107-16 Town of Ocean Isle Beach

Permit Claus " Permit Number
107
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
ermtt
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
lssued to Town of Ocean Isle Beach, 3 West 311 Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Authorizing development in Brunswick County at adi. to the Atlantic Ocean and Ocean Isle
as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/16/16, AEC Hazard
N9ti6e,dated 3/23/15, incl. attached workplan drawings (12), as referenced in Condition No.1 of this permit.
;This permit, issued on November 7, 2016 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
withthd permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
-be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
:1) Unless specifically altered herein, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the attached
workplan drawings (12), 1-2, and 4-12 dated 5/13/15, and 3 of 12 dated 1/19/16.
2)„ , Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes construction of the terminal groin structure
and its associated development activities, all as expressly and specifically set forth in the attached
permit application and workplan drawings. Any additional land development and/or construction
activities may require a modification of this permit. Contact a Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
representative at [phone] for this determination.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the
,'qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requ'es further Division approval.
..
A11 work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2019
- Ir issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
'-your_' project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
'lvlauag6ment Program.
Braxton C. Davis, Director
on of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

Town of Ocean Isle Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No.107-16
Page 2 of 5
3) To the extent any condition of this permit alters the proposed project, including mitigation and monitoring
requirements, in such a manner so as to increase the actual or estimated cost of the project over the
estimated cost for which a financial assurance package was prepared by the permittee and certified by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on 9/29/15, a modified financial assurance package shall be
prepared and approved by DEQ prior to project initiation.
4) In order to protect threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse impacts to offshore,
nearshore, intertidal and beach resources, no development seaward of the first line of stable natural
vegetation shall occur from April 1 to November 15 of any year without the prior approval of the
Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the appropriate agencies.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that there may be additional timing restrictions placed on the authorized
project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of the Federal permitting process.
Nothing in this State Permit should be construed as overriding or superseding any such Federal
permit requirement..
Stagine
5) Land -based equipment necessary for implementation of the permitted activities shall be brought to the site
through existing accesses. Should the work result in any damage to existing accesses, the accesses shall
be restored to pre -project conditions immediately upon project completion in that specific area.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that any new access sites may require a modification of this permit.
6) All materials, including stones and construction mats, shall be staged above Mean High Water, and
landward of the dunes when possible.
Terminal Groin Construction
7) Construction of the terminal groin shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on the attached
workplan drawings, unless additional authorizations for an expanded footprint or alternate alignment are
first obtained from the DCM.
8) Material used for the construction of the terminal groin shall be free from loose dirt or any other
pollutant in other than non -harmful quantities, and be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement from
the approved alignment by wave and/or current action.
9) The terminal groin shall not exceed a length of 1,050 feet, which includes the 750-foot rubble mound
groin and the associated 300-foot shore anchorage system.
10) In accordance with commitments made in the attached permit application and workplan drawings by the
permittee, the terminal groin shall be constructed in a manner to allow the bypassing of sand through and
over the structure.

a�71
Town. of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No. 107-16
. Page 3 of 5
s.-
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
i,
11)Any post -construction tuning associated with the terminal groin shall be coordinated with the DCM, in
consultation with the appropriate permit and resource agencies. Such tuning activities may require a
modification of this CAMA Permit.
Sand Fillet
r
` 12): Prior to initiation of beach nourishment activity along each section of beach, the existing mean high
is
?. water line shall be surveyed, and a copy of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management.
fi
,13) All excavation activities shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on attached workplan
drawings.
14)' Excavation shall not exceed -15' MLW (-13' MLW with a maximum 2' overdredge allowance).
5) Any such use authorized under this permit will be limited to a one (1) time.use of the borrow site source.
' Any future use of the borrow area shall require additional coordination with the DCM.
t.
"1`6)' ` The seaward sand fillet limit shall be constructed in accordance with the attached work plan drawings.
1 Z) In order to prevent leakage, dredge pipes shall be routinely inspected. If leakage is found and repairs
i v cannot be made immediately, pumping of material shall stop until such leaks are fixed.
s,
Construction Trestle
All portions of the proposed construction trestle shall be removed in its entirety after project completion.
I.
19) The construction trestle shall be placed in the alignment as depicted on the attached workplan drawings.
Inlet Management Plan - Mitigation and Monitoring
20}' Unless specifically altered herein, the permittee shall implement, at its expense, all mitigation and
monitoring commitments made in, or submitted with, the permit application, the Inlet Management Plan
dated Received DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, or the FEIS.
21) Standardized surveys for piping plover, red knot and other beach -dependent birds shall be conducted by
a contractor trained in bird identification and surveys before, during, and after construction and pipeline
placement and removal.
NOTE: In an effort to protect nesting shorebird habitat, the permittee is encouraged to mark potential
nesting areas each March with posts, signs and flagged stringed between posts. Any such posted
areas should be maintained through August 15. Additional information can be obtained by
contacting the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

Town of Ocean Isle Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No.107-16
Page 4 of 5
22) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee in the Inlet Management Plan dated Received
DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, beach profile surveys shall continue at 6-month intervals, and inlet radial
profiles and aerial photos shall be surveyed annually. An annual report shall be prepared and submitted
annually. Surveys and monitoring, as described in the plan, shall continue until such time as the DCM
agrees in writing that additional surveying and monitoring activities are no longer necessary.
23) The DCM may order the modification or removal of the terminal groin structure upon finding that any
negative impacts associated with the constructed terminal groin structure outweigh the protective value of
the structure. Upon such order, and in compliance with the time frames in the order, the permittee agrees
to modify or to remove the terminal groin as in accordance with the order, potentially including up to
removal in its entirety, including all portions of the structure below grade.
24) If erosion at Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach reaches any of the shoreline change thresholds listed in
Table 6.1, the October 2009 Ocean Isle Beach shoreline depicted in Figure 6.4, or the Holden Beach
shoreline position threshold depicted in Figure 6.6, as identified in the.Inlet Management Plan dated
Received DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, the permittee shall implement the verification and mitigation
measures as proposed in the Inlet Management Plan, and/or as required by the DCM.
NOTE: Additional authorization from the DCM, as well as other resource agencies, may be required for
any proposed mitigation.
25) Should the permittee utilize as a sand source material other than that identified in the application, the
applicant shall implement additional consultation with DCM, to determine any additional requirements
and/or authorizations.
26) All monitoring and reporting requirements shall continue until written authorization to terminate the
monitoring and reporting is obtained from the DCM.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan may be required for this project. This plan must be
filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan
to the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources,
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405.
General
27) No sand shall be placed on any sand bags that have been determined by the DCM to be subject to
removal under 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2). In order to ensure compliance with this condition, the
DCM shall be contacted at [phone] prior to project initiation to allow the DCM to meet on site
with the permittee and/or contractor.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the DCM regulates the removal of existing sandbags and the
placement of new sandbags in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2), or in accordance
with any variances granted by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Town of Ocean Isle Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No.107-16
Page 5 of 5
28) `; " Dune disturbance shall be allowed only to the extent necessary for development and provided that the
dune's protective value is not weakened or reduced. All disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized
with vegetation.
"29) _ : Prior to the initiation of any beach nourishment activity above the mean high water contour (MHW) within
t the limits of the project area, easements or similar legal instruments shall be obtained from all affected
property owners.
30)'. The permittee and contractor shall schedule a pre -construction conference with the DCM prior to the
initiation of construction authorized by this permit.
31) ,This permit is not assignable, transferable, or otherwise alienable without the prior written approval of the
DCM.
NOTE:-
NOTE:
NOTE:
NOTE:
NOTE:
The permittee's contractor is advised to contact the U.S. Coast Guard at [phone], ext. 108
to discuss operations and appropriate lighting, markers, etc. for all structures located below Mean
High Water.
This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required, including but not limited to an Individual Permit
from the USACE.
Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit. Contact
a representative of the DCM at [phone] prior to the commencement of any such activity
for this determination by the DCM.
The N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) has authorized the proposed project under DWR
Project No. 15-0220v2.
The USACE has assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW-2011-01241.

I
m

Timothy Rodriguez
PO Box 7385
114 East Second St.
Ocean Isle Beach, NC
28469
[e-mail]
November 10, 2015
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington, NC
Attn: Holley Snider
Dear Ms. Snider:
The Ocean Ocean Isle groin project is a fool's errand and a very costly one at that. Who would
invest millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, on a project whose outcome is uncertain? In
reading the documentation I saw repeated references to the fact that no one can say
with any certainty what will happen once this structure is in place. I hope town officials
have not indemnified themselves by posting notice. If this proves to be ruinous, they
should be held accountable —financially liable.
I noticed on the maps provided in the documentation that there are numerous lots
underway. From this I came to the assumption that the groin may push back the water
so that these lots can be developed. I am told that most of these properties are owned by
town officials and their relatives and associates. If this is the case it represents
malfeasance at its worst and hypocrisy at its best. Will the Department of Natural
Resources prosecute these people?
Z'no';Yth ez 6
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON. W
NOV 12 2015

Page 1 of I
Mary Roakes
From: "Town of Ocean Isle Beach" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:21 AM
To: "Robert T and Mary H Roakes" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH
oceanisle
B E A C H
Pursuant to the requirement of Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151 Part II (e) (3), the Town
of Ocean Isle Beach is notifying all property owners and local governments that may be
affected by the construction of the proposed terminal groin and accompanying beach
nourishment project.
Information on the proposed Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project, which includes
the construction of a terminal groin and associated beach nourishment, can be found on the
Town's website at http://www.oibgov.com/shoreIineprotection.cfm
Comments regarding the referenced project may be submitted to the following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
a'.,p RV-0-�
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
Yna^t �D 9t'nn-
kzl� � 1 1
L O / s--
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
A.1 NOV 0 5 2015
10/23/2015

� Y
. �
� !� ..
.e
,.
..
�.
.I ___; -. _
_. .... _ .._ ... ... .. ... _.

<j5
Date Dopes/, Check Check
Received I fed Check From Name of Permit Holder Vendor Number amount Perri Number/Commend I Reflm&Reallocadd
517r20151 5/8/15
Gerald or Cherish Roeder
same
Marine Federal Credit Union
5/7/201C 5/8/15
Allied Marine Contractors, LLC _
— — --
Henry Von Murray III
,B of A—
_ -
-- - — - -
Andrew Bray
-Mary
Ann Tally
5/1/2015 5/8/15
Land Management Group, Inc_
Orton Plantation holtlings,_Allen's Creak Bridges
_ First Bank
_
5/612015 5/8/15 Eastern Builders Inc
Thompson _ _ _ _ _ _
First Citizens Bank
5/6/2015 5/8115 Eastern Builders Inc
Thompson
First Citizens Bank
5/1/2015 Said Head Island Ltd.
same
First Citizen Bank
50/2015 5/11/15
Don B. or Connie C. Jordan_
same
NC State Employees_' Credit Union
_
5/8/2015 5/11/15
Wayne Smith & Son Inc
_ _ _ _ _ _
Joe Smith _ _ _
_
_ BB &T-
5/8/2015
5/11/15
Ricky HeweB conslrucuon ----.Ruth
Netherton &Vicki Jesse _
BB &T
_
5/0/2015
5/11115
Ricky Hewett construction
_ ,Reaves. Corbett _& Rowell
Branch Banking and Trust Co
5/8/2015
5/1115
Backwater Marine Construction Inc _
_Jim Tobin _ _ _ _
BE &T _
51812015
5/11 115
Steven T. Fanner, Robin G. Farmer
Eric & Chnse McComb
BE &T
Howe
5/11 01015
5/11/15
_
Thomton Builders & Investments LLC
_Harnett
Lot 11 & 12 Peninsulas
BB &T
5/112015
5/11/15
Thornton guilders & Investmend LLC
'Lot 15 Peninsulas_
!BB
8T
5/112015
_
A'N'A Builders, Inc
_
',Allan Funk
TD Bank
5/112015
NCWRC
_ _
same
electronic transferknvoice
5/122015
Coastal Land Design, PLLC
Bald Head Island, Palmetto Bridge
B of A
5/13/2015
Jeanne L. or James S. Wallis
Eagle's Watch HOA
_ PING Bank
5l132015
Robin G Smith
same
First Citzens Bank
5/132015
VCC, Inc.
_
190 Yacht Watch, Holden Beach _
BB &T
5/142015
_ _
Bayern inc
_
Lynn & Michael Seel - _
B of A
5/132015'
Clements Marine Construction Inc
_
Dorothy Medlin
First Citizens Bank
5/122015
B & K Marine Construction
Priscilla Clark
BS &T
5/122015
Joseph Milligan Lie Milligan
Charles Darsie & Sandra Cook
NeaBndge Bank
5/t21015
Maritime Coastal Construction LLC
'Thomas Young
CresCom Bank
'Rick Billings
-
5/12J2015
Official Check from BBT/Kapkowski, Ronald
',William Yanlandingham
BB&T
50t
5114/2015
TAllied Marine Contractors, LLC
'Robert Lakey
B of A
7366' $660.001 GP 64618D $200 _
GP 64619D $200 _
GP 64620D $200
5408 _ $250.00 major fee, BrC.
3322 $100.00 minorfee, NTB 15-12
3323 $100.00 1 minor fee, NTB 15-13
1511 $100.00 mod fee, 191 check returned 5/7/16
2806 $200.00 GP for Jordan
9291 $400.00 GP 65138D
4488 $200.00 GP WOO
-
4629 $400.00 GP 64504D
1911 $200.00 GP64607D
7161 $400.00 GP 64605D $200
GP 64606D @$200 _
1895 $200.00 minor fees, SC 12-11 & SC 15-12 PN_Co _
1922 $100.00 minor fee, SC 16-13 PNCo
7198 $100.00 minor fee, NTB
576 1000$ 01renewal tee, MP 55.10
5054 $400.00 majorfee, BrCo
3859 3100.00 renewal fee. MP 120-08
6653'i $400.00NOV 15-07D
3386 $600.00 GP 64625�
7040$100.00 minorfee, 36741slandDr. NTB
3798 $200,00 GP646210

�e
MAJOR PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
OIB Terminal Groin / $475 / Brunswick County
DCM %
DWQ %
Development Ta
Fee
14300160143510009316256253
2430016024351000952341
I. Private, non-commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$250
100%
$250
0%
$0
II. Public or commercial development that does
not involve the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$400
100%
$400
0%
$0
III. For development that involves the filling
and/or excavation of up to 1 acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas, determine if A,B, C.
r D below applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$250
100%
$250
0%
($0
III(B). Public or commercial development, if
General Water Quality Certification No. 3490
See attached can be applied:
$400
100%
$400)
0%
$0
III(C). If General Water Quality Certification No.
90 (see attached) could be applied, but DCM
staff determined that additional review and written
DWQ concurrence is needed because of
concerns related to water quality or aquatic life:
$400
60%
$240
40%
$160
III(D). If General Water Quality Certification No.
90 see attached cannot be applied:
$400
60%
$240
40%
$160
IV. Development that involves the filling and/or
excavation of more than one acre of wetlands
and/or open water areas:
$475
60%
$285
40%
$190
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13,2016
[e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
Re: Major Public Notice for the Town of Ocean Isle (Terminal Groin) / Brunswick County
Kyle & Heather: Please publish the attached Notice in the Thursday, June 16, 2016 issue.
The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising.
Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of
Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by
credit card to the attention of Luke Skiera, Ref acct # 796-7215).
Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me
at our Wilmington office.
cc:
Heather Coats - WiRO
Doug Huggett -MHC
Tyler Crumbley — USACE
Sarah Young- DCM
Sincerely,
Shaun K. Simpson
Permitting Support & Custom ssistance
Nothing Compares
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Eat., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by
NCGS 113A-119(b) that the following application was submitted for a development permit in an
Area of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On June 10, 2016, the Town
of Ocean Isle Beach proposed to construct a terminal groin at the east end of Ocean Isle
Beach, east of Shallone Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County. A copy of the application can be examined or copied at the office of Tara
MacPherson, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127
Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7425) during normal business hours.
Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to July 7, 2016 will be considered in
making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of
permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public
and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided
upon written request.
Nothing Compares �
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

