20052098 Ver 1_Complete File_20051121

QPQ??ENT Op lyl;
J0
9
?4ACH 3 ?aa
IN REPLY REFER TO
N16
November 17, 2005
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
4..r ? ? .?4 Lls'
This is a courtesy notification for the National Park Service's (NPS) proposed project for the
Protection of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Historic Structures. The project requires the
placement of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of beach quality sediment along 2,600 linear feet
of estuarine shoreline of South Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Material would
be obtained from the federal navigation channel, Back Sound to Lookout Bight, between
Shackleford Banks and Core Banks, in Carteret County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Initial work
and future maintenance of the project would be performed using a hydraulic pipeline dredge and
would be completed between October 1 and March 31 of any given year. The grain size and
compatibility analysis of sediment samples indicate suitable material for the project is located
within the lower reach of the channel in areas designated as Areas A and B. Area B is the
primary source of borrow with additional material, if needed, to be borrowed from Area A
(Figures 2-3). A courtesy copy of a Pre-Construction Notification Application Form is
enclosed.
The proposed discharge of dredged material on the estuarine beach is authorized by NCDWQ
General Water Quality Certification (GC) No. 3493. Written concurrence from NCDWQ
regarding the applicability of GC No. 3493 is not required as the proposed project will comply
with all conditions of the GC and the placement of sand along the beach will not cause a
substantial modification to waters or wetlands. Project scoping comments received from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) by memo dated August 20, 2004, have
been addressed by the proposed design of the project.
Separate authorization pursuant to the Clean Water Act for the proposed dredging is not required
since the act of dredging does not result in a discharge into waters of the United States. The
proposed dredging is regulated by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the North
Carolina Coastal Management Act. The NPS application for authorization from the Corps and
the request for consistency concurrence from NCDCM are enclosed. The proposed project will
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL
PARK
National Park Service SERVICE
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
k E E 't s + Has ??.??
a+ ?
NO ?? ?. 2.OG5

TAKE PR I DE's
INAM ERICA--;;*
Cape Lookout National Seashore Protection of Lighthouse
Subject: Cape Lookout National Seashore Protection of Lighthouse
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:04:18 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Joanne Steenhuis <[e-mail]>, Ed Beck <[e-mail]>, Ian
McMillan <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
This project came in to you on November 16, 2005. I am currently reviewing the EA
and I have visited the site during pre-application meetings. They submitted a letter
and a Courtesy copy of the PCN stating that no written concurrence is required for GC
3493, Disposal of dredged material on Ocean Beaches. Actually it states that
"proposed fill, dredging, excavation or other substantial modification of waters or
waters requires written concurrence. It is the opinion of this office (Joanne and I)
that written concurrence is and was required. The project includes dredging and
placing 60,000 cubic yards of sand on 2700 linear feet (good part below MHW).
Normally, we would require written concurrence for this activity. Did this one just
slide by? or are we interpreting the language differently. I am guessing it is too
late for this one, but let's make sure we are on the same page in the future (topic
at next annual meeting?)
Thanks,
Noelle
P.S. Spoke to John Payne about Brunswick Airport. Based on our conversation, I
think I should just write one more letter stating the reasons from the regs why we
are moving towards denial including, min./avoid, cumulative impacts to downstream WQ,
etc. What do you think?
1 of 1
1/23/2006 8:23 AM
Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No. 2
D
No.
enter "Not
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project,
I. Processing
Form Version May 2002
or "N/A".)
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
iJ
1. Owner/Applicant Information NOV 2 3. 2-005
Name: Cane Lookout National Seashore
Mailing Address: 131 Charles Street DEN' R
Harkers Island North Carolina 28531 -
Attn: Robert A. Vogel, Park Superintendent
Telephone Number: 252-728-2250 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: U.S. Army Corns of Engineers
Company Affiliation: Wilmington District
Mailing Address: PO Box 1890
Wilmington NC 28402
Attn: Jeff Richter (CESAW-TS-PE)
Telephone Number: 910 251-4636 Fax Number: 910-251-4744
E-mail Address: ieffrey.h.richter(cusace.army.mil
III. Project Information
Page 1 of 9
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Protection of Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Historic Structures
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Carteret Nearest Town: Harkers Island
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):Cape Lookout National Seashore,
on beach adjacent to Cape Lookout Lighthouse, Core Banks, east of Barden Inlet and
Lookout Bight (Figure 1)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Lat 34-37-30 Long 76-31-52
6. (Note -If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
7. Property size (acres): Cape Lookout National Seashore encompasses over 29,000 acres of
land and water from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Barden Inlet and Lookout Bight
9. River Basin: White Oak
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mai)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Dredged area is located to the west and north of the disposal
area in the Back Sound to Lookout Bight channel (Figure 2). The proposed area to be
dredged includes a portion of the federal navigation channel. The proposed disposal site is an
Page 2 of 9
eroding estuarine beach of Cane Lookout National Park to the west of the existing Cape
Lookout Lighthouse (Figure 3). Proposed disposal area is heavily used for recreational
purposes by Park visitors. Proposed dredged area is actively used by commercial and private
water craft on a daily basis,
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Project
involves proposed dredging of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of sandy material by a
hydraulic pipeline dredge from the Back Sound to Lookout Bight channel and hydraulically
pumping on approx. 2,600 linear feet of beach. Pipeline would relocated as needed along the
shoreline. The material would be placed within the two reaches of the project, transitioning
at both ends of the proiect area, as well as adjacent to the existing pier/dock. Material would
be placed at or about elevation 3.5 foot NGVD and would be monitored for proper placement
to avoid scarp formation. The formation of the sand berm and the placement of the beachfill
would be completed by bulldozers and other earth moving equipment.
Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To protect the Cane Lookout Lighthouse and
associated historic structures from damage/destruction caused by eroding beach
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide 'photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District filed " Final Environmental Statement,
Maintenance Dredging, Channel from Back Sound to Lookout Bight, North Carolina" with
Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) on March 10, 1976. Channel has been periodically
dred wed since that time, although not within the past 10+ years. Proposed disposal area has not
had dredged material placed on it.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A recurring requirement for maintenance dredging the borrow areas and the disposal of dredged
sandy material on the beach is anticipated. No additional work is anticipated at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Page 3 of 9
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Material is to be hydraulically
dredged and pumped to the shoreline for the purpose of protecting the lighthouse and historic
structures. The grain size and compatibility analysis of samples taken within the upper and
lower reaches of the proposed borrow areas in Back Sound to Lookout Bight indicates the
most suitable material for the project is located within the lower reach of the channel in areas
designated as Areas A and B. Area B is the primary source of borrow with additional
borrow, if needed, to be borrowed from Area A (Finre 2). Existing sandbags from a
previous attempt by NPS to protect these structures, will be left in place and sand
pumved/pushed over them.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htti)://www.fema.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: No wetlands impacted by proposed actions.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Type of Impact* Length of Stream Name** Average Width Perennial or
Page 4 of 9
Site Number
(indicate on ma Impact
linear feet of Stream
Before Impact Intermittent?
leasespecify)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usas.2ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.maaouest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: No impacts to streams.
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbod
y
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
Maintenance dredging 2-4 Back Sound-Lookout Bight Coastal inlet, Estuary

