century it did play a small role in Revolutionary War maritime activity.
While the blockade imposed upon the American coast by the British Navy
seriously impacted trade for many Colonial ports, shipping through Beaufort
provided a portion of the supplies needed by the Patriots in North Carolina.
In the years that followed the Revolution, North Carolina experienced an
increase in the volume of maritime trade and shipbuilding. Just after the
turn of the century, Beaufort Inlet was described as one of the best on the
North Carolina coast, with "the channel being generally 3 1/4 to 3 1/2
fathoms" deep. Beaufort was also mentioned as having a fairly vigorous,
though small, shipbuilding industry (Tatham 1806). In 1810, Jacob Henry, a
former representative from Carteret County to the North Carolina House of
Commons, commented upon the local shipbuilding industry at Beaufort:
The principal trade carried on here is ship building in which
they have acquired a very considerable reputation.... Live oak
and Cedar are the timbers principally used but the stock is by no
means so abundant as it has been. Some of the swiftest sailors
and best built Vessels in the United States have been launch'd
here, particularly the Ship Minerva, a well known Packet
between Charleston and New York. There are at present five
Vessels at the Stocks, two of which are ready to be launch'd
(Newsome 1929:399).
The Beaufort vicinity was severely battered by a hurricane that struck the area
in 1815. The storm, later described as "being one of the most violent and
disastrous ever known upon the coast," brought about significant changes to
the bar at Beaufort. The bar was "injured so that but 12 feet could be brought
over it at low water." Fortunately, the channel eventually recovered from
the storm's damage and by 1830, the depth on the bar had increased to 18 feet
at mean low water. By 1854, the bar channel had decreased to a depth of 15
1/2 feet and migrated slightly to the south (United States Congress, Senate
Executive Document, No. 78, 33rd Congress, pp. 3-4).
Around 1841, John Motley Morehead, governor of North Carolina, had a
vision of establishing a port facility at the eastern terminus of the Atlantic
and North Carolina Railroad. A decision was finally reached in 1855 to locate
the proposed port and rail facility on Sheppard's Point (Konkle 1922:339-340).
9
The editor of the Greensboro Patriot described the conditions and natural
advantages which he believed would benefit maritime traffic through
Beaufort Inlet to the new port facility at Morehead City in September 1858:
The inlet at Beaufort Harbor is, we understand, about three-
quarters of a mile wide, extending from the point on the
Shackleford banks on the east to the point at Fort Macon on the
west. Ships drawing from eighteen to twenty feet can cross the
bar with safety. Ships crossing the bar, enter the harbor near the
Shackleford banks, then bear in a westwardly direction toward
Fort Macon. From the bar at the inlet, across the Sound to
Beaufort, is about three miles, this being about the widest part of
the harbor. The channel is in the form of a half-moon, one horn
running eastwardly along the Shackleford banks, called Core
Sound, and the other westwardly by Morehead and Carolina
cities, which are situated on Bogue Sound. The deepest water is
along Newport river, which runs in nearly a north direction
between Morehead City and Beaufort, touching the railroad
wharf in the former place. The main channel is about one mile
wide, so that the inside of the channel would be some two miles
from Beaufort, though vessels drawing from nine to ten feet
water can approach the Beaufort wharves at full tide. Running
up the channel about three miles from the bar, we come to the
railroad wharf at Morehead City, where vessels drawing
eighteen feet can approach with ease, and unload and take in
lading with the greatest safety (Konkle 1922:341-342).
Within six months, the rail and port facility at Morehead City was prospering,
much to the chagrin of the people of Beaufort. Ships were continually calling
at the wharfs and being loaded with cargoes directly from train cars:
Here a steamer drawing twenty feet of water, and the locomotive
weighing twenty or thirty tons, with its whole train, may be
along side each other; and this, too, on each side of the wharf at
the same time, while in front other vessels may be loading or
discharging cargoes (Konkle 1922:360-361).
The development of Morehead City was soon disrupted by the Civil War. On
22 March 1862, Union forces occupied Morehead City. Four days later Union
troops crossed the Newport River and took control of Beaufort. Fort Macon
also fell into Union forces under General Ambrose E. Burnside following a
fierce one-day siege (Stick 1958:148-153). Preceding the final assault on Fort
Macon, a Union gunboat and one or two smaller vessels were positioned
inside Beaufort Inlet, controlling the approaches and exits to Bogue and Core
Sounds. On 22 April, several Union vessels anchored near Harker's Island to
10
the east of Beaufort, including the steamer Alice Price that served as General
Burnside's temporary headquarters. When the fall of Fort Macon was
imminent, Confederate forces burned the bark Glen to keep it out of Union
hands. On 26 April, Colonel Moses J. White, commander of Fort Macon,
surrendered to Generals Parks and Burnside on Shackleford Banks (Angley
1982:34; Stick 1958:148-153).
The occupation of Fort Macon and the surrounding vicinity provided Union
naval forces with access to a deep-water port and a place of rendezvous that
was used to support the blockading squadron throughout the remainder of
the war. During December 1864 and January 1865, fleets under Admiral
David Porter massed at Beaufort Harbor in preparation for their assault on
Fort Fisher in Wilmington, the last major stronghold of the Confederacy in
North Carolina. During the Civil War at least five Confederate vessels were
captured at sea in the Cape Lookout area: the schooners Edwin, Julia, Revere
and Louisa Agnes were captured in 1861 and the steamer Banshee was taken
on 21 November 1863 (Angley 1982:35; Price 1948). One Confederate vessel
was lost in the vicinity as a result of enemy action. On 9 July 1864, the side-
wheel steamer Pevensey was chased ashore and blown up on Bogue Banks,
approximately nine miles west of Beaufort Inlet (Hill 1975:11-13). Not all of
the known shipwrecks near Beaufort were a result of enemy action. On 12
June 1863, the USS Lavender ran aground in heavy seas near Cape Lookout
Shoals while en route from the Delaware Capes to Charleston. The Lavender
was a screw tug of 173 tons. On 20 July 1865, the 186-ton Union screw steamer
Quinnebaugh went ashore on Beaufort bar in rough weather after her
machinery failed. The Quinnebaugh was transporting Union troops, refugees
and civilians north at the time of her loss (Shomette 1973:88-89; Berman
1972:141; Lytle and Holdcamper 1975:291).
Six years after the Civil War, the federal government began measures to
reduce the severity of maritime disasters along the coast by establishing the
United States Lifesaving Service. In 1874, seven stations were established
along the North Carolina coast. In 1875, a similar station was authorized by
Congress for Cape Lookout, though it would be another ten years before it was
finally built. Over the following years three other stations were established
on Core Banks, and a facility was also established near Fort Macon, just west
of Beaufort Inlet (Angley 1982:35-36; Stick 1958:169-170, 310-313).
Menhaden fishing became an important source of income for the Cape
Lookout-Beaufort area in the years following the Civil War. From 1865 to
1873, the state's first menhaden processing plant was in operation on Harker's
Island. By the turn of the century several plants were in operation at Beaufort
and at various points on Bogue and Core Sounds (Hill 1975:16-18).
11
Growth of Beaufort and Morehead City as ports was slow during the late-19"
and early 20`h centuries. In the 1880s, the federal government began work on
the improvement of Beaufort Inlet in the hopes of increasing the amount of
maritime trade to the port communities. The depth over the bar in the later
191n century was just over 15 feet, but it was said that "the harbor entrance was
rapidly deteriorating; its width, measured from Fort Macon to Shackleford
Point, having increased 500 feet between the years 1864 and 1880" (Stick
1958:312; Angley 1982:39-40). By 1880, the width of the inlet had increased an
additional 900 feet. As a means to prevent further erosion, jetties were
constructed from both shores into the inlet. Over the next five years, five
jetties were constructed on Shackleford Point and another six on Fort Macon
Point. By 1889, the deterioration of the inlet had been brought under control
(Angley 1982:40; Stick 1958:312).
Between 1905 and 1907, the channel across Beaufort Inlet bar was dredged to a
depth of 20 feet at mean low water. A 20-foot channel, 200 feet wide, was also
provided inside the inlet to the wharves at Morehead City. A smaller
channel, seven feet deep and 100 feet wide, was dredged to the wharves along
the Beaufort waterfront (Angley 1982:40). The Army Corps of Engineers
submitted several reports between 1907 and 1914 that indicated that both
Morehead City and Beaufort were growing centers of maritime trade. The
majority of vessels utilizing the two ports were fishing boats and small,
shallow-draft cargo vessels (Angley 1982:41). Beaufort Inlet was described in
1907 as being limited in importance:
a
The present commerce through the inlet is small, owing in a
large measure to the hitherto shallow draft of not generally
more than 12 feet at mean low water that could be carried across
the bar.
The present annual commerce of Beaufort, N. C., the principal
place on the water adjacent to this harbour, amounts to about
64,000 tons annually, valued at $3,500,000, of which only about
one-fourth to one-fifth passes through the inlet (United States
Congress, House Document No. 1454, p. 3).
Statistics for 1912 reflect that 12 sailing and 35 gasoline powered vessels
totaling 570 net tons were registered at Morehead City. For the same year, the
registry at the rival port of Beaufort listed 175 sailing vessels, 240 gasoline
powered vessels and 6 barges with a net registered tonnage of 6,005 (Angley
1982:42; United States Congress, House Documents No. 1022:4-11 and No.
1108:6-7).
12
A number of vessels travelling along the coast became victims of maritime
hazards. Between 1 July 1898 and 30 June 1908, 82 vessels were reported lost
off the North Carolina coast (United States Congress, House Document No.
315,.pp. 5-6). Several of those shipwrecks had themselves become hazards to
navigation. On 20 and 27 February 1891, notices were printed in the
Wilmington Weekly Star that the federal government was in the process of
removing wrecks that had become obstacles to other vessels:
Masters and owners of vessels engaged in the coastwise trade
will be glad to know that the commanding Officer of the USS
Yantic has been ordered to cruise along the coast from Sandy
Hook to Charleston, S. C. and to destroy, as far as practicable, all
abandoned wrecks which are dangerous to navigation. There
are a number of these wrecks on the coast of North Carolina and
Virginia.
Off the North Carolina coast the Yantic will find the schooner
Dudley Farlin, twenty-four miles northwest of Bodie Island
Light; the schooner Mollie J. Saunders, seven miles southeast of
the same light; the steamer Glenrath, south by west of Cape
Lookout Light, four or five miles further in shore, the steamer
Aberlady Bay, and a sunken wreck eighteen miles east-northeast
of Frying Pan Shoal Lightship (Wilmington Weekly Star, 20 and
27 February 1891).
In a 1897 Congressional report the hazards found at Cape Lookout to
maritime traffic were summarized by the captain of the life-saving station at
Cape Lookout:
I ascertain that, since 1888, 19 schooners, 6 steamships, and 1 bark
were disabled or ashore around Cape Lookout that would have
been unharmed in all probability, if a safe harbor had been near.
Two of these steamships and many of the schooners proved total
losses. Unknown wrecks are occasionally discovered on or near
the shoals. Nine large vessels have been anchored south of the
beach at one time during northeasters. When the wind shifted
they had to go to sea. Twenty-two schooners have been seen at
one time laying to under the lee of Lookout Shoals during a
northeast gale, and 57 vessels have been sighted passing by in
one day. The locality is being frequented more and more as
seafaring men learn the advantage of it. The great danger at
present is being caught in the great bight with a southerly gale
(United States Congress, House Document No. 25, p. 5).
13
To prevent vessels from wrecking near Cape Lookout a lighthouse had been
in use, but mariners often complained that the light was difficult to see. As a
remedy, a lightship was placed at Cape Lookout Shoals in 1904 and remained
in operation until 1933 when it was removed (Holland 1968:32-35; Stick
1958:310). In addition to the lightship, a lens lantern was erected in 1900 on
Cape Lookout Bight for the "large number of vessels that seek a lee under
Cape Lookout" (Holland 1968:32).
During World War I, Cape Lookout Bay served as a rendezvous and staging
area for convoys bound for Europe, and Morehead City was occasionally used
as a distribution point for war supplies. From 1926 to 1938, the federal
government made considerable improvements to the Port of Morehead City
by increasing the depth of the channel through Beaufort Inlet to 30 feet (Stick
1952:237-238). In 1923, the tug Juno sank in the Beaufort Inlet channel
causing considerable difficulty for other vessels to pass. The Juno was
eventually dynamited to clear the entrance. This earlier event may have
been a contributing factor in recognizing the need for channel improvements
(The Evening Dispatch, 23 July 1923; Berman 1972:128).
Hostilities in the Cape Lookout vicinity were much more evident during the
events of World War II. For example, on the night of 18 March 1942, German
submarines sank three tankers in the Cape Lookout area: the Papoose, the W.
E. Hutton and the E. M. Clark. Five days later another tanker, the Naeco was
sunk in the same vicinity (Stick 1952:234). As a result of the high number of
vessel losses occurring during the early stages of the war, defensive measures
were put into place. Coastal communities were systematically blacked out, a
more efficient convoy system was devised and additional planes and patrol
vessels were put into service for the Cape Lookout area and North Carolina
coast in general (Stick 1952:237-239).
In the early 1950s, improvements were once again undertaken at Morehead
City. By the summer of 1954, a project to widen the 30-foot channel to 300 feet
to the terminal facilities, construct a 600-foot turning basin and dredge a 12-
foot channel in Bogue Sound along the city's commercial waterfront was
nearly completed (Angley 1982:48). By 1954, the main shipping channel to
Beaufort had also been dredged to a depth of 12 feet and a width of 100 feet.
The improvements could easily accommodate sports and commercial fishing
vessels and pleasure craft, but was inadequate to handle large, deep-draft cargo
vessels (Angley 1982:48). Since the mid-1950s, regular maintenance dredging
has been undertaken at the channels leading into the Morehead City and
Beaufort harbors. Today, Morehead City continues as a major deep-water port
with several large vessels arriving monthly.
14
Summary of Findings
Investigation of the three borrow areas off Bogue Bank identified a total of 10
magnetic anomalies. No magnetic and/or acoustic anomalies were identified
during remote sensing of Borrow Area A or Borrow Area B-1 (Figures 2, 3, 4).
All ten of the identified anomalies were located in the western part of Borrow
Area B-2 (Figures 5, 6). Analysis of the target signatures suggest that seven of
the anomalies could be associated with shipwreck remains. It is
recommended that those seven targets be avoided. In the event that they
cannot be avoided, additional investigation is recommended to identify the
nature and assess the significance of material generating the signatures. The
remaining three targets contained signature characteristics suggestive of
single ferrous objects and are not recommended for additional investigation.
Borrow Area A
No magnetic and/or acoustic targets were identified in Area A.
Borrow Area B-1
No magnetic and/or acoustic targets were identified in Area B-1.
Borrow Area B-2
Target Designation: 132-01
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2611456 341287 262 6
Potential: Low
Target B2-01 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 1 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 1.2 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 262 gammas
and a maximum duration of 6 two-second pulses (Figure 7). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 19,800 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. However, as the anomaly lies on the
20
13Lbi1- 3Ldl'.C
"L3 LtF,lj 3 L'-"d .? t .
L31bj3 31j"74s4 : : ;.. €.: B2-01
L3 Ubdil,
L3 ibq £ 3 LdV 1. C:.... € _ t
!!Dlb43 3L43L.U € i
L3Lb3.i ' `3J3anf j,.b
Ua Lb33 '3 LC43 . b -
17 Lb-3,F 3£,Z#4.
13 11 d 1:'-3rL I+L*J.? Ad
L:7 Le 16V 3L4Lb.v :..... .. .t.. :......:. .€,.
I;) It I L
L31! £J 31%IV ZJ - ?
,L3Ll 13'
131E Ltl...:_L?fG4- a .. _€.. _ _
L3 It Ca L4c' = Y
L311e-1 3.LucLd.b
l Ll 4?1 014 5-5 - {.
LQLl-j-.a ;1LgdcL.b t
L3le4:3 3i4S:5.7# t
L3Ll.11 ;3L4?iba _ _ _, .....i_i.. _..,
L-lilq.-j:, ..314x1=I-1, .E
i3 Lt 43 =3lglu. w =
13Lf%-!' ..,.`144 4
L3 Li 7.j 3L44b. U L
Figure 7. Magnetic Target B2-01.
21
edge of the survey area, it may potentially be associated with a significant
cultural resource adjacent the current project area. In the event that the
proposed project would impact the anomaly location, consideration should be
given to identifying and assessing the potential historical significance of the
material associated with the target.
Target Designation: B2-02
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2612965 341596 59 5
Potential: Low
Target B2-02 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 1 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 1.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 59 gammas
and a maximum duration of 5 two-second pulses (Figure 8). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 11,220 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. However, because of a possible spatial
association with targets B2-03, 132-04, 132-06 and 132-09 the target may represent
scattered debris associated with a shipwreck. In the event that the proposed
project would impact the anomaly location, consideration should be given to
identifying and assessing the potential historical significance of the material
associated with the target.
Target Designation: 132-03
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2613207 341371 27 5
Potential: Low
Target B2-03 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 4 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 4.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 27 gammas
and a maximum duration of 5 two-second pulses (Figure 9). The contoured
22
L
f31.%L,,i:
L3L'tL3 : Lit VI 131AiL 3T:i1!
L3Lv'Ci 31€rs„7? {
L3LifCfz ziLJC -1% w
L314C:v 3 L-Sf-f-.'... . .
13LSs' : 31:?:.n,r5 : { { : B2-02
LJi;k? aL?i.
13-'4f'4L 31," U : a{
31g4t 31,x`-ate
3 3V 31 31J=jb b ! : : •
131133 a1'jgLy'
€3L43: 31,5.
Lam. 1437
1;5 13U. L
13134.# 3lw4lil`l„ t ;
L3f333 LIS'4ef.Ll
€313It! 3L-:14a. ! I
1,3 I:anj at--4,44.
L3L3LL 3i:jgsac? = :(
13 L3 LO 3 1.-;4r' r i
131311 :a I IJ 6 K
Lztlalt?
1313 1 ?L6 avy it, { . {
13 1'3r-3 3133:] ;.- c
1,3 L3e`_! 31 3"{
L3t3,1L 3115 33.)/+
13 Li,1,' 3.LJJ? n V I - 5:
1313,33 . 3 LJ3v. i t .
€3€3S1 31
13 LZ)% L 31.E 1. 4 : y
13131F,Y 3 L-ti b f. U
i313tt r 31st i
IQ 13iEe... 21.6bq.-b r 1
Figure 8. Magnetic Target B2-02.
r' s ?
L CClt C :1'v' 1'i':.r fiY f }'.
Lf_ss ?:13.1.?.J...... = •82-03
.:1CC?9ar"rr r'.+?:1?l?:r;.C: ..._.ti `: # • :; # , ; r - ,'?.
CCU,
LCCjjz? ol -j 1,5ti b
r
•
L??.=t r....r. r ;
1CfC:kt:)7...;IF
j
L1= L-fit. `....3'r a4kT - _
# y,
1CCLlt`c?t? iE } .. = : z. B2-04
j c
is CL;?F ?.t,??i:a ? •;_.- ., ;;:..... : ? ..
• r ?
L lC 1
t?ci:?t: 'PL'C. 4 .,' •. ,,} .:, ,..',#,
23