FM_it*Class Permit Number
107-16
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality -
i•• and
r
Coastal Resources Commission
Vermit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
1' pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
? X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Town of Ocean Isle Beach, 3 West 3rd Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
s..
Authorizing development in Brunswick County at adi. to the Atlantic Ocean and Ocean Isle
a=
` as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/16/16, AEC Hazard
Notice dated 3/23/15, incl, attached workplan drawings (12), as referenced in Condition No.1 of this permit.
_ *, This,permit, issued on November 7, 2016 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
j with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
6
1) Unless specifically altered herein, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the attached
. workplan drawings (12), 1-2, and 4-12 dated 5/13/15, and 3 of 12 dated 1/19/16.
Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes construction of the terminal groin structure
and its associated development activities, all as expressly and specifically set forth in the attached
permit application and workplan drawings. Any additional land development and/or construction
activities may require a modification of this permit. Contact a Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
representative at [phone] for this determination.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the
qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
1, This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
r personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
f
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
}'- December 31, 2019
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
d your :project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Management Program.
G
ti
Signature of Permittee

Town of Ocean Isle Beach
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 16-16
Page 2 of 5
To the extent any condition of this permit alters the proposed project, including mitigation and monitoring
requirements, in such a manner so as to increase the actual or estimated cost of the project over the
estimated cost for which a financial assurance package was prepared by the permittee and certified by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on 91/29/15, a modified financial assurance package shall be
prepared and approved by DEQ prior to project initiation.
4) In order to protect threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse impacts to offshore,
nearshore, intertidal and beach resources, no development seaward of the first line of stable natural
vegetation shall occur from April 1 to November 15 of any year without the prior approval of the
Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the appropriate agencies.
The permittee is advised that there may be additional timing restrictions placed on the authorized
(' project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of the Federal permitting process.
Nothing in this State Permit should be construed as overriding or superseding any such Federal
permit requirement.
k Stagine
s 5) ' Land -based equipment necessary for implementation of the permitted activities shall be brought to the site
F
through existing accesses. Should the work result in any damage to existing accesses, the accesses shall
be restored to pre -project conditions immediately upon project completion in that specific area.
I ' ,.NOTE: The permittee is advised that any new access sites may require a modification of this permit.
F`
6) ` All materials, including stones and construction mats, shall be staged above Mean High Water, and
,.. landward of the dunes when possible.
Terminal Groin Construction
7) Construction of the terminal groin shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on the attached
r; workplan drawings, unless additional authorizations for an expanded footprint or alternate alignment are
first obtained from the DCM.
't'8) Material used for the construction of the terminal groin shall be free from loose dirt or any other
pollutant in other than non -harmful quantities, and be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement from
the approved alignment by wave and/or current action.
The terminal groin shall not exceed a length of 1,050 feet, which includes the 750-foot rubble mound
groin and the associated 300-foot shore anchorage system.
In accordance with commitments made in the attached permit application and workplan drawings by the
permittee, the terminal groin shall be constructed in a manner to allow the bypassing of sand through and
over the structure.

of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No.107-16
Page 2 of 5
ADDITIONAL -CONDITIONS
To the extent any condition of this permit alters the proposed project, including mitigation and monitoring
requirements, in such a manner so as to increasethe actual or estimated cost of the project over the
estimated cost for which a financial assurance package was prepared by the permittee and certified by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on 9729/15, a modified financial assurance package shall be
prepared and approved by DEQ prior to project initiation.
,.;In order to protect threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse impacts to offshore,
nearshore, intertidal and beach resources, no development seaward of the first line of stable natural
vegetation shall occur from April 1 to November 15 of any year without the prior approval of the
Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the appropriate agencies.
GE: The permittee is advised that there may be additional timing restrictions placed on the authorized
project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of the Federal permitting process.
Nothing in this State Permit should be construed as overriding or superseding any such Federal
permit requirement.
Stnine
Land -based equipment necessary for implementation of the permitted activities shall be brought to the site
through existing, accesses. Should the work result in,any damage to existing; accesses, the accesses shall
be restored to pre -project conditions immediately upon project completion in.that specific area. .
The permittee is advised that any new access sites may require a modification of this permit.
All materials, including stones and construction mats, shall be staged above Mean High Water, and
-landward of the dunes when possible.
Terminal Groin Construction
Construction of the terminal groin shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on the attached
workplan drawings, unless additional, authorizations for an expanded footprint or alternate alignment are
first obtained from the DCM.
Material used for the construction of the terminal groin shall be free from loose dirt or any other
pollutant in other than non -harmful quantities, and be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement from
the approved alignment by wave and/or current action.
The terminal groin shall not exceed a length of 1,050 feet, which includes the 750-foot rubble mound
"groin and the associated 300-foot'shore anchorage system.
In accordance with commitments made in the attached permit application and workplan drawings by the
permittee, the terminal groin shall be constructed in a manner to allow the bypassing of sand through and
over the structure.

of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No. 107-16
Page 3 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Any post -construction tuning associated with the terminal groin shall be coordinated with the DCM, in
consultation with the appropriate permit and resource agencies. Such tuning activities may require a
modification of this CAMA Permit.
Sand Fillet
Prior to initiation of beach. nourishment activity along each section of beach, the existing mean high
water line shall be surveyed, and a copy of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management.
All excavation activities shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on attached workplan
drawings.
Excavation shall not exceed -15' MLW (-13' MLW with a maximum 2' overdredge allowance).
Any such use authorized under this permit will be limited to a one (1) time.use of the borrow site source.
Any future use of the borrow area shall require additional coordination with the DCM.
The seaward sand fillet limit shall be constructed in accordance with the attached work plan drawings.
In order to prevent leakage, dredge pipes shall be routinely inspected. If leakage is found and repairs
cannot be made immediately, pumping of material shall stop until such leaks are fixed.
Construction Trestle
All portions of the proposed construction trestle shall be removed in its entirety after project completion.
The construction trestle shall be placed in the alignment as depicted on the attached workplan drawings.
Inlet Management Plan - Mitigation and Monitoring
20) ` Unless specifically altered herein, the permittee shall implement, at its expense, all mitigation and
monitoring commitments made in, or submitted with, the permit application, the Inlet Management Plan
dated Received DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, or the FEIS.
21) Standardized surveys for piping plover, red knot and other beach -dependent birds shall be conducted by
a contractor trained in bird identification and surveys before, during, and after construction and pipeline
placement and removal.
NOTE:
In an effort to protect nesting shorebird habitat, the permittee is encouraged to mark potential
nesting areas each March with posts, signs and flagged stringed between posts. Any such posted
areas should be maintained through August 15. Additional information can be obtained by
contacting the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

Town of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No.107-16
s Page 4 of 5
i ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
C
' 22)" In accordance with commitments made by the permittee in the Inlet Management Plan dated Received
E
DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, beach profile surveys shall continue at 6-month intervals, and inlet radial
profiles and aerial photos shall be surveyed annually. An annual report shall be prepared and submitted
` annually. Surveys and monitoring, as described in the plan, shall continue until such time as the DCM
P
agrees in writing that additional surveying and monitoring activities are no longer necessary.
23).. The DCM may order the modification or removal of the terminal groin structure upon finding that any
_ negative impacts associated with the constructed terminal groin structure outweigh the protective value of
the structure. Upon such order, and in compliance with the time frames in the order, the permittee agrees
tomodifyor to remove the terminal groin as in accordance with the order, potentially including up to
r removal in its entirety, including all portions of the structure below grade.
t-
%'24)` If erosion at Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach reaches any of the shoreline change thresholds listed in
Table 6.1, the October 2009 Ocean Isle Beach shoreline depicted in Figure 6.4, or the Holden Beach
shoreline position threshold depicted in Figure 6.6, as identified in the.Inlet Management Plan dated
Received DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, the permittee shall implement the verification and mitigation
! measures as proposed in the Inlet Management Plan, and/or as required by the DCM.
{ NOTE: Additional authorization from the DCM, as well as other resource agencies, may be required for
any proposed mitigation.
6.. d
,25)" Should the permittee utilize as a sand source material other than that identified in the application, the
applicant shall implement additional consultation with DCM, to determine any additional requirements
and/or authorizations.
26) All monitoring and reporting requirements shall continue until written authorization to terminate the
monitoring and reporting is obtained from the DCM.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
t
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan may be required for this project. This plan must be
filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan
3' to the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources,
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405.
General
27) No sand shall be placed on any sand bags that have been determined by the DCM to be subject to
removal under 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2). In order to ensure compliance with this condition, the
DCM shall be contacted at [phone] prior to project initiation to allow the DCM to meet on site
with the permittee and/or contractor.
`NOTE: The permittee is advised that the DCM regulates the removal of existing sandbags and the
placement of new sandbags in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2), or in accordance
L: with any variances granted by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

nbf Ocean Isle Beach Permit No. 107-16
Page 4 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS -
. In accordance with commitments made by the permittee in the Inlet Management Plan dated Received
DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, beach profile surveys shall continue at 6-month intervals, and inlet radial
-profiles and aerial photos shall be surveyed annually. An annual report shall be prepared and submitted
annually. Surveys and monitoring, as described in the plan, shall continue until such time as the DCM
agrees in writing that additional surveying and monitoring activities are no longer necessary.
The DCM may order the modification or removal of the terminal groin structure upon finding that any
negative impacts associated with the constructed terminal groin structure outweigh the protective value of
the structure. Upon such order, and in compliance with the time frames in the order, the permittee agrees
to modify or to remove the terminal groin as in accordance with the order, potentially including up to
removal in its entirety, including all portions of the structure below grade.
If erosion at Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach reaches any of the shoreline change thresholds listed in
Table 6.1, the October 2009 Ocean Isle Beach shoreline depicted in Figure 6.4, or the Holden Beach
-shoreline position threshold depicted in Figure 6.6, as identified in the_Inlet Management Plan dated
Received DCM Wilmington 2/23/16, the permittee shall implement the verification and mitigation
measures as proposed in the Inlet Management Plan, and/or as required by the DCM.
Additional authorization from the DCM, as well as other resource agencies, may be required for
any proposed mitigation.
Should the permittee utilize as a sand source material other than that identified in the application, the
applicant shall implement additional consultation with DCM, to determine any additional requirements
and/or authorizations.
All monitoring and reporting requirements shall continue until written authorization to terminate the
monitoring and reporting is obtained from the DCM:
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
FE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan may be required for this .project. This plan must be
filed at least thirty (30),days prior to the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan
to the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources,
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405.
General
No sand shall be placed on any sand bags that have been determined by the DCM to be subject to
-removal under 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2). In order to ensure compliance with this condition, the
DCM shall be contacted at [phone] prior to project initiation to allow the DCM to meet on site
with the permittee and/or contractor.
The permittee is advised that the DCM regulates the removal of existing sandbags and the
placement of new sandbags in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2), or in accordance
with any variances granted by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Town`of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No. 107-16
Page 5 of 5
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
28) Dune disturbance shall be allowed only to the extent necessary for development and provided that the
dune's protective value is not weakened or reduced. All disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized
with vegetation.
29)` " . Prior to the initiation of any beach nourishment activity above the mean high water contour (MHW) within
the limits of the project area, easements or similar legal instruments shall be obtained from all affected
property owners.
30) The permittee and contractor shall schedule a pre -construction conference with the DCM prior to the
initiation of construction authorized by this permit.
`•,31) This permit is not assignable, transferable, or otherwise alienable without the prior written approval of the
DCM.
-'NOTE: The permittee's contractor is advised to contact the U.S. Coast Guard at [phone], ext. 108
to discuss operations and appropriate lighting, markers, etc. for all structures located below Mean
High Water.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required, including but not limited to an Individual Permit
from the USACE.
CE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit. Contact
a representative of the DCM at [phone] prior to the commencement of any such activity
for this determination by the DCM.
The N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) has authorized the proposed project under DWR
Project No. 15-0220v2.
The USACE has assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW-2011-01241.

1 FORMS
1.1 DCM MP-1
APPLICATION ftr
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
�n 1H J i' U U
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Town Of Ocean Isle Beach
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Debbie
S
Smith
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
city
State
State
t
3 West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach
C
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28469
USA
910 - 579 - 2166 ext.
910 - 579 - 8804
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIPEmail
[e-mail]
'NS.i
Business Name
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Brad
Rosov
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Greg
Finch
Mailing Address
PC Box
city
State
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington
NC
ZIP
I
Phone No. I
Phone No. 2
RPCE,
28409
910 - 791 - 9494 ext.
bxt.
FAX No.
Contractor #
JUN 14 20
910 7914129
Federal ID # 020623951
Street Address (if different from above)
city
State
ZIP
D1111 1H, D
Email
RECEIV
brad. [e-mail]; greg,[e-mail]
M^W Wi!
ul
D
ON, NC
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FEB 2 3 2T6

Nu ".1�� tl'T
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Brunswick
Eastern End of Ocean Isle Beach and Shallotte Inlet and near
N/A
469 East 3rd St.
Subdivision Name
city
State
Zip
N/A
N/A
NC
N/A -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
N/A - - ext.
N/A, I I
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Shallotte Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
NNatural E]Manmade ElUnknown
Atlantic Ocean
a. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
OYes E]No
work falls within.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Ott % _d:
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.fl.)
3214 ft. (Accretion Fillet)
—535,748 s.f. (Accretion Fillet); —3,619,854 (Borrow Area)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A. I I
NWL (normal waterleve)
(if many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
—0 to 15' MSL EINHW or [-INWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Typical beach and dune vegetation.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family residential structures, sandbags, man-made dunes and beach fill. Recreational beach usage and public
access.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacen to the proposed project site.
Single family residences, recreational beach uses.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
1. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Residential (R-1)
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
MYes[]No []NA
J. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? []Yes ONO
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. [-]Yes ENO EINA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a E]Yes ONO [3NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
,VZD
RECET f
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INE.)C�,J_
1) NIND CITY

70
55
111111
100111
is 01.1"
'_=_K2_
County (can be mul Street Address
State Rd.
Birqnswick Eastern End of Ocean Isle Beach and Shallotte Inlet and near
NIA
469 East 3rd St.
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
N/A
N/A
NC
N/A
Pho6e No.-
Lot No.(s) (ifmany, attach addiflonalpagre, withfist)
ext.
NIA.
a. In which NC river basin Is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Shallotte Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified In (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
:
]ENatural ElManmade ElUnknown . . . .
i fitiahiic Ocean - - - I . 7 . - . ,
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposetl
®Yes El NO
work falls within.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
escp INSF_
Mh­§ "I 'i MOR
57
_, - 'E OWN
P� , .. I — I - _�' ; - R
qL_' PW� f.014 MUN!"!
"A EM k' I IRB I "Op MR.
P TO EMMA 150HIMIM—N
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
3214 ft. (Accretion Fillet)
—536,748 s.f,(Accretion Fillet); -3,61.9,854 (Borrow Area)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation o . f tract above NHW (n . ormal high water) or
NIA,
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
—0 to 16 MSL EINHW or EINWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Typical beach and dune vegetation.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family residential structures, sandbags, man-made dunes and beach fill. Recreational beach usage and public
access.
g. Identify and describe the existing Ian . d uses addacent to the. proposed project site.
Single family residences, recreational beach uses.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Residential (R-1)
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
0YesDNo [INA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? DYes ®No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. OYes ®No EINA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project
located in a National Registered Historic District or does it Involve a [-]Yes ®No [INA
National Register
listed or eligible property?
RT-- '.. J CC)
F_' G E "V4
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INE)�
L, N] - M �H
2 D C I T

m. (1) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ... _ .. .. _ ®Yes ❑No
(III) If yes to either (i) or (it) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes NNo
(Attach documentation, if available) There are coastal wetlands near the offloading area.
All wetlands will be avoided and delineated as necessary prior to construction.
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Municipal
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Municipal
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
N/A
/iC'tlVttf43M�i7!/.(l11
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial NPublic/Govemment
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The project purpose is to mitigate erosion on the eastern portion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the
integrity of its infrastructure, provide protection to existing development and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront
beach.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types -of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
A hydraulic pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines will be used during
construction. Storage of the equipment will not typically be a concern as the work will likely occur 24 hours a day. A 20' wide
temporary trestle will be installed parallel to the alignment of the terminal groin. The trestle would be removed upon
completion of the rubblemound portion of the terminal groin. Trestle length will be approximately 950', dependent on existing
grade and beach conditions at the time of construction. A crane will be placed upon the structure thereby allowing it to move
stones into position in the water. Temporary sand placement for construction pads will not be necessary.
d. List all development activities you propose.
The proposed activity includes the construction of a terminal groin along with beach nourishment and any required mitigation
measures.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? Approx. 100 ❑Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public access way or other area ®Yes ❑No DNA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
The placement location is the oceanfront beach adjacent to the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach.
R
i. Will wastewater or stornwaler be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes NNo DNA J U N a
y
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No NNA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? NYes ❑No DNA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. Only in the event of negative Impacts. See inlet
management plan in Appendix C.
d W il
RECEIVED
DCIM WIL MINGTON, NC
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FEB 2 3 2016