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Beach disposal involves direct pumping of dredged material in a slurry on beach and subsequent
movement and placement by bulldozer. Small sand berms are artificially created along
waterfront, waterward of disposal area to minimize amount of material flowing directly back into
water body.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is planned or required for maintenance of this existing project. Work will be
Page 6 of 9
monitored to ensure compliance with all applicable terms and conditions.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 7 of 9
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify, )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
"Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Buffer mitigation not applicable
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Not applicable
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Not applicable
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
P ?
A?? m
vi k
fi
,?Ctl 3 ?8
A3815
November 14, 2005
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
Mr. Stephen Rynas
Federal Consistency Coordinator
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Rynas:
°t 1 '1 U i? `J
«0
t GL ii'f
T UCI C Y it u?'i4f?
,T -L7
Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) is planning the placement of beachfill and the construction
of a sand berm along the estuarine beach in the vicinity of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and
associated historic structures. The purpose of the project as described in the enclosed consistency
determination is to provide protection to the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated Historic
Structures while a long-term solution to the erosion problem can be studied and implemented. In
accordance with Section 307(c) (1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
CALO has determined that the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of North Carolina's approved coastal management program.
This determination is based on the review of the proposed project's conformance with the enforceable
policies of the state's coastal program, which are primarily found in Chapter 7 of Title 15A of North
Carolina's Administrative Code. A review of the Carteret County Land Use Plan notes that all policy
discussion is silent on CALO programs. The proposed action is consistent with the approved General
Management Plan for the seashore. NPS Management Policies (2001) were also used in planning and
design of the project to minimize its impact on the environment. Details of the determination are
provided through submission of the enclosed supporting narrative and drawings. The Environmental
Assessment being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
is scheduled to be released for 30-day agency and public review on or about November 30, 2005.
Work is scheduled to begin no-later-than March 1 and be completed by March 31, 2006.
We request the Division of Coastal Management concur with this consistency determination within 45
days from the date of this letter to allow the award of the contract on or about January 10, 2006. We
appreciate the cooperation and coordination between our two agencies on this endeavor and look
forward to working with your agency through the construction of the project.
I+AnowAt
LARK
SERVICE
,
TAKE PRIDE-
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact Mr. Michael Rikard at 252-
728-2250, extension 3012 or Michael Rikard n s. ov. Your time and effort regarding this matter are
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Vogel
Superintendent
Enclosures
CF with enclosures:
Mr. Ted Tyndall
Assistant Director
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Ms. Jami Hammond
100 Alabama St., SW
NPS/Atlanta Federal Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Ms. Linda York
100 Alabama St., SW
NPS/Atlanta Federal Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR
PROTECTION OF CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE AND
ASSOCIATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES
CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, CARTERET COUNTY, NC
(USAGE permit action ID #200501030)
November 2005
Protect Description
The National Park Service's, Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) proposes
placement of beachfill and the construction of a sand berm along the estuarine beach in
the vicinity of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated historic structures. The
placement of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of beachfill along 2,600 linear feet of the
estuarine shoreline of South Core Banks within the Cape Lookout National Seashore is
proposed. The beachfill will be beach quality material obtained from borrow Areas A
and B between Shackleford and South Core Banks. Material from Area B, an existing
federal navigation channel would be removed first with additional material being
removed from the western side of Area A as needed. The purpose of the project is to
provide protection to the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated Historic Structures
while a long-term solution to the erosion problem can be studied and implemented. The
project location, proposed action and material borrow areas are shown on the attached
drawings. The work would be completed as follows:
¦ Northern Fill Area: Extends approximately 1,000 linear feet northward from the
existing pier, transitioning into the existing shoreline. The width of this area is
limited to the available area between the existing beach and the existing deep-
water slough that hugs the shoreline in this area. The maximum width in this area
is approximately 50 feet. The elevation of the beach fill will tie into the existing
beach elevation, estimated to be approximately 3.5 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD).
¦ Southern Fill Area: Extends approximately 1,600 linear feet southward from the
existing pier, transitioning into the existing shoreline. The maximum width in this
area is approximately 100 feet. The beach fill will tie into the existing beach
elevation, estimated to be approximately 3.5 feet NGVD.
Sand Berm. To provide added protection to the lighthouse and historic structures,
a berm is proposed along the southern fill area. The berm would be constructed
for a distance of approximately 1,250 feet, at a height of approximately 7.5 feet
NGVD, and a top elevation of 15 feet. No berm is proposed for the northern fill
area.
Construction Requirements. Dredging of material from the federal channel would be
performed by a hydraulic pipeline dredge to the previously authorized depth of -7 feet
mean-low-water (mlw) with an allowable -2 feet over depth for a total dredging depth of
-9 feet mlw. The sediment would be transported to the project area via pipeline,
relocated as needed along the shoreline. The material would be placed within the two
reaches of the project, transitioning at both ends of the project area, as well as adjacent to
the existing pier/dock. Material would be placed at or about elevation 3.5 foot NGVD
and would be monitored for proper placement to avoid scarp formation. The formation
of the sand berm and the placement of the beachfill would be completed by bulldozers
and other earth moving equipment. Any future maintenance of the project would be
performed in the same manner as that described herein.
Timing. To avoid possible adverse impacts to environmental resources as well as
recreational usage of the project area, initial work and future maintenance would be
scheduled to occur between October 1 and March 31.
Maintenance. Maintenance of the project is dependent on wind and wave damage and
unpredictable erosion due to storms. Maintenance would be performed on an as-needed
basis until a maintenance frequency can be measured. All maintenance would be
performed in accordance with state and federal permit conditions.
Carteret County Land Use Plan (LUP) Review
A review of the Carteret County Land Use Plan notes all policy discussion is silent on
CALO programs.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)
The proposed project is in compliance with the Coastal Management Act and is
consistent with the Coastal Management Program of North Carolina. The proposed
dredging and disposal activity will take place in the estuarine and ocean system and
meets the management objectives of this AEC. Based on the close proximity of the
project to the inlet, the project has also been evaluated in accordance with the
management objectives for the ocean hazard areas AEC. The protection of the historic
structures meets the management objectives for protection of significant coastal historic
architectural resources AEC. The proposed project is in compliance with the North
Carolina Coastal Program Policies of 07M.
15A NCAC 07H.0206 Estuarine Waters - establishes management objectives for
estuarine waters in order to conserve and manage the important features of estuarine
waters in a manner that safeguards and perpetuates their ecological and economical
values and to coordinate and establish a management system capable of conserving and
using estuarine waters that maximize their benefits to man and the estuarine and ocean
system. The location, use and design of this project is in accordance with the general and
specific use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas per
15A NCAC 07H .0208 Use Standards. The proposed borrow sources located between
Shackleford Banks and Core Banks were selected based on this material being the most
compatible beach quality sand for initial placement and future maintenance. The
proposed borrow sources would not result in the loss of, or significant impacts to
estuarine waters.
2
15A NCAC 07H .0207 Public Trust Areas - establishes management objectives for
public trust areas, in order to protect public rights for navigation, recreation, and to
conserve and manage public trust areas in a manner that safeguards and perpetuates their