Figure 9. Magnetic Targets B2-03 and B2-04.
24
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 8,800 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. However, because of a possible spatial
association with targets B2-02, B2-04, B2-06 and B2-09 the target may represent
scattered debris associated with a shipwreck. In the event that the proposed
project would impact the anomaly location, consideration should be given to
identifying and assessing the potential historical significance of the material
associated with the target.
Target Designation: 132-04
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2613393 341404 20 6
Potential: Low
Target 132-04 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
-- magnetic signature was identified on lane 4 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 4.2 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 20 gammas
and a maximum duration of 6 two-second pulses (Figure 9). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 9,500 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. However, because of a possible spatial
association with targets B2-02, B2-03, B2-06 and B2-09 the target may represent
scattered debris associated with a shipwreck. In the event that the proposed
project would impact the anomaly location, consideration should be given to
identifying and assessing the potential historical significance of the material
associated with the target.
25
Target Designation: 132-05
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2614359 341393 50 5
Potential: Low
Target 132-05 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 6 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 6.0 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 50 gammas
and a maximum duration of 5 two-second pulses (Figure 10). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 8,000 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. The sharp, low intensity signature does
not appear to represent the more complex types often associated with
shipwreck remains. No additional investigation, of the target is
recommended in conjunction with the proposed project.
Target Designation: 132-06
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2612754 341037 49 7
Potential: Low
Target B2-06 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 6 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 6.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 49 gammas
and a maximum duration of 7 two-second pulses (Figure 11). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 14,025 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object such as pipe,
cable, anchors or other similar debris. However, because of a possible spatial
association with targets B2-02, 132-03, B2-04 and 132-09 the target may represent
scattered debris associated with a shipwreck. In the event that the proposed
26

..
L?C-'b0V :J.LC,#i3.=!t :, .. ?.. j . v,,
, ...::. _.: "
LCe-fUi 14 C:"+ L -f
LEeeU

! c:>wff . 7 t CfEtF . ?. : ;
Z) ic:I.kj#.tS -.,,...? .__ ... _. -B2=
0
5
.
,

AC'_r.`.f Le .:aICr#df. tt
1CC' Li f..".,,DICE#7y b _ .. ;. ..,.?. ; .... _

.:.::..

LGCL3k71iCf

lCt:ntl :'?LC'ttaC : 3 ;:_
12-2t3!.i . a!e is, 13
i?:`t`25l:J e:5
LLC-U.tf .:70Ift'j.;E =_ a ,._.. ... ».:.,......
`r'F'U V :OLCtMo4 _ C ... _ .. ?........

Figure 10. Magnetic Target B2-05.
LCts --I L tvj " .{;.
::. v -v a..as. . a ..:. t.. .... x . ? .. •.. ., _..
__t'teV'l,i.._.71,?.1UatF
L?: s7 16L..Jr. b ?^.. ?....:.- 1 - B2-U6
li:?LiCk3aLt
Lt?ff Vc_4:..0.jL,br.4 ;
1 a 1.?.?*F.?
ityd''i"tt . J.J,i `}i b '
L CMCG 4F7
if Ef - Z5
i': 5kj E?a till ,if+L '
iel.,V5ml3 z-;,.jZ) Cw t
27
i
Figure 11. Magnetic Target B2-06.
28
project would impact the anomaly location, consideration should be given to
identifying and assessing the potential historical significance of the material
associated with the target.
Target Designation: 132-07
Signature Type: Positive Monopolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2611216 340557 82 5
Potential: Low
Target 132-07 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 8 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 8.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 82 gammas
and a maximum duration of 5 two-second pulses (Figure 12). The contoured
positive monopolar signature covered an area of approximately 12,000 square
feet. No sonar signature was associated with the material generating the
magnetic signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration
suggest that material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object
such as pipe, cable, anchors or other similar debris. The sharp, moderate
intensity signature does not appear to represent the more complex types often
associated with shipwreck remains. No additional investigation of the target
is recommended in conjunction with the proposed project.
Target Designation: B2-08
Signature Type: Dipolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2610512 340108 22 7
Potential: Low
Target B2-08 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 11 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 11.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 22 gammas
and a maximum duration of 7 two-second pulses (Figure 13). The contoured
dipolar signature covered an area of approximately 11,310 square feet. No
sonar signature was associated with the material generating the magnetic
signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration suggest that
29

'
;.:.? G'?T«?F;::. ?? '' ::;? irk 7'_f:?. ?"F :. . • , ":.,_ 3 ? <::: _ . . ;; _ _.:,-_.

d ?, ?t d ;3 S=tc-of ..... :.

.1.ltLit:i.Yt
i
7 71
pi,
.
-C-5 --I t5 -5 zl.ifftru., 4
i Y3 Jig4i.iF U.

1.;5:}..4. 1..7:x!' w {3

1 ?.?u ... ._1 5is'
C:Nlz>j t.

b,5?S1 X1,5 a. ;: :;
. =71;53. : ,? _..
F, ; ... -1. . ,

f... ..

--j IAJLI 113 m.ta 7.

:DA
Figure 12. Magnetic Target B2-07.
30

Fit e-5 L:a Q f.'311ab < ?ft f
LgGLl? J€?s•tl. i:? f
L4ifbL'i -3 L4t, i -

Lqtf6r-.i °Jiltbb.r;
iiyrCfkiCM

Lg4::U,S1 3Lq(l, L. z

L4d:444 Q i'.U4, . b

L`:?t5 3 3Lek- .b t t
:l€qw€.L : : B2-08

Ncd-Q le L Elk

+_-tit::: Etf s l?kt?t?•?

LKast: 3€°4-idk7
I. t) _

Lgi.vLj -ai?tC?_ s :..... .:....... ... .. . ..... _

c
i
?
?`
?ir? L t'i'p''' {.. ?
? : :[ :L
ss
?
i
?,t
• p
Lq e.'.ld€ 0Vl-J.'sb [ 1
L-l*-C.tdd 31r-lLuala t.

IIt r- f-sl aLit-LZk. d }-: :L :
l4d?-Clj 31 et

LF4C21F j 31?1tl < . 0
-
i

"Md
:D LL YJ e-
Figure 13. Magnetic Target B2-08.
31
material generating the anomaly could be a concentration of ferrous objects
such as the fasteners of a vessel or other similar hardware. It is possible that
the anomaly could be associated with the remains of a vessel as the signature
characteristics are similar to those low intensity and long duration anomalies
demonstrated to be associated with the remains of wooden hull vessels. In
the event that the proposed project will impact the anomaly location,
consideration should be given to identifying and assessing the potential
historical significance of the material associated with the target.
Target Designation: 132-09
Signature Type: Negative Monopolar
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2613222 340888 49 5
Potential: Low
Target 132-09 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lanes 8 and 9 and the contoured
signature consisted of data from the anomalies identified as 8.2 and 9.1 in the
magnetometer records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of
49 gammas and a maximum duration of 5 two-second pulses (Figure 14). The
contoured negative monopolar signature covered an area of approximately
23,000 square feet. No sonar signature was associated with the material
generating the magnetic signature. The signature characteristics, intensity
and duration suggest that material generating the anomaly could be a single
ferrous object such as pipe, cable, anchors or other similar debris. However,
because of a possible spatial association with targets 132-02, 132-03, 132-04 and
132-06 the target may represent scattered debris associated with a shipwreck. In
the event that the proposed project would impact the anomaly location,
consideration should be given to identifying and assessing the potential
historical significance of the material associated with the target.
32

-1 L C-9 Rl

L"kgIddL -.3 U: C:.?t E
i.or'.4 i-S _-I Lrj,% f B2-09
.
i"Ilila-sa :aunizi.k-, : E

1.4 ;:'14 t. L C-v f . 4 - - i;:

LgVIL ll?r
4
4" aUi:33. r' .. ?.... .. L
1.4
:.
3?

ti4pj:X) "a i 4-wt

Loa! 4.kyi. .DL,:Ik'6i it
:tea -Uld -',I L -I t. I.

IRLI

'
s
ue4q LLO ;It:Sc'.i.F` f. ..... _

C'_'# 3L-Sinb r. it - •. .. f. _ ...
1441.4L ::31--j'd l z`9 : E E
1.4 ?6 L J-s .:l
Q
k---e 0 L_ _I it-,
t•I ,a-Y_ ;l1..1JIw.. _

L'?r4".i% 3 "' F_t.
Figure 14. Magnetic Target B2-09.
Target Designation: 132-10
Signature Type: Multi-component
State Plane Northing Easting Intensity Duration
2611288 339080 32 7
Potential: Low
Target B2-10 was located in the western end of Borrow Area B-2. The
magnetic signature was identified on lane 23 and the contoured signature
consisted of data from the anomaly identified as 23.1 in the magnetometer
records. The detectable signature had a maximum intensity of 32 gammas
and a maximum duration of 7 two-second pulses (Figure 15). The contoured
multi-component signature covered an area of approximately 14,250 square
feet. No sonar signature was associated with the material generating the
magnetic signature. The signature characteristics, intensity and duration
suggest that material generating the anomaly could be a single ferrous object
such as pipe, cable, anchors or other similar debris. The sharp, low intensity
signature does not appear to represent the more complex types often
associated with shipwreck remains. No additional investigation of the target
is recommended in conjunction with the proposed project.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A survey of historical and archaeological literature and archival background
research confirmed considerable evidence of maritime activity along the
southeastern North Carolina coast. That evidence suggests a high probability
for submerged cultural resources in the waters around Beaufort Inlet.
Discovery of what appears to be the remains of Blackbeard's Queen Anne's
Revenge and several Civil War vessels reinforce that hypothesis. Both
Beaufort and Morehead City provided early settlers with centers of
transportation and trade and bases of operations to exploit the natural
resources of the Carolina coast. Yet in spite of nature and the scope of
maritime activity, there is only one reference to a specific vessel lost in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project. That vessel is the Civil War
blockade runner Pevensey that was run ashore at the site of the Iron Steamer
Pier. No known sites exist in the survey areas in the files of the Underwater
Archaeology Unit of the Division of Archives and History.
33

34
l,tf.'T2 Sl?..... .V ?-Y t?J a V ..:: ? ... i1 . w. ...
a s } 9. ?.
1411 L lie, 7 S rf6 i 1i
t
I.5gL-4J 'DIli t I
Wi4 13-S
a,3ffd11 31rl? LQr b (.
3-5 I{!:f s;s -1 LCfiIf C 3.. B2-10
t i4?C -.3i.i?lt...i
iJgc-.: 1 :3 LItUl.'. Cr: 'IQ
1.dltca::.L?,...
L-5jrV .1-
D1,3t.i.t3 -' r z. . _ .... _:
.. f!F i°J!r1
i P IL C LL H
-„t/I i.2l i.tsni.ll fl?f'1r'... '..G.. '::: ....,....y .. ... ..: ..,?.. ,: .. .... _.. ?..
Figure 15. Magnetic Target B2-10.
35
Analysis of the remote sensing data revealed no magnetic and/or acoustic
anomalies in either Borrow Area A or Borrow Area B-1. On the basis of that
analysis, no additional investigation of the area is recommended in
conjunction with the proposed project.
Analysis 'of the remote sensing data for Borrow Area B-2 confirmed the
presence of 10 magnetic anomalies in the western part of the survey area.
Seven of those targets contained signature characteristics consistent with
significant submerged cultural resources. Analysis of the target signatures
suggests that five of the anomalies, B2-02, B2-03, B2-04, 132-06 and B2-09, may
be spatially associated and could represent scattered debris from a shipwreck.
Another target, B2-08, contained signature characteristics similar to those
commonly associated with wooden hull vessels. Though the final anomaly,
B2-01, exhibited signature characteristics suggestive of a single ferrous object
its location along the northern edge of the survey area does not rule out a
possible association with a significant cultural resource lying adjacent to the
project area. The remaining three targets, B2-05, B2-07 and B2-10, contained
signature characteristics suggestive of single ferrous objects. With the
exception of the above seven anomalies, the proposed project will have no
impact on potentially significant submerged cultural resources.
In order to provide reasonable assurance that proposed dredging does not
impact targets B2-01, B2-02, B2-03, B2-04, B2-06, B2-08 and B2-09, a buffer zone
should be established around each anomaly location. Unfortunately, there is
no concrete data regarding the establishment of an effective buffer zone
around submerged cultural resource sites. In the absence of such data and
due to the nature of the high energy environment off Bogue Banks, it may be
appropriate to establish a buffer zone 250 feet in circumference around the
center of the target coordinates. In order to assess the buffer zone
effectiveness, the target environment at each site should be periodically
monitored to determine what, if any, change has occurred. In the event that
the target locations cannot be avoided, diver investigation of the seven
anomalies is recommended to identify and assess their National Register of
Historic Places eligibility.