B Atltlifional �nfof�rra#lon.�
�n addRknlo tbw dated appliaaRan fGttp ,(MP f) the fotloyvin8 Rams below M epp�cabla must b9 sukmrtted m orderfot tka appficafron
padregatobacompletaRams(a) rfJareatways'sppRcablefdartymaloYdavelopmantapp6cabonPkasalconsultthaapplka6anmshacb'on..
pookletonbowfopnperlyptapata,rFrere4ulredXemabelowlt � 'E
-
�b:'_" Anaccurote,datedwaicptat(hxludmgiplanvleSvandcrass-sealona(dramiigs)d�awntosc8lePleasegivethe presemstaWsof
the proposed project to any part on elreadycampfete? It p{eYlousVy authod;edwark; `ipeatly mdieate oo maps plate -die w p (0"-0 stir tdsti
ItBtv@en work:compfeted,arNl groposed.. .
c.. Aslteo�.(ocatronmaplfiatssuff(derilfydetagedfo?gwdaagencype(sonneluniamtlarvnUtU�aareatofhesrte. "
r,
d..AcopyoftheGeed(Hithstaleapefiptlonony)I&6 rertndf&mentundervMlchtheepplic"datest?fatolhaeffectedpropeNas,"
— ---`
e. Theapp[opnateapp6oaflonfee Chedcormoney%Marmedep_ayabletoOENR. `y
f Afiist of the nwrpe8 end complete addresses ofthe adjacent"waierfmm (rfpadan) tandawnersand slgi ed reium rCceipt as proatthat such
owners have faceNed a copy ottt a application and ptaks by cerllfle�d mwfF==Such landowners must be advised thatftrey have 3g days m which
to sii5�mdcommefi[sonihepmposadpraied,lathaprvlsiogofCoastalManagwmenC�.: -= - '-< '
Name See /Sppen,bj, PtroneNo
. Ad"dfess " -
Name Ptrone'Nd:
'.3 f y
Name '� Plione'Np -
z rr
g A list eT Prevlousatw(e of federst patmlta lasued foavmrfecnthepryecttiad tnciudo,pp"# pgmbera pe nittae and Issuing Fetes
NIA
,tr,;$igned-canaultanto[a9antsuthorizatlonform lPapplicable _
L =- wegand; tlellfieatlon, if
j'. A algne f AIcC hazaN!iiogca fo(p[ojeafa iry oceahfinnt antl infeE aiaas stba s�nedDx property owner
r.-. — ".e er�re:,,em M.mmnaenrowilrFlM'N [: Fnuimnrtwrtal PMGv-AiY'M e_-a S.':T13A,1101 if necessery if the oroledIiWolvag,`
iST4 PLANNING &,ENGINEERIP
JUN 14 2016
AMID CITY

�Itil[�t'I�A'�011t'r'�' �03s�SCf J�!_4�f�14� y8"�Nll�tl�7�'I�d.Si'U�;
s�oz Nnr
� k
or}auu°I°# a #S Man
.: yaa�ao�o�a1TP�[dta��C^t'W�AI�
JA uo n c1Ni'-sv�ci®
ali>�l padssdmo&4isi�se _doi� ?Puy a'•
«r�mwuta�$d--maim,-- •�zvr�a�e
oml 36 3�!AITO #hrlIltr olCddAS �tVoP ° oTk 1 �=4W1
gmmT�aaloidominp��3?+�t?,�y�`,�4�(�y#yWjl�.��f1 �.�y?Q1t}d(�`vyt�yta�dy��k'}yry-���fy C��`.�.,�y 5misnl�S�rya�?}g}icy!�ii�a��p�y��o-}ay,��f�spP��ilne�j �J�iry~��y
lluUids#ulpU�'Pipl45�LpuuA4RI1a��etID1A(lldtda�] s+
'7l0(�1IId?g�U#,�1�qthSs{5��76WU09eAePs�1�11�ifnGiin�{R",11?�lXP9e�#�Cide�l4i;�3,6@UGri&�'1;ii!',�$17rail�dd�'i�4 W�yil�ii•.
Y .wf i V' S S y".J E Y M'"= ��j {�j[/+'� )}/n�j fJ•' %��y�1�4 vM¢ 1 A T!J<
S v�}t ✓. �Y.Y �. "1 '�. "'aL.} �m�5:1�'Y'iM�..��%�1neY Qi2+:.f, w ���Cr��4Y� }'4
Maw4pll'sut�+oSa�xS�a'WNyaxnlan�PMu#d':tiq+ ��ateaa ,s,3€q1Ju' etluY&t# OoIL,pdeu
SeWOW* 1d.aao�asus�uSU?a �t _PUe
9unw i1 �d0.d�Q t� RTFn1Vi ?i IslylPu�7snaJu?aio,ul aoCoid��S4eSgisY�ll� !t Mi � '` .. x. k
sauW,yU!liak�➢u@k#slti: i
tilN
'�iapbirmas, Pus �'i!lad�a�e9�+!� �,pv�5e�ilaal{ua �Ga �a�•� Panes eNs�tled t&a�1M:Qfslasnov>n,a,�� ir�li���
M :: .4UML saautyuF�" 1 ixKF � { I (}V1YC�'a�
x
roauiuf " �yepw�@ni
i'IuaWBBgUe}rf1}.fM01$ pi ,'2t OrpO�OlapBCQdbld9u}rgR9(t14WN03-Urfe03'
y5i+v4arsKep snsl/9�S�eutt J�Ps llsuu(sID apuetlps9�@WI "M ")s ydpussonss3tddssy4�oddoa apaniaaaianei►saadMb
N#�i"L��P�!e,?�'"hOP�ltu�l�du},'iis�luaas��gias3se�ppeat�uw5pue�awsueyi°l�isJY'i ;.. :;
�,. atd3Aw>al�fapeivaowo�ta�w.i���p ..u�rnea�tddaajeudo7aaesv' $ ".'
9d�ad#a$ealfiol�t�Ai�sliddeyl�!'?gliueusWistpo�o,HupuoljldselNiN1� 2e�kloliaati' p
_ ._....�?��!A�tse/eey141rmle�(We}un{oiw4s1aS1IS�ue6as�mBo�PBB�t?Pnlll9$$L3e�9d0WSlaleao7k+�y,Cy a.;,',
mp
r o a,otn?d ia�etdu�oalPs�iro� u adoara,3+gaA
;e ni§ss"said slue of t ntsg-'-d p3euoua puehie�nueida�pnr�n)i%�xton�Pa# a�i Q. F
ren eJ '_
TO
t F w a e 7 h�'� r l
�, "`t ""i�R�,.����slle�`jow�tro�g9��e�'d>E .
r,,ff�0#7��!%71p�q�7d
A ?A r' -0: %trry7r7Gr®Iq�� 1a4�Wsit l�OJTJ,-fltll'� a�oAl�aR�ePJe ��1R�7?Atppe�

1.2 DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other (excluding
Channel
Canal
Boat
Boat
Rock
Rock
shoreline
(NLW or
Basin
Ramp
Groin
Breakwater
stabilization)
NWL)
Length
Avg.3800'
750'
250
15' at
Width
Avg. 950'
top; 75'
75
at bottom
Avg. Existing
-6' MLW
NA
NA =ri;i> I
-2.5 NAVD88
Depth
r �,=i
Final Project
-15' MLW
NA
NA ..
-6.6 NAVD88
Depth
�? EXCAVATION t r L' ° �� [7htsseckonrfof''
1 t ,.. ,. '.: ,.'., reiro .ali I.��l
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards. - Beach quality sand
-264.000 cy within Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area; 2,000 to 3,000 cy
for landward 260' of rubblemound portion of terminal groin. .
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
` (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
[]CW— ❑SAV_ ❑SB_
❑WL_ .®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
N/A
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None
�j>Q��lliiE F�bCCAVATED IfATER1Ai ot§ E i ua e� n� 6 a r r.. t
f3 LjTtrrssedd�nnof 3
apJ)IICBbIB a-. ' �a..o: .r- �� n�.._„
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area
Oceanfront shoreline along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Irregular, 3214length, 535,749 s.f.
Beach between Charlotte St. and the end of E 3rd St.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
Easements
(i) Will a disposal area be available for future--,)) :Y�
maintenance?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Same location
JUN 14 2016
^� a^a ^ n n. a S qq Iq"i`4i
e. (i) Dees the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh f. (i) Does the disposal include any area inLttJevalefJ .j ; j g d
UA
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the ll es, how much water area is affected?
number of square feet affected. C) It y
❑CW_ ❑SAV_ ❑SB 516,000 s.f.
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. !)r 1WNQ_M1 NGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016

❑WL_ . ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwaler/Sill ®Other: Terminal
Width: 65'
Groin
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 423' from 2013
d. Maximum distance walerward of NHW or NWL: 846.5'
shoreline (most recent survey data).
based on 2013 shoreline (most current survey data).
e. Type of stabilization material:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
Sheet pile, bedding and armor stone-
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) if yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion
amount information.
87yr. based on DCM maps.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level,
h. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _
Bedding and armor stone; sand
Breakwater/Sill _ Other Bedding and Armor Stone -
69 670 s.f.: Accretion Fillet-.493,967 s.f. Based on 2013 survey.
L Source of fill material.
Offsite to be determined for terminal groin materials, Shallotte Inlet
borrow area for accretion fillet.
ONEI3ICtr AGTIVG3l�S, s a c'� i s a
Y �TiussecGon oof apphc�ble
y
(Excluding ShoreLtte StabllrzaGoa) s "
z
'
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? []Yes ❑No ❑NA
b (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh
If yes,
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked,
(il) Amount of material to be placed in the water _
provide the number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area _ -
❑m _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB
(iv) Purpose of fill
❑WL_ ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
4 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA; INQWJ - g y 3

OWL — ' ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
,�l �, riRy fi>� Y: .,, e$-� �� ,��
L'� �_J; .�^'Nsy ' ?+n,'3!}#1$@@A.,*�f,4f•{4'...
�yav$�
'5 1��4$ i.9F{
a: Typeof shoreline'stabilizatibn:
b. ;Length: 1050 '
❑Bulkhead ❑Ripmp ❑BreakwatedSill ®Other. Terminal
Width: 65'
Groin
—
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 423' from 2013
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 646.5'
shoreline (most recent survey data).
based on 2013 shoreline (most current survey data).
e. Type of stabilization material:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
Sheet pile, bedding and armor stone
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA -
-
(ii) Ifyes, slate amount of erosion and source of erasion
amount information.
6'/yr. based on DGM maps.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
h. Type. of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap _
Bedding and armor stone; sand
. Breakwater/Sill _. Other Beddlna and Armor Stone-
_ -
- �69670 sE: Accretion Fillet-493,967 s.f. Based on 2013 survey:
I. Source of fill material.
Offsite to be determined for terminal groin materials, Shallotte Inlet
-
borrow area for accretion fillet
-
a. (I) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA b. (I) Will -fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh
If yes,
P9 Amount of material to be placed in the water
(ill) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill -
(cvv), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAv), snail bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked,
provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW _ ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL_ ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
rnt _
2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA;3PFt; NJ }
6

A tempomrq dike will be corlatrtrcted sea}yaid of the 0laoement.. Cuttedmad hydraullo dredge and pipeline, bulldozers;',
area allowing sandy matedal to settle 06i bsforelhe Ovate? reer it m tront4nd toadeis and other earth.moving machGim _
B ea and cranessssocletadWitlSthecansWctionof
theooeiii --Utflmately,the-teiminalgroirtvAlcontmrttreplaced. arg-. .
` - ' the teriWwl groin end temporary (re`sste:
.F S.Wdl navigational aids be reitul!o ae'a r7A ft of the p oJed7, . d (j 4 wsuaks be crossed in transporting eqt 1pment to
❑Yes ®No INA1. Prget tsae7 [jYes ®No 0RA
(iplfyas,ezplainy+hattypeeadhowtheyp�llibehnplem'ented: OI),ILyes e�lainsEepsthatwlllEe.fakentoevnid'gr
mlNrtilie environmental impacts. - - -
r
JUN 1 4 2016
COASTAL, PLANNING&ENGTPTEERINGOpNORTHCAROLWAxINa 01-1`/. "I M1NGfON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016

1.3 DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units .or structures
proposed.
None
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the units per
acre).
NA
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the
Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and
sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land -disturbing
activity begins.
(i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
[]Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submifted:
g. Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to
be covered by impervious and/or built -upon surfaces, such as
pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways
or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
i. Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious
and/or built -upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
NA
I. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the
state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/
commercial effluent, 'wash down" and residential discharges).
NA
b. Number of lots or parcels.
NA
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads,
ditches, etc.
Temporary staging areas and construction corridor: 37,132
s.f. (0.85 ac.).
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete)
to bemsed for impervious surfaces.
NA
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also
require a Stormwater Certification.
(1) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for review?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted:
k. Have the facilities described in Item (1) received state or local
approval?
❑Yes []No ®NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
m. Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater
design?
❑Yes ❑No ®NA .
i , ni. i fin.
If yes, attach appropriate docJinentation_ s:5
— r� v. i &m
JOIN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROL NA,.IN'C:
8

f
1.3 DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
(Construction andlor land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1 Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units .or structures b. -Number of lots or parcels.
proposed. NA
None
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the units. per
.acre).
NA
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the
Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and
sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land -disturbing
activity begins.
(I) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, list the sate submitted:
g. Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to
be covered by .impervious and/or built -upon surfaces, such as
pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways
.... .. or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by Impervious
and/or built -upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
NA
I. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the
stale (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/
commercial effluent, 'wash down" and residential discharges).
NA
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads,
ditches, etc.
Temporary staging areas and construction corridor: 37,132
s.f. (0.85 so.).
f. List the matedals (such as mad, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete)
to be.used for impervious surfaces. '
NA .
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also
require a Stonnwater Cepcation.
(I) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for review? -
❑Yes ®No ❑NA .
(i) If yes, list the date submitted:
k. Have the facilities described in Item (i) received state or local
approval?
❑Yes El No ®NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
on. Does the proposed project include an innovative stonnwater
design?
❑Yes ❑No ®NA
a.
If yes, attach appropriate docU�{mntalib"n_ Di
Ji IN' 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINX',>INC
8

m. Describe proposed ddnking water supply 'sourca (e:g., well,
community; public system; etc.)
NA
o, Wheri was ihe'l0 (S) ptatted and recorded?'
NA
6. O Will water be Impounded? ]Yea pNo ®NA
(I) Ifyes,howmarlYacres?
proposed developme t Is a s6tj iMslon, will addiildnat utiiiues be
instaltedforthis uplenddevelopment? `
13yes[3140 ®NA
JUN 14 2016
RECEIVED
COASTALPLANNING'&ENGINEER]NGOFNORTHCAROLINA,IN4}(_;i I WILMING!ON, NC-
9' (=EB 2 3 H16

1.4 DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this. proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina:
❑Commercial ❑Publie[Govemment ❑Private/Community
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(III) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating []Yes El No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? []Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number _
(iii) Length _
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripfine dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(n) Number of slips existing
.I. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
❑Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water; no dredging required
[]Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length: _
m. (1) Will the facility have tie pilings?
❑Yes []No
(ii) If yes number of be pilings?
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes ❑No
d. (I) Are Finger Piers included? []Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating []Yes []No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts Included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(i) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ('Wet slips') only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats: _
. ❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes []No
s �IVE&—
JUN 1 4.2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
10;.,'',,.3 , ,IT'