biological, economic, and aesthetic values. The project will not result in the loss of
coastal uses and will not impact coastal resources. The site is currently a recreation
beach fronting the historic structures and lighthouse. The borrow area material is
compatible with the existing substrate and consists of fine to medium beach quality sand.
In accordance with the management objectives, the creation or maintenance of the
recreation beach of the project area is consistent with the State's coastal management
program for public trust areas.
15A NCAC 07H.0208 Use Standards - establishes management objectives for coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas for non-water and water dependent
uses. Uses that are water dependent include dredging and navigational channels. The
proposed project includes the removal of beach quality material from the adjacent
channel and placement on the estuarine beach. Sand would be removed to the existing
channel depth of-9 feet mean-low-water (-7 feet plus 2 feet of allowable over-depth)
within the designated borrow areas. The proposed action is consistent with the
management objectives of 15A NCAC 07H.0208.
15A NCAC 07H.0209 Coastal Shorelines_ establishes management objectives for
coastal shorelines in order to ensure that shoreline development is compatible with the
dynamic nature of coastal shorelines as well as the state's management objectives of the
estuarine and ocean system. Other objectives are to conserve and manage the important
natural features of the estuarine and ocean system. The intent of this project is to provide
some protection from erosion for the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated historic
structures. The project is environmentally compatible with the use of the area as a
recreation beach. Other alternatives evaluated that would not meet the State standards for
this objective included the construction of a rock sill or the inclusion of geotextile tube
structure within the proposed sand berm. These alternatives have been removed from
further consideration at this time. The waters of Core Sound are maintained as High
Quality Waters; a classification intended to protect waters with quality higher than state
water quality standards. The proposed action meets the management objective of 15A
NCAC 07H .0209 and 7H .0208 and would not result in degradation of the estuarine and
ocean system.
15A NCAC 07H.0300 Ocean Hazard Areas - establishes management objectives for
ocean hazard categories that are considered natural hazard areas along the Atlantic Ocean
shoreline where, because of their special vulnerability to erosion or other adverse effects
of sand, wind, and water, uncontrolled or incompatible development could unreasonably
endanger life or property. The project area is located along the estuarine shoreline in the
vicinity of the inlet hazard area of Barden Inlet and experiences high velocity waters
(including, but not limited to, hurricane wave wash). The project area is vulnerable to
erosion, flooding, and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of its
3
proximity to the inlet. Placement of sand along the eroded estuarine beach meets the
management objectives of 07H .0303.
15A NCAC 7H.0510 Significant Coastal Historic Architectural Resources -
establishes management objectives for the protection of significant coastal historic
architectural resources. The Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Associated Historic
Structures have local significance to history and state architecture and should be
protected. The placement of beach quality sand in the vicinity of the historic structures
meets the management objectives of 07H.05 10 as it would provide some protection from
storms and waves. It is recognized that a more permanent solution for the protection of
these valuable resources needs to be completed in the near future.
North Carolina Coastal Program Policies
15A NCAC 07M..0300 Shorefront Access Policies - establishes management
objectives to ensure public access to public beaches and waters. The project area is a
well-known recreation beach frequently visited by visitors transported by ferry service or
private vessels. The proposed action would result in additional sand placement within the
recreational beachfront and is consistent with the States coastal program.
15A NCAC 07M.0800 Coastal Water Quality Policies - establishes management
objectives for waters of the State within the coastal area that has a potential for uses
which require optimal water quality. The proposed action would not degrade or
deteriorate the water quality of Back or Core Sound.
15A NCAC 7M.1100 Policies on Beneficial Use and Availability of Materials
Resulting from the Excavation or Maintenance of Navigation Channels - establishes
management objectives for beach quality material dredged from navigation channels
within the active nearshore, beach or inlet shoal systems to remain within the active
areas. The proposed project requires the removal of sediment from the lower limits of
Back Sound to Lookout Bight and placement of the material on the estuarine beach to
provide protection to the lighthouse and associated historic structures. The result of this
action is a beneficial placement of sediment on the eroding shoreline consistent with the
States coastal program.
North Carolina Drefte and Fill Law (NCGS 113-229)
The proposed project includes the dredging of sediment from the estuarine waters of
Back Sound to Lookout Bight federal navigation channel. The removal of sediment
from the federal channel is in compliance with NCGS 113-229.
Required State, Federal, and Local Permits
A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Office will be
obtained prior to performance of work. The public notice coordination for the permit was
4
completed in September 2005. The public notice was furnished to NCDCM under
separate cover.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) General Water Quality
Certification (GC) No. 3493 authorizes the proposed discharge of dredged material on the
estuarine beach. Written concurrence from NCDWQ regarding the applicability of GC
No. 3493 is not required as the proposed project will comply with all conditions of the
GC and the placement of sand along the beach will not cause a substantial modification
to waters or wetlands.
Supporting Documentation
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment
has been prepared for the proposed action. The environmental assessment is scheduled
for completion on November 30, 2005 and will be furnished under separate cover.
Conclusion
The proposed project will not have any significant impacts to coastal resources.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
enforceable policies of North Carolina's federally approved coastal management
program.
5
National Park Service
• ? I•. a ? ? PF P\V
Cape Lookout National Seashore W
Protection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
as . 5J?
YO ii°v°?i,w .?,? .' °'°? a a •s.tic , ` .1°1'r'
' aaw '?J 2 , s v#"
- Ghefl@Ston ,,_ +? ?^r •\ , a pl,,s a ?.0°? + x"? • ???'a •?.?
,wyw y,o,;.C!O rasa 0 a .%o° . `,.*+?.\zy •.,
... Virginia Beach P°°?°; •??`, ,«' yr Floq _. 9..
Richmond
V f; 1 1, r ( s ,o.i w^°M° saa.,nd. Y. a + 9 V i
/ I 1 1\ iwx eras 1;l ?,.Fl °? a n ? • a s?j5
Raleigh- i
{Charlotte q . _EA 111' s» 5
17 l
av'450o Yr.tY'a • >00
- , \ Map Location ? ? ALrJ °" f?? _ + csv,
].
Columbia < 4ao
.,.r / q ! 't rypSE. CIuD\a 2 •l a , Fl
_1 y..? ? r o.•'"`re°aYC" 1 ". ? ?? ?; . -•.... o- a • a'
5 .i•?\a+o" aaY a,,. \ C,?B d °'°. a a yr ca ]0
I,1U?i?' P 1 .?/" 1rcx?????nP:ri9^athV«4`^° Fl ?G_. = s 10?°•ito¢YJe \ ?r ;/? ys X92._
?? etnc?ppp?i?g •?"0°ea?s"m°"s?\°a°?? n.a'a'a P'q"'eaa •wn •wo;.{ g aFl°'+y'eY'?%!?$?i m 1 5 + { '% I I
Sc•k pT0.0 198.) na ?,a•a»Dsa -.Ima" = ?. `°w`+ea'i at: a ,1n ?o«'Y Y t _. .'/;,L ?
nedm?^` 90*'F0\ acme° n#+°`a1OKPwnar°"'. :M .. ,am°: :: J• '"• s ° ?a.tua<sl /" 9 I n
! fp°`'ac.slNaaATP3t WmpR?°"t.IY°'.a'a p.M+t>W' ? xam ('•.... ????•, ° ' 1 ' ?...... ><'
Wnteav+AV ? 1 y?, SpUN???gIP xoPQ? weY^? atccn 5x a'? Flc1s.t5° , • aG, 1 e r ?x I
nnYa:N° .. } AT D1pJ`N "r •m + a n YI #`??` /. I
61
42
y I
lo;?u•n?ws? i •7" 1. °,•,PePa :.. , e sv. 1 I I
n.na i; 4•,/ , •/w a a tin t1/('/'?
53
?NLW?pr• «?;d.. Wr ??,?._. W? ? x n etPq ?, a , I ? at :
d r 1 t e C: a_ . (r? 1 e iy(
.i
?^ +.I `3] s°M ?a i. S • PG ? 20 I r 51
50
als ? / ? n
_ K: 'S] c a • "?# i 3?\Vy 1 ? t 96 as I
_??irrrr••????f777 .?3 s 1 I
49
56
51
_
,1 L f 10
• ¢. • S1ppt7 w4°Z1dp +k t atl5 asho?. ?1 `! y6
qq® a+t n? ,' i n r r
F'., ? ' a! S TS. ?1
• UFO "`. ..: aa° ,? I
BEAc
,K l 13 I 5°
NO'k... W _-?•brwN Bq ! 11 5
s\ grow w? I ?- 51
36. ??(n 91Yi l-J i39 1. 1.0
?' Y m u\\\ ?/ _ SFdcF,°/ortl S7ouyPO ?? 0
®? " ro «2?. / zz ss 5v jl
? ? 4? I p N .' Se m °
?bj
a
q Fl°H q - •\ c K f a '° 51
21
n• ? ' n' 1_._..?`? -`e?`; -tea. L 8 a a? °li M u9' ` ..- »
7B S R 95 esutae:.. ?1 ?.
a+ ? i1 I m
Area
4 Project 0S
q \ Y ... .? ? ? APP
Or res 9=R I PP
d°r F4W_41 ?~ "'eN ! IS 45 - ?5 , ?N ? ..L e • / ? ??I] p gy,f'? \? =1 Y p j µ
.f k5 , i N .e I Y I N ]• I 6 tI AS Tf"'.A,c?? Ila i 56 : 1+...
99
42
v 1 IcnnllstSJ „d?`,? ash ^?`?t a.-. 95 1 ?? ?0 - _ ry' a
J 110 a•r ? .Y 5P y0 - °• 1 01
. 1] 5\ I
.. V V_ ../ ?• N
NI^.a` se Is i' w s y0.. f' Q ?ay0 +* ?. J C Illjjj(((p = ?.I 55
r O M i i s n y6
9
95
I I
.
b`? awl ? °] ? I 5\. ? ? 1. ? 11 i 16 90
sn ? , {
63
o'+aater ; f M- w 5
3
+ @C += N 55
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
i M j ....1 Si °S 50 5. _ 55.. ' ?, sl 17 I ] 6to
© N
0& 2,
1 at Miles
sa ' x fvs w • va
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore"
Protection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
Borrow Areas
Barden Inlet
` r
Map Location .
•
�z
a,
u � t
f v
r it
,k. z:f
K �
ID
r
'kl elf.
> � a•d 6 e-R ,W •
F
F
. � 41
/ r
,�» \ Area A
r '
Area B
Berm
,`� x $ }G
.r
-- Beachfill Limits
Photography Date:
Sept. 25, 2003 N
et z s
a,Y a Map Date:
r- Cape Lookout Lighthouse Nov. 7, 2005
S" ' 0 200 400 800
Feet