36
References Cited
Angley, Wilson
1982 An Historic Overview of The Beaufort Inlet - Cape Lookout Area of
North Carolina. Report on file at the Research Branch, N. C. Division
of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Berman, Bruce D.
1972 Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press,
Boston.
Federal Register
1990 Abandoned Shipwreck Act; Final Guidelines; Notice. National Park
Service, U. S. Department of Interior, Part III, 4 December.
Hill, Mrs. Fred
1975 Historic Carteret County, North Carolina. Carteret County Historical
Research Association, Beaufort.
Holland, F. Ross
1968 A Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. United States
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Konkle, Burton A.
1922 John Motley Morehead and the Development of North Carolina,
1796-1866. Philadelphia: William J. Campbell.
Lytle, William M. and Forrest R. Holdcamper
1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790 - 1868, "The Lytle
Holdcamper List." Staten Island, New York: The Steamship
Historical Society of America.
Marx, Robert F.
1975 Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere, 1492-1825. David McKay
and Company, New York.
National Ocean Service
1990 Automatic Wreck and Obstruction Information System. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of
Commerce.
Newsome, A. R. (Editor)
1929 A Miscellany from the Thomas Henderson Letter Book, 1810-1811.
North Carolina Historical Review.
37
Paul, Charles L.
1970 Beaufort, North Carolina: Its Development as a Colonial Town.
North Carolina Historical Review.
Price, Marcus W.
1948 Ships that Tested the Blockade of the Carolina Ports, 1861-1865. The
American Neptune, July.
Rush, Richard et al.
1894-
1914 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of
the Rebellion. 30 vols., Government Printing Office, Washington.
Saunders, William L. (Editor)
1886-
1890 Colonial Records of North Carolina. 10 vols., State of North Carolina,
Raleigh.
Shomette, Donald G.
1973 Shipwrecks of the Civil War. Donic Ltd., Washington.
Spence, E. Lee
1991 Shipwreck Encyclopedia of The Civil War: North Carolina, 1861-
1865. Sullivan's Island, S. C.: Shipwreck Press Inc.
Stick, David
1952 Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
1958 The Outer Banks of North Carolina.. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Tatham, William
1806 Survey of the Coast of North Carolina from Cape Hatteras to Cape
Fear, 1806. Typed copy of manuscript report. North Carolina
Collection of the Louis Round Wilson Library, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
United States Congress, Senate Executive Document, No. 78, 33rd Congress,
1st Session.
United States Congress, House Document No. 25, 55th Congress, 1st Session.
United States Congress, House Document No. 1454, 60th Congress, 2nd
Session.

38
United States Congress, House Document No. 315, 61st Congress, 2nd Session.
Newspapers
The Evening Dispatch [Wilmington, N.C.]
Weekly Star [Wilmington, N. C.]
BOGUE BANKS POST-HURRICANE OPHELIA
BEACH NOURISHMENT
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores (North Carolina) propose to
place 1,107,560 cubic yards (cy) of beach-quality sand, dredged from the Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), on some 54,658 linear feet of beach along Bogue Banks.
The Towns of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores are located along the Atlantic
Ocean coast of Carteret County (NC) between Bogue Inlet and Beaufort Inlet. Bogue Banks
can be accessed by driving northeast from Wilmington (NC) on U.S. Highway 17 past the
Town of Swansboro to SR 58, then following SR 58 west across the Bogue Sound Atlantic and
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to the island. The project site is located on Bogue Banks and
incorporates portions of the shorelines of the Towns of Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, and
Emerald Isle (Sheet 1 of 12).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of excavating by hydraulic dredge up to 1,107,560 cy of beach-
quality sediment from the ODMDS, situated -2 miles offshore of Atlantic Beach (Sheet 1).
Shallow excavations (-2-5 ft deep, typical) would be made by hopper dredge and pumped via
submerged pipe to the beach. The FEMA-approved renourishment area will consist of
approximately five reaches totaling up to 54,658 ft (cumulative) along Bogue Banks (Sheets
2-3). The reaches are listed in Table 1.
Sediment would be spread via land-based equipment and shaped into a recreational beach
between the existing toe of the foredune and the low watermark. The beach fill will impact
-460 acres of beach and inshore area. The main fill portions of the project will contain -20
cubic yards per linear foot (cy/ft) of beach (1,107,560 cy total) and will include a flat berm at
elevation +7.0 ft NGVD initially placed 85-145 feet (ft) wide (Sheets 7-10) and extending
seaward to a depth of (-)-11 ft NGVD on a 1 to 15 slope. The fill volume for each reach
varies according to the site-specific erosion losses during Ophelia. A taper 1,000 ft long at
the eastern ends of Reaches 2 and 5, and 500 ft long at all other reach terminuses will tie the
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 1 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
main fill into the natural shoreline at the ends of each reach (Sheets 2-3). Lengths and
volumes for each reach include the planned taper sections.
The beach fill material will be dredged from a borrow area in the ODMDS (Sheets 4-6) that has
been identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers for disposal of dredged material from
Beaufort Inlet and Morehead City Harbor. Preliminary sediment characteristics in the borrow
area from recent borings are given on Sheets 11-12. Material placed on the beach will be
monitored continuously for sediment quality. Monitoring will include visual classification with
confirmation by sieve analysis of representative samples collected on a daily basis. Preproject
sampling of the borrow area is being used to identify areas where sediment compatibility can
be maximized.
Table 1. Preliminary reach lengths and nourishment fill volumes for Emerald Isle, Indian Beach/Salter Path, and Pine Knoll
Shores.
(1) Reach lengths include 500 ft taper section at beginning and each end of reach. Reaches 2 and 5 have a 1,000
ft taper at west end of reach and a 500 ft taper at east end.
(2)
Unit fill volume calculations include taper sections.

Nourishment (1) Reach
ject
Project (2) Unit Fill each

Reach Length
Station Locality Volume Volume
(ft) (cy/ft) (cy)
9) >YS 4 (? 3"
4 t K! '.itt1 ? hf ?`' y? Pa' "°,L V ,•iti 4 r{,? if .\.?1\I9? 1+l k l1M1'Y
i!
l
``
^
? t Y: ?Y'C 1 "'htyk
n
? A: ^'$ "?'lk I?:
fid
?
4?
e
,. ,tirye
s
e
;.r
ize F?
?,
v f
,r
xA1
1 13,604 10--20 Conch Court To Lee Avenue 20.00 262,080
2 14,059 33--45 Gregg Street to 6'h Street 23.07 307,080
Total 27,663 21
.75 569,160
y l . .. y-tY ?`
,?,
` ? 1
?(y
?q
°ff
4\p
CPS S Y4 '? j is y?
X \ ? .;f f f ? h 9titi• is h ..tL.cl ;G ,k \ 9? r t .\"i 1'1 ?? Mitt. '\ 'mC 1 ee7' ,r?q 1 aC 'Y? ti J 7
4? ?i3 f ???11U i??y 4` .'??f?tY
y,??f ,4 1''r?fS.@?2 ?,1? `i ??p(p,'I
?Y? i+;i• 1Fi P,? Yy?? 3' 3 ?? ??'k ?;<?
? il?? ?4
,
,
`
,p 7 ,
,
y
300 ft east of 1" Street to apartment
3 13,389 48--58a
23.17 298,604
complex at east town boundary
Total 13,389
23.17 298,604
{, ..,?gr.M ?hlY?' "4'r id{"f•\.,•
? y
k4 k d'i' 14x7{ 44'pc YIa7Y 34i?-u1P'YJa,::l?q,?r'??1t
?!5y,?lrV??+` a?'rr{'?ail4?It\3'J
1°µe'Y4Z!{S-tj.JltY?`?
?
J 'Y y.???vi l'w,t{q.1
?
f, y??7 K,. .:n 1
k
k ' • 1 \„ I 1 Y 'n' ? lA?x ?'?i .. ^SO (L F?I yr t i
n
`S'Sa? ?r??i ,,kt? ?,i11!kf?
300 ft east of Murex Drive to 3
700 ft
4 3,478 62a--65 ,
east of Murex Drive 20.00 59,560
5 10,128 66--73a Bogue Shores Club to Middle of 19.22 180
236
Pinewood Road ,
Total 13,606 19.41 239,796
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 2 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006