1.4 DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this, proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a.. (i) Is the docking facility/marina: b. (I) Will the facility be bpen to the general public?
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community []Yes ❑No -
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ❑No
_ (ii) Number
If yes:
(Ili) Length
(ii) Number
(iv) Width
(ii) Length
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
(v) Width -
' -
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
a.. (i) Are Platforms included? []Yes []No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? ❑Yes, []No
. If yes: - -
If yes:: .
(R) Number
(ii) Number
(ii) Length
(i) Length
(iv) Width
(Iv) Width -
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No,
Note. Roofed areas are calculated from ddpline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(ii) Number of slips existing
.I. Check the proposed type of ailing:
❑ Land cut and access channel
[]Open water, dredging for basin and/or channel
[]Open water, no dredging required
❑Other; please describe: -
k. Typical boat length:
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
[]Yes []No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ('Wet slips') only, number of slips:—
❑ Dry storage; number of bgals:
. ❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps: _
❑ Other, please describe:
J. Describe the typical boats to be served. (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mbced types).
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes []No
n;r J A' �.0
JUIIN 14, 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
>.,4„a t'vE ,w,.9 1"

a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number. _; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake signs proposed.
i. Give the locaton of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
J U N 14 2016
L))k,
i F_IV E D
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INUUN 1ML MINGTON, NC
11 '
EEB � 3 2°3j5

m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes []No
n. Is the madna/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
[]Yes ❑No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CM, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW_ ❑SAV_ ❑SB_
❑WL— ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within orwithin close proximity to any shellfish leases? [-]Yes []No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
a. p) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number _
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from driphne dimensions.
a. (i) Number
(ii) Length
(III) Width
a. Length
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
c. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline _
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing
b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
b. Number
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. U N 14 2016
12 pp

m. Is the marinaldocking facility proposed vAthin a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes []No -
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
[]Yes []No
o. Is the marma/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlandstmarsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB_ OWL — []None - -
p. Is the proposed marmatdocking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community
(it) Number
(M) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from ddpline dimensions.
a. (1) Number
(H) Length
@I)Width
a.
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wet ands
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Pdvate/Community
C. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing _
distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
b. Number_
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCJUN 14 2016

®, p"Ity of sWctureNto adjamnt npA'oa.n pmpeity lutes b P.ow6 Ry;af sauaure($) to adjace, t'dock,ne tacflO�-
NA. NA.
Note Farbritiyori+worfn9�R!2usaarc:ofswr�i�rntituding)en9fh
` atVessel
c..6Vidttcatviaiertigdy` � d watenl8pthatwaferwerdentloEslrlctareat,Nt,(91orNw4.
�:. 8tii-10MSL .
tmatfeWquid tre removed upon C�n(ji
rttiri"exiatipg graitaand beadi,cuniC
Fcz t
JUN 14 2016
,_q
1.:7.y irD
n ..
.FEE �32916
A
:1

JUN 14 2016
CITY

- OCEAN ISLE BEACH
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET INDEX
NO. TITLE
1 COVERSHEET
2 OVERALL PLAN VIEW
3 ADJACENT RIPARIAN OWNERS
4 TERMINAL GROIN PLAN VIEW
5 ACCRETION FILLET PROFILES
6 TYPICAL GROIN PROFILES A -A' AND B-B'
7 TYPICAL GROIN PROFILE C-C
8 BORROW AREA PLAN VIEW
9 BORROW AREA PROFILES D-D',
10 BORROW AREA PROFILES E-E' AND F-F'
11 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONTRESTLE
PLAN VIEW - -
12 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
CROSS SECTION
RALEIGH( �O���P'
Op
CHARLOTTE
JACKSONMLLE• M
CAPE
CAPEFEAR
N.TS. ATLANTIC
OCEAN
PROJECT SITE
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
i 1 E-
� 9 I
]REREAD GiV �l';��.0 ifi vs .�?"
LDDNDDT JUN 14 2016
Dc 9']q0 p � °-a i' CI T y
W
O
Ua
Z
WOW
W
Wum
y0W
Qa0
VWV
O�
w
x
O
2
to
5113/15
lm

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
SHEET4 1
r------------------------------- IAl u
W
IL
EXISTING o 1 i I Q z j
I SAND BAGS I I^ , �`J I 4 m- z
1
W V J
�i 131
' 1 Z G.
,i �
`tG"/. � ],i•� i , ILu W W
09>
I to
w I W N N O O t t O I
CT O
t t t O O'
8 t o 0 0 � CD I I F 1
ACCRETION - F'
FILLET
I
TERMINAL i L -
GROIN
L-------------------------------j I I
BORROW AREA
O
u �s
z �o
z
z
w
°0 C
zu
ATLANTIC a
OCEAN d or a
Rw S�
fa
0 600 1200 x'' ig
DATE:
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
LEGEND:
NOTES: JUi^d 4 2016 1y16
— — — PROPOSED TRUCK HAUL ROUTE 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE HN
NORTH CAROLINA STATE �.PLANE COORDINATE.
0 BEACH FILL (ACCRETION FILLET) SYSTEM, NORTHI'AMERICAN-DATUM;OE','1983 ;I jyTiCOMM NO:
BORROW AREA (NAD83). 147426
® 2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012.
PROPOSED STONE STAGING AREA 3. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE SHEET:
SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 2 OF 12

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
------------------'1 i
I 1
1
•••..-�
elUA11111
unun111nne
I II11lAlllll1117111111
Ilenloeo.���pnn..• - . �nmll
(IM �Q¢rj
111111_
—
- .
v
�IIII�I'7
111
Gill
PJI_19!1111
Ifi11.N111
IIIIW�91!1
11.E
ow•• —
_
, '
11
ill:•N®NI1At®,
�OOA®fail ..Ii:!.a
a' �I{ , i
v
CD
C
_
_ e _ _
C
ACCRETION
IN
••-IORROWAREA
----------- f
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
0 600
0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
BEACH FILL (ACCRETION FILLET)
BORROW AREA
® PROPOSED STONE STAGING AREA
r" V a E D
- - "NOTES:-- — ---- •JIUN 1-4 -2016- -
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLIN,ASTATE;PLANEGOORply_ j
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERIGAN DATUM QF,1983 :. g
(NAD63).
2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012.
3. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
U
W
0
=ai
UZW
�0>
IL PZ
Ua
LnFa
NOJ
gag
VwW
Z>
0.10
w
0
U)
5113115 -
Ill
147426
HEET:
2 OF 12

FEB � 3 V16

0
NOTES:
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
(NAD83).
2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAYJUNE 2012. �-
3. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS DERIVED FROM
4. STAGING AREAS • TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
SUBJECT TOCHANGE.t !`
5. DISTURBED AREA
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR) 37,132 S.F.
f
' r,I
,scn .••,�" AN.a ,.yam i ''4+ 9-.¢•�. ..frr�
� p
� nA 1`a Je .L
s
aVIN
' ® .�-a �'p•-Trr;'•A'i< -'F"'�S�my#8r-r"kTt, 19s4^}1.
Al
-p

�
'' is
tib a Ie • 4
i+ V.I
A rn. u.. ,.a
,. mr . • y
T k15
WA
s3/{ryvly�..r °s J �' v
. ..
,`ICI .''°� '� � -
°d•."1�i i'
;K
"R

NOT FOR CONSTRI
FOR REGULATORY
-REVIEW ONLY
0
I
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION 0-00
u I
5
0'
5 1
EL. 1.79'
15
MLW
EL-2.94'
V
5
0
V �
5
in
±
-0 0 -200
6
40
60
B
o 10a--,
0
LEGEND:
EXISTING GRADE
JUNE, 2013 _
ACCRETION FILLET
DESIGN TEMPLATE
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION S-00
10
v
376'
EL.
.0'
5
11.79
0
l
1
^—
s
0
ti
`
5
-0 0 -zoo
2i
10 4,10
6
10 8110
1000
12
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION 10+00
5
LL
z
z
O
0
+
5j
In
z
w
0
W
Q
i p
1-
f, IA
-15
0
59
A
10
-15
0
u
324'
E
. 6.0'
5
0
15
11
MLW
EL.-2.W
s
0
Jo
-4 n -0
no
20
4,10
0
10 100o
1200
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
0
10
is
0 5 10
NOTES: h 7 17 r-
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH A ERICA.VERT.CAL�''.Ia
'�VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). - 0 200 REOoCF-i
2. BATHYMETRIC SURVEY PERFORMED JUNE 2013,.BYMcKIM 8 CREED t IIpp .( A 1
3. ACCRETION FILLET WIDTH SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON S4'ATION Y 2016 HORIZONTAL GRaP' C sC 'AL'EU Ff
LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.Pl CITY
UD
WZ
Oo
=ate+
VZO
w00
W01
WQ
Z 0 w
W a LL
OJW
IL
0w
O J
S
Ni
z
0
F
W
R'
U
a
SH&15
�a
...1
5 OF 12

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY r EXISTING ELEVATION VARIES SHALLOTTTE INLET
ARMOR STONE
7.5 TO 12.5 TONS
15' (±)
--- 2
HW +1.79'
MLW -2.94'
OF TRENCH ELEV. -.6
LARGE VOIDS IN ARMOR , 1.5' FOUNDATION LAYER
STONE BY DESIGN
BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES WITH BOTTOM ELEVATION
MINIMUM WIDTH 65'(±)
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO NAVD88
SECTION A -A'
N.T.S.
,NOT
—1 ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO
,y' NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
2. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PER ENGINEER
3. BEDDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDEA
ROCK -FILLED MAT.
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
VARIES FROM +6.0' TO 10.0' NAVD88
-------------------------
ELEVATION OF SHEET PILE VARIES
FROM +4.5' TO +4.9 NAVD88
r
SHEET PILE (EITHER STEEL
m OR CONCRETE -TO BE
DETERMINED)
k DEPTH OF PENETRATION TO BE DETERMINED.
RANGE FROM -20.0' TO -25.0' NAVD88
SHEET PILE SECTION
PROFILE B-B'
N.T.S.
O i D COASTAL PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o $ o OP NORTH CAROLINAF INE. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT ,
N zo N .m�wmv�am awn onrvlalA+<+m TERMINAL GROIN PROFILES A -A' AND B-B' I
WI.VIV6F�V.'C2nA F0.\(YIOjANIN

NOT FOR
FOR'REG
TORY REVIEW ONLY
ARMOR STONE -
7.5 TO 12.5 TONS
1' (TYP.)
iAn----H
EXISTING ELEVATION VARIES SHALLOTTTE INLET
——TrtRXiNH
K-------------
-11 2 1 � 15' (±)
BOTTOM OF
LARGE VOIDS IN ARMOR 1.5' FOUNDATION LAYER
STONE BY DESIGN
BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES WITH BOTTOM ELEVATION
MINIMUM WIDTH 65'(-)
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELATNETO NAVD88
SECTION A -A'
N.T.S.
EXISTING.GROUND ELEVATION
VARIES FROM +6.0' TO 10.0' NAVD88
-----------------
ELEVATION OF SHEET PILE VARIES
FROM +4.5' TO +4.9 HAVD88
-y'Iw9
NOT,. g
-4, 'ELEVAITfIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO
2 NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1088 (NAVD88).
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PER ENGINEER
3. BEDDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDEA
INA
SHEET PILE (EITHER STEEL
OR CONCRETE - TO BE
DETERMINED)
j
DEPTH OF PENETRATION TO BE DETERMINED.
RANGE FROM -20.0' TO -25.0 NAVD88
SHEET PILE SECTION
PROFILE B-B'
N.T.S.
: LEV-A-3{±)
_A%Hw +1.7s' ..
MLW -204'
TENCH ELEV.-6.5"(:
0
m
a
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING
OCEAN ISLE BEACH -
0
m
p
;
@
OP NGrtrN ewftDUNA,JNd..
SHORELINE:PROTECTIO,N PROJECT
m
o
�
Finawxaom awa >nrargnwaw
.' I'
_ .
TERMINAL GROIN PROFILES A-A'AND B-B'
iv
MI_VIVRfOV.'L1iW'9 Fm of "..

`
5�
asp
10
t
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
750-ftTERMINAL GROIN PROFILE C-C'
SEE NOTE 5.
RUBB
E MO
ND
130'
50'
'
EL.+1.9'
NAVD,88
$
��+
S'-PIAVD-
i
_ _ �—
— MH
EL. +1.
—�_
9 (2013)
—
3 I
MLW�II�
EL. -2.94
(2013)
T
TOP
OF FOUNDATION
S
EL.
6.6' NAVD88
SHEEr
PILE
iD
3
0'
1.5' FOUNDATION
LAYER
15
i
DEPTI-R
OFPEN
TRATIO
OF
SHE
PILE TO
3E DETERMINED
20
i
i I
nim.,
d
0 -30
-20
-100
6 10
20
30
40 50 670 860
90
1000
1131
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
LEI
10
5
-20
-25
NOTE^SS:
LEGEND:
ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
— — — EXISTING GRADE JUNE, 2013
E
3DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
0:)2. BAITHYMETMC SURVEY PERFORMED JUNE 2013. BY McKIM & CREED. -
750-FT TERMINAL GROIN
-,�,3. `' "PICAL PROFILE. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PER ENGINEER
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
�A. ?E 6EDDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDE A ROCK -FILLED MAT.
TOP OF FOUNDATION
0 100 200
DISTANCE DEPENDS ON BOTTOM DEPTH AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
IS
�
® EXCAVATION VOLUME = 2363 CU.YDS.
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o m
t',� z
x
OF NORTH GAHOLINA, INc.
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
N ~
m OWINNGMKNCx
z
�meN+soxeaaoLaww. sK(na�n,a,m
TERMINAL GROIN PROFILE C-C'
%µ ingina�e

10 INQ, - vIf.", 11-1c -D C, i T y

ix
9P`•at�i''M3�'' P

SECTION D-D'
E-E'
20
a
a'
w
LLO
a ¢
USAGE AUGUST2013
FO }1 :
_........ �......
EXISTING GRADE
......... ....
i W
�I
— ------
J
?
1: a BORROW AREA LIMITS
--------"
_
;....
z
F-
MAXIMUM AD EL.
�Q
j
I=-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW)
I�
w
w -40
-200
0 260 400 600 800 1000 1200
1400
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
USDT 013
In
Q
I
STINGUSAGEAUG
EX AE
I
m
.........._ �.;., .�._..J
LU
., �...,..;_. - -._._ ......................... ........ ...... . . ;. . .........
......
J
BORROW AREA LIMITS
2............................. :.......
_
...
.................... ........................ ............
.......:.=..; . .....;..
Q
MAXIMUM AD EL.
- Q
I
-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW)
IQ.�....
�
I
i
<
1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
F-F
4
�i
USACE AUGUST 2013
m
.EXISTING GRADE
W . ............:......
..........................:....... .........:................:.....
2��-
BORROW7�REALlro11TS---__--
w
2
:................:...............:.... 3�—I'_
......:...I..........................
Q
3..:
MAXIMUM AD EL.
rn
0 d
=-17.97'NAVD88 (-15'MLW)
z
03200
3400 3600 3800 4000 4200
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
2800
20 w
w
IL
0 z
z
z
-20
w
-40 w
4400
3000 1.
9
o20 40
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN Ff
o100 � o
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN Fi
I cn a COASTAL PLANNING S ENGINEERING "E OCEAN ISLE BEACH
0 -� n OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
x
N�' o N �w,a-noow m+n PILI91EIA1919f BORROW AREA PROFILES b-D'
WI-VIVROV.`C%Y9 fN 19101ANW