National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Protection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
hd Ck??far K
dabs ?, a.
Barden Inlet
f cc
t
Map Location
t lY t=
f
North Area
Beachfill
N
Y
i Berm
South Area
Beachfill
Cape Lookout Lighthouse
and Historical Structures
?' t `'?* • Berm
g r' +i t rk
Berm
Structures
,f Beachfill Limits N
r Photography Date :
Sept. 25, 2003
_ :tR Y 'l
41
Map Date:
Nov. 14, 2005
0 100 200 400
?? Feei
10

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 14, 2005
Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
FR-3 kt;?:911 [ROW R
SEP 2 12005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Subject: Action ID #200501030, National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Carteret
County, NC
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject
Public Notice (PN), dated August 3, 2005. The applicant, the National Park Service, (NPS) at Cape
Lookout National Seashore, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to dredge
approximately 60,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from the federal navigation channel in Barden
Inlet for placement along approximately 2,600 linear feet (If), or one-half mile, of estuarine shoreline
on the eastern margin of the inlet. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments
related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines
(40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish
and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's
determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service has been involved with the planning effort. A Service biologist attended an on-site,
interagency meeting for this work on August 17, 2004. The Service provided scoping comments to
the Wilmington Corps District (Environmental Resources Section) by letter dated August 27, 2004.
The Wilmington District is developing the environmental documentation as well as the plans and
specifications on behalf of the NPS.
Proposed Actions and Anticipated Impacts
The applicant seeks to provide protection for the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated historical
structures and restore an existing recreational beach. The shoreline of concern is a 2,600-foot reach
on the eastern side of Barden Inlet (on Core Banks) which connects Lighthouse Bay and Lookout
Bight. This estuarine shoreline has been receding eastward and continued recession poses a threat to
the historic structures. This estuarine shoreline is also a "high-use recreational beach for visitors."
The PN discusses the no action alternative and three action alternatives other than the beach
construction option. The relocation of the navigation channel, which may be contributing to
shoreline recession at its present location, was rejected due to the level of study required and the need
for continuous maintenance. However, this option will be evaluated as a possible long-term solution.
The relocation of the lighthouse and other historic structures was also evaluated. However, this
option was not considered feasible due to the lack of a "readily apparent" alternative location on the
barrier island. The relocation option will also be "closely examined in the long-term study."
Due to the need for immediate action, a beach construction option was selected as the proposed
alternative. Within this broad option, three beach fill designs were considered. The alternative of
sand placement without a berm was rejected due to a lack of protection for the landward structures.
The second alternative with sand placement and a 15-foot-wide berm (in the South fill area) at a
height of 7.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), approximately mean sea level, was
determined to meet the project purpose but was rejected after evaluating "additional protective
measures."
The third, and preferred, alternative would place 10,000 cy of material along 1,000 feet north of the
existing pier. Another 50,000 cy of material would be placed along 1,600 feet of shoreline south of
the pier. These placements would have the berm specified for the southern shoreline in alternative
two. This alternative would also add a 500 linear foot geotextile tube structure in the vicinity of the
historic structures. The tube would be filled with 1,000 cy of material taken from nearshore bottoms.
The tube would have a circumference of 20-24 feet and stand approximately six feet high. The
amount of shoreline to be covered by the tube is not given, but could be in the range of 3,000 square
feet (6-foot base x 500-foot length). The tube would be covered by approximately two feet of sand.
The applicant proposes to do the initial construction and all future maintenance work during the
period from October 1 through March 31.
Several areas were evaluated as sources of material. The preferred source is designated as Area B in
the lower limits of the federal navigation channel through Barden Inlet. Preliminary findings suggest
that this area has the required amount of material, but if additional sediment is required the western
section of Area A would be used. Figure 6 provides data on the grain size analyses of the shoreline
placement area and the three borrow areas considered. These data suggest that the use of Borrow
Area (BA) B would reduce the grain size along the shoreline. The two highest percentages of
material at the placement beach are in the range of 0.43 and 0.30 mm. The largest single percentage
of material at BA B is in the 0.21 mm range. The 0.21 mm range constitutes less than 10 percent of
the existing shoreline sediment, but over 35% of the sediment in BA B.
Periodic maintenance would be required to assure the continued protection of the historic structures
and the recreational beach. Such maintenance may include additional placements of sediment
brought to the area by truck, bulldozer, and/or dredged material disposal. The maintenance cycle has
not been calculated and would be dependent of storm activity. The estuarine shoreline would be
monitored by NPS personnel and material imported as needed. The placement of additional material
would continue until "a longer term solution could be studied and implemented for the project area."
The PN does a specific time limit over which such maintenance work could be done.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Carteret County. We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the special status
species, both federal and state. This database can be accessed by topographic quadrangle (quad) of
the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the most project-specific
information on species which should be considered in permitting this project. The project area is in
the Harkers Island quad. The occurrence data of special status species within this quad can be
obtained on the internet at < http://www.ncnhp.orR/Pages/heritagedata.html >.
The NCNHP database has several records of the federally endangered West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) in the project area. There is one occurrence record in Lookout Bight near
Catfish Point. The estuarine waters of Lighthouse Bay and Back Sound may provide suitable habitat
for manatees that move along the Atlantic Coast during summer months and are seasonal transients
in North Carolina, primarily from June through October. The species moves extensively when in
North Carolina waters and past occurrence records cannot be used to precisely determine the
likelihood that it will be presence at a particular construction site.
The proposed dredging in Barden Inlet may pose a risk to manatees. To protect manatees in North
Carolina, the Service developed guidelines entitled "Precautions for General Construction in Areas
Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina." These guidelines address all
types of in-water construction, except blasting, and should produce little, if any, additional expense.
The guidelines are intended mainly to ensure that construction personnel are informed that manatees
may occur in the work area, that work should cease if a manatee approaches the work area, work
should not resume until the manatee leaves the work area, and procedures for reporting the death or
injury of a manatee. These guidelines are available on our web site at < http://nc-
es.fws.gov/mammal/manatee Quidelines.pdf>. The risk to manatees could be reduced to an
acceptable level by the implementation of the Service's guidelines. The risk would be further
reduced by performing the work during the period of November through May.
The federally threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), an annual plant, could occur in
the placement area. The species most commonly occurs on Atlantic barrier island beaches, where its
primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and lower foredunes and upper
strands of non-eroding beaches. However, it occasionally establishes small temporary populations in
other habitats, including sound-side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material
placed as beach replenishment or dredge spoil. The species appears to need extensive areas of barrier
island beaches and inlets, functioning in a relatively natural and dynamic manner. These
characteristics allow it to move around in the landscape as a "fugitive" species, occupying suitable
habitat as it becomes available. The NCNHP has occurrence records for the species in both the
Harkers Island and Cape Lookout quads.
The applicant should conduct a survey for this plant prior to any sediment placement, either for initial
construction and any maintenance event. The recommended survey period for this species is July
through October. If plants are found in the designated disposal area, the Service should be contacted
to determine whether an acceptable course of action for protecting this species can be established.
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the Atlantic Coast population, designated as federally
threatened, may occur in the project area. Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal
beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping foredunes; in
blowout areas behind primary dunes (overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes; and in overwash
areas cut into or between dunes. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for feeding, and
undisturbed flats with low dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting. Piping plovers from the
federally endangered Great Lakes population as well birds from the Atlantic Coast and Northern
Great Plains populations overwinter on North Carolina beaches.
4
Piping plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Following
establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand
generally on the upper beach close to the dunes (or in other shoreline habitats depending on the
portion of the range). This is where the female will lay her eggs. By early September both adults
and young will have departed for their wintering areas. To avoid adverse impacts to piping plover
nesting, work on the beach should not occur between April 1 and August 31. The Service
recommends that all disposal and grading should occur outside the recognized nesting season for
piping plover and other shorebirds.
The Service has designated areas along the North Carolina coast as critical habitat for wintering
populations of the Great Lakes population of piping plovers. The proposed project would occur, at
least in part, within Unit NC-7 which is designated as South Core Banks with 552 ha (1,364 ac) in
Carteret County. The entire unit is within Cape Lookout National Seashore and extends south from
Cape Lookout Lighthouse, along Cape Lookout, to Cape Point and northwest to the northwestern
peninsula (< http://plover.fws.gov/FR_notice/finalchnotice-50-56%20North°/o20Carolina.pdf >).
The unit includes all lands from mean lowest low water (MLLW) on the Atlantic Ocean, Onslow
Bay, and Lookout Bight up to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins
and the constituent elements no longer occur.
The current preferred alternative may affect some constituent elements south of the lighthouse. The
sand-covered geotextile tube is not likely to provide the same level feeding habitat as the natural
intertidal area. However, the 500-foot tube is not likely to result in an adverse modification of Unit
NC-7-
The proposed work is not likely to pose a risk to sea turtles nesting. While the NCNHP database
indicates nesting by both the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and the leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) on the ocean beach of Core Banks, there*are no records of nesting on sound
side beaches. However, the Corps should coordinate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries on dredging procedures to minimize adverse impacts to sea turtles
in the water.
Overall, the Corps should require several conditions for the protection of federally species. There
should be survey data to ensure that seabeach amaranth plants would not be buried by the sediment
placement. Ideally, all dredging, sand transport, beach placement and grading should be conducted
outside of the combined period of likely manatee occurrence and piping plover nesting. This period
would allow work during the period from November 1 through March 31. The applicant has
proposed extending the work period by one month in the fall. With the inclusion of the Service
manatee guidelines as a permit condition for initial construction and all maintenance work involving
dredging the work is not likely to adversely affect manatees.
With the inclusion of conditions given above, the Service would concur with a determination by the
District Engineer that the action is not likely to adversely affect species designated as threatened,
endangered; or their designated critical habitat. The Corps requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act would be fulfilled. However, section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner
not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Service Concerns and Recommendations
Unvegetated intertidal areas are known as mud flats or sand flats depending on their sediment size.
A detailed discussion of the ecology of such flats in North Carolina has been produced by the Service
(Peterson and Peterson 1979). Microscopic algae thrive on flats. Invertebrates inhabiting intertidal
shoals are an important food source for shorebirds and fishes. Peterson and Peterson (1979, pp. 49-
58) present a comprehensive review of the birds which use intertidal flats in North Carolina. The
diverse benthic invertebrates found on intertidal flats in North Carolina have been described
(Peterson and Peterson 1979, pp. 19-29). Many foragers, such as blue crab (Callinectes sapidus),
small fish, and shrimp come in with the tide to feed on surface detritus or to prey on intertidal
burrowers. However, these species leave the flats on the receding tide and are more properly at home
in the shallow, estuarine waters.
The Service is concerned that the relocation option considers moving the lighthouse and the smaller
structures as a single operation. The keeper's house and other structures are closer to the
encroaching shoreline than the lighthouse. Aerial photographs suggest that there should be areas to
move the house and smaller structures to the east or northeast of the lighthouse without moving the
actual lighthouse. We understand that some protection may be necessary, in the short-term, to
develop a plan for moving only these smaller structures. However, we recommend that the current
DA permit have a specified period of five years for maintaining the shoreline stabilization structure.
During this period the NPS should develop both an intermediate- and long-term plans for preserving
the lighthouse complex. One element of the intermediate plan should be the relocation of the
keeper's house and other small structures independently from moving the actual lighthouse.
In considering the means of short-term protection, the preferred alternative should balance
effectiveness with the protection of natural resources and processes. Achieving this balance may
mean that neither preserving the historic status quo nor protecting natural resources is maximized.
The selection should also be guided by the policy statement given at <
hqp://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/law policy.htm >). This guidance states that "where
erosion control is required by law, or where present development must be protected in the short term
to achieve park management objectives, including high-density visitor use, the Service [NPS] will
use the most effective and natural appearing method [emphasis added] feasible, while minimizing
impacts outside the target area." In the current situation, the applicant should consider that the sand
to be placed on top of the geotextile tube is likely to be washed off leaving the unsightly tube in stark
contrast to the adjacent, natural shoreline.
In regard to minimizing impacts beyond the actual footprint of the tube, the Service is concerns about
the use of this structure as a means of shoreline stabilization. This tube represents a hard structure
which would act a seawall along the shoreline. Any seawall can be detrimental to the nearshore
environmental by reflecting incoming wave energy off the structure and scouring the area seaward of
the wall. This action can eventually undermine the seawall. Such scouring would reduce the amount
of shallow estuarine bottoms seaward of the tube. A seawall does affect the factors producing
shoreline recession and eventually any beach in front of the wall is lost (Pilkey et al. (1998, p. 91).
Furthermore, there can be scouring at the edges of a seawall. Even if the geotextile tube remains in
place, shoreline recession would continue beyond the ends of the structure. Pilkey et al. (1998, p. 91)
note that once seawalls are built, they are rarely removed; instead, most walls become higher and
longer.
6
Overall, the Service does not oppose short-term measures to preserve the lighthouse and associated
structures. However, as with the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, we believe that the long-term solution
may be the relocation of these structures. In the interim, the estuarine shoreline can be augmented as
planning proceeds. However, a proper balance between protecting natural and cultural resources
should not include the proposed sand-fill geotextile tube which would essentially function a 500-foot
seawall. We recommend that the Corps, as part of the public interest review, consider permitting the
Beachfill Alternative 2 given in the PN. This alternative which is acknowledged to meet the project
purpose would not include the geotextile tube. This alternative would allow maintaining a sandy
estuarine shoreline while planning for the long-term solution progresses. We also recommend that
the DA permit for maintaining this shoreline not be open-ended. The current permit should be for a
specified period, such as five years, after which any request for additional work would be reviewed
along with progress toward the long-term preservation of these historic structures.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this PN. If you have questions regarding
these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at <
[e-mail] >.
Sinc ly
Pete Oe'
.amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited
Pilkey, O. H., W. J. Neal, S. R. Riggs, C. A. Webb, D. M. Bush, D. F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B. A.
Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands - Restless Ribbons of Sand.
Duke University Press. Durham, North Carolina. 318 pp.
Peterson, C. H. and N. C. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/39. 73pp.
cc:
Ronald Mikulak, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort, NC
Linda York, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA
Robert A. Vogel, Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harkers Island, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Ted Tyndall, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Ocean, NC
1 1
.US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: August 3, 2005
Comment Deadline: September 2, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200501030
All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United
States. Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the
attached plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Q [P= Im OW R
Applicant: National Park Service AUG 8• 2005
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531 DENR-WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally
issue, or deny the proposed work pursuant to -applicable procedures of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Location
The project site is located west of Cape Lookout Lighthouse, Cape Lookout, adjacent to
Back Sound and Lookout Bight, Carteret County, North Carolina. Latitude 34-37-30 and
Longitude 76-31-33.
Existing Site Conditions
Cape Lookout National Seashore is located three miles off the mainland coast in the
central coastal area of North Carolina and occupies more than 29,000 acres of land and
water from Ocracoke Inlet on the northeast to Beaufort Inlet to the southwest. The
national seashore consists of four main barrier islands (North Core Banks, Middle Core
Banks, South Core Banks, and Shackleford Banks), which consist mostly of wide, bare