Fill Profile
CAMA Permit # 124-01 and USACE Permit #2000.00362 outline the original formulation and
data sources for the Bogue Banks nourishment project (Phases 1 and 2 accomplished between
December 2001 and April 2003). Following completion of Phases 1 and 2, CSE (2003a,b)
documented nourishment volumes placed along the Towns of Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores,
and Indian Beach. Hurricane Ophelia impacted Bogue Banks in September 2005. Following
the storm, CSE resurveyed 43 profile lines and documented nourishment volume losses
totaling 1,107,560 cy from the eastern town limit of Pine Knoll Shores to the western end of
Emerald Isle (CSE 2005, letter dated September 28, Post-Ophelia Beach Changes).
FEMA representatives inspected the beach after Hurricane Ophelia, subsequently authorizing
poststorm renourishment totaling 1,107,560 cy under project work sheets PW #38 (Emerald
Isle), PW #39 (Pine Knoll Shores), and PW #40 (Indian Beach). The proposed fill profile and
project dimensions (Sheets 7-10) are based on the FEMA authorization. This volume will
restore the project area (Phases 1 and 2) to prestorm conditions. The renourishment will be
accomplished by adding sand from a nonlittoral source (ODMDS) at generally 20 cubic yards
per linear foot so as to replace the eroded material. The original project (CAMA Permit # 124-
01) was formulated for a longevity of "10 years." The proposed renourishment is intended to
maintain this longevity.
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The proposed fill will be placed by ocean-going, trailing suction hopper dredge(s) between the
seaward crest of the existing dry beach and the outer bar. Only the profile above high water
is controllable in nourishment construction. Intertidal and underwater portions of the profile will
be subject to natural adjustment by waves. The fill will be placed no higher than +7 ft NGVD
(the natural elevation of the berm).
Work will progress in sections within the borrow area and along the beach. Fill placement
along the beach will typically progress at a rate of 400-700 ft per day. Construction activities
will involve movement of heavy equipment and pipe along -1 mile reaches over a period of 1-2
weeks. Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment will be shifted to a new sec-
tion and the process repeated. As soon as practicable, sections will be graded and dressed
to final slopes. Other than at equipment staging areas, beach residents along the project area
will experience disruption due to construction for several days or less.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 3 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
Land-based equipment will be brought to the site over public roads and will enter the beach
at existing permanent beach access areas identified on the permit drawings. Any alteration
of dune vegetation/topography necessary for equipment access will be repaired to preproject
conditions. Daily equipment staging will be on the constructed beach seaward of the"dune line.
Existing dunes and vegetation on the beach will be avoided and preserved. Construction con-
tracts will provide for proper storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, and hydraulic fluids (etc)
necessary for operation in accordance with state and federal regulations.
Equipment -Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge
Hopper dredges will dredge material from the designated ocean borrow area. Hopper dredges
typically require -25 ft minimum operational depth and are efficient for excavating shallow cuts
on the order of -2-5 ft. During excavation and loading, the slurry drains overboard via scup-
pers, discharging fine materials in the borrow area and leaving coarser material in the hopper.
When loaded, the dredge travels to a temporary mooring and submerged pipeline near the
project site. It connects to the pipeline and pumps the material from the hopper to the beach
where it is spread mechanically by bulldozers. This is the same type of dredging placement
operation used for construction of Phase 1 and most of Phase 2 of the Bogue Banks beach
nourishment projects completed in winter 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 (respectively).
Construction Schedule
The proposed project involves dredging and placement of 1,107,560 cy of beach-quality sand.
Based on the project experience of Phases 1 and 2, one hopper dredge can excavate and
place on the order of 10,000-15,000 cy in a 24-hour period. The average production per day
varies widely according to transportation distance and specifications of the project. It is antici-
pated that the proposed construction will be accomplished in approximately five months.
Consistent with CAMA Permit # 124-01 and USACE Permit # 200000362, construction will take
place within the previously approved environmental window (November 16 through March 31).
PURPOSE AND NEED
The Towns of Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, and Indian Beach recognize that oceanfront
properties are a valuable public economic and ecological resource. FEMA has an established
program that provides reconstruction of engineered beaches when severely eroded by hurri-
cane events. The objective is to maintain the protective berm. From an economic perspective,
the need for the proposed post-Ophe/ia beach renourishment project is to protect and preserve
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 4 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
the largest portion of the towns' overall economy and tax base. Property damages and dune
erosion during Ophelia were minor along the proposed project area compared with damages
after Hurricane Floyd in September 1999 (CSE 2000). Nearly all walkovers remained intact,
and debris on the beach was insignificant. The purpose of the proposed project is to restore
the width of the protective berm to its prestorm condition so that oceanfront resources will be
protected in the event of another storm.
Project Planning Objectives
During the beach nourishment project, the towns have several objectives that they strive to
meet. Those objectives are summarized as follows:
• Preservation of the environmental, cultural, and aquatic resources of all three towns
and Carteret County.
• Provide an easily accessible recreational beach available to all citizens of the towns
and the county.
• Provide protection of oceanfront property as a resource of tax revenues to the
towns and the county.
• Maintain the economic viability of tourism, the largest industry of the towns and the
county.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Phases 1 and 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment project were conducted under special
conditions for environmental protection as described in the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS 1997) biological opinion concerning the use of hopper dredges (Attachment 1). The
applicants propose to implement the same protection measures as detailed in the South
Atlantic Division USACE Hopper Dredging Protocol for Atlantic Coast (Attachment 2). The
proposed project will use a previously impacted borrow area. This area is designated for use
as an ocean disposal area for dredging of Beaufort Inlet to the Port of Morehead City. There
are no anticipated impacts to this area due to the frequent disturbance by the USACE during
maintenance dredging events to Beaufort Inlet and the Morehead City Harbor.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 5 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
Cumulative Impacts
The biological monitoring plan for Phases 1 and 2 of the Bogue Banks beach nourishment
project has fulfilled the permit requirements set forth by federal and state governments. Moni-
toring was implemented to document the impact on invertebrates, fish, and endangered plants.
The borrow areas for Phases 1 and 2 were left to adjust naturally and to recolonize while other
areas are being excavated. Fill sections were left to adjust naturally as soon as the required
volumes were pumped into place and confirmed by surveys. The monitoring plan scope
(2001-2005) was as follows:
• Quantify the changes in benthic (bottom dwelling) populations in the borrow areas.
• Quantify the changes in benthic populations along the beach.
• Compare impacted areas of the beach with unrestored areas.
• Obtain semi-quantitative data on fish populations and foraging habitats in the surf
zone.
• Monitor the recovery and population of ghost crabs and turtle nests in the project
area.
• Monitor the occurrence of seabeach amaranth (threatened plant species) in the
project area.
Sampling was conducted twice annually every June and November for five years following the
end of the Phase 3 project in Emerald Isle or until organisms recovered to near or above
baseline conditions. Two monitoring events were conducted by 2001 (June and November)
to set baseline conditions for postdredge monitoring. Coastal Science Associates Inc (CSA
2002) used five quantitative analyses to generate relevant statistical data based on taxonomic
information gathered from the offshore and beach samples:
1) Species abundance - as total number of individuals.
2) Number of species - as total number of species.
3) Mean number of species.
4) Shannon-Wiener species diversity.
5) Evenness - the distribution of individuals among the species.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 6 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
The seventh and final spring biological monitoring event for Phases 1 and 2 took place in June
2005. For this monitoring event, comparisons were made between dominate benthic inverte-
brates Emerita talpoida, Donax variabilis, Amphiporeia virginiana, and Scolelepis squamata.
Results of biological monitoring through June 2005 (CSA 2005) are summarized as follows.
Pine Knoll Shores - After the seventh monitoring event species diversity and even-
ness returned to or above predredge (baseline) levels. Numbers of Emerita talpoida
and Scolelepis squamata recovered to near or above baseline levels. Data shows that
Donax variabillis and Amphiporeia virginiana are still below baseline, but are recovering
well.
Indian Beach - Species diversity and evenness decreased slightly since the fifth
postdredging monitoring event, but increased to near baseline levels. Species
abundance are approaching baseline conditions.
Emerald Isle - Compared to previous pre nourishment surveys, species diversity and
evenness have increased to close to baseline levels. Amphiporeia virginiana and
Emerita talpoida are still below predredge levels; however, the abundances are still
increasing. The numbers for Donax variabillis and Scolelepis squamata have
surpassed the baseline showing that recovery is almost complete.
Control Sites - There are six control sites for Bogue Banks. Three control sites are
located in Emerald Isle (stations 1-3). The other three control stations are located in
Atlantic Beach (stations 1-3). Three control sites were monitored for the seventh
monitoring event, two from Emerald Isle (Fairfax & Ocean, control station # 4), and one
from Atlantic Beach (control station # 3). At station 3, data revealed a decrease in
species diversity and evenness since the fifth sampling event. Total number of
organisms increased since the last sampling event due to a spike in the Scolelepis
squamata population. Abundances in the other species have remained fairly constant
throughout the study.
Both Emerald Isle control stations showed a decrease in species diversity and even-
ness since survey five. There was an increase in number of organisms at the three
stations due to spikes in populations from all four dominate species.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 7 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
Although species diversity, evenness, and organism numbers were below baseline levels, data
suggests that recovery of organisms is continually moving in a positive direction. Biological
monitoring for Phases 1 and 2 confirmed that all species present before nourishment has
repopulated the nourished beach by varying degrees depending on the species.
According to CSA's (2004) fifth postdredge sampling event and report, populations in the off-
shore borrow area indicated increases in the number of organisms, species diversity, and
evenness. Nearshore demersal fish species and numbers varied from station to station, but
still remain at or above preproject numbers.
On the beach, ghost crabs have returned to similar or higher levels than preproject conditions
and the seabeach amaranth have expanded over 100-fold compared with preproject numbers.
Postproject turtle nesting and numbers of hatchlings exceed preproject numbers.
The proposed renourishment will impact --54,658 linear feet of the total length of Bogue Banks.
It will consist of five reaches along -10.3 miles of shoreline length, leaving undisturbed sec-
tions from which recruitment of benthic organisms can occur.
Mitigative Measures
• Construction only during permitted time periods.
• Implementation of endangered species monitoring onboard hopper dredges.
• Implementation of turtle trawling and relocation measures during periods when
water temperature exceeds 570 Fahrenheit.
• Continuation of semi-annual biological monitoring of the borrow areas and beach
along Bogue Banks.
• Daily monitoring of construction.
• Daily sediment sampling and testing.
• Dredging from ODMDS, the ocean disposal site for dredging of Morehead City
Harbor channel. This site is not an undisturbed bottom area.
Turbidity
The project will produce temporary and localized turbidity increases which are normally asso-
ciated with hopper dredging and beach nourishment operations. Because --98 percent of the
excavated material is in the sand size class or larger, it will settle almost immediately and not
remain in suspension. Silt and clay-sized material will be decanted from the borrow material
by virtue of the hopper dredging process. The excess water pumped into the hopper during
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 8 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
loading flows overboard, taking with it much of the silt and clay-sized material. That material
is discharged into the ocean in the borrow area location. The effect of turbidity levels in the
surf zone is expected to fall within the natural range of background conditions.
In April 2002, Phase 1 of the Bogue Banks (NC) restoration project involved pumping 1.73
million cubic yards of sand to renourish Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach. During this stage
of operations, turbidity was measured along two cross-shore transects (4,000 ft) - one inside
the pumping zone and one away from the pumping zone. Turbidity was also measured along-
shore in the surf zone (3.8 miles) within the project area before pumping started and during
sand pumping (source: CSE, unpublished data, April 2002).
The longshore turbidity measured before pumping provides background data with which to
compare changes in turbidity during excavation. The background turbidity measured between
13.0 and 94.0 NTU with an average turbidity of -50.0 NTU (Fig 1 a). After pumping started, the
turbidity in the surf zone showed a slight overall increase in the longshore direction (measure-
ments averaged --65 NTU) with a sharp increase at the point of sand discharge (>400 NTU)
(Fig 1b). The sharp increase is seen only locally at the point of discharge and is drastically
reduced within several hundred feet alongshore.
The cross-shore turbidity was highest in the surf zone within the project area and quickly
declined seaward of the outer bar to <10 NTU on average (Fig 1 c). Outside the project area,
the cross-shore turbidity was similar to the turbidity inside the project area (Fig 1c). Higher
turbidity was noted in the shallow, turbulent surf zone (70-120 NTU) but quickly diminished
within several hundred feet seaward of the outer bar (-500 ft offshore).
Measurements during Phase 1 indicated that turbidity increases associated with dredging and
beach construction tend to remain localized at the pump discharge area and remain at or near
background levels within several hundred feet of the discharge. During a similar project in
2001-2002, the USACE dredged the lower portion of the Cape Fear River to renourish Bald
Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden Beach (NC). Versar (2003) concluded
that turbidity increases associated with beach renourishment tended to remain isolated close
to shore.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 9 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
FIGURE 1. Turbidity measurements for Bogue Banks Phase 1 renourishment. [Source: CSE, April 2002 unpublished data]
(a) , Surf zone background turbidity measured alongshore in the project area before the start of pumping.
(b) Turbidity measured alongshore after pumping had started. Note greater scale compared with (a).
(c) Turbidity measured cross-shore in the project area during pumping (shore is left, seaward is right).
(d) Turbidity measured cross-shore away from the project area during pumping (second peak on left side of graph marks
the location of the outer bank).
BOGUE BANKS POST•OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 10 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
Sediments on the native beach prior to nourishment were sampled by CSE between 1999 and
2001. This established a native size distribution for purposes of compatibility analyses.
Details are described in the Environmental Assessment for Phases 1 and 2 (CSE-Stroud 2001)
and in CAMA Permit # 124-01. Mean grain size of prenourishment samples (composite) was
0.302 millimeters (mm), standard deviation (sorting parameter) was 0.585 mm, and samples
were coarse-skewed as a result of moderately high percentages of coarse material. The pri-
mary coarse fraction consists of shell fragments, most of which would be termed "shell hash"
because grain sizes of the shell material are typically <2 mm mean diameter. Native samples
from 1999 to 2001 tested -15 percent shell and were classified as medium sand (MS), moder-
ately well-sorted (MWS), and coarse-skewed (C-S). This native size distribution is adopted
for the present project.
Borings in the ODMDS were obtained by CSE in March and April 2006 via divers using a pro-
prietary pump/vibracore system. Sheet 4 gives the location of borings and the bathymetry of
the proposed borrow area (portion of USACE-ODMDS off Beaufort Entrance Channel). Cores
were logged and subsampled for grain-size analysis using sample splits at distinct changes
in lithology. Sheets 11 and 12 provide a summary table of sediment descriptions, including
mean grain size, sorting, percent coarse material, and percent mud. Lab test results for some
borings as well as shell percentages for all samples were not available at the time of this appli-
cation. These results will be submitted in a supplement within 45 days.
The typical sediment type in the ODMDS is medium sand (mean size =0.292 mm), moderately
sorted, and strongly coarse-skewed. About 5 percent of the material is >2 mm in diameter.
The native beach (composite 1999-2001) was typically medium sand (mean size =0.302 mm),
moderately well sorted, and coarse-skewed. A preliminary comparison shows the proposed
borrow area sediments to be similar to native (1999-2001 composite). Using the James 1975
overfill factor (RA), the borrow sediment typically have RA's =1.35.
The applicant is in the process of analyzing additional borings from the ODMDS for purposes
of delineating a smaller subarea for the project and computing a weighted composite of se-
lected cores/excavation depths. A more comprehensive set of beach samples obtained in
2005-2006 is being analyzed for purposes of defining the present "native" beach after nourish-
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 11 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
ment. These samples approximately follow NC Coastal Resources Commissions draft sam-
pling protocols. Results will be provided as a supplement to this application.
Visual observations of the present borings (Sheet 4) indicated that mud content is very low with -
only trace amounts seen in nearly every core. One sample (BF2-S2) tested 9.7 percent mud.
Others tested < 3.1 percent mud (Sheets 11-12). The typical color of ODMDS sediments is
light to medium gray.
STORM-WATER MANAGEMENT
No upland improvements, pavements, walkways or other impervious surfaces will be con-
structed as part of the project. No storm-water management or additional storm-water mea-
sures will be required for this project. A letter will be sent to the Division of Water Quality in
Wilmington describing the scope of the project.
COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY ZONING AND CAMA LAND USE PLAN
The beach nourishment project is consistent with the approved CAMA Land Use Plans for
Carteret County, and the Towns of Emerald Isle and Indian Beach. The most recent CAMA
Land Use Plan for the Town of Pine Knoll Shores is consistent with their last approved plan;
the town expects to have the newest plan completed by the late summer of 2006.
The project property is within the planning jurisdiction of Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, and
Indian Beach. All three towns are classified "Developed" bythe CAMA Land Use Plan for each
town and the county.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The Division of Coastal Management has determined prior to the application that review of this
project under SEPA will not be required.
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
Perpetual beach nourishment easements are in place for virtually the entire oceanfront in
Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, and Indian Beach. The easements were acquired in 2001 and
2002 as part of the financed beach nourishment projects that were completed in the spring of
2002 for the towns. The perpetual easements are for any part of private property that visibly
appears to be a part of the ocean beach strand and is covered with little or no vegetation, is
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 12 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
seaward of the last line of stable vegetation, is within the frontal sand dune, or is seaward of
the erosion escarpment. The easement permits all work necessary to nourish the beach.
However, the towns cannot damage permanent improvements in the easement area but must
work with property owners to remove and replace permanent improvements in the easement
area that obstruct nourishment.
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNERS
Robert K. Betz
110 Headlands Ln
Cary, NC 27511
Robert L. Lownes, Sr.
509 Duart Rd.
Lumberton, NC 28358
Marilyn P. Ebken
1811 Holiday Rd
Sanford, NC 27330
Joseph E. Aceto
3432 Indian Hill Dr
Dayton, OH 45429
David W. Stewart
PO Box 25127
Raleigh, NC 27611
Lynn B. Sanderson
HWY 903 S
Seven Springs, NC 28578
Beacons Reach Master Assoc. Inc.
510 Salter Path Rd
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
Brenda S. Jones
2109 Haverford Ct
Raleigh, NC 27614
Lawerance W. Harris Jr.
817 Lassiter Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
James G. Thompson
25 Barrington Woods Blvd
Stafford, VA 22554
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHEL/A BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 13 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
REFERENCES
CSA. 2002 (March). Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June 2001. First pre-dredge environmental monitoring study for
Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina. Coastal
Science Associates Inc (CSA), Columbia, SC, 37 pp + appendices.
CSA. 2004 (November). Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June 2004. Fifth postdredge environmental monitoring study for
Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina. CSA,
Columbia, SC, 44 pp plus appendices.
CSA. 2005 (November). Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June 2005. Seventh postdredge environmental monitoring study
for Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina. CSA,
Columbia, SC, 48 pp plus appendices.
CSE. 2000. Survey report 2000, Bogue Banks, North Carolina. Survey Report for Carteret County, Beaufort, NC; CSE,
Columbia, SC, 32 pp + Appendices I-IV.
CSE. 2003a. Bogue Banks beach nourishment project, Carteret County, North Carolina: 2001 Phase 1- Towns of Pine Knoll
Shores and Indian Beach. Final Report for Town of Pine Knoll Shores and Town of Indian Beach, North Carolina; CSE,
Morehead City, NC, Volumes 1-II.
CSE. 2003b. Bogue Banks beach nourishment project, Carteret County, North Carolina: 2002 Phase 2 - Town of Emerald
Isle. Final Report for Town of Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina; CSE, Morehead City, NC, Volumes 1-III.
CSE-Stroud. 2001. Environmental Impact Statement, Bogue Banks beach restoration plan. EIS for NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management; submitted by Carteret County, NC; prepared by
CSE and Stroud, Sections 1-6 and Appendices A-G.
NMFS. 1997. Regional biological opinion concerning the use of hopper dredges in channels and borrow areas along the
southeast U.S. Atlantic coast. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 16 pp.
VERSAR. 2003. Effects of dredged material beach disposal on surf zone and nearshore fish and benthic resources on Bald
Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden Beach, North Carolina: interim study findings. Prepared for
USACE, Wilmington District, NC; prepared by Versar Inc, Columbia, MD, Vol I, 54 pp.
BOGUE BANKS POST-OPHELIA BEACH NOURISHMENT PAGE 14 OF 16
MAJOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION - NARRATIVE MAY 1, 2006
P,
cn Y
00
Q
Cf)
4
v °?? O x v] } F- W N
a dti p p 0 W Q W W
F o 0 > c) o
o? O +. b a U U) UQ a
W O 0
N >} Q x
i a Q o
_? r b b 0 0Oy W a
-j Q? Of
09 H N .n (D 0 Y? O H z
p Co
¢w ?o 0 D O O T-
a
o
C1 b ?o i d a, ? t- z
°'
?x a i o . ¦
H +
N
plo O
5
0) (D
xb,. 'd 0 H
z ? L W y
q ( o o : a
z 0 CD
N L N m q • U1 E+ m
00 O
y v d
C O O L. -4
- bD z fl' °?
O
N p Cl) oo cad a w N
+r v F, C• O
3 0[ L 'S O 0 Q O c? • W
• w j5 LL LL o W '
? W i W V]
p4 1i`.t" t0c?? y 8 L Y a ••
CIO
v o °' p A
CMIJ
U ?? eta o ? ,? J ? P-i
?? ? .ld ^1 V tl ° W
U o ? •
•
d o •
•
•
cd `
A
O 30 0 •
X40 ?
00
y i
o N
o
a
LLI r
L
U) O
N
V7
F
co
Z U
U Q ? O
? o o a
CL
Q
z
0
z p
?s 0
W
a.
Ln M W
0 W O
-j U)
p W Q
J
W cU) J
w?°
O L W
Z CO Z
Q CL
O o xs
Z
U
W
_ O
H
Z
cr-
? D
U ? O
w O co
? z n
4 ?
LIJ
Q
LL,
J
W
D--
a-
0
F-
U)
O
a_
M
N
cd
M
N
m
-" N
cd
N
N
N
cd
N
-"- N
cd
O
N
O
N
_ rn
C
O
N O
U
. cD
o J O
i d J
_C CD N
r -? LL K4
U CU " U
cu O C Q C
wCL-1<0
cd
-rn
cd
cd
t`
'~
.-r
r, O
cd
Cd
?t-
?1-
Cd
M
m
N
N
7-1
D1
U
0
cc
U O
-- ' i 0
0
ch
0
v..
0
00
d-
cd
?t-
O
CO dam'

60
O cd

cd
N
d
N
Cd
d
d'

o
?r
a}
M
rn
m
00

m
C

00
M

m
t`
M
cd
M
M

W M
a m
M
M

m
W
M
I M
M
M
M
® M
M
®
® cd
® M

® N
M
® D
m

C
O
..
Lo
1 -1 co c
CO dr _I ?c
t d
0 _
N M W N
U)
L d L- O m
U m
0 a> CL CM
O O C CL
WCL-jQC7
0
0
O
N
a?
u
W
o U
U
O
0
0
N
z-i-- 4
N
U
U
ti
? 0 r
w
Il
a ? NNa
0O N N
x
N
m ?
Z U
Lij
U Q [
m ? o a
N w
w o J
F= r ?
w -I
dv
o LLJ ?
w
U) Q-
tY
0 O
OO Q U)
LLI CO
W U O
LL Y
a O L w
Z M Z
Z F-L
O < 06
z
F-
U
w
O
tY
LZ
F--
Z
LLL?III-JJJ7 co
0
U = CO
O co
Z ?-
a US
Q LL "J
w
S
n-
o
F--
U)
.O
rL
MO

1 ?
N

N
?o
O .D

"a ?^
Q0 B
? ? I Cd

a

®
P
Q) o

J
C
QI N
I ? U

Ln 0
I ,n
I tr)
cd v
00
Vn

t, 00
In
:
E ` U

' 9
W kn

0
es
cs
F
-

+ m
. kn w.

to
cd

e V')
•

:tl_ 0 v1

J ?1 M
I

0 kr) c0
?- N,

N
O
d
c
I v
0
N c
tn

cn
Lr) cu
w
17 -
75
kr) CD
I
4 ,.o a
N
i
°
1
o

v1 E

C cu
cu .0 cu
cq °O ° o
? U
V 1 _?
J
J CO m
Cn

c n
t
iii
cu
V' d
o
f m y Cn
M _J LL
X in
cII
d cu , O
v
oo
[
0 d IZ
r? tY d _! Q c'7
x?vagDr
jyNzm'-7 -
y
]F
C/]
O
a
0
l
? O
1 ? N
?o N
1 d ?N
1 ? rv?
ca o U
C,j
?N C/]
? U
d C7
? O
0
A N
M
Cd
m
N
cd
.n
10
-n
o 0
(ll
cd C
t`
0
0
_ rn c -°
?o
_ p +o
? cl M O
0 ~ Lo V
O
C) CO
o J U
co ,
ai cn
I d
t/7
= N Cn L
_ oo to -J LL K Cn
.o U y? O`
O (D CL o
cd R' O.. J Q m

o

ro
-?
o
O
ti

M
O
cd cn O "
?I co «.
1 0 cz p

CU CD 0 X
U
N
I a)
? '-
co
..
co
d
c D V)
M C d
] 0
C
M d -? LL
X to
- ko a) L- O cu
CU

N V

R "- O O. p
O Z

,,. C
O- N
? d. J Q M
0
w
(= o
Z o = o
3 N
N
(/1
Q } #k
ov U
LA Lu Z
U ¢ ? K
U) ? ? a
Cn
LO 06 ?
U O
Gh Cn
2 M J
=W O
z
O Q p w
WtYZZ
11
S
0-W
o" ot?
LZI W OS
J Cn
W W Cd) J
W = O
a ¢U¢ z
a0W
zmz
Z a-
0 O Z od
U
W
O
z
W U
S ?
Cn
pz elfC6
U ? O
W O co
z
Q ?
J
W
S
0
O
I-
CO
O
m

U I I
N
co
cn
LL Li-
in m

tP ....... ... 1
1
N=•.
.
. .
I
m I
I ...... co

I
I CO
LL-
m
1. O• n
I N I

I
;m
i I
I

1
I m
.. `
a0 ,

I I 1
I
1 • ,
4 ??.
1 .. ,o

. ?
..
, r
I
;
I ...
m I I
I I
I .
I•,
r
1
I
i x.....
:'1 ...... 45"
I
1
I LL.. 1
? 1Y7 ,•'N
Q ?
Ch I
cc1c)v . o•
••. T ': 0 0•

LL:
I

LL 1
m I I.