40
w 20
w
IL
0
z
-20
H
w
w -40
SECTION E-E'
............... :..................... ...........•...............:..............
' USACE AUGUST2013
EXISTING GRADE
.3.............:.....I..................3.....;..............
MAXIMUM AD EL.
17.97' NAVD88
............. : ...... � 15' MLW
BORROW AREA � � (- )
LIMITS
-60 +--
-200
w 20
w
LL
0
Z
Z
o -20
w
-40
40
20
0
-20
-40
I I Ir -60
0 200 400 600 800
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
SECTION F-F
w 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
20
0
-20
11 -40
1400 1600
m O S m q COASTAL PLANNING S. ENGINEERING "'�' OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o a 'w m OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
T w p m wuwvouomawc VILI91gA1-0Iw BORROW AREA PROFILES E-E' AND F-F'
N ry.V VOMV'C1Y.A fP1INIalAN1ID
I

w
w
0
o ,
w
J
w
4
SECTION E-El
D-D''
........::.....}:................::............ { ............
ACE
. . . .. I U. 2
STING GRADE
............
........
.............. .............
...... .... I ............... MAXIMUM
D8 ....
AXIMU AD EL
17 97' NAV 8
BORROW AREA (-15' MLW)
LIMITS
onn Ann - Fnn Rnr
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
SECTION F-F
4U,
20
0 .
-20
-40
-60
20
i,
0
-20
-40
0 200 400 600 800: 1000 1200 1400 16U0 '
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
I
�I
p K m y COASTAL PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING' - OCEAN ISLE BEACH
OF NORTH GarsouxA, INC. - SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT -
z r
p � wa wa000m mwa - >wwmAlaw BORROWAREA PROF ILES'E-E'AND F-F'
H_V V6IOV'C1V® iAV 1VIEjAN1N
i

TOP.OF
SHEET PILE
_R R' NAVf1AR
EXISTING GRADE
PILE SPACING:
SEE NOTE 4.
TEMPORARY 20' WIDE TRESTLE
TO BE REMOVED AT COMPLETION
OF STRUCTURE
m ? n
cooFy-';
J
SEAWARD
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
TRESTLE WIDTH: SEE NOTE 5.
PILE
PILE SIZE:
SEE NOTE 6.
G) < I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
aa a" ata �:.�_� _ N.T.S. _
z �a rn fu
NOTES:
1. TRESTLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON EITHER SIDE
ALONGSIDE ROCK GROIN.
2. TRESTLE LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY BEACH
CONDITIONS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
3. ALL TRESTLE MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE.
4. • PILE SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR. POSSIBLE SPACING 6'FEET TO 12 FEET.
5. WIDTH OF THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR COULD RANGE
FROM 20 FEET TO 2 SFEET. -"
6. PILE SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. COULD
RANGE FROM 12 INCHES TO 24 INCHES.
PROPOSED GROIN
(+4.9 NAVDSB)
BEDDING LAYER
S Fin a COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING TaLE.. OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o y > s SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
OF NORTH CAROLINA� INC.
m z �, - .�msoxeGaGwGa'm. ...... TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE CROSS SECTION
N O W6diNGTG NC9BYB FG[(N0�10M1y

Ez 0 E' VEc'-,3
JUN 14 2016

RP ECK. T10.
opqeot Is lri.6n: x *c0n: 0 * IbIdA a ftlit r rod KW4_oFf"qAMg loktoma 'Are,
prop *,owitor Town of cean Isle 8se4fl
`pro cifyAlorm.; O.Cefin.WhiffeaCfi Oman Front
This notl9a 4 1plcg*n n*op' 'hev immoof
smial rislwad 00hililld6f 6NsdclWdLlvl Wdevolopr 14 in �ia
iag
.And cummis"'Mi-rules *f 141comf 9csouzogs tbYariwkii
W[W - that, g-" rmtvc, An AWlived wants and
0aMMlm96Ift- aMv, in vm'ttq**m q pffatit, fiT.
ISM,
val assumes w
?=lls iisated
mmalen"y mromocai Va. a Any
subsidence.
p idawtfs that uii anium ioA&'tcn:n-
is:
lufdo was emebRif" by, tarill -'analysis, d, atrial
as also ifidioali: that lhe�gfiorcfinc coaldmtove As much as
For No" tommduff, ftfiftal:
427 QadnW 01five. Edenton
Addresi
Mon. N� 284,03
edit,MlMftl of lkedena marof 910"
Ilia applrcmr -Must agknnwtedgb tA. ln&ftq96n "d
requhemenfe by, iolhe ffi, lriAl;apw
0 t le-1 ersfgn ' eY i will fiabo mwodct
mPetlL L
.0 - -m-
Wad May240,
F-11 Y—z C E 1 V E D
DCWjl WILMINGTON, NC
FEB
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
JUN 14 2016

Huggett, Doug
From: Brittingham, Cathy
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Subject: FW: OIB Terminal Groin CAMA Permit
FYI
Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
[phone] phone
cathy.brittingham(@.ncdenr.gov
Mailing Address:
c/o DWR Wetlands Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical Address:
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building
121s Floor, Room 1204G
Raleigh, NC 27604
Please visit www.nccoastalmanaaement.net to subscribe to Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties
From: Colin Shive [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:30 PM
To: Brittingham, Cathy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: OIB Terminal Groin CAMA Permit
Thank you, Cathy! We may just have not yet received the paper copy.
Best,
Colin
Colin A. Shive
Associate Attorney I Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
T: 919-967-14501 F: 919-929-9421 1 Email: cshive(a.selcnc.oro
This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above.
This communication may contain material protected by attorney -client, work product, or other privileges.
From: Brittingham, Cathy [mailto•cathy brittingham(abncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:29 PM

To, ..Colin Shive
Subject: RE: OIB Terminal Groin CAMA Permit
Dear Mr. Shive,
As you requested, I was able to locate a copy of CAMA Permit 107-16, which was issued on 11/7/16. Please
see attached. I was informed that a paper copy of the permit was sent previously to the Southern Environmental
Law Center by mail.
Sincerely,
Cathy Brittingham
Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
[phone] phone
cathv.brittineham(a.ncdenr. eov
Mailing Address:
c/o DWR Wetlands Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical Address:
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building
12's Floor, Room 1204G
Raleigh, NC 27604
Please visit wwwmccoastalmananement.net to subscribe to Coastal Management's quarterly newsletter, the CAMAgram.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties
From: Colin Shive [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Brittingham, Cathy <cathy.britt![e-mail]>
Subject: OIB Terminal Groin CAMA Permit
Cathy:
Thank you for your help with this!
Best,
Colin
Colin A. Shive
Associate Attorney I Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
T: 919-967-1450 1 F: 919-929-9421 1 Email: cshive(a selcnc.org
This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above.
This communication may contain material protected by attorney -client, work product, or other privileges.

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 8, 2016
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
3 West 3rd Street
Ocean Isle Beach, N.C. 28469
Dear Sir or Madam:
PAT MCCRORY
Gomm.
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
The enclosed permit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act, and where
applicable, the State Dredge and Fill Law, for you to proceed with your project proposal. The original (buff -
colored form) is retained by you and it must be available on site when the project is inspected for compliance.
Please sign both the original and the copy and return the copy to this office in the enclosed envelope. Signing
the permit and proceeding means you have waived your right of appeal described below.
If you object to the permit or any of the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant to NCGS
113A-121.1 or 113-229. Your petition for a hearing must be filed in accordance with NCGS Chapter 150B
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27611-6714, (919) 733-
2698 within twenty (20) days of this decision on your permit. You should also be aware that another qualified
party may submit an objection to the issuance of this permit within twenty (20) days.
The project plan is subject to those conditions appearing on the permit form. Otherwise, all work must
be carried out in accordance with your application. Modifications, time extensions, and future maintenance
requires additional approval. Please read your permit carefully prior to starting work and review all project
plans, as approved. If you are having the work done by a contractor, it would be to your benefit to be sure that
he fully understands all permit requirements.
From time to time, Department personnel will visit the project site. To facilitate this review, we
request that you complete and mail the enclosed Notice Card just prior to work initiation. However, if
questions arise concerning permit conditions, environmental safeguards, or problem areas, you may contact
Department personnel at any time for assistance. By working in accordance with the permit, you will be
helping to protect our vitally important coastal resources.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
o1r/ A
"Douglas V. Hint
Major Permits Manager
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
State of Nordl Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808.2808 T

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 7, 2016
Robert and Mary Roakes
34 Craven Street
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Dear Mr. and Ms. Roakes:
PAT MCCRORY
Govemar
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on
November 5, 2015, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, at
the east end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County. The proposed project
consisted of a proposed terminal groin. After a thorough review of the proposed project and the issues raised in your
comments, the proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission. As such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. 1 have enclosed a copy of the permit.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman
of the Coastal Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for
a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in
writing and must be received within twenty (20) days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at (252) 808-
2808 if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or
if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found on our website.
Cc: Wilmington Files
Morehead Files
Sincerely, J114
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits & Federal Consistency Section
Slate of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 7, 2016
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Geoffrey Gisler
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dear Mr. Gisler:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN'DER VAA'RT
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on
July 7, 2016; regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, at the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County. The proposed project consisted of a
proposed terminal groin. After a thorough review of the proposed project and the issues raised in your comments, the
proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission. As such, a
permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman
of the Coastal Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for
a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in
writing and must be received within twenty (20) days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at (252) 808-
2808 if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or
if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found on our website.
Cc: Wilmington Files
Morehead Files
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits & Federal Consistency Section
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Could Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

r
t
USPS TRACKING f 9488 8178 9820 3139 0102 25
ra
to FOR TRACKING GO TO IISPS.COM
C3
m
m
Er
Er Postage $
m C¢Nfed Fee
O
C3 Postma k C3 ReturnRequired)
Here
(Endorsementnt Required)
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee
erl (Endorsement Required)
r9
m Total Posts
Mr. Geoffrey Gisler
nu ru SentTo Southern Environmental Law Center
r-
r- 601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220
3`ireef, Apf. N
or PO Box Nt Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
Ciry, Sfafe, 2�
„
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A Signatu
■ Print your name and address on the reverse X
so that we can return the card to you. 6 eceWl
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front If space permits.
t A tlr,le AAdreaeed to: . Is dellV
Mr. GeoffreVIf YIf isler
Southern Enfironmerttal Law Center
601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
III IIIIII IN III IIIIIIIIIIII IN I III IIIIIIIIII CB1URtiad h
9h
6
❑ Colleot on
❑ Collect on
2. Article Numbw frransfer from service "'hell 0 Insured M
7002 3150 0003 9918 3058 ❑ eri.wS o
Ps Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-OW-9053
❑ Agent
xw b) C. Date Of [
from item 1 ❑ Ye:
�
d/ �..� j • ❑ No
1 V V�
NOV 14 2016
❑ Regatored Mall"
d Delivery ❑ Reylslered Mall Restricted
Delivery 'hen Recelptfor
Merchandise
,,.. nml_ ❑SignatureConfirmstlonTM
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Recta:;

JUN 14 2016

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 7, 2016
Mr. Timothy Rodriguez
114 E. 2nd St.
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R.-VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your correspondence, which was received by the Division of Coastal Management on
November 12i 2015, regarding your concerns about the proposed development by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, at
the east end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County. The proposed project
consisted of a proposed terminal groin. After a thorough review of the proposed project and the issues raised in your
comments, the proposed project has been determined to comply with the Rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission. As such, a permit has been issued to authorize the development. I have enclosed a copy of the permit.
If you wish to contest our decision to issue this permit, you may file a request for a Third Party Appeal. The Chairman
of the Coastal Resources Commission will consider each case and determine whether to grant your request to file for
a Contested Case Hearing. The hearing request must be filed with the Director, Division of Coastal Management, in
writing and must be received within twenty (20) days of the disputed permit decision. Please contact me at (252) 808-
2808 if you would like me to send you the applicable forms and instructions that must be filed prior to that deadline or
if you have any additional questions. Alternatively, the forms can also be found on our website.
Cc: Wilmington Files
Morehead Files
Sincerely,
s
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits & Federal Consistency Section
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808

N.C. Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Tel.[phone]
RECEIVED
NOV 16 2016
NEOPOST FIRST-CLASS MAIL
11/08/2016 n n-7s
$OvO.o 1=
� ZIP 28557
04 1L1025414164
V DCM- MHD CITY
Mr. Timothy Rodriquez
114 E. 2nd Street
Ocean Isle Be NIXIE 276 DE 1 0011/14/16
RETURN TO SENDER
NO MAIL RECEPTACLE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
NMR BC: 28557356099 *1592-00471-09-19
�_nc•�:$?5��'S3'.i:8tfltc �11"1111i11u11�11��1111�1u�ll111111111111�11�llllln��ll��ii��l 1

File note
On 11/3/16, 1 had various discussions with Heather Coats, Mike Lopazanski and Christy Goebel about
Section 4 of SL 2011-0387 (see attached). Additional discussions were held at the district manager
meeting on 11/4/16 (1 was not in attendance but was represented by Heather Coats). Braxton Davis was
in attendance at the DM meeting.
In summary, Section 4 of the 2011 session law prohibits use of State funds to pay for any activities
related to a terminal groin and its accompany beach fill, unless the State money is specifically
appropriated by the legislature. This provision also does not apply if used for any beach fill/nourishment
project that was initiated prior to the date of the session law. It is important to note that the legislation
did not add this provision to LAMA, as opposed to the other components to the session law, which dud
amend CAMA.
When Session Law 2013-384 was passed amending the 2011 session law, the 2013 session law was
silent on Section 4 for the 2011 session law. The 2013 session law specifically did not repeal section 4,
but did specifically repeal Section 3 of the 2011 law. Therefore, all involved in the discussions agreed
that Section 4 of the 2011 session law remains in force. Further, all agreed that since Section 4 was not
made a part of CAMA, adherence to the requirements of this Section fall both to a) any State funding
agency, such as DWR, and 2) the applicant for a terminal groin project (in this case the Town of 016).
Finally, all agreed that the State funding shown in the EIS alternatives analysis section are related only to
the State match for the pre-existing federal beach nourishment project, and therefore would not violate
Section 4 of the 2011 session law.
Doug Huggett - 11/7/16 10:30AM

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2011
SESSION LAW 2011-387
SENATE BILL 110,
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO FOUR
TERMINAL GROINS AT INLETS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Whereas, it has been the policy of the State of North Carolina since 1985, as stated
in the Coastal Area Management Act and rules adopted pursuant to the act, to give preference
to nonstructural responses to erosion, including relocation of threatened structures, beach
nourishment, inlet relocation, and the temporary use of sandbags for short-term stabilization;
and
Whereas, a terminal groin is a permanent erosion control structure that is
constructed on the side of an inlet at the terminus of an island generally perpendicular to the
shoreline to limit or control sediment passage into the inlet channel; and
Whereas, a terminal groin may reduce beach erosion, reduce the frequency of beach
nourishment projects, and slow the migration of inlets; and
Whereas, the use of terminal groins on inlet beaches may adversely impact the valug
and enjoyment of adjacent properties, damage the public beach, obstruct public access to the
beach and to navigable waters, and result in increased erosion to adjacent and downdrift
properties; and
Whereas, due to the uncertainties associated with the costs and benefits of terminal
groins, it is reasonable to authorize the Coastal Resources Commission to establish a terminal
groin pilot program under which the Commission may permit the construction of up to four
terminal groins under certain conditions; and
Whereas, it is reasonable to authorize the Coastal Resources Commission to permit
the construction of a terminal groin under the pilot program if the Commission finds that (i)
structures or infrastructure are imminently threatened by erosion and that nonstructural
approaches to erosion control are impractical; (ii) the terminal groin will be accompanied by a
concurrent beach fill project; (iii) construction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not
result in significant adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach; (iv)
the terminal groin will be managed pursuant to an inlet management plan; and (v) there are
sufficient financial resources to cover the costs associated with the terminal groin; Now,
therefore,
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
(1 a) "Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of,any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
(3) "Terminal groin" means a structure that is constructed on the side of an inlet
(b) No person shall construct a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean
shoreline. The Commission shall not 1permitl the construction of a temporary erosion control
ul�ll��II�II�Wll
• S t 1 0 0- - V- 3 3 a

structure that consists of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This section shall
not apply to (0-anyany of the following:
((1) Any -permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to ' 'may 003
o-'"July 1. 2003.
(2) Aly permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to ' Tz ply 9 4July 1, 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to
protect an inlet that is maintained for navigation.
(3 Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section.
b(b 1) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govem the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to d-MyJuly 11. 1995. The Commission
may authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by
the Commission pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to ' T•�Ay449TJuly 1,
1995, if the Commission finds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions
set out in the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that
will provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with
all annlicable laws and with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
management plan.
Page 2 Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

the management program it adopted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16
U.S.C. § 1451, et seq., to ensure the management program is consistent with G.S. 113A-115.1,
as amended by Section 1 of this act, and shall seek approval of the proposed amended
management plan by the United States Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary's authorized
designee no later than six months after the effective date of this act.
SECTION 3. The Department shall adopt any rules necessary to implement this
act.
SECTION 4. No State funds may be spent for any activities related to a terminal
groin and its accompanying beach fill project permitted pursuant to G.S. 113A-115.1, as
amended by Section 1 of this act, unless the General Assembly enacts legislation appropriating
funds explicitly for such purpose. This section shall not apply to any beach fill or beach
nourishment project initiated prior to the effective date of this act.
SECTION 5. No later than September 1 of each year, the Coastal Resources
Commission shall report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of
this act. The report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted
terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be
submitted pursuant to subsection (e) of G.S. 113A-115.1, as amended by Section 1 of this act.
For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill project, the report shall also
provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (f) of
G.S. 113A-115.1, as amended by Section 1 of this act.
(2) The status of construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
SL2011-0387 Session Law 2011-387 Page 3