beaches with low dunes covered by scattered grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense
vegetation, and large expanses of salt marsh alongside the sound. There are no road
connections to the mainland or between the islands. The project area centers on the
estuarine shoreline in the vicinity of the lighthouse and associated historic structures,
located within the influence of Barden Inlet and at the juncture of Shackleford Banks and
the south end of Core Banks. The project is located adjacent to the existing federal
navigation channel. The beachfront within the project area serves as a high-use
recreation beach for visitors transported to the existing pier/dock via ferry vessels from
Harkers Island and Beaufort or by private boats.
The Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated structures is listed in the National Register
of Historic Places under the name "Cape Lookout Light Station." Continuous erosion of
the estuarine shoreline is threatening eventual damage and possible destruction of the
lighthouse and historic structures. Evidence of the threats to the structures is the loss of
the coalhouse in 1999 due to Hurricane Isabelle. Storms and high tides continue to erode
the remaining area, threatening the keeper's quarters and summer kitchen as well as the
lighthouse itself. In an effort to slow the process, in March of 2005 permits were
obtained, and sandbags were placed along the shoreline in front of the historic buildings
as a temporary measure to minimize damage.
The proposed placement of beach quality material along the estuarine shoreline will assist
in protecting the lighthouse and associated historic structures from further damage until a
long-term solution can be developed. Based on past erosion rates, it is believed that the
placement of material within this area as proposed would provide 7 to 10 years of
protection while the longer solution can be investigated. Without this effort, the
buildings are in immediate danger of damage and or destruction.
:applicant's Stated Purpose
The purpose of the project is to provide protection of the lighthouse and associated
historic structures and place sand within the existing recreation beach area.
Project Description
The applicant provided the following description of the proposed project. The referenced
figures and plans are attached to the public notice.
The project involves the placement of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of beach quality
material along two sections of beach, divided by the existing pier, designated as the
northern fill area and the southern fill area. The lighthouse and associated historic
structures are located adjacent to the southern fill area. Based on the need for added
protection in this area, the proposed action includes the construction of a berm and the
placement of a geotextile tube structure as part of the placement of fill in the southern fill
area. Hydrographic surveys and sediment sampling of the adjacent navigation channel
were performed in 2005 to assist in identifying possible borrow sources for the project
Figure 2 shows the federal navigation channel segmented into Area 1 - Upper Limits of
the Channel and Area 2 - Lower Limits of the Channel. Based on the results of sediment
analysis, the preferred beachfill borrow source is located in the Lower Limits of the
channel and is designated as Site B. Each segment of the proposed action is discussed
below:
2
Beachfill: The project has been separated into two sections, designated as the
Northern Fill and Southern Fill areas, as shown on Figure 3. A total of approximately
60,000 cubic yards of beach quality material consisting of less than 5% silt will be placed
within the project area for a total linear length of 2,500 feet.
Northern Fill Area: Extends approximately 1,000 linear feet northward from
the existing pier, transitioning into the existing shoreline. The width of this
area is limited to the available area between the existing beach and the
existing deep-water slough that hugs the shoreline in this area. The maximum
width in this area is approximately 50 feet. The elevation of the beach fill will
tie into the existing beach elevation, estimated to be approximately 3.5 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
¦ Southern Fill Area: Extends approximately 1600 linear feet southward from
the existing pier, transitioning into the existing shoreline. The maximum
width in this area is approximately 100 feet. The beach fill will tie into the
existing beach elevation, estimated to be approximately 3.5 feet NGVD.
Sand Berm: To provide added protection to the lighthouse and associated
historic structures, a berm is proposed along the southern fill area. The berm would be
constructed for a distance of approximately 1250 feet, at a height of approximately 7.5
feet NGVD, and a width of 15 feet. No berm is proposed for the northern fill area.
Geotextile Tube Structure: Placement of a 500-foot geotextile tube structure within
the Southern Fill Area is proposed to provide protection from storm and wind damage for
the historic structures and lighthouse. The 500-foot long, 20 to 24 foot circumference, 6-
foot high tube would be positioned empty and then filled by inserting a dredge discharge
pipe into ports on the tops of the tube. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sediment
would be obtained from the submerged region between the mean-low-water line and the
-6 foot contour in a 1,000 foot range of the berm. The fill area for the geotextile tube
structure would then be backfilled as part of the overall project. The tube would be
placed on top of a fabric apron integral to the placement of the tube, held in place by
anchor tubes. The placement of the geotextile tube within this area would provide a
shore protection structure for the purpose of wave attenuation, sediment retention and
stabilization. Approximately 2 feet of sand would be discharged on top of the tube,
sufficiently covering and embedding the tube within the berm at a final height of 7.5 feet
NGVD. A schematic of a typical geotextile tube structure is shown on Figure 4.
ALTERNATIVES
A range of alternatives were considered for the purpose of protecting the Cape Lookout
Lighthouse and associated historic structures, and providing a recreation beach for park
users within the beachfill area. Several alternatives were evaluated to provide suitable
beachfill material for the proposed project, including sediment sampling and surveys.
Borrow areas were evaluated to determine compatibility of borrow material and the
existing substrate within the project area. The preferred placement area and borrow
source area have been identified as meeting the project purpose of providing suitable
protection to the lighthouse and historic structures and a recreation beach within the
project area. Other alternatives were explored that would provide greater protection to
the Ii--hthouse and associated historic structures; however, they did not meet the purpose
and need of the project to provide immediate protection to the structures and to provide a
recreation beach for users. Therefore, these alternatives, although discussed have been
eliminated from further study at this time. These alternatives will be addressed in the
proposed future long-term study.
Beachfill Alternatives.
1. Estuarine Beach Fill Without Berm. This alternative involves the placement of
approximately 60,000 cubic yards of material along the estuarine shoreline.
Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material would be placed along the southern
shoreline (running from the existing pier southward toward Barden Inlet for a distance of
1,600 linear feet at a width of about 100 feet. An additional 10,000 cubic yards of
material would be placed along the northern shoreline extending from the existing pier
for a distance of 1,000 feet at a width of approximately 50 feet. The elevation of the
beach fill would tie into the existing beach elevation, estimated to be approximately 3.5
feet (NGVD). No other features other than placement of material within this area at the
natural high tide line would occur as part of this alternative. Although this alternative
provides a recreation beach for users, it does not afford the needed protection to the
Iiahthouse and associated historic structures; therefore, this alternative does not meet the
project purpose.
2. Estuarine Beachfill with Sand Berm. This alternative would be the same as that
described above, with the additional feature of a sand berm constructed along the
beachfront adjacent to the lighthouse and structures for a distance of 1,250 linear feet at a
height of 7.5 feet NGVD and a top width of 15 feet. The placement of a berm along this
section of the project would provide added protection to the structures from storm and
wind surges. Although this alternative meets the project purpose, additional protective
measures were evaluated, resulting in alternative 3 becoming the preferred plan. .
3. Estuarine Beachfill With Sand Berm and Geotextile Tube Structure (Preferred
Alternative) (Figure 3). This alternative is the proposed action and includes the
placement of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of beachfill along the eroded estuarine
beachfront (10,000 cubic yards along the northern shoreline and 50,000 cubic yards along
the southern shoreline) at an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD for a total distance of 2,600
linear feet, tapering in at the existing pier. A sand berm at an elevation of 7.5 feet NGVD
at a distance of 1,250 linear feet would be constructed along the southern shoreline. This
alternative adds the placement of a 500 linear foot geotextile tube structure within the
berm in the vicinity of the historic structures. Filling of the geotextile tube would require
borrowing an estimated 1,000 cubic yards of sandy material from the nearshore area
between the mean-low-water line and the -6 foot contour. The borrow area would then
be replenished during the placement of beachfill. The structure would provide added
protection to the structures until a long-term solution to the erosion problems can be
4
investigated. This alternative is preferred based on the need to provide maximum
protection for the lighthouse and associated historic structures while staying within the
project purpose and need.
This alternative requires periodic maintenance events that may include bulldozing or the
use of other placement methods to place additional sand within the beach fill area to
assure the geotextile tube structure remains embedded in the berm.
Beachfill Borrow Source Alternatives.
1. Area 1- Upper Limits of Federal Channel. Borrowing beachfill material from the
upper limits of the federal navigation channel, would include the removal of very fine