,I ;m I I
'.I I
N,
I I I
?

m
• I
rn I
r
?
'
m
1
m '•.
• 'b I .
LL
I
I Ip
I I
I
Y I I.. I
? o
LLI

~

Z N "
N 4 •. I
O LL, ;. .,
m -45' 1
I o I W
T I C/)
I
0 1 1. I
I 7

I `n I h ?
? J 1 LL °r I Y O
co
I ..
•
P
o
U- : I LL.

,...IDS.,
' I I
¢ i'' •.,,
' I 504 C7
I I
QI t--L m !J
I
1
1 1
U -4j

n
0
LL
m
O
O '
w
O
U
? o
m
m
? .X
c
D Q

M r LO M 9 N r O
C,7 1- N M LO O N O
U Z O cV '?f '?! CV cV ?
•
W M M Lo
ti
M 0
p

~ Q)
.3 M
L? LD
m La
a)
M LA
OD 'T
CC) M
Z
?t
W
to
L
o
IR
(
(
m
m
?
0 Cl) Cl) cV N N N N N cV LV
00

? ?
F
O F
Z
V m

W Co :1
V) m

? C7 r f? tO ? ? I?• f` O
O 0) d t
? M M d' d' O
0 c.,
~ ti O
r- ?
•
LO :, N N LND
h o I c
?• Z
y Z M m m N L i YN CN N
c L c
i L
? O
W N
U)
Q
a

`
0- T < m U 0 W LL C9
3 O=
m
a ?
tl ti
v
O
N
? a
w o¢
°
J ° a
¢ °
o
Z
z 0:
N
o ° o
CD 0 °
W °
LO
r-

w CD
° a
W F--
M
o rz
U N ?( U
0
M
w =

Z ll'
ow
O z

~ -- m -ct
03 O
CD
M N U)
O
U)
LU 12f a. O
O ZE w C]
L) a O
O I
I
_z
O
C\L
r
O W
O
CO LL
Z
w
O
U
rn
U
a
0
W
0
Z
O
Cn
O
0
O
06
IZ
Y
? o
? o
Of LO
= W
Q m
Cl)
Z
O >
0 co
W CD
C/) o
N
Cf) >
C0 ¢
O
U
cy
W
Q U
O co
? O
W
O ~
m U
O -1
LL O
LO U
0 F¢-
Z ¢
¢ Cl
"I
W LLJ
W
2
Cn _
W U) co
F--
O
Z N
LCM] -
W LL
n=j O
2 ?
yO
? U
? O O d
? -0
a¢W
? aC w 1--
QOm0
U
u) IL W
O W O
?JF-S
J co
J
w1- !. e
a o w
Z m Z
Z d
O?otS
Z

rz
F-
W
O
EL
U
W
--.1
O
oc?
CL
F-
Z
? Z
Z
CO
O c°o
Z
Lij
J
W
w
O
F-
Cn
O
w
-3C
O .
C>7 -40
Z
i..
0
> -50
Borrow Area Cross Section A - A'
I 1 I I I
1 I 1 I I
I I I I I
-?- May-06
I I I I I
Note: Typical excavation depth
I I 1
I 1
I I I 1
via hopper dredge will be 3 ft
(incomplete cuts).
I I I I
I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I I I I
I I I I
--•-•---••-•' ................ •-----•' ------------IL---•-•--• ---------•--••-J--••--
I 1 I I 1 I
I 1 I I I I
t I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I I I ,
I I I 1 I I
1 I I I I ,
I I I I 1 ,
I I I I I I
A A'
1 I 1 I 1 ,
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
W
-60
-400 1600
3600 5600 7600 9600 11600
Distance West To East (ft)
-3C
-40
Z
1
C
0
-50
W
-60
Borrow Area Cross Section B - B'
I
I I I I 1
1 I I I I
I I I I I
Note: Typical excavation depth -0-? May-06
via hopper dredge will be 3 ft
(incomplete cuts).
I I I I
1 1 1 I I I
I I I I I I
..... .. .....1 ................I...............J...............?...............I............... a......
1 I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I 1 I 1
1 I I ,
1 I I I I I
I I I I I
B I I I I I 13' I
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I
i I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I 1
I 1 I I I
. ..........
1.........._.... ...............J............. -'?'-..... ........1............... J....._
I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
I I I I 1 ,
I I 1 I I ,
-400 1600 3600 5600 7600 9600 11600
Distance West To East (ft)
PROJECT TITLE: PREPARED FOR. DRAWING TITLE: SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEETM
POST OPHELIA TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, BORROW AREA DATE: MAY 2006
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT INDIAN BEACH/SALTER PATH, CROSS SECTIONS DRAWN BY: JJH 05
-3C
-40
Z
C
O
> -50
IL
-60
Borrow Area Cross Section C - C'
I I I 1 I
1 I I I I
I I I I I
Note: Typical excavation depth -O-May-06
via hopper dredge will be 3 ft -?
I
(incomplete cuts).
I I , ,
I - I I I
1 I I I I I
--------------I................I............... -----...-------?............... ?--....---------?......
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
............' ........... ...i........ ......i...............I.--------------- ................I.._...
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
C
I I I I I , C.
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
-400 1600 3600
5600 7600 9600 11600
Distance West To East (ft)
-3C
-40
Z
a
0
-50
W
-60
Borrow Area Cross Section D - D'
I I I I I
I I 1 I I
Note: Typical excavation depth --0-May-06
via hopper dredge will be 3 ft
(incomplete cuts). -~
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
----•----•----I" •.......---'•'I...'.....'.. ... •-------•------F----....--•------------••--••-a------
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I i I I I
I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I i I I 1
I I I I I
I I 1 , ,
.............I..........-----'---------......i.---- .-•------- ---............?..
I
I I I I I ,
I I I , , ,
I I I I I I
I I I , I ,
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
D ^I
I I I I I , V
I I I I I ,
I I I I I ,
I I I I I ,
I I I I I ,
-400 1600 3600 5600 7600 9600 11600
Distance West To East (ft)
PROJECT TITLE., PREPARED FOR. DRAWING TITLE. SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEUA
POST OPHELIA TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, BORROW AREA DATE: MAY 2006
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT [INDIAN BEACH/SALTER PATH, CROSS SECTIONS DRAWN BY: JJH O6
^-• •• I- ^^ - n 11- 1-1n1 1 11 Innrn i r- 0 fl nI
Emerald Isle Line 12
D
V
Z
C
O
4-+
Q1
w
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1 I I I I I 1
Base Fill @ -- 21.5 cy/ft
Berm elevation: + 7 ft NGVD ='09/2005Post Berm width: -120
ft Slope: - 1 on 15
---------------- - -------- --- ----- ----------------------------
I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I ? ? 1 I I I
_________L________L_____-_-J_____-__
I I I ` 1 I I I
I I I 1 I I I
I I ` I_._._._._._._._._J_.._._._._._._._J_._._._.._MHW I
I I I ? I I I
I I I I I I I
L-------- 1________ J________
I I 1
I I I I -•- •-•-•-~MLW '
I I I I ` I I I
-- I---------I- I -------`I -------- I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
Note: Fill sections will varybased on the
volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA
-------- -------- -------
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
Emerald Isle Line 15
D
V
z
C
O
W
20
15
10
-5
10
-15
. I I I I I I I
I I I
Base Fill @ - 19.6 cy/ft 09/2005 - Post OPHELIA
Berm elevation: +7 ft NGVD _
Berm width: -125 ft ; - - Proposed Fill
Slope: - 1 on 15
I
--- -------------- -------- -------- --------
I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I '\ I I I I
I I 1 1 I I I
J___ ___J___ -___I--------- L-------- 1-------- 1________
I I 1 I I 1
I I I ` 1 I I I
I I I `1 _._._._._._._._.L._._._._._._._.-.-I._._._._.-MHWI
I I I I I I I
I I
I ` I
I
,
I 1 I I ` -•- Y'-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-,-•....... ~MLWI
I I I I ` I I I
1 I I I I I I
_________ ________ 1 I ________S I ________.
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 1 I 1 I I I
I I I I I , I
Note: Fill sections will vary based on the I
-------- T ----volumes eroded by Hurricane OPH ELIA ------- r - ------- ; - ----- - ----
I I I I
I ? ? ? I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
PROJECT TITLE: PREPARED FOR: DRAWING TITLE SCALE: As SHOWN s err.
POST OPHELIA TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, DATE: MAY 2006
TYPICAL FILL SECTIONS OT
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT INDIAN BEACH/SALTER PATH,
_ _ _.. EMERALD ISLE DRAWN BY: „H
20
V
Z
V
C
0
W
15
10
-5
-10
-15
Emerald Isle Line 35 - Regional Access
I I I I I I
I I
Base Fill @ - 23.4 cy/ft 09/2005 - Post OPHELIA
I I I
-_ ______ ---------- Berm elevation: +7ftNGVD _
' Berm width: -110 ft - -Proposed Fill
I 1 I
I I I
Slope: 1 on 15
r- I I - I I
--------L--- ------------ ----- ---'--------- ----------------- --------
I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I
? - y I I I I
I` 1 I I I
-----------------1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 ' - - - - - - L -------- L -----------------
I I 1 I I I
I I I \ I I I I
1..... -M HW
I I I I I I I
T _ _ - - _ _ ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _
I` I
------- r----- -MLW
r -------- --
I I I I ? I I I
I I I I ? I I I
-I I
---
---------- ------
I I I `1
Note: Fill sections will vary based on the I 1 ' '
volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA
-------- ------
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 I 1 I I i ?
-100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
Emerald Isle Line 40 - 15th to 17 th ST
(D
z
4--
C
0
N
W
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
I I I
Base F
I I I
Berm ele
Berm
I ,
Slop
I I I
----------- -------
1 I I
I I
ill @
vati
wi
e:
- 23.7 cy/ft 09/2005 - Post OPHELIA
on: + 7 ft NGVD
dth: -115 ft - -Proposed Fill
?1on15
---------------------------
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
L_-______L-------- 1________
\ I I
I
-MHW
I I I
I I
------- L -` -----L--------1--------
I I
I ? I I
I I
I ? I
I I I
I I ? I
I I ? I
I
I
1
1 I I I
I I - 'T
I I I 1
I I I
i I I I
I 1 I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1
- - - - - - - - 7 - - Note: Fill sections will vary based on the
volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA
I 1 I
I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
PROJECT TITLE. PREPARED FOR. DRAWING TITLE. SCALE: As SHOWN s"ESTM
POST OPHELIA TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, DATE: MAY 2006
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT INDIAN BEACHISALTER PATH, FYPICAL FILL SECTIONS DRAWN BY: n08
FhAFRAI fl ICI R JJH
Salter Path/Indian Beach Line 50
r>
V
Z
O
_Q)
W
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
I I I
Base Fill @ - 23.4 cy/ft ; 09/2005 Post OPHELIA
Berm elevation: + 7 ft NGVD
--------r----- -- ------ Berm width: -145ft -
I I - -Proposed Fill
Slope: - 1 on 15
I I I I? ? I? I
________+_______ _------------ ---- --------- ?.-------- +__-_____y---------
I I I I I I I
------- I I I I I
I I -' `I I I I
4-
I I I ---- I I I
1 I I I I I
-MHVV
I I I I ` .I I I
---------- --------------------------- ----- --- ----------------- ---------
I I I I ?{ I I
-._._._._._,....... -MLW
I \ I
I I I I I I I
------ - -Note: Fill sections will vary based on the - -------- ------ -L________!________
I volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA I I 1
I I I ? I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
_ _ _ - _ - - - I I I I I I
-----------
I I I I I I ?
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
Salter Path/Indian Beach Line 55
z
C
O
a?
t?
_O
W
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
Base Fill @ - 23.1 cy/ft
Berm elevation: + 7 ft NGVD 09/2005 Post OPHELIA
I I I
;___-----; --- ---- ----- Berm width: -148 ft -
-Proposed Fill
Slope: - 1 on 15
1 I 1
I I I I I I I
---------+------ -? - --- -------------- --------+-------- ---------
I I I I I I 1
I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I
I I -I "'? I I I I
I I I ` I I I I
I I I I I 1 I
I I I 1` I I 1
I I _._._._.L._._._._.-._._._.,.._._._.. _MHW'
1 I I I I I I
I I I I ? I I I
--------1--------1---------'---------'---- - -- --------1--------1---------
I I I I ? I I I
I I I I I 1 -MLW 1
I I I I I I
Note: Fill sections will vary based on the
-------- T -volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA -i -------_i --- ---; -------- ;---------
I I I \ I I
I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
PROJECT TITLE.
POST OPHELIA
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE,
INDIAN BEACH/SALTER PATH,
DRAWING TITLE:
TYPICAL FILL SECTIONS
Q A I TED DATU timnlAAI QCAr1W
rDRAN ALE: AS SHOWN SHEETC
TE: MAY 2006 q
WBY: JJIi Fo v
Pine Knoll Shores Line 68
z
Y-
C
O
a-
W
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
- 1 I 1 I I
Base Fill @ - 19.3 cy/ft
09/2005 Post OPHELIA
- Berrn elevation: + 7 ft NGVD ,
-I---- -
--------- -------- ------ Berm width: -84 ft
' Slope: 1 on 15 - Proposed Fill
I I ,
--- - - - - - - - 'I- - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I I 1 I I I
I I 1 I I I 1
I I I I I I I
' I ?- T` I I I I I
I I \ I I I I I
J____ ---- --------- I--------- L-------- L-------- J______--
I I I I I I I
I ` I
I I I_.-.-._.-.-.-._.J.-•-•-•-•-' -•-I•-•-•-•-•-•-•-
I -•-• , •-• i•-•-•-•- -MHW
I I I I I I I
I---------------- 1- - ----I---------L--------1--------J--------
I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1
_ _ _ _ _ I 1 I I I , ---------
Note: Fill sections will vary based on the
volumes eroded by Hurricane OPHELIA 1
I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I , I
I I I I I ,
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
Pine Knoll Shores Line 71
C7
Z
C
O
N
W
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
• I I I I I
Base Fill @ 19.2 cy/ft 09/2005 Post OPHELIA
Berm elevation: + 7 ft NGVD
Berm width: -100 ft - -Proposed Fill
Slope: - 1 on 15
I I I ? ?
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 ^1 I I I I
I I I` I I I I
1 I 1 ` I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I -.-.1------------------ J._._._._._._._._....._._. -MHW I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
-------- -------- ---------I -----_ - I -- ------ L.-------- 1-------- J--------'
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
_.I._._._.-._.-.-.-.-,.-.-. -MLW
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - ! -- -----------------------
---------r--------------- -----, I I
-------- ---- --------
I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Project Baseline (ft)
PROJECT TITLE: PREPARED FOR. DRAWING TITLE.• SCALE: As SHOWN SHErr
POST OPHELIA TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, DATE: MAY 2006
O
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT INDIAN BEACH/SALTER PATH, TYPICAL FILL SECTIONS DRAWN BY: JJH
--• • • • --- - • • , ,,. , , , PINE KNOLL SHORES 1
C
O
.a
N
N
Q)
.
U
Y
O U
Cl) a)
a) E
0 ?
U) cn
T O
rn N
Q) >'
C Y ?-
M" 2 O Q)
O N C C
U)
N
U cq w!C
O
aj a)
u0i >, -6
o
a) o
a) O to T
O
O E O
E 00
E E 3? 0
co ca
G) Cn
0 E C
2 cc
ca E U) C
O 0 0
U ? =c U
CD
U . L1.
* LLL U` a.
.g
co
.D
a)
m
a)
CII
m
C
a)
Q)
`O
U
a)
cn
O
0-
E
O
U
C
0
a
a)
En
M
W
N
a)
m
E2
a)
Q
a)
ff
O
D_
O
CD
a)
a
E
40--
U)
to
CD
a)
cII
m
0.
a)
O
a)
10
E
a)
r
C
O
a
CII
C
E
ca
a)
a)
(Q
C
O
CD
cn
M
.n
E
m
U
cu
T
c
0
co
t
U)
E
0
Q
Z
U
U
Q)
O
o_.
C
a)
E
r-
O
.C
7
O
z
c.)
Q)
m
U)
Y
C
co
co
O
m
O
M
C
a)
E
O
U)
a)
O
O
Q
W
C
a)
E
C
O
C
W
(i3
C
0
O
N
a
O
U)
W
U)
U
C
0
'o
a)
`?) c
-LA O
a) cu
5 U
0 t
a
E o
U Z
> C
M O
Z U
ei
0
z
r
o
o
ik
m F-
w
m
co
U
J F--
_Q ?
Of
O
z CL oO Q
S
06 w
w C)
V O z
W M Lu
M O
W
S
J
c/) 0- W
0 w O
? J Cn
W J
<w=o
LL-
o
W
Z m Z
;?: za
Q 06
z