2011.
(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impacts.
SECTION 6. This act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 16a' day of June,
s/ Walter H. Dalton
President of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
This bill having been presented to the Governor for signature on the 17u' day of
June, 2011 and the Governor having failed to approve it within the time prescribed by law, the
same is hereby declared to have become a law. This 28`s day of June, 2011.
s/ Karen Jenkins
Enrolling Clerk
Page 4 ' Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2013
SESSION LAW 2013-384
SENATE BILL 151
AN ACT TO AMEND MARINE FISHERIES LAWS; AMEND THE LAWS GOVERNING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TERMINAL GROINS; AND CLARIFY THAT CITIES
MAY ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN THE STATE'S PUBLIC TRUST AREAS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. AMEND MARINE FISHERIES LAW
SECTION 1. G.S. 113-172 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113-172. License agents.
(a) The Secretary shall designate license agents for the Department.
nts , needed to provide e ffi .ieRt , e to the . ubli, The Division and license
agents designated by the Secretary under this section shall issue licenses authorized under this
Article in accordance with this Article and the rules of the Commission. The Secretary may
require license agents to enter into a contract that provides for their duties and compensation,
post a bond, and submit to reasonable inspections and audits. If a license agent violates any
provision of this Article, the. rules of the Commission, or the terms of the contract, the
Secretary may initiate proceedings for the forfeiture of the license agent's bond and may
summarily suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a designation as a license agent and may
impound or require the return of all licenses, moneys, record books, reports, license forms and
other documents, ledgers, and materials pertinent or apparently pertinent to the license agency.
The Secretary shall report evidence or misuse of. State property, including license fees, by a
license agent to the State Bureau of Investigation as provided by G.S. 114-15.1.
(b) License agents shall be compensated by adding a surcharge of one dollar ($1.00) to
each license sold and retaining the surcharge. If more than one license is listed on a
consolidated license form, the license agent shall be compensated as if a single license were
sold. It is unlawful for a license agent to add more than the surcharge authorized by this section
to the fee for each license sold."
SECTION 2.(a) G.S. 113-168.5 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113-168.5. License endorsements for Standard Commercial Fishing License.
(a), (b) Repealed by Session Laws 1998-225, s. 4.14.
(e) Menhaden Endorsements. Except aprovided-
in G.S. 113 un it i .lay&,l to
zn
(d) Shellfish Endorsement for North Carolina Residents. — The Division shall issue a
shellfish endorsement of a SCFL to a North Carolina resident at no charge. The holder of a
SCFL with a shellfish endorsement is authorized to take and sell shellfish."
SECTION 2.(b) G.S. 113-169 is repealed.
SECTION 2.(c) G.S. 113-168.2(al) reads as rewritten:
iriNpunoli

"(al) Use of Vessels. — The holder of a SCFL is authorized to use only one vessel in a
commercial fishing operation at any given time. The Commission may adopt a rule to exempt
from this requirement a person in command of a vessel that is auxiliary to a vessel engaged in a
pound net operation, long -haul operation, or beach seine epefatien, er menha peration."
PART Il. AMEND TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION LAW
SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
(la) "Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
border estuarine waters as defined in G.S. 113A-113(b)(2).
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the. Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
(3) "Teffninal greif " fneans a stmetu a stheA : eenstmeted eft 1. id C an inlet
(3)
(b) No person shall construct a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean
shoreline. The Commission shall not permit the construction of a temporary erosion control
structure that consists of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This sestiea
subsection shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Any permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an'
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to July 1, 2003.
(2) Any permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to July 1, 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to protect an
inlet that is maintained for navigation.
(3) Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section.
(bl) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govern the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995. The Commission may
authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by the
Commission pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995, if the
Commission finds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions set out in
the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that will
provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with all
applicable laws and with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Commission granted the variance, that are in effect at the time the structure is replaced.
(d) Any rule that prohibits permanent erosion control structures shall not apply to
terminal groins permitted pursuant to this section.
(e) In addition to the requirements of Part 4 of Article 7 of Chapter I I3A of the General
Statutes, an applicant for a permit for the construction of a terminal groin shall submit all of the
following to the Commission:
(1) Information to demonstrate that structures or infrastructure are imminently
-- --..oa by era.----, and ------ -- ------ ---- ----__-_-- -- ----
-rr-'--- ro
Page 2 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

"(al) Use of Vessels. — The holder of a SCFL is authorized to use only one vessel in a
commercial fishing operation at any given time.. Tho Commission may adopt a rule to exempt
from this requirement a person in command of a vessel that is auxiliary to a vessel engaged in a
pound net operation, long -haul operation, or beach seine epefatien, or menhe operation."
PART H. AMEND TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION LAW
SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
(la) "Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
border estuarine waters as defined in G.S.113A-113(b)(2).
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the. Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
(3)
"Terminal ornin" meant nne nr mnre! etnmhirea nnnstmnted nt the trrminns
of an •island or on the
side of an inlet, with
a main stem
generally
perpendicular
to the beach shoreline,
that is primarily intended to
protect the
terminus of the island from shoreline erosion and inlet migration.
A
"terminal_ groin" shall be pre -filled with
beach quality sand and allow sand
moving in the
littoral zone to flow past the structure. A "terminal
groin" may
include other design features. such
as a number of smaller
supporting
(b) No person shall construct. a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean
shoreline. The. Commission shall not permit the construction of a temporary erosion control
structure that consists. of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This seetiea
subsection shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Any ,permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to July 1, 2003.
(2) Any permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to July 1, 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to protect an
inlet that is maintained for navigation.
(3) Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section.
(bl) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govern the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control strictures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The .Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995. The Commission may
authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by the
Commission pursuant to a variance .granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995, if the
Commission finds ifiat: ,(i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions set out in
the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that will
provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with all
applicable laws and with. all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Commission granted the variance, that are in effect at the time the structure is replaced.
(d) Any rule that prohibits permanent erosion control structures shall not apply to
terminal groins permitted pursuant to this section.
(e) In addition to the requirements of Part 4 of'Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General
Statutes, an applicant for a permit for the construction of a terminal groin shall submit all of the
following to the Commission: y
(1) Informati-- lemonstrate that structures or infrastructure are irtifnineatly
thrmtma ` ,
Page 2 ,ssion Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 15I-Ratified

(2)
threatened by
erosion.
An environmental impact statement that satisfies the requirements of
(3) A list of property owners and local governments that may be affected by the
construction of the proposed terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill
project and proof that the property owners and local governments have been
notified of the application for construction of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project.
(4) A plan for the construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project prepared by a professional engineer
licensed to practice pursuant to Chapter 89C of the General Statutes.
(5) A plan for the management of the inlet and the estuarine and ocean
shorelines immediately adjacent to and under the influence of the inlet. The
The inlet management plan is not required to address sea level rise. The inlet
management plan shall do all of the following relative to the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project:
a. Describe the post -construction activities that the applicant will
undertake to monitor the impacts on coastal resources.
b. Define the baseline for assessing any adverse impacts and the
thresholds for when the adverse impacts must be mitigated.
C. Provide for mitigation measures to be implemented if adverse
impacts reach the thresholds defined in the plan.
d. Provide for modification or removal of the terminal groin if the
adverse impacts cannot be mitigated.
(6) Proof of financial assurance verified by the Commission or the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources in the form of a bond, insurance policy,
escrow account. euaranty. local eovernment taxine or assessment authoritv.
a property owner association's approved assessment, or other financial
instrument or combination of financial instruments that is adequate to cover
the cost e€of implementing all of the following components of the inlet
management plan:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
b. Implementation of mitigation Wed in the inlet
faaaagement plan -measures.
C. Modification or removal of the terminal gFein as previded in the inlet
d-.
(f) The Commission shall issue a permit for the construction of a terminal groin if the
Commission finds no grounds for den�ing the permit under G.S.113A-120 and the
Commission finds all of the following: I
(1) The applicant has complied with all of the requirements of subsection (e) of
this section.
109
(3)
(4)
The terminal groin will be accompanied by a concurrent beach fill project to
prefill the groin.
Construction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in
significant adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational
beach. In making this finding, the Commission shall take into account the
Senate Bill 151-Ratified Session Law 2013-384 Page 3

wuaure nanuats, roads, nomes, and mttastructure, and mitigation measures,
including the accompanying beach fill project, that will be incorporated into
the project design and construction and the inlet management plan.
(5) The inlet management plan is adequate for purposes of monitoring the
impacts of the proposed terminal groin and mitigating any adverse impacts
identified as a result of the monitoring.
(6) Except to the extent expressly modified by this section, the project complies
with State guidelines for coastal development adopted by the Commission
pursuant to.G.S. 113A-107.
(g) The Commission may issue no more than four permits for the construction of a
terminal groin pursuant to this section.
(h) �� permit may be issued where A local government may not use funds
generated from any of the following financing mechanisms and would be used for any activity
related to the terminal groin or its accompanying beach fill project:
(1) Special obligation bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 159I of the General
Statutes.
(2) Nonvoted general obligation bonds issued pursuant to G.S. 159-48(b)(4).
(3) Financing contracts entered into under G.S. 160A-20 or G.S. 159-148.
(i) No later than September 1 of each year, the Coastal Resources Commission shall
report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of this section. The
report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be submitted pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section. For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach
fill project, the report shall also provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (f) of this
section.
(2) The status of construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach'fill project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impacts."
SECTION 3.(b) Section 3 of S.L. 2011-387 is repealed.
PART M. CITIES ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
SECTION 4.(a) Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by
Page 4 Session Law 2013-384 . Senate Bill 151-Ratified

wuaure naortats.>•roaas, nomes, ana mtrastructure, ana mitigation measures, »-
including the accompanying beach fill project, that will be incorporated into
the project design and construction and the inlet management plan.
(5) The inlet management plan is adequate for purposes of monitoring the
impacts of the proposed terminal groin and mitigating any adverse impacts
identified as a result of the monitoring.
(6) Except to the extent expressly modified by this section, the project complies
with State guidelines for coastal development adopted by the Commission
pursuant to, G.S. 113A-107.
(g) The Commission may issue no more than four permits for the construction of a
terminal groin pursuant to this section.
(h) A local government may not use funds
generated from any of the following financing mechanisms for any activity
related to the terminal groin or its accompanying beach fill project:
(1) Special obligation bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 159I of the General
Statutes.
.(2) Nonvoted general obligation bonds issued pursuant to G.S. 159-48(b)(4).
(3) Financing contracts entered into under G.S. 160A-20 or G.S. 159-148.
(i) No later than September i of each'year, the Coastal Resources Commission shall
report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of this section. The
report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be submitted pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section. For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach
fill project, the report shall also provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (f) of this
section.
.(2) The status of construction and maintenance .of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach'fmll project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impaots."
SECTION 3.(b) Section 3 of S.L. 2011-387 is repealed.
PART M. CITIES ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
SECTION 4.(a) Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by
Page 4 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

"§ 113-131. Resources belong to public; stewardship of conservation agencies; grant and
delegation of powers; injunctive relief.
(a) The marine and estuarine and wildlife resources of the State belong to the people of
the State as a whole. The Department and the Wildlife Resources Commission are charged with
stewardship of these resources.
(b) The following powers are hereby granted to the Department and the Wildlife
Resources Commission and may be delegated to the Fisheries Director and the Executive
Director:
(1) Comment on and object to permit applications submitted to State agencies
which may affect the public trust resources in the land and water areas
subject to their respective management duties.so as to conserve and protect
the public trust rights in such land and water areas;
(2) Investigate alleged encroachments upon, usurpations of, or other actions in
violation of the public trust rights of the people of the State; and
(3) Initiate contested case proceedings under Chapter 150B for review of permit
decisions by State agencies which will adversely affect the public trust rights
of the people of the State or initiate civil actions to remove or restrain any
unlawful or unauthorized encroachment upon, usurpation of, or any other
violation of the public trust rights of the people of the State or legal rights of
access to such public trust areas.
(c) Whenever there exists reasonable cause to believe that any person or other legal
entity has unlawfully encroached upon, usurped, or otherwise violated the public trust rights of
the people of the State or legal rights of access to such public trust areas, a civil action may be
instituted by the responsible agency for injunctive relief to restrain the violation and for a
mandatory preliminary injunction to restore the resources to an undisturbed condition. The
action shall be brought in the superior court of the county in which the violation occurred. The
institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such
proceeding from any civil or criminal penalty otherwise prescribed for the violation.
(d) The Attorney General shall act as the attorney for the agencies and shall initiate
actions in the name of and at the request of the Department or the Wildlife Resources
Commission.
(e) In this section, the term "public trust resources" means land and water areas, both
public and private, subject to public trust rights as that term is defined in G.S. 1-45.1.
PART IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
Senate Bill 151-Ratified Session Law 2013 -3 84 Page 5

SECTION 5. Section 3 of this act is effective when the act becomes law and
applies to permit applications submitted on or after that date. The remainder of this act is
effective when it becomes law.
2013. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 22"d day of July,
s/ Tom Apodaca
Presiding Officer of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ Pat McCrory
Governor
Approved 10:45 a.m. this 23`d day of August, 2013
Page 6 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

'SECTION 5. Section 3 of this act is effective when the, act becomes law and
.applies to permit applications -submitted on or after that date. The, remainder of -this "act is
effective when it becomes law:
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 22"d'day of July,
2013.
s/ Tom Apodaca .
Presiding Officer of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ 'Pat McCrory
Governor
Approved 10:45 a.m. this 23`d day of August, 2013
Page 6
Session Law 2013-384
Senate Bill 151-Ratified