sand from the channel, and transporting the material to the beachfront for a distance of
about 3 miles, reference Figure 2. The removal of 60,000 cubic yards of material within
this area would not eliminate the existing shoals within the federal channel; therefore, this
area may be dredged, with the approximately 120,000 cubic yards of sandy material
being placed on the adjacent sandbag island using the control-of-effluent method of
disposal. Sediment sampling indicates that the material is beach quality sand with less
than 5% silt; however, the material is very fine and is not the most suited material to be
placed within the project area. Therefore, the lower limits of the channel were
investigated to determine a more suitable sand borrow source. The upper limits of the
channel have been historically dredged by a hydraulic pipeline dredge with the material
being placed on Sandbag Island using the control-of-effluent method of disposal.
Maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel is the responsibility of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District and is covered under separate
environmental documentation and state/federal clearances and is; therefore, separate from
the plan for the NPS Protection of Lighthouse and Associated Historic Structures project.
Based on the fines within the upper limits of the channel, and a more suitable alternative
borrow area being found in the lower limits of the channel, alternative 1 is not the
preferred borrow area.
2. Area 2 - Lower Limits of the Federal Channel (Preferrred Borrow Area).
Beachfill would be obtained by dredging the lower limits of the federal channel
(reference Figure 2). As shown on Figure 5, the area was broken up into three areas,
designated as A, B, and C. Grain size analysis and a compatibility analysis were
performed on samples taken from all three areas. All three sites contain beach quality
sand that is compatible with the existing substrate of the project area; with material in
Area A containing a finer grain size than that of B or C, but still meeting the
compatibility requirements. Area C is closest and has the best sand but borrow from that
area may adversely effect the shoreline and proposed beachfill performance; therefore,
due to its close proximity to the project area and the protection it provides Area C was
eliminated from further consideration. With the elimination of Area C, Area B is the best
suited borrow area, and is therefore selected as the preferred borrow site. Preliminary
findings suggest that Area B contains the needed cubic yardage; however, if final surveys
indicate a need for additional material, the western section of Area A would be used.
Reference Figures 6 and 6a for grain size distribution for all borrow areas investigated.
Other Alternatives Evaluated During Initial Project Review.
Other alternatives evaluated and determined not to meet the project purpose and need
include: I) construction of a rock groin or sill along or adjacent to the southern fill area;
2) relocation of the channel; 3) relocation of the lighthouse and/or historic structures and
4) no action. These alternatives along with others would be investigated further as part of
the future loner term study to provide protection to the lighthouse and associated historic
structures.
1. Construction of a Rock Groin and/or Sill Along or Adjacent to the Southern Fill
Area. This alternative would afford greater protection to the lighthouse and associated
historic structures; however, it does not meet the purpose and need for this action. It is
recognized that this alternative, along with other alternatives that would provide
additional protection to the historic structures needs to be evaluated further as a possible
long-term solution to the erosion problems within the project area. However, further
investigation of this alternative, as well as other long-term solutions are outside the
purpose of the identified project; therefore, this alternative is not feasible at this time.
2. Relocation of Channel. The relocation of the inlet channel away from the lighthouse
and historic structures would require filling of open waters (inlet gorge) and adjacent
areas and redirecting the flow of the channel to the west. It is assumed that this
alternative would require a study of the inlet complex, continuous maintenance dredging
and possible other initiatives. It has been determined that this alternative does not meet
the immediate need of providing protection to the lighthouse and historic structures, but
should be evaluated further during the long-term study.
3. Relocation of Lighthouse and Historic Structures. Relocation of the lighthouse
and/or historic structures has been evaluated and determined not-feasible at this time, as
there is no readily apparent location on the barrier island to reestablish the structures.
This alternative will be more closely examined in the long-term study. Since this
alternative cannot be implemented quickly, it was eliminated from evaluation.
4. No action. The no action alternative would result in the continued erosion of the
beachfront, resulting in damage and possible loss of historic structures and lighthouse of
national significance and continued erosion of the recreation beach. The no action
alternative is not an acceptable solution.
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
It is recognized that periodic maintenance would be required to assure the continued
protection of the lighthouse and historic structures and recreation beach through the
placement of material on the beachfront, the berm, and the coverage of the geotextile tube
structure. This maintenance would continue to be required until a longer term solution
could be studied and implemented for the project area. Maintenance may include
renourishment of the area through the transporting of material by truck, bulldozer, and/or
6
placement through dredging and disposal. The maintenance cycle for this work has not
been calculated and is dependent on storm activity. The project would be monitored by
the NPS and maintenance provided as needed. Only suitable beach quality material
would be used for maintenance of the beach.
TIMING
To avoid possible adverse impacts to environmental resources as well as recreational
usage of the project area, initial work and future maintenance would be scheduled to
occur between October 1 and March 31.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The environmentally preferred alternative would result in a positive impact to recreation,
cultural resources, and land use. No adverse impacts to water resources, air quality,
vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, threatened, endangered, or special concern
species, cultural resources or visitor use are expected to occur. An Environmental
Assessment fully disclosing the project and discussing the affected environment is
currently being prepared. See attachment for more information and plans.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate
State agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision
until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The
receipt of the application and this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh
serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur
if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for certification within sixty days of the date of
the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central Office. Additional information
regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the NCDWQ Central
Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly by
August 26, 2005.
The applicant has certified that the proposed work complies with and will be conducted
in a manner that is consistent with the approved North Carolina Coastal Zone
Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2 (b)(2) the Corps is, by this notice,
forwarding this certification to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) and requesting its concurrence or objection. Generally, the Corps will not
issue a Department of the Army (DA) permit until the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it
concurs with the applicant's consistency certification.
7
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial
determination is that the proposed project may adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
or the National Marine Fisheries Service. These impacts to EFH include destruction of
habitat at the borrow and fill site, siltation plums, erosion and sedimentation issues, time
frame work is performed (fish moratoriums) and water quality issues.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic
Places and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the
proposed work. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical
data may be located within the project area and/or could be affected by the proposed
work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on
available information, the Corps has determined there may be species listed as threatened
or endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. A final determination on the effects
of the proposed project will be made upon additional review of the project and
completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof, among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of
8
the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and
officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,
historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the
need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing shall be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, September 2, 2005.
Comments should be submitted to Henry Wicker, Project Manager for this project.
9
National Park Service` 10-
Cape Lookout National Seashore
:)tection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures A
vM?yd • G •. y..e'r Figure 1 =°°`?"
- v...?^"' gyp, ort° !? _ ?? \e?•.
jt• inia Beach 5_
-" Raleigh 3 ?,,?°"". p^ °`" •or` ?J ?? 77
-VO
Charlotte
1'? Y ` J - ? ? _f•.e.`K, 7 e z y ?,{; w':a.,' ? sy ~ay ?.
?_ \ ??t?'?i"?•u?'? ? ,s.?_cs?O' ..mom ? ?? 1- ??`)`°?y dd? 1 • .?, tijf ? . p .
wv ? o `
'- Vim, } : °---"` roc"\\\ttt z s - rt _
34
12
bO li n'
Y s
1 _. ^ .•; - `? ??+-? o- o t 1.. - yam`.,. \- , ./" { !• u t
? J t4
_ : ' 3. ?? k eft S share " \ FF ..•.
.f .- ?,?a gyp. I ? .+ r ?, -
17
BEX
p
42
44? k S4a AJ O Jr D x x:
s n - = a
''_ 36
AG $ J
Project Area d »
a l
16
24
67
v^ .sue. -> <) ? ->s _ .s •?p
P
C 0.5 1 2 3 4
y s.: x ? y ', t C jjJ(I
Miles iJ
tLNUIN
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Protection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
Figure 2
49 <?t ----
is :
12- ? BAS BROWNS ISLAND
f
f
,
?? ff
H.ARKE32S rt
.y EAS> rOUT'f
BAY
,. ISLAN 0 ,