Fz
U
O
F-
U
W
O
'
W
F-
Z
U
?CO
Q)
O co
Z ?
? W
Q U-
J
W
2
0-
0
F-
Cf)
O
W
C N N N N N N N ((NJJ N N N (UN? N N N N y
i7 N N N N U N C N N N N N N N y N N N
'v a E? E ?E n o n o n ?E n E? E
(A N co
U U U N V U LL U) N N E O UJ U Vj C6 O O y
0 ?` LL LL LL LI. g LL LL TL Cc Td ?c LL ?
m
L
z
z
z
z
z
z
O
0
z
z
z
O
z
z
z O
p
N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
e
v
v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

e
.- m v v v
E
N
?C?pp
Ft,,, O M c7 K r cl r cq 10 W N r LL's r .-- ?D 7 ,y
C fV L6 4 O M fM O tp ti (V (V ?A 4] ?f] a V'
A
?j cb
N r ; z ' r tp N N Ali ? V' < e7
n OO NO aD a0 I -I ? r N 1;, 1 -1 O W to nO a
Y 4 4 4 4 g 4 6 4" 4 4' 4' 4 4 4 4 4' 9 4 4
I c

0
?
E
E
J? h ? O) M <O O OO 0) h N N O lt) 1n D) cp
v i
N p o 0 o ci o d o 0 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 o ti ci o
N
?

E v m
y ? r N o r r m cn ao co r ?n cn
a r ct1
r
C N
y o ?
N
0
t7
0 O
N
0 en
?
0 of
N
0 ?p
N
0 m
N
o ^

ea a?++}}
N
o N
va
0 r
C9
0 t0

0 tf
N
0 O
C7 m
C7
0
N
0 to
N N
l7
N
0 0 0 0
x
d
m J ?. O
?(j N
?D N
t0 N
tti r
c0 ?-
W
f?I r
(V
f'?I N
D N
© M
r [?9
T O
7 a0 N N W
0 O)
O O)
D
O Y '? "i 4 Y Y Y 4 4 a
4 Y f
9' 1
4 t
V -T 9' f [ <
Z?
?
`m

C
n
0 c r
.
N> n
r r
ti r
` OR cc co m co r h
? co ao q
m cn r r v v v

p i n
Y
`i r
`f r
`t m
`t m
9 m
S m
`f -
q OI
V
`f °
"f o
V
Y o
°r fV
c7 N
m OO
m Op
m m
cn

w ko

r v,

V' co

V

V

V

?y
°
u?
°
°
m
r
m
cn
(Q
1?1 N r (
d r
° S C
d _( [V t7
d ?Q (7 O ` h td
° N v cal v N ° c.l c,.) ° c,

to CA vvJJ fn cA VJ U] N UN] to w" N VN7 cq C7 N
p _N ^ Y V' fp
L [D
LL r _r r O
N O
N NN Q
N of
N NN tp
N (p

EL LL
co
?a5
?S L
m
m
m
m LL
m I
t
m L
L
m lL
co LL
m l
L
m ll
m LL
LL
m I
L
m LL
m

W

a

?
^
r
b
r
N N
N
N N
N
tD
N
N

p m m m m m m m m
p m m m m m m m m
m 0 U U U U U U U U

L
w
n
Q
v
0
c
R
L y
U N
R 0
N L) U
R y
o W
0
.2 0
Cf)
D
O O
R
p !
0 C)
W N
C0
U
d
d V
? o
cn°
O R
Q.
O m
m co
v L
of U
0 R
O N
CL m
0
cc
v+ R
a? Z
O` 0
a °
N
Z
L M
C rn
_ (7)
O
C
I= C
R _
N C
M O
p a
m
R
0 N
O_ m
N N
Y O
m cam,-
7 t_
O
N Lo
clam U?
0 0
m
m
'D
Cl)
E2
N
CO
OJ
C
4)
1
O
0
Q
0
U
0
(3)
N
N
`m
O
°J
C3)
12
4)
¢

0
E2
m
Q
O
N
O
N
Q)
+r=_
C
O
ca
ca
C
X
4)
N
_
U
0
O
a) m
E
? O
E n.
m
U ?
c
T d
O ?
ca
m E
O
a?
C)
O
Z
O
Z3
N
.:L U
W
vmi Q)
aJ ? E
CC) U
T U U
N QJ (D :1
O o U Q)
N C
c
N to 4-- U
U U
a)
O
v cn
? o
cn T 0
T (D D O
m 0
? O
? m
No
0 to T
O E Q) O
E 3 0_
E E 3 n
c.c.
co ca
U) U)
N E = d
Ca 0 V C _d
O C) I`C
U . = Vr d
U) c d
rn __ M'
T
W LL
O
Z ? _ ?NN
? N N
Y
m U
W
U
Q NU)
Z w
o Q
zCL 0¢
O0 0
.:t on w
LU G
W Q
w
Cf)
LLF
?j 0- w
W O
U)
` w U) J
¢w=p
? LL¢
aO W w
ZmZ
Z a_
o Q
U
w
_'7
0
a.
I-
Z
w
U) Q1
of C6
U Z:) O
w o (o
7 ?
cl:
Q
elf
Q
J
w
0-
0
F-
U)
0
a.
ATTACHMENT
Biological Opinion
for the Use of Hopper Dredges
(NMFS 1997)

• '
°
^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
a NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
`A,gl Silver Spring. Maryland 20910
R. L. VanAntwerp SEP 2 5 1957
Brigadier General, U.S. Army
Division Engineer
South Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers
Room 313, 77 Forshyth St., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30355-6801
Dear Brigadier General VanAntwerp;
Enclosed is the regional biological opinion concerning the use of
hopper dredges in channels and borrow areas along the Southeast
U.S. Atlantic coast. This biological opinion amends the regional
opinion conducted in 1995, and supersedes the interim biological
opinion issued on April 9, 1997. The opinion recognizes the
efforts of the Corps of Engineer's (COE) South Atlantic Division
(SAD) to minimize sea turtle takes through application of new
technology such as draghead deflectors, seasonal dredging
windows, termination of projects in which high rates of turtle
takes are observed, and elevated staff effort to identify and
resolve site-specific problems. Despite these major efforts and
continuing plans by the COE to improve the effectiveness of the
rigid draghead deflector and to resolve dredging schedules to
reduce the likelihood of sea turtle interactions, NMFS believes
that further sea turtle takes are likely in future years.
However, we believe that these takes are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species. An annual incidental
take, by injury or mortality of 35 loggerheads 7 Kemp's ridleys,
7 green turtles, 2 hawksbills, and 5 shortnose sturgeon is listed
in the incidental take statement appended to the enclosed
opinion. This annual take level can be monitored over fiscal
years to be consistent with project contracts.
I appreciate your continued commitment to reduce sea turtle takes
associated with dredging in your Division. COE Division and
District staff have facilitated the excellent working
relationship that exists between our offices within the SAD. We
look forward to continuing these cooperative efforts in sea
turtle conservation.
Sincerely,
i P. iaz-SAteXrzo?
Office Director
Office of Protected Resources