Appendix C: Inlet Management Plan
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline and Inlet Management Plan
Introduction
The legislation passed by the NC General Assembly in June 2011 authorizing the permitting of
terminal groins at four (4) inlets in North Carolina carried with it the requirement to provide a
plan for managing inlet and the estuarine and ocean shorelines likely to be under the influence of
the inlet. During the 2013 legislative session, the General Assembly adopted Session Law 2013-
384 (Senate Bill 151) that modified some of the requirements that have to be met in order to
permit a terminal groin. Most notably, the 2013 legislation no longer requires the applicant to
demonstrate structures and infrastructure are "imminently threatened only that they are
"threatened" by erosion, The 2013 legislation still requires the applicant to implement an inlet
management plan that includes the following:
1) A monitoring plan.
2) A baseline for assessing adverse impacts and thresholds for when adverse impact must be
mitigated.
3) A description of mitigation measures to address adverse impacts.
4) A plan to modify or remove the terminal groin if adverse impacts cannot be mitigated.
As stated in the legislation:
"The inlet management plan monitoring and mitigation requirements must be reasonable and not
impose requirements whose costs outweigh the benefits. The inlet management plan is not
required to address sea level rise. "
The USACE established a comprehensive inlet and shoreline management plan in December
2002 for the Federal storm damage reduction project (USACE, 2002). The various aspects of that
plan, which are described below, are adopted for the Ocean Isle Beach preferred shoreline
management project involving a terminal groin and beach fill along the eastern end of the island
(Alternative 5). Some aspects of the USACE monitoring program have been modified to address
specific issues associated with the implementation of a terminal groin project adjacent to the west
side of Shallotte Wet which are needed to comply with State Legislation.
In addition to the USACE monitoring program and modification described below, which would
serve to satisfy items (1) and (2) of the mandated management plan listed above, measures to
mitigate project related adverse impacts as well as plans to modify or remove the terminal groin if
adverse impacts cannot be mitigate are discussed in the following sections.
1) Monitoring Plan. The expressed purpose of the USACE monitoring program is to:
1) Monitor the Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach shorelines adjacent to Shallotte Inlet to
verify the anticipated response of the inlet shoulders and ebb -tide shoal to dredging of the
inlet as a borrow area.
2) Provide data to track the performance of the beach fill placement in order to plan and
schedule the periodic renourishment of�Eederal rpjpct®
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEII''Eiix�nvllNr,lc4N NORTH
CAROLINDCM W CM NG OD NC
D(: A- MHD CITY DEC 2 3 2016

3) Monitor the performance of Shallotte Inlet as a borrow area and sediment trap in order to
plan dredging for the periodic renourishment.
The scope of the USACE monitoring program, detailed below, would be generally sufficient to
track impacts of the terminal groin on the shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach east and west of the
terminal groin, evaluate structure induced changes in the behavior of the inlet shoulders, and
determine if the structure is negatively impacting shoreline behavior on the west end of Holden
Beach. However, measures to track changes on the extreme west end of Holden Beach and the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach have been added to supplement the USACE monitoring program.
With the federal storm damage reduction project having been completed in 2001 followed by
subsequent periodic nourishment events in 2006-07, 2010, and 2014, all of which used the borrow
area in Shallotte Inlet, the impacts of the federal project following the implementation of the
terminal groin project would continue. 'Therefore, in order to assess incremental impacts of the
terminal groin on the adjacent shorelines as well as the environs around Shallotte Inlet, post -
terminal groin changes in these areas would need to be compared with changes that were
occurring during the time in which only the federal project was active.
The evaluation of habitat changes in the vicinity of Shallotte Inlet will be accomplished through
analysis of aerial photographs that are included as part of the routine monitoring program. These
same aerial photographs will be used to monitoring shoreline changes along the AIWW east and
west of Shallotte Inlet. The shoreline change analysis will include the AIWW shoreline west to
Shallotte Boulevard on the Ocean Isle side and east to the mouth of the Shallotte River including
Monks Island situated immediately behind the west end of Holden Beach.
Monitoring Prog am. The USACE monitoring program includes beach profile surveys covering
27,000 feet of shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach and 10,000 feet of shoreline on the west end of
Holden Beach (Figure 6.2a), radial profiles around the east and west shoulders of Shallotte Inlet
(Figure 6.2b), hydrographic survey of the inlet, and aerial photos. The beach profiles, which are
spaced at 500-foot intervals, are surveyed every six months (fall and spring) while the inlet radial
profiles are to be taken each spring. The aerial photos are also taken in the spring. To date, the
USACE has published two monitoring reports, the first in December 2002 (USACE, 2002) and
the second in June 2005 (USACE, 2005). While subsequent monitoring reports have not been
published, the USACE has continued to collect monitoring data along the east end of the federal
project and the west end of Holden Beach and has used the data to design the 2010 and 2014
periodic nourishment operations. Some of the same monitoring data was used in the evaluation of
the various shoreline and inlet management alternatives included in this document.
However, beginning in 2010, budget shortfalls resulted in the USACE modifying the survey
coverage with most surveys limited to the area on Ocean Isle Beach that fall within the limits of
the federal project. In order to continue survey coverage for the entire town, the Town of Ocean
Isle Beach initiated a beach profile monitoring program that includes areas on the east and west
ends of the island that have not been surveyed by the USACE since about 2010. The east end
surveys include the radial profiles around the east shoulder of Shallotte Inlet starting at station
30+00 and extending west along the beach to baseline station 20+00 (Figure 6.2c). The radial
transects used by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach in its monitoring program differ from the radial
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLIE(;OWILMINGTON, NC
JUP! 14 2016 FEB 2 3 2A
DCM- MHD CITY

transects established by the USACE. The west end coverage starts at baseline station 170+00 and
extends west to baseline station 275+00.
The numerical modeling of the terminal groin alternative indicated there would not be any
shoreline impact, either positive or negative, west of station 30+00 on Ocean Isle Beach or on the
west end of Holden Beach. With model indicated impacts ending at station 30+00 on Ocean Isle
Beach, there would not be any terminal groin related impacts on Tubbs Inlet, located about 5.3
miles west of the proposed location of the terminal groin, nor would there be any terminal groin
related impacts on Sunset Beach. Therefore, the USACE monitoring program is more than
sufficient to satisfy the legislative requirements.
(2) Shoreline Change Thresholds. As part of the monitoring plan, the USACE developed
shoreline change thresholds for Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach using shoreline change data
developed by the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for the time period 1938 to
1992 supplemented by a March 2001 pre -construction shoreline interpreted from aerial
photographs (USACE, 2002). The USACE used least square analysis to establish shoreline trends
at each 50-meter transect included in the NCDCM data set and to establish 95% confidence limits
around the computed shoreline change trends. Next, the USACE matched the NCDCM transects
to the beach profile monitoring profiles shown in Figure 6.1 and computed average shoreline
change rates and average 95% confidence intervals for each profile. With the monitoring profiles
spaced every 500 feet and the NCDCM transects every 50 meters, the averages were based on
NCDCM transects on each side of the profile station. In general, the average shoreline change
rates and confidence intervals applicable to each 500-foot profile station represent the average of
7 NCDCM transects.
In establishing the shoreline change thresholds, the USACE excluded areas on the west end of
Holden Beach and the east end of Ocean Isle Beach that are included in the area presently
designated as an Inlet Hazard Area. The USACE found shoreline changes within the Inlet Hazard
Area to be too erratic to establish long-term trends. The excluded areas are shown in Figure 6.4.
The shoreline change rates, 95% confidence intervals, and the shoreline change threshold adopted
by the USACE for each profile station on Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach are provided in
Table 6.1. The shoreline change rate threshold adopted by the USACE was computed by
subtracting one-half of the 95% confidence interval from the average shoreline change rate at
each profile. For the area on the west end of Holden Beach between profile stations 375 and 400,
the overall change in the shoreline was accretion, however; the USACE could not establish
definitive shoreline change trends due to the unpredictable influence of the Shallotte Inlet bar
channel on the shoreline. For this area the USACE adopted a threshold rate of 0 feet/year
applicable to profiles 375 to 400.
While the past behavior of the west end of Holden Beach has been somewhat erratic, particularly
since completion of initial construction of the federal storm damage reduction project on Ocean
Isle Beach, the shoreline change thresholds for the west end of Holden Beach used by the USACE
were modified for the terminal groin project by applying the same protocol between stations 375
and 400 as used to establish thresholds for the other transects. Adopting this protocol results in
positive, i.e., accretionary, shoreline change thresholds between stations 375 and 400 rather than 0
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
JUN 14 2016
DCM- M HE", -C'_N"f

transects established by -the USACE. The west end coverage starts at baseline station 170+00 and,
extends west to baseline station 275+00.
The numerical modeling of the terminal groin alternative indicated there would not be any
shoreline impact, either positive or negative, west of station 30+00 on Ocean Isle Beach or on the
west end of Holden Beach. With model indicated impacts ending at station 30+00-on Ocean Isle
Beach, there would not be any terminal groin related impacts on Tubbs Inlet, located about 5.3
miles west of the proposed location of the terminal groin, nor would there be any terminal groin
related impacts on Sunset Beach. Therefore, the USACE monitoring program is more than
sufficient to satisfy the legislative requirements.
(2) Shoreline Change Thresholds. As part of the monitoring plan, the USACE developed
shoreline change thresholds for Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach using shoreline change data
developed by the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for the time period 1938 to
1992 supplemented by a March 2001 pre -construction shoreline interpreted from aerial
photographs (USACE, 2002). The USACE used least square analysis to establish shoreline trends
at each 50-meter transect included in the NCDCM data set and to establish 95% confidence limits
around the computed shoreline change trends. Next, the USACE matched the NCDCM transects
to the beach profile monitoring profiles shown in Figure 6.1 and computed average shoreline
change rates and average 95% confidence intervals for each profile. With the monitoring profiles
spaced every 500 feet and the NCDCM transects every 50 meters, the averages were based on
NCDCM transects on each side of the profile station. In general, the average shoreline change
rates and confidence intervals applicable to each 500-foot profile station represent the average of
7 NCDCM transects.
In establishing the shoreline change thresholds, the USACE excluded areas on the west end of
Holden Beach and the east end of Ocean Isle Beach that are included in the area presently
designated as an Inlet Hazard Area. The USACE found -shoreline changes within the •Inlet Hazard = Area to be too erratic to establish long-term trends. The excluded areas are shown in Figure 6.4.
The shoreline change rates, 95% confidence intervals, and the shoreline change threshold adopted
by the USACE for each profile station on Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach are provided in
Table 6.1. The shoreline change rate threshold adopted by the USACE was computed by
subtracting one-half of the 95% confidence interval from the average shoreline change rate at
each profile. For the area on the west end of Holden Beach between profile stations 375 and 400,
the overall change in the shoreline was accretion, however; the USACE could not establish
definitive shoreline change trends due to the unpredictable influence of the Shallotte Inlet bar
channel on the shoreline. For this area the USACE adopted a threshold rate of 0 feet/year
applicable to profiles 375 to 400.
While the past behavior of the west end of Holden Beach has been somewhat erratic, particularly
since completion of initial construction of the federal storm damage reduction project on Ocean
Isle Beach, the shoreline change thresholds for the west end of Holden Beach used by the USACE
were modified for the terminal groin project by applying the same protocol between stations 375
and 400 as used to establish thresholds for the other transects. Adopting this protocol results in
positive, i.e., accretionary, shoreline change thresholds between stations 375 and 400 rather than 0
19MCPn 1117c")
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
JuN 14 2016

feet/year adopted by the USACE. These revised shoreline change threshold values for the
extreme west end of Holden Beach are provided in Table 6.1.
The use of 95% confidence intervals in establishing shoreline change rate thresholds provides a
degree of certainty that observed shoreline change rates that exceed the threshold values are
indicative of changes that would not have been expected to occur under pre -project conditions.
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

i
e
w
�...
gal Q
•
ja
Y
c
0 y.
94
Po
i1a'
.a
I,. ` , l
ji
y.s ;pVs
I
I I I I I1 •
(Figure copied from USACE, 2002).
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLIN
bell-

Ji A'
i`w�i1i��y��
SS_ Q
1
c p
�
pr-
r"f4f x f�P. f+G
• �`• c �iitik
'v1i� °�1 wµfeii.i'
li
,•y
11gl
o e
�Y.�•, S •�' 1ttp
s"�'.`i•"iy„#J'S S ,+��'i �.� yak r �Nt lx.� W;'�''.

i
j � I
x,
-24
r1;.. ••
n ui
e
g'1
y
' 0.
�./`�413
411
407 405 409
SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3
s<r• of Fnoro -- is ■ar zoos INLET RADIAL LOCATIONS
OCEAN ISLE BEACH At HOLDEN BEACH
Figure 6.2b. Inlet radial profiles included in the USACE Ocean Isle Beach monitoring program (Figure copied
from USACE, 2002).
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
pCwA_ t��9iD CITY FEB 2 3 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Figure 6.2c. Radial transects on Ocean Isle Beach side of Shallotte Inlet included in the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach's monitoring program. ,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Figure 6.2c. Radial transects on Ocean Isle Beach side of Shallotte Inlet included in the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach's monitoring program.
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Table 6.1. USACE shoreline change thresholds for Ocean Isle Beach and the west end of Holden Beach.
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Chan a Thresholds
Beach
Profile No, _4QIjamq
Average Rate
Shoreline
ft/ r
Average 95%
Confidence
Interval fV
Shoreline Change
Rate Threshold
ft/ m
5
-2.8
4.0
-4.9
10
-4.3
2.1
-5.3
15
4.7
1.7
-5.6
20
-3.6
1.7
4.4
25
-1.0
1.9
-1.9
30
1.0
2.1
0.0
35
1.7
1.9
0.8
40
1.7
1.7
0.8
45
1.3
1.5
0.6
50
1.0
1 1.5
0.3
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
)CM- MHD CVTY
RECEIVED
W WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 206
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

55
0.7
1.5
-0.1
60
0.3
1.7
-0.6
65
0.0
2.2
-1.1
70
0.1
2.9
-1.4
75
0.2
3.1
-1.3
80
0.1
3.2
-1.5
85
0.0
3.5
-1.7
90
-0.2
3.4
-1.9
95
-0.4
3.3
-2.0
100
-0.4
3.2
-2.0
105
-0.4
3.1
-1.9
110
-0.3
3.1
-1.8
115
-0.3
3.0
-1.7
120
-0.1
2.8
-1.5
125
0.1
2.5
-1.2
130
0.2
2.4
-1.0
135
0.4
2.3
-0.7
140
1.0
2.1
0.0
145
1.4
1.8
0.5
150
1.4
1.5
0.6
155
1.1
1.6
0.3
160
0.9
1.7
0.1
165
0.9
1.8
0.0
170
1.0
2.2
-0.1
175
1.1
2.5
-0.2
180
1.1
2.5
-0.1
185
1.1
2.6
-0.2
190
1.0
2.6
-0.3
200
1.1
2.6
-0.2
205
1.0
2.8
-0.4
210
1.0
2.8
-0.4
215
1.0
2.6
-0.3
220
1.1
2.5
-0.2
225
1.1
2.6
-0.2
230
1.1
2.7
-0.2
235
1.2
3.1
-0.4
240
1.3
3.4
-0.4
245
1.3
3.7
-0.5
250
1.4
4.2
-0.7
255
1.4
4.8
-1.1
260 ._
1.6
5.6
-1.2
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

55
0.7
1.5
-0.1
60
0.3
1.7
-0.6
65
0.0
2.2
-1.1
70
0.1
2.9
-1.4
75
0.2
3.1
-1.3
80
0.1
3.2
-1.5
85
0.0
3.5
-1.7
90
-0.2
3.4
-1.9
95
-0.4
3.3
-2.0
100
-0.4
3.2
-2.0
105
-0.4
3.1
-1.9
110
-0.3
3.1
-1.8
115
-0.3
3.0
-1.7
120
-0.1
2.8
-1.5
125
0.1
2.5
-1.2
130
0.2
2.4
-1.0
135
0.4
2.3
-0.7
140
1.0
2.1
0.0
145
1.4
1.8
0.5
150
1.4
1.5
0.6
155
1.1
1.6
0.3
160
0.9
1.7
0.1
165
0.9
1.8
0.0
170
1.0
2.2
-0.1
175
1.1
2.5
-0.2
180
1.1
2.5
-0.1
185
1.1
2.6
0.2
190
1.0
2.6
-0.3
200
1.1
2.6
-0.2
205
1.0
2.8
-0.4
210
1.0
2.8
-0.4
215
1.0
2.6
-0.3
220
1.1
2.5
-0.2
225
1.1
2.6
-0.2
230
1.1
2.7
-0.2
235
1.2
3.1
-0.4
240
1.3
3.4
-0.4
245
1.3
3.7
0.5
250
1.4
4.2
-0.7
255
1.4
4.8
-1.1
260 ...
1.6
5.6
-1.2
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