CARTERET' COUNTY

_ SAPS 61!G 4t' -
DISPOSAL ?? t n. - - ?
AREA it
U z? CXAN. `5L 7` DEEP
N
a ?r-IQo -WIDE
:.
4 c 1
Are
l
k 5
a

hk
S 1Y i
Y, .
` s 0?
Yt

LOOK 0 U T
Area 2.
BlGKT tut
(Preferred)

•:fNLErpg, CAPE LOOKOUT --
. ''OOaa . LIGKTXMSE:

?'. aREAKWATER\.

CAPE LOOKOUT
! M.L.W I
------ -
? 3 !
I 300• ?
TYPICAL SECTION
Mileage is measured from a point N57•W H 4500• from Cops Lookout
Lighlbouss.

Q?
v
P

Q

N

CHANNEL FROM BACK SOUND
10
LOOKOUT BIGHT, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE OF FEET
2000 0 4000 8000 12000
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
MAP REVISED SEP 1990
National Park Service s F r -
Cape Lookout National Seashore z a
-otection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures`
= = J . x r
5AIM
Figure 3°
a
--. ??-s?3`-5. 'a = ??.^?.-.``?."?? ,max` } - ? ? _ -i?3:'.? 7 LG?.,r.'I t• ?'•? ? `'"??? T ? -=?'?.'.?`..??'?????`?-"y.-?•.'`='?`3 F y'?? - ? ?.?:.? --? ?' % r.. =5`? ?- ?:._ _ -
North Area
XYT,
- South Area = Berm
Beachfill
Geotextile Tube s 4"
NMI
? -_L- ifs- ? __ •? ? „? ? wit F?
-, _ ?. - ,? zap - •
Cape Lookout Lighthouse
r fL ?T -
and Historical Structures
Berm
Sena ?????..?
13 ft Berm
- 7.5 8NGVD
Gecte:_le -lice , structures
Beachfill Limits N
------------
?-_ GeotextileTube
-3 :ftNGVD ?s axG?D ? Photography Date
??? T -,:be i Sept. 25, 2003
0 100 200 400
..c:.z y= _fo-.:_h-a! i Feet
Geotextile Tube
Sand Encasement I 15 ft I
(+n;+-1 1 R in )
?E
3.5 ft NGVD
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Protection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
Figure 4
Anchor Tube ^
Scour Apron I Dutch Toe ,
National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Aection of Lighthouse and Historical Structures
Figure 5 - Potential Borrow Areas
rred i • •
Pref
Area
y
r _
ILI
MA,
.??-?,}???_"` ? ? F - Y:_ ?h •a sue. ? ?_ » _
22 47-1 S .o
?-
-- s z a €`` - _ri s4 r a
24
.. + y.3t?RIP.r?'S7
-Z, 7
rx -
54
-s:Z...-r_ - _ - .. ? - .t -•-_ . -.mow _ ?? _..?? ...?''- =?_.. ?`?_ _ "- - __ -. " ? . -?
?? Tort
ry -a

` Cape Lookout Lighthouse

2 .
zr 7
ti -_•
? T
F
Area A
Area B
Area C
N
Photography Date:
Sept. 25, 2003
0 200 400 800
Feet
Cape Lookout d Grain Size Distribution
(Figure 6
60
50
40
0
30
L
a
20
10-
0-
14.3 7.15 3.38 1.71 1.21 0.86 0.61 0.43 0.3 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.05
Grain Size (min)
--?- Reference Beach
--=- Borrow Area A
-- Borrow Area B
-- Borrow Area C
_? I Imrnor r`hnnri?l

ST_NI TERMEN OLOGY
one basic ref?-e -
ace ffi one i:-nif-3d Soil ClassiLCarion System is ASTNI D 2487. Terms
include.
Ccarse-Grained Soils 3?cre thzn 50 percent retained on a 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve
Fine-Gr°-i_ed Solis 50 pe nt cr more passes a 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve
Gravel 2.lat_--al passing a 75-rum (3-inch) sieve and retained on a 4,75-mm (No.
4) sieve.
Cca_rse Gravel Mate al passing a 75-mm (3-inch) sieve and retained on a 19.0-mm (3/4-
inch) sieve.
Fine Gravel M? er?al passing a 19-0---am (3/4-inch) sieve and retained on a 4.75-mm
(2vo. 4) sieve.
Sand -Matenal passing a 4.75-mm sieve (No. 4) and retained on a 0.075-mm
(No. 200) sieve.
Coarse Sand ?v!
2--rial passing a 4 75-mm sieve No. 4) and retained on a 2.00-mm
(2vo. 10) sieve.
Medium Sand -Mat--ial passing a 2.00-mm sieve (_No. 10) and retained on a 0.475-mm
C'To. 40) sieve.
Fine Sand Material passing a 0.475-mm (No. 40) sieve and retained on a 0.075-mm
Qqc- 200) sieve.
022 Mat--rial passing a 0.075-mm (No. 200) that exhibits plasticity, and
s engta „--hen dry (PI' 4).
Silt Mate mal passing a 0.075-mm (-No. 200) that is non-plastic, and has little
strength when dry (PI < 4).
Peat SOU of vegetable matter.
-=G'U_RS 6a