Endangered Species Act - Section -7 Consultation
Biological Opinion
Agency:
Activity:
Consultation Conducted By:
Date Issued:
Background
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Atlantic Division
The continued hopper dredging of
channels and borrow areas in the
southeastern United States
National Marine Fisheries Service=
Southeast Regional Office
' -r
rf- T,
Hopper dredging in channels and borrow areas along the
southeastern coast of the United States during the spring of 1997
resulted in an unanticipated high rate of loggerhead turtle take.
The number of takes quickly approached the incidental take level
established in the regional biological opinion (BO) issued to the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on August 25, 1995. A formal
consultation considering the take rates as well as the dredging
locations and conditions was conducted and an interim biological
opinion (IBO) was issued on April 9, 1997 and is incorporated
herein by reference. The IBO concluded that continued hopper
dredging during the 1997 fiscal year was likely to take
additional sea turtles but was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any species. The incidental take, by
injury or mortality, of seven (7) documented Kemp's ridleys,
seven (7) green turtles, two (2) hawksbills, sixteen (16)
loggerhead turtles, and five (5) shortnose sturgeon was set
pursuant in the IBO. This modification added 15 loggerheads to
the annual incidental take level, bringing the 1997 fiscal year
total incidental take level to 35 loggerheads.
The history of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
consultations on the deployment of hopper dredges to maintain the
depths of southeastern channels is discussed in the August 25,
1995 BO and is incorporated herein by reference. Although no
endangered sea turtles have been taken in any channel dredging
projects during the 1997 fiscal year, 2B loggerheads have been
taken, including 9 loggerheads taken subsequent to the issuance
of the IBO (Table 1).
1
During 1997, the COE responded to high rates of sea turtle takes
by assessing each dredging project, modifying draghead deflectors
when apparently necessary, conducting relative abundance surveys
and relocation trawling, and ultimately ending a number of
projects prior to completion (Kings Bay, Brunswick Harbor,
Savannah Harbor, Morehead City).
1991 Biological Opinion
Two hundred twenty-five sea turtle takes, including 22 live
turtles, were documented between 1980 and 1990 in the Southeast
channels despite limited observer coverage in most channels
throughout most of that decade (Table 2a.). Seventy-one of these
turtles were taken in four months of dredging in the Canaveral
ship channel in 1980, the first year in which observers were
required. Twenty-one were observed in over two years of dredging
in the Kings Bay Channel in 1987-1989, after observers were first
deployed on dredges in that channel. Observers were required on
most hopper dredges after 1989. Documented takes of turtles on
dredges in Brunswick and other Southeast U.S. channels indicated
that sea turtles were vulnerable to hopper dredges in all
southeastern channels during warmer months. These observations
resulted in the Section 7 consultation that concluded with a BO
issued on November 25, 1991.
The November 1991 BO was the first cumulative area consultation
between NMFS and COE's South Atlantic Division (SAD) regarding
hopper dredging. The BO considered hopper dredging in channels
from the Canaveral in Florida through Oregon Inlet, North
Carolina. The 1991 BO concluded that continued unrestricted
hopper dredging in Southeast U.S. channels could jeopardize the
continued existence of listed sea turtles. The Opinion
established a reasonable and prudent alternative to unrestricted
hopper dredging which prohibited the use of a hopper dredge in
the Canaveral ship channel, and from April 1 through November 30
in other southeastern channels north of Canaveral. An incidental
take level was established based on assumptions that takes would
be significantly reduced due to limited dredging windows, but
that water temperatures in some years would result in turtle
presence in channels during December and March. Observers were
required on dredges equipped with outflow and/or inflow screening
in March and December. The presence or absence of turtles in
December would determine the further need for observer coverage
into January. The documented incidental take of a total of five
(5) Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill or leatherback turtle
mortalities in any combination of which no more than two (2) are
Kemp's ridley, or fifty (50) loggerhead turtle mortalities was
set. The Opinion anticipated that seasonal restrictions on
hopper dredging would be adjusted on a channel-by-channel basis
as better information on turtle occurrence was collected.
Additionally, the development and testing of a draghead deflector
was promoted.
1995 Biological Opinion
Between 1992 and 1995, only 16 sea turtle takes were documented
(Table 2b.), including three that were alive when collected
during dredging operations in the SAD under the dredging windows
established in the November 1991 BO (see above). During that
period COE developed a rigid draghead deflector that appeared to
be effective during videotaped dredging trials using mock
turtles, as well as during experimental dredging associated with
trawling in the Canaveral Channel. COE also completed a study of
six Southeast channels to determine seasonal abundance and
spatial distribution of these turtles. A discussion of the
findings can be found in the COE report entitled "Assessment of
Sea Turtle Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels"
(Dickerson et al. 1994), summarized in the 1995 BO. Based on the
new information, COE requested expanded dredging windows and
observer requirements. NMFS considered their request and
developed alternative dredging windows and observer requirements
and added requirements for the use of hopper dredges in borrow
areas along the east coast.
After 1995, COE districts within the SAD generally required
observers in some channels, such as Kings Bay, throughout the
winter, beyond the new monitoring windows. SAD hopper dredge
projects were initially conducted in the middle of the dredging
windows, when nearshore waters were cool. During 1996, only nine
sea turtle takes, including one green turtle and eight
loggerheads, were documented (Table 2c.). No more than three
takes occurred in any project. The new dredging windows and
draghead deflector requirements appeared to provide good
protection to sea turtles.
Hopper dredging operations contracted for the 1997 fiscal year
were planned for early in the calendar year, however a number of
operations were not begun until late winter. Beginning on March
2, 1997, loggerhead takes occurred in Kings Bay at rates higher
than previously observed. Six turtles were taken in four days of
dredging. While consulting with NMFS regarding this
unprecedented rate of loggerhead takes, a COE specialist from the
Waterways Experiment Station proposed some modifications to the
draghead with the potential to reduce sea turtle takes.
Relocation trawling was also initiated, beginning March 9,1997;
however, as can be seen on Table 2, these efforts did not
preclude further sea turtle takes in Kings Bay. Dredging was
terminated on March 12, 1997, with only 53 percent of the project
completed.
Table 1 lists the sea turtle takes observed in hopper dredges
throughout the SAD during 1997, as well as the steps taken by COE
to reduce the likelihood of takes. Deflector dragheads were re-
engineered to fit specific dredges wherever possible and
relocation trawling was initiated. Dredging was terminated prior
to completion of projects in Kings Bay, Brunswick Harbor,
Savannah Harbor and Charleston Harbor. Consultation was
reinitiated to consider the effects of the remaining hopper
dredging projects anticipated for the 1997 fiscal year. In
addition to those specific.projects listed in the resulting April
1997 ISO, dredging at Reach II of the Myrtle Beach dredge
disposal area is likely to begin before the fiscal year ends.
Despite ongoing dredging at the Oregon Inlet, no sea turtle takes
have been documented since May 15.
Proposed Activity
This consultation addresses the use of hopper dredges in channels
and borrow areas along the Atlantic portion of COE's SAD within
the existing dredging windows (Table 3). Channels dredged by
hopper dredges include: Oregon Inlet, Morehead and Wilmington
Harbors, Charleston, Port Royal and Savannah harbors, Brunswick,
Kings Bay, Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Ponce de Leon inlets,
West Palm Beach, Miami and Key west channels. Borrow areas that
may be dredged by hopper dredges include areas off of Dade County
Florida and Myrtle Beach South Carolina.
Draghead deflectors will be used on all projects and observers
will be required at least during those periods identified in
Table 3. Year-round observer coverage will likely be required by
the COE for most channels, particularly those with histories of
high sea turtle catch rates such as Kings Bay. Within the South
Atlantic Division, the COE will try to schedule dredging of the
highest risk areas (Canaveral, Brunswick, Savannah, and Kings
Bay) during periods when nearshore waters are coolest -- after
December 15 but well before March. Priority for winter dredging
will also be given to areas that have substrates that reduce the
efficiency of the deflector (Wilmington Harbor channel, Reach 1
of Myrtle Beach). Completion of all projects during the cold-
water months will be attempted when possible.
Listed Species and Critical Habitat
Listed species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that may occur
in channels along the southeastern United States and which may be
affected by dredging include:
THREATENED:
(1) the threatened loggerhead turtle - Caretta caretta
ENDANGERED:
4
(1) the endangered right whale - Eubalaena glacialis
(2) the humpback whale - megaptera novaeanaliae
(3) the endangered/threatened green turtle - Chelonia mydas
(4) the endangered Kemp's ridley turtle - bepidochelvs kempii
(5) the endangered hawksbill turtle - Eretmochelvs imbricata
(6) the endangered shortnose sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum
Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened, except for
the Florida breeding population which is listed as endangered.
Additional endangered species which are known to occur along the
Atlantic coast include the finback (BBalaeno ttera phy?salus), the
sei (Balaeno tera borealis), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus)
whales and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).
NMFS has determined that these species are unlikely to be
adversely affected by hopper dredging activities.
Information on the biology and distribution of sea turtles can be
found in the 1991 and 1995 BOs, which are incorporated by
reference. Channel specific information has been collected by
COE for channels at Morehead City, Charleston, Savannah,
Brunswick, Fernandina and Canaveral, and is presented in detail
in COE summary report entitled "Assessment of Sea Turtle
Abundance in Six South Atlantic US Channels" (Dickerson et al.,
1994) and in the COE Biological Assessment.
There is no significant new information regarding the status of
these species that has not been discussed in the BOs that have
been incorporated by reference (March 12, 1997 and August 25,
1995).
Assessment of Impacts
The Biological Opinion issued in 1991 contained strict dredging
windows that appeared to be very effective at limiting the number
of sea turtles taken by hopper dredges during channel maintenance
dredging in the Southeast U.S. along the Atlantic coast. Between
1991 and 1995, no more than 8 turtles were taken in any year, and
many of those taken were released alive. Studies conducted by
the COE (Dickerson ?t al., 1994) documented turtle distribution
and abundance in six channels that suggesting the existing
windows were accurate. However, the COE requested expansion of
existing windows to lessen the burden of maintenance dredging
while testing and further developing a rigid draghead deflector
design. The deflector was effective at pushing aside mock
turtles when tested during 1994, and preliminary field trials in
the Canaveral shipping channel had encouraging results. NMFS
considered this new information, presented by the COE in a
biological assessment forwarded to NMFS in November 1994. The
resulting BO, issued August 25 1995 expanded dredging windows and
modified observer requirements.
Only 9 sea turtle takes were documented in 1996, suggesting that
the expanded dredging windows and the deflector requirements
provided protection to sea turtles that was similar to the
previously more-restrictive windows. However, the COE's internal
policy resulted in conduct of most of the hopper dredging
projects during months when coastal waters were still cold,
consistent with the previous dredging. The increased rate of
take observed during 1997 and discussed below suggests that the
restriction of hopper dredging to months when nearshore waters
are cold remains the best method for minimizing sea turtle takes.
Unfortunately, a number of dredging projects contracted for early
1997 in the SAD but not restricted to mid-winter months, were
delayed into the Spring. This delay coincided with a
unseasonably warm winter, when the waters of Kings Bay reached
60°F in early March. The incidental take of nine loggerheads in
Kings Bay over only 11 days of dredging indicated that the
nearshore abundance of loggerheads was high, apparently higher
than during the late 1980's when observers were first deployed on
hopper dredges in Kings Bay.
There were other indicators of high nearshore sea turtle
abundance along the Southeast U.S. Atlantic coast during 1997.
Commercial shrimp trawling conducted without the use of turtle
excluder devices (TEDs) offshore of South Carolina and Georgia
between May 15 and July 15 resulted in sea turtle catch rates
higher than previously documented. Sixty nine sea turtles were
taken in 29 days of shrimping off of South Carolina, including 65
loggerheads, 3 ridleys and 1 leatherback. Forty-six sea turtles
were taken in 17 days of towing off of Georgia. The sea turtle
catch per unit effort (CPUE) for this operation is about 0.35
turtles per hour of trawling, standardized to 100 feet (30.5 m)
of total headrope length fished. The CPUE (same units) for
commercial shrimp trawling in the 1970s and 1980s reported by
Henwood and Stuntz (1987a) was only 0.0487. Loggerhead turtles
were the predominant species reported by Henwood and Stuntz and
have also been predominantly observed in this study. They
account for most of the increase in overall CPUE. The CPUE for
loggerheads alone has been greater than 0.30 turtles per hour,
while the value reported in Henwood and Stuntz was 0.0456 turtles
per hour. The rates of taking for leatherback and Kemp's ridley
turtles in the Atlantic study area have also been higher than
anticipated.
The high relative density of sea turtles during 1997 may be due
to an unseasonably warm winter or other factors contributing to
annual variations in abundance, due to an actual increase in the
abundance of benthic immature sea turtles in the loggerhead
population, or due to a combination of these factors. Trends in
the status of loggerheads are generally identified at the nesting
beach, when the most accessible life stage, adult nesting
6
females, can be counted. Because they mature at 20 to 30 years
of age, increases or decreases in the abundance of benthic
immature loggerheads as determined by incidental captures in
nearshore waters would not be observed for decades. While
nesting beach surveys suggest that the South Florida population
of loggerheads increased and now appears to be stable, increases
have not been apparent on nesting beaches of Georgia and South
Carolina. Further work on the development of multi-year in-water
sampling sites is needed to identify trends in multiple age-
classes of the loggerhead population.
The COE noted that 14 of the 28 takes that occurred during 1997
were on the same dredge, the Eagle. The high rate of takes,
particularly on this dredge, suggested that the deflecting
draghead was not installed properly or was not being operated
properly. Takes occurred in a number of the 1997 dredge projects
during clean-up. Ridges left behind after the initial dredging
are leveled during clean-up, but the draghead passes over
troughs. Takes occurring during clean-up may be difficult to
avoid since the draghead deflector must remain hard on the bottom
to be effective.
The COE has been conducting meetings between districts within the
SAD to discuss the results of assessments of channel conditions
and dredge inspections. They have determined that the draghead
deflector has not been working properly due to poor education of
the dredge operators on its proper use, and due to poor tailoring
of the deflector to specific dragheads. Increased efforts to
educate dredge operators are planned. Additionally, since fewer
than 10 private hopper dredges operate within SAD, engineers that
have designed the conceptual deflector will be sent to the
dredges to insure that the deflectors are adapted to each
draghead and that the operators understand how to use the
deflector effectively.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
"Cumulative effects" are those effects of future state or private
activities, not involving Federal actions, that are reasonably
certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action
subject to consultation. These are discussed in detail in the
biological opinions incorporated by reference.
NMFS believes that the elevated rate of observed sea turtle takes
by dredges in the southeastern United States during March of 1997
was likely due to increased abundance of loggerheads in nearshore
waters due to an unseasonably warm winter. There is no way to
predict whether similar conditions will be encountered in
upcoming seasons. Over the past six years, the COE's SAD has
7
continuously expressed a commitment to minimize sea turtle takes,
and has conducted research and taken repeated steps to further
this goal. Repeated termination of dredging operations due to
high sea turtle takes during 1997 confirms their commitment to
avoid sea turtle takes. Further efforts to educate the dredging
industry and recruit their interest and involvement in avoiding
sea turtle takes are necessary and are planned by the COE.
Additionally, the COE has committed to additional efforts to
improve the effectiveness of the deflecting draghead. The sea
turtle deflector should be tailored to each hopper dredge
draghead and the dredge operators should be fully trained in the
operation of the draghead to ensure proper use and improve
effectiveness. Improvements in operator and deflector
performance are necessary prior to reliance on the draghead as.a
mechanism for reducing sea turtle takes.
NMFS anticipates that the COE's interest in improving the
performance of the deflector, their commitment to limit the use
of hopper dredges in channels of high sea turtle abundance during
periods when nearshore waters are likely to be cold, and their
overall goal of further reducing sea turtle takes during hopper
dredge activities will minimize the interactions of hopper
dredges with sea turtles. However, annual variation in the
abundance of sea turtles in some channels and borrow areas make
it likely that sea turtle takes will still occur. Additionally,
overall increases in loggerhead and Kemp's ridley populations are
anticipated due to TED requirements that have reduced the
mortality rates of benthic lifestages of these species. Lastly,
in some years high levels of hopper dredging activity may be
necessary. For example, termination of projects prior to
completion during FY 1997 may result in an increase in the number
and length of hopper dredging projects necessary for channel
maintenance during FY 199$. Therefore, NMFS believes that up to
35 loggerheads may-be taken by injury or mortality, as well as 7
Kemp's ridleys, 7 green turtles, 2 hawksbills, and 5 shortnose
sturgeon. These takes are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of these species and the ongoing commitment by the COE
to further minimize takes may reduce the likelihood of sea turtle
takes in the future even if nearshore sea turtle abundances
increase.
Conservation Recommendations
Pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, conservation
recommendations are made to assist COE in reducing or eliminating
adverse impacts to loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley turtles
that result from hopper dredging in the southeastern United
States. The recommendations made in the 1995 BO are pertinent to
this consultation as well, and therefore remain valid. Further
recommendations are given below.
Because of the possibility of annual variation in water
temperatures, sea turtle abundance, and hopper dredging
demand, NMFS has retained the dredging windows
established in the 1995 BO. However, the COE has
expressed a commitment to deploy hopper dredges during
cold-water periods in channels with high sea turtle
abundance or with substrates that render the deflector
ineffective. NMFS appreciates the COE's commitment to
do this, and recommends that the SAD priority list be
finalized and distributed to the Districts and NMFS
prior to the initiation of dredging during FY 1998.
The COE should work with the dredging industry to
insure their understanding of the importance of sea
turtle conservation and to increase the industry's
interest in minimizing sea turtle takes.
Greater than 50% of the loggerheads taken in North
Carolina may be from the northern nesting assemblage of
loggerheads. While recent loggerhead nesting beach
surveys did not identify a decline in the number of
nesting females on beaches north of Cape Canaveral,
increases observed in the south Florida nesting
assemblage have not been noted. High sea turtle catch
rates during only the early weeks of the wood debris
clean-up conducted by COE off Cape Fear during 1997, as
well as preliminary work conducted in North Carolina,
suggest that turtles may be abundant in North Carolina
channels primarily during migration into and emigration
out of North Carolina inshore waters. The COE should
work with the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory and the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries to document the
movements of sea turtles off North Carolina during
spring and fall months. Results from these studies may
provide insights into further safe dredging windows to
minimize the likelihood of takes of loggerheads from
the more vulnerable northern nesting assemblage. Summer
windows would reduce the pressure to complete all SAD
hopper dredging during cold-water periods.
The COE should investigate further modifications of the
draghead to minimize the need for clean-up. Some
method to level the peaks and valleys created by
dredging would reduce the amount of time dragheads are
removed from the bottom sediments.
Incidental Take Statement
Section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that
when a proposed agency action is found to be consistent with
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and the proposed action may
incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a
statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking of
endangered or threatened species. It also states that reasonable
and prudent measures, and terms and conditions to implement the
measures, be provided that are necessary to minimize such impacts.
Only incidental taking resulting from the agency action, including
incidental takings caused by activities approved by the agency,
that are identified in this statement and that comply with the:
specified reasonable and prudent alternatives, and terms and
conditions, are exempt from the takings prohibition of section
9(a), pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
Based on the high rate of sea turtle takes observed during of
1997, increases in the Kemp's ridley population, possible
increases in the benthic lifestages of loggerhead populations,
annual variation in nearshore abundance of sea turtles and hopper
dredge demands, the NMFS anticipates that hopper dredging in the
Southeast U.S. Atlantic area of the SAD may result in the injury
or mortality of sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, a
low level of incidental take, and terms and conditions necessary
to minimize and monitor takes, are established. The annual (by
fiscal year) documented incidental take, by injury or mortality,
of seven (7) Kemp's ridleys, seven (7) green turtles, two (2)
hawksbills, thirty-five (35) loggerhead turtles, and five (5)
shortnose sturgeon is set pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the ESA.
To ensure that the specified levels of take are not exceeded early
in any project, COE should reinitiate consultation for any project
in which more than one turtle is taken within 24 hours, or once
five or more turtles are taken. The Southeast Region, NMFS, will
cooperate with COE in the review of such incidents to determine
the need for developing further mitigation measures onto
terminate the remaining dredging activity.
Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide
an incidental take statement for an endangered or threatened
species of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized under
section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA). Since no incidental take in the Atlantic Region has been
authorized under section 1.01(a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on
incidental take of endangered right whales is provided.
The reasonable and prudent measures that the NMFS believes are
necessary to minimize the impact of hopper dredging in channels
and borrow areas in the southeastern United States have been
2
discussed with COE. The following terms and conditions are
established, in addition to those identified in the 1995 BO, to
implement these measures and to document the incidental take
should such take occur.
1. The COE's draghead deflector engineer that assistant in this
design design should inspect the rigid draghead deflector annually
to ensure that the deflector has been tailored appropriately to
each draghead. Additionally, the inspector should assess whether
the dredge operator appears to be familiar with the operation of
the draghead deflector and provide necessary training where
appropriate.
2. If the rigid draghead deflector appears to be ineffective in
Wilmington Harbor and slows the dredging project such that the
amount of time the hopper dredge will be deployed is increased,
the deflector should be removed from the draghead for that
channel.
3. The COE should develop an educational/training program for
dredge operators to increase their understanding of how the
draghead deflector works and why it is necessary.
Ix
W
IL
CL
O
z
F-
0
U
U_
Q
O
N
T
m
b
v
C
m
A
U
Z
O
O
o° c
. o
° d A
^ um
c a m
d x
` 6 0

N o ;

A
c m o

p° 3 A «

a A

m

Y Y° d

c
7

9 d N

u 7V U
'? ?' d y
O y x A OI
°^ Y v cn °?
C d 10 O
0 O
_ 05; ha o ai" E

d
°
d I b
m V
u ad
o S 0 N C M
O
d o
" v v
c N
x
r
q ^
W« `? C
x c A
A A d>
i0 d
y°j 'D p
d d
d
`n o?j" " wE NQ1c a

L ECi. w

E uc

^ d
A
t u u z

K
°y a
c.0
„ yv d
9 c

`
N •
r0 i
v
d T .. m.
. a
` 2 as rn IM
LL Ov=a
' .
-.
v> C
w° E E U N
2
z Y A?
3 „av
z n CD
m m
? d
C3 W

?
c m
y "o LL

N yf
? t
OI ` r0 M
N

LL N

N
0.
N Y
1'1
O
r
V
hf A.^r.
rnE LLL

r A >

3ar A
°

a
a?yfN
E Lo
me
a
°
^
o a a E 0 m c ^
E
c

q q

' r
q
C
A O u
N x
L
`
3
j
A O
N
C .at N
0
0 v C y
°
= 0-
,
- . 1: O
i c °.
E
? N c rn.5
rn -°. 10 ; v d
rs e^, r 7 u .- f`
m 3 ?. o s
f1 A
0-11
Y ?'
N a
3 o c? mob
` ?'E? cAO> o
-a Eu
-
=>9
-11 ;B 0
t
w? rn u a"
° r` d A
N o
= u
u
cE °
E
c
c
,e mm
AilC
'c?ua>iE A
??•? d„
?m CCd
?vc? rno
0
n n
DLL uv r
e
go
v° O Y° y A d A r o d
C N C= C o m 0
^ •p m
N
d N O !? N x
7 OI 02 y O C

a E N E a l! d
r
d H O d OR C U A

C V r

N 9
L A
A
f'1 •A• OIL w A

'
O

A p 0i

d v E 9 G d T

A Of O° O

^ d d N W

^ q"

x
A
Y m
d
L 9 d A= G
av o `
d
d
OI 7 7
c Y Y
t 'Y
a3 v
N d N
u A
`0
E d
d h
t r T
or- d C
L c 0 pf 7 Of d
cm y
N q.
m
> _
q n `• -
'O V« LL N q
> u d
9 d O
.
« 7
r y C C
d C 0
d V?
2 '
v V d C C
v C- LC OI O7 ^
C d
q C6piZ'O r3 COY. p
Olo oVpiaa «
Cu- C01p bid C vcm M
C

?r°h'o
3 P7 r
uvar°>
3 d
Y C

A
>Eea
Y
y
um I«
c=i?Ydv
Y T 'O E l y
u
d
vN
d
d
cn:°; u
r-v p
.0 n
mood
°
n o
co
vN O
r
NEpf
CnEc Y y
cr?'.2Ln
?
c mb0?m"
ct u:°
v d
v Nr
a«
c
m V 0 Y mc
Y V O 19 m m m 9 Y Or y a
o
m A' c
.
m p ? N
C m C A
vLG="^A AAO'
7
u LEA xAmdE
m 0000 >
?7AZdO
A C 'L pN
.7,. N u 7 C?
AN°cEo .. v C
.
yoEA as
nE t .? O
WA vt .7. =`
0.2=t ..
h 7 C x
A?EO1 ?;o "'
A d 7
No
V10it uErs N A °: E Fan 4
Nzc°f= v7in c w 3 N m A
N
Y
A
henhhhh hh
m mh

r
OfN
N
w w
n

rn
hhh
c" cm M
N ?
hhhhghq?f

?3
mod
hhr-

mo O m
hhhr- hh

m
O afmmQf In ?f
f? V3
N

d

x
N

d
Y
h

m
N

d

x
m !
< a
w%!E '-
Pl t?' A Pf i'f M A
7
~ a
r-N N
1"?
A
" V
ANN NN
i'7 1'f Pf i•1
1' Y
C o a
Q V V? h
a Y of ?S N of ,.
^.
° -ffl
p
< ^..
.
O
1
J J J J J J ,..? J J "'? 1
)
J J J 7
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J z z J z
F-
C >' v
m U x x d
`

3 o
o
O d

Y

°>
O
G
CD
O d
O
g
d
E
° co a o C, Q n a a u u

2 E
? u
a
'c >
c
>
o
E >
E x
° o
°m
0
E m o E i^.u.
? moo
0 u 7Y
$
r
r rfr`o
a
m E
° a
T v u
N: L
7; n
O O M 9 c'd
r v
o
O; c
i
O r
V u
O O

EU
^ Y
aLM
D

d O

0
0
n
0
0
0 N
$ A
o a
v E
v A
CN _
ovv a
O1
°'
r E
' ° u c
over

o
o

u
°m

a
i x
0 0 v
>
°a mvf

a
7 ?
o
QP?u u

Qx

>>>
ar
>n
_m
a
_m
?a

W
a
Y CL
E z d
v y y
D O p
$ 1 G p
8 0 o f
a O $ E
O
?-
zu¢ ?„ KAV m?zA m3 ¢ a ¢u ¢u0 ?u
0

m
O.

.°.h
h ?1

w h
01

h
01
°
h
h Q1
.°.
h
to OI

h
h pf
- h

h 0t
°

h h Of
°h

h T
hh?

O1 Q ^
m Qr N_ h
mgr h
if ?N h? u? v? Q+f Ne°'•f MN
? oaf aMf ?N ?P1 ? rl ? of a e"1 ?? V 'r f7 h d
r
?

T
L
L
^
rr 04

A

q 0

m

u
o
^

m ^
S ^

x
S A

mq

m u

vo C
= A

cr
7

w ^
= QI

c q
m

y

°
O1 J9 r
c o
N mr.
°'10? M a
tm` pV
rn
O
orm
of
IL c
x h c d
? 3
° m=
f c
E ° c u
E? U A
o-
2 v

)le 2a. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
prior to the regional consultation. observers were not required on all
projects until 1989, after which extensive monitoring was required.
Year Project Turtle Takes
1980
Total - 71 Canaveral 50 Cc, 3 Cm, 18 Unidentified
1981
Total = 6 Canaveral 3 Cc, 1 Cm, 2 Unidentified
1984/1985
Total = 12 Canaveral 1 Cc, 11 Unidentified
1986 Canaveral 5 Cc
Total = 9 Kings Bay 1 Cc, 3 Cm
1987
Total = 5 Kings Bay 3 Cc, 1 Cm, 1 Unidentified
1988 Brunswick 1 Cc
Total = 46 Canaveral 13 Cc, 3 Cm, IS Unidentified
Kings Bay 6 Cc, 3 Lk, 2 Cm
1989
Total = 21 Canaveral
Kings Bay 9 Cm, 2 Unidentified
8 Cc, 1 Cm
Savannah 1 Cc
1990 Canaveral 3 Cc, 5 Cm
Total - 12 Kings Bay 4 Cc
1991 Brunswick 20 Cc, 1 Lk, 1 Unidentified
Total = 43 Charleston 3 Cc
Kings Bay 1 Cc
Savannah 17 Cc
c Caretta caketca, Loggerhead 1 an . Chelonia mydas, Green turtler Lk . Lepidochelys kampl, Kemp,s ridley turtle

ble 2b. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
between the November 1991 and the August 1995 Regional Biological Opinion
Year Project Turtle Takes
1992 Port Royal, SC 2 Cc
Total = 2
1994 Canaveral 1 Cm
Total = 8 Morehead City 1 Cc
Kings Bay 2 Cc
Savannah 3 Cc, 1 Lk
1995 Canaveral 1 Cc
Total = 6
Palm Beach 3 Cc, 2 Cm
= Caretta caretta, Loggerhead ; Cm = Chelonla mydas, Green turtle; Lk = Lepidochelys
mpi, Kemp's ridley turtle
able 2c. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
after the August 25, 1995 Biological Opinion
Year Project Turtle Takes
1996 Morehead City Harbor 1 Cc
Total = 9 Myrtle Beach (Borrow Area 2 Cc
Reach 1)
Kings Bay 1 Cc
Palm Beach 1 Cc, 1 Cm
Wilmington Harbor 3 Cc
1997 Brunswick Harbor 1 Cc
Total - 28 Charleston Harbor 5 Cc
Kings Bay 9 Cc
Morehead City Harbor 6 Cc
Myrtle Beach (Borrow Area 3 Cc
Reach 1)
Savannah Harbor 3 Cc
Wilmington Harbor (ocean 1 Cc
Bar)

3
O
0
A
Ul
v
a?
b
m
^
04
04
O
'Li
44
0
N
ul
10
(5
E
N
Co
?O
LLB
O Ln
a)
O1
N r 4
41
O U
)
U1 (T
O Q
b ?
3
•H
b ?
F 1 U]
'? r 1
44
ul Q)
aa) i
E ro
O
-A
41
dl W
ro
41
(J
jz:
Q? 1.1
?-1
34
U
0
W N
a ro
H ro

0
O >
0) C 0 >
01 C 0 U
Q) G a1
d .C
Z Z Z O Z Z O z Z O 0 Z O C

O a) C)
N C B m p
N C y '•' U')
N C r 0 . -
N C O

LU O
E
c O
a)
E ` O
N E O
z
Q Z i
a
o.
p0Q a
i
L
0
3 o a
O
Q CO p 0)
>.
c
0 g 0 ?o O
U')
O
J
F- ?
0
m U)
3: '0
a '0
c
C:
f- > >
? 7
a 7
0
0
V) z

O
C r
Z J w R Z
Z t!1
.° Z Z .? Z
O: W
0ZZ O
? N C-
f o
0 C" ,
0E 0 C
of N C O
0E
o CL
Z= O 30¢ °C) °;aQ 0o >,
0U
z o . a F-o? F o
w0
H ~ a
c c>o n
Q
c
0 to
m
> 0 0 ?0

W z

v? z >

z
U
m
} 0 }
v a?
c 0) -0 m
m
y v
m C
°

O
Z ?W'D
U N N
5 Z
E
I ?
y
o
U a1 N
E
l -6 Z E
t U
T L
O c o
N
O O •
_ -
a
.7
TO1 a
TO TO m
O
r C
f0L O-:

O ,
ma1
t3 :e
C Co .0 m?

1 7 U .-

Q 0 Nv E Z
a a
C
a
_
Z C C
N
y
D 'C C C
y N
` C
C r•' a0I O V
l
O O
01 a)
y 0
i
0 O
2
Ls 0 a a
l
Z? 2 0 a 0
?A? p
2
? n Y
O
Q -
¢ m
Q)
O
m .
?
L1J

J .0?o O p

N C
O ^ 0
.0.0 O
O y m e
?
.0
7
= C N
D
N N
p

S y
0 01 0

0
01 01 L ,
N O
-ffi
O
V
N .0.
o
c cv
Oi
c M
o
O >
m
m u
=mv>
c
u
tcv
i
a
c
Q c
U C^1 O U [7 O U V U
3 y cv ° o c O? u.> 0 W uroi.E
c m
0
o. 73 U ai m Q vii c

m
c v°1
(7 >, c in

m c t
v
1
65 -2 c
n c
c m
O
CUO C a
of .DU m ca U-, C CO J NCO m
4 0 m4,E Ncm N `aiN>,..? U-41)
C d O N a1 0 •j C m 07 0 N U a C
c 2H
(D y fa
?.., N C1 Q
N N t9
0
Z
ATTACHMENT 2
Hopper Dredge Protocol
for Atlantic Coast
FY'98 - FY'03
(South Atlantic Division COE)
South Atlantic Division Corps of Engineers
Hopper Dredging Protocol for Atlantic Coast
FY 98 - FY 03
1. Sea turtle deflecting dragheads will be used at all times.
2. Districts will inspect sea turtle deflecting dragheads
systems to ensure that they are fully operational, prior to
initiation of work.
3. Districts will ensure that draghead operators know how to
properly use the sea turtle deflecting system.
4. Maintenance dredging at Savannah, Brunswick and Kings Bay
Harbors must be restricted to 15 December through the end of
March. Maintenance dredging at Charleston and Wilmington Harbors
must be restricted to 1 December through the end of March where
the sea turtle deflecting draghead system can not be used
effectively. Dredging may begin as soon as mid-November in those
portions of the Wilmington and Charleston Harbor channels where
the sea turtle deflecting draghead can be used effectively. All
Districts will cooperate to ensure that their scheduling of
hopper dredging contracts, does not interfere with this Division
priority work area.
5. Sea turtle observers, inflow screens and overflow screens
will be used during all dredging operations, except for the
months of January and February, which.are optional. Variations
from this provision may be granted by Division, but must be
justified from a technical perspective.
6. All sea turtle takes will be reported promptly to
SAD-ET-CO/PD and posted at usace.sad.turtle newsgroup on the
Internet.
7. If two sea turtle takes occur within 24 hours, you should
immediately notify the Division POC so that he can initiate
reconsultation with National Marine Fisheries service.
8. If a third take occurs on the project the district will cease
operations and notify the South.Atlantic Division. Continuation
of dredging will occur only after cleared by Division. Upon
taking three turtles, District will develop a risk assessment
along with an appropriate risk management plan, and submit that
to Division for assessment. Generally relative abundance and
relocation trawling would be an integral part of a risk
assessment and management plan. Should a total take of 5 sea
turtles occur, for whatever reason, all work will be terminated
unless other prior agreements had been reached with Division.

9. If a total of two endangered species of sea turtles are taken
during a project, work will be suspended until further guidance
from Division has been received.
10. Arrangements will be made for appropriate observation of all
species of whales. The hopper dredge must not get closer than
750 yards of a right whale. Jacksonville and Savannah Districts
will contribute their share of funding for the Right Whale Early
Warning System early enough in the year to ensure that this is
not a cause for delay in the program.
11. From Jacksonville District north through Wilmington
District, sea turtle observers will also be responsible for
monitoring takes of shortnose sturgeon. All takes of shortnose
sturgeon must be reported to Division. Should a total take of
three shortnose sturgeons occur, District will terminate hopper
dredging until further guidance has been received from Division.
CSE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. Robert K. Betz
110 Headlands Ln
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office

CSE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Ms. Marilyn P. Ebken
1811 Holiday Rd
Sanford, NC 27330
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
J. W. Forman, Jr., P. .
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office

COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. Joseph E. Aceto
3432 Indian Hill Dr
Dayton, OH 45429
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENG
1. W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
J
C-SE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. David W. Stewart
PO BOX 25127
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
J. W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
4
t CSC
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Ms. Lynn B. Sanderson
HWY 903 S
Seven Springs, NC 28578
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
Senior Engineer
CM
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. Robert L. Lownes, Sr.
509 Duart Rd.
Lumberton, NC 28358
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
I '
_/SE
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Beacons Reach Master Assoc. Inc.
510 Salter Path Rd
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
J. W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
4
c5c .
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO DOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Ms. Brenda S. Jones
2109 Haverford Ct
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
W. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
, 4 •

COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. Lawerance W. Harris Jr.
817 Lassiter Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
/?J.VW. Forman, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
• A. I
c5c
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1643 MOREHEAD CITY NC 28557 • TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • EMAIL [e-mail]
June 9, 2006
Mr. James G. Thompson
25 Barrington Woods Blvd
Stafford, VA 22554
Re: Bogue Banks Post-Ophelia Beach Nourishment
Carteret County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the requirements of the Division of Coastal Management CAMA Major Permit
Application, a copy of the permit application and supporting documentation for the referenced project is
provided for your information.
If you have questions concerning the proposed project, please contact Mr. J.W. (Bill) Forman, Jr., P.E. of
Coastal Science and Engineering in Morehead City at (252)-222-0976.
Please be advised that, if you have comments concerning the project, they must be submitted to the
Division of Coastal Management within 30 days of this application. Submit comments to N.C. Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557.
Thank-you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
COASTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
V1_ ?W7-_
W. Forman, Jr., P. .
Senior Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Emerald Isle, Town Manager
Betty Carr, Pine Knoll Shores, Town Administrator
Beverly Bigley, Indian Beach, Town Administrator
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City Office
Ln
r-q
o°
?Z
b?
Z
q*`

°°

°
°
s,• Z

2 z
b ~

O
m w
g

m °

'
N
W
F-
Q
S
s
n
0

b
W
a Ri
h

v °O

0
M 0 ° °
(1) 0 0

0
cu CD
d
(') %D

?
M
N
c
o
c
c C ? 7
c (
7
NORTHING
«S
3
O
W
0
0
V
V
cV
O)
W

ro
w
A
UAL
7
?D
n
O
rt
O
O
bd
O
O
w
Gi
rt
?D
R.
1 DNIHl ON
o
0
Cl 0 0
Z
00 x
a
0
r
a
a
a
m
Z ?
O?? m
00 d a
tj
d
N
3>
f'q
6
Z
a
e
r
OGI ? VD
00
O
9>0
? O
c11? ??
+401
00
O
00
0
000 o ?
alb
O?
000 ?Q?b??
F-+
n
H
O°

bh
Z
o°
b
to
l
-A
°O
,yb
h
b
g
o° LD
b

rn z
H
rLb? f/3
L ij
ol
Mo,
S
O°
nnb
`
® O
q
Q

w

O
co p
?

O
1P
z
vb?

w
d
F-
0
Q
J
O
Q
v
=
H O°
b
o
? p.
b
v

° o
0 0 0
0
W
v ?F
e}
NORTHING

M
cu
Q?
i
cu
O
0
PA
w
O
a
O
G
O
V
v

ef+
w

N•
cn
4
A?
r?
n
O
fi
O
tv
b
0
H-.
O
O
t9
A?
C7d
N
w
rt
f0
a
DNIHADN
w w w
w .p.
° o 0
° 0 0
- - --- - -----------------
.tbZ 0
O4? _
n
0
r
z
Z ?
? r
O Z
4 rn
0
0
C3
b
z ?
7s
i
rq
vs
Z?Z n
ry
O?V `°
O m
w
0
by
O
N
r ri
79 0
r
w Qcj ? j
O
Cpl
oO??Cu
0
L o
o a
OQ r
0
qZ
V
O
14
0
J
O
cn
O
?Z No
oC
0
F,
Oo
rn
r--1
QQ
?h
Z
b2
b
QQ
nn??V
b
N
v°
rL
u
N
N
o QQ
ti
u,
l7
z
vi
?!S oQ w
z?,s 2
Aers
0921
N
maars ? ?? ??Q
N
W o `lUt?(?`j Ca
oasis ?
z
?' aaeis w
F
w
o4ers z
p
P11 o
og&?5 a
u Q
08ers'? f?? ?,
004x5 t,J
I-
F-
0 2d1 t~ir
N
PQ
64biS J
E3
m
U
Q
n h(Zi
oa o Q0)
z ?b
Cl o 0
a o
CU CZ) tY7
? co
Cr7
i
NORTHING
ti
a,
.V
v
N
PQ
e?
O
O
O
il
0
0
V
U
bA
ct?

?o
cu
bA
W-4
1