1.8 1 6.2
qF
Holden Beach Shoreline Change Thresholds -_
Beach
Profile
No r21
Average Rate
Shoreline
Change ft r
Average 95%
Confidence
Interval ft r)
Shoreline Change
Rate Threshold
(ft r)"'
400
2.1
1.9
395
5.5
7.3
3.3
390
7.0
7.5
3.1
385
7.1
8.0
2.0
80
6.3
8.7
0.7
370
4.2
9.3 ., ..
1.9
9.1
-0.1
365
3.0
8.3
-1.1
360
2.1
7.4
-1.7
355
1.4
6.7
-1.9
350
1.0
5.9
-2.0
345
0.5
4.9
-1.9
340
0.3
4.4
-1.9
335
-0.2
3.7
-2.1
330
-0.6
3.2
-2.2
325
-0.8
2.5
-2.0
320
-0.9
2.0
-1.9
315
-1.2
1.7
-2.1
310
-1.7
1.5
-2.5
305
-1.7
1.3
-2.4
300
-1.7
1.2
-2.3
(nShoreline change rate threshold equal to average rate - ('/s a 95% confidence interval).
(')Threshold rate of 0 fi/yr adopted for profiles 375 to 400 due to influence of Shallotte Inlet bar
channel.
To account for possible short term shoreline changes that could be caused by storm events or
other factors, the USACE adopted a 2-year confirmation period, i.e., should observed shoreline
change rate exceed the threshold rate at any profile station; an additional 2-year period would
follow to confirm the trend. Should the shoreline change rate exceed the threshold over the entire
2-year confirmation period, an assessment of the proper responsive measures would be made. If
the shoreline change rate decreases below the threshold rate during the confirmation period, the 2-
year confirmation period would be reset.
In the event the area is impacted by a catastrophic storm such as a hurricane or severe nor'easter
that causes major changes in the shoreline, subsequent sh9zl4 pe Fh tl�� would likely exceed
the threshold rates for some time. If after the two year s��ttd69 c tion period shoreline
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF 44A 414AINA, INQdCM WILMINGTON, NC
DC ^- ".""-E°` CiTY FEB 2 3 2016

change rates are still being impacted by the storm induced changes and some of the measured
shoreline change rates still exceed the threshold rates, an assessment will be made to determine if
a new reference shoreline condition is needed in order to adequately evaluate potential project
induced shoreline impacts that occur post storm.
Comparable shoreline change rate thresholds were not established by the USACE for the radial
profile lines around the inlet's east and west shoulders (Figure 6.2b) due to the variable nature of
the shoreline changes and the lack of definitive shoreline trends. However, the radial transects
would be monitored during the life of the project and the behavior of the inlet shorelines as
depicted by the radial profiles used to determine if modifications in the Shallotte Inlet borrow area
are needed.
As mentioned above, the shoreline and inlet monitoring program and shoreline change rate
thresholds established by the USACE for the Ocean Isle Beach storm damage reduction project
are adopted for the Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project with the exception of
profiles 375 to 400 on the west end of Holden Beach which were revised based on the same
protocol used to establish the thresholds at all the other transects. In this regard, should Federal
funding for the monitoring program fall short in any given year, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach
would provide the necessary funding to assure the program is accomplished as planned.
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach presently pays $17,000 to survey 34 profiles on the east and west
end of the island, or $500 per profile. If the Town had to assume the cost of surveying the federal
project between station 0+00 and 180+00, the cost to survey these 37 profiles would be an
additional $18,500. The USACE monitoring program also includes 21 profiles on the west end of
Holden Beach. Again if the USACE is unable to survey the west end of Holden Beach due to a
lack of federal funds, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach would assume that responsibility. The cost to
survey the 21 profiles on the west end of Holden Beach would be $10,500. Thus, the total cost of
the beach profile surveys that would become the responsibility of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach
in the absence of federal funding for this activity would be $29,000 per year.
Ocean Isle Beach Sand Snit. The area on Ocean Isle Beach located east of profile station 5+00
was not included in the USACE shoreline change threshold evaluation since this area falls within
the existing Inlet Hazard Area established by the NC Coastal Resources Commission. Also, the
sand spit, it its present form, did not exist prior to the construction of the Federal project.
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
DC.*,1- ;.`'HD CITY

change rates are still -being impacted by the storm induced changes and some of the measured
shoreline change rates still exceed the threshold rates, an assessment will be made to determine if
a new reference shoreline condition is needed in order to adequately evaluate potential project
induced shoreline impacts that occur post storm.
Comparable shoreline change rate thresholds were not established by the USACE for the radial
profile lines around the inlet's east and west shoulders (Figure 6.2b) due to the variable nature of
the shoreline changes and -the lack of definitive shoreline trends. However, the radial transects
would be monitoredduring the life of the project and the behavior of the inlet shorelines as
depicted by the radial profiles used to determine if modifications in the Shallotte Inlet borrow area
are needed.
As mentioned above, the shoreline and inlet monitoring program and shoreline change rate
thresholds established by the USACE for the Ocean, Isle Beach storm damage reduction project
are adopted for the Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project with the exception of
profiles 375 to 400 on the west end of Holden Beach which were revised based on the same
protocol used to establish the thresholds at all the other transects. In this regard, should Federal
funding for the monitoring program fall short in any given year, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach
would provide the necessary funding to assure the program is accomplished as planned.
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach presently pays $17,000 to survey 34 profiles on the east and west
end of the island, or $500 per profile. If the Town had to assume the cost of surveying the federal
project between station 0+00 and 180+00, the cost to survey these 37 profiles would be an
additional $18,500. The USACE monitoring program also includes 21 profiles on the west end of
Holden Beach. Again if the USACE is unable to survey the west end of Holden Beach due to a
lack of federal funds, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach would assume that responsibility. The cost to
survey the 21 profiles on the west end of Holden Beach would be $10,500. Thus, the total cost of
the beach profile surveys that would become the responsibility of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach
in the absence of federal funding for this activity would be $29,000 per year.
Ocean Isle Beach Sand Snit. The area on Ocean Isle Beach located east of profile station 5+00
was not included in the USACE shoreline change threshold evaluation since this area falls within
the existing Inlet Hazard Area established by the NC Coastal Resources Commission. Also, the
sand spit, it its present form, did not exist prior to the construction of the Federal project.
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Shoreline changes along the sand spit have been highly variable as shown by the shoreline
positions of the sand spit traced from Google Earth aerial photos taken between March 1999 (pre -
construction) and January 2013 shown on Figure 6.4. The shorelines on Figure 6.4 do not
represented a particular elevation such as mean high water or mean low water; rather the
shorelines simply represent the approximate interface of the water with the dry sand beach as
shown by the wet/dry line on the photos.
Based on this set of aerial photos, the eastward projection of the sand spit reached a maximum in
October 2007 (yellow line in Figure 6.4). Between October 2007 and October 2010 (dark blue
line), the sand spit rotated counter clockwise resulting in a landward recession of the shoreline of
between 400 feet and 600 feet on the extreme eastern end of the sand spit. The re -curved nature of
the sand spit normally results in the formation of a shallow pond between the old spit shoreline
and the backside of the new spit. Between October 2010 and January 2013 (red line), the
shoreline along the eastern end of the sand spit moved seaward 250 feet to 350 feet in response to
a new slug of sand moving to the east. Eastward movement of the slug of sand stopped when it
N EIU O RECEIVED
NC
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGI OF NORTH CAROLINA, I�M WI M N
JUN 14 N'S FEB 2 3 2016
pCM- M,HD Cr � Y

reached the main inlet channel and the sand spit again rotated counter clockwise and eventually
merged with the previous sand spit. This cyclic nature of sand spit behavior should continue
following the implementation of Alternative 5.
The approximate 1,000 feet of shoreline measured from the last house on the east end of Ocean
Isle Beach represents the trailing end of the sand spit. Shoreline behavior in this area is also
highly variable but not to the same degree as the eastern tip of the sand spit. This shoreline
position variability is due in part to the movement of beach nourishment material being
transported to the east off the east end of the Federal storm damage reduction project. In this
regard, the October 2009 shoreline (green line in Figure 6.4), which was taken about 6 months
prior to the April -May 2010 nourishment operation, had the landward most position of all of the
shorelines in the photo dataset.
Even though the establishment of shoreline change thresholds at each radial transect is not
practical for the spit area, the March 1999 configuration of the sand spit, as shown in Figure 6.4,
is adopted as a threshold for the sand spit area on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. Post -terminal
groin construction changes in the sand spit will be monitored using aerial photographs. Should the
sand spit diminish in size to that comparable to the March 1999 threshold, consideration will be
given to modifying the structure to allow more sediment to move from west to east past the
structure. Beach nourishment in this area would also be considered as a mitigation option.
Holden Beach - Shallotte Inlet Shoreline. A comparison of shoreline changes on the extreme west
end of Holden Beach adjacent to Shallotte Inlet is provided in Figure 6.5. The dates of the
shorelines shown in Figure 6.5 are the same as the dates shown for the Ocean Isle Beach sand spit
in Figure 6.4 and were also obtained from Google Earth photos. The March 1999 shoreline,
shown in black in Figure 6.5, represents the position of the shoreline prior to the initial
construction of the Ocean Isle Beach federal storm damage reduction project. Between March
1999 and October 2005 (blue line in Figure 6.5), the western end of Holden Beach on the ocean
side experienced considerable amount of accretion as the result of the onshore migration of a
portion of the ebb tide delta located off the west end of Holden Beach. This onshore migration
was attributed to the initial excavation of the Shallotte Inlet borrow area in 2001. At the narrowest
point between Holden Beach and Ocean Isle Beach inside the inlet, commonly referred to as the
inlet gorge, the shoreline moved east (i.e., eroded) approximately 600 feet between March 1999
and January 2013 as shown by comparing the black and red lines in Figure 6.5.
The erratic behavior of the shoreline along the east shoulder of Shallotte Inlet on the Holden
Beach side, particularly in the area between the two islands, and the apparent tendency of the
extreme western tip of Holden Beach opposite the inlet gorge to erode under exiting conditions
makes it virtually impossible to establish shoreline change rates for the radial transects that could
be used as erosion thresholds comparable to the ones established for the ocean -facing beach.
The primary purpose of establishing a shoreline threshold on the west end of Holden Beach is to
identify when existing development may become vulnerable to erosion damage. Therefore,
similar to what was done on the Ocean Isle Beach side, a shoreline position threshold is
established on the extreme western end of Holden Beach. The shoreline position threshold is -
shown in Figure 6.6. If future shorelines move up to this line, the need for remedial action and the
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
DC`,- N!HD CITY

reached the main inlet channel and the sand spit again rotated counter clockwise and eventually
merged with the previous sand spit. This cyclic nature of sand spit behavior should continue
following the implementation of Alternative 5.
The approximate 1,000 feet of shoreline measured from the last house on the east end of Ocean
Isle Beach represents the trailing end of the sand spit. Shoreline behavior in this area is also
highly variable but not to the same degree as the eastern tip of the sand spit. This shoreline
position variability is due in part to the movement of beach nourishment material being
transported to the east off the ,east end of the Federal storm damage reduction project. In this
regard, the October 2009 shoreline (green line in Figure 6.4), which was taken about 6 months
prior to the April -May 2010 nourishment operation, had the landward most position of all of the
shorelines in the photo dataset.
Even though the establishment of shoreline change thresholds at each radial transect is not
practical for the spit area, the March 1999 configuration of the sand spit, as shown in Figure 6.4,
is adopted as a threshold for the sand spit area on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. Post -terminal
groin construction changes in the sand spit will be monitored using aerial photographs. Should the
sand spit diminish in size to that comparable to the Match 1999 threshold, consideration will be
given to modifying the structure to allow more sediment to move from west to east past the
structure. Beach nourishment in this area would also be considered as a mitigation option.
Holden Beach - Shallotte Inlet Shoreline. A comparison of shoreline changes on the extreme west
end of Holden Beach adjacent to-Shallotte Inlet is provided in Figure 6.5. The dates of the
shorelines shown in Figure 6.5 are the same as. the dates shown for the Ocean Isle Beach sand spit
in Figure 6A and were also obtained from Google Earth photos. The March 1999 shoreline,
shown in black in Figure 6.5, represents the position of the shoreline prior, to the initial
construction of the Ocean Isle Beach federal storm damage reduction project. Between March
1999 and October -2005__(blue.line in Figure 6.5), the western end of Holden Beach on the_ocean
side experienced considerable amount of accretion as the result of the onshore migration of a
portion of the ebb tide delta located off the west end of Holden Beach. This onshore migration
was attributed to the initial excavation of the Shallotte Inlet borrow area in 2001. At the narrowest
point between Holden Beach and Ocean Isle Beach inside the inlet, commonly referred to as the
inlet gorge, the shoreline moved east (i.e., eroded) approximately 600 feet between March 1999
and January 2013 as shown by comparing the black and red lines in Figure 6.5.
The erratic behavior of the shoreline along the east shoulder of Shallotte Inlet on the Holden
Beach side, particularly in the area between the two islands, and the apparent tendency of the
extreme western tip of Holden Beach opposite the inlet gorge to erode under exiting conditions
makes it virtually impossible to establish shoreline change rates for the radial transects that could
be used as erosion thresholds comparable to the ones established for the ocean -facing beach.
The primary purpose of establishing a shoreline threshold on the west end of Holden Beach is to
identify when existing development may become vulnerable to erosion damage. Therefore,
similar to what was done on the Ocean Isle Beach side, a shoreline position threshold is
established on the extreme western end of Holden Beach. The shoreline posityoh thtest old is—
_
shown in Figure 6.6. If future shorelines move up to this line, the need for remedial 'achon 'and theme
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Figure 6.6. Shoreline Threshold -West End of Holden Beach.
(3) Mitigation Measures. Should shoreline responses along Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach
exceed the shoreline change thresholds presented above and continue to exceed the thresholds
throughout the 2-year verification period, the terminal groin would be evaluated to determine if
modifications to the structure could be made that would mitigate the negative shoreline impacts.
If modification of the terminal groin would not address the problem, beach nourishment would be
provided in the affected areas to compensate for the structure related impacts.
Once the need to provide beach fill to mitigate for project related shoreline impacts is determined,
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach would apply for appropriate State and Federal permits. Since the
location for the mitigation beach fill cannot be determined in advance, the permit process could
not begin until the monitoring program identifies where the impacts have occurred. As a result,
the time lapse between the identification of a shoreline erosion problem and the initiation of
construction to provide the beach fill could be as long as three (3) years. That is, one year to
identify the problem and two years to verify if the problem still exists. During the first year of
verification, work will begin to obtain the necessary permits. Any mitigation measure would be
limited to the November 16 to March 31 environmental dredging window.
RECEIVE
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. JUN 14 M 6
DcM- MHD C., y

type of response would be evaluated and coordinated with all parties involved including the Town
of Holden Beach, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the State Division of Coastal Management, and
the USACE.
The shoreline threshold shown on Figure 6.6 is generally positioned about 300 feet seaward of the
front of the ocean front structures along the west end of Holden Beach. The 300-foot distance was
based on the maximum shoreline excursions that occurred between October 2005 and January
2013 (Figure 6.5). The 300-foot buffer between the erosion threshold shoreline and the ocean
front structures should allow sufficient time to develop mitigation measures should the inlet
shoreline recede to the threshold line. Again, based on the observed shoreline changes shown on
Figure 6.5, the rate of shoreline change along the west end of Holden did not generally exceed 75
to 100 feetlyear.
Figure 6.5. Shoreline changes on the extreme west end of Holden Beach next to Shallotte Inlet — March 1999 to
January 2013.
R tv D
�
COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN .(jKVjIgjKTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016
f,?; ir) CITY

type of response would be evaluated and coordinated with all parties involved including the Town
of Holden Beach, the'Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the State Division of Coastal Management, and
the USACE.
The shoreline threshold shown on Figure 6.6 is generally positioned about 300 feet seaward of the
front of the ocean front structures along the west end of Holden Beach. The 300-foot distance was
based on the maximum shoreline excursions that, occurred between October 2005 and January
2013 (Figure 6.5). The 300-foot buffer between the erosion threshold shoreline and the ocean
front structures should allow sufficient time to develop mitigation- measures should the inlet
shoreline recede`to thethreshold line. Again, based on the observed shoreline changes shown on
Figure 6.5, the rate of shoreline change along the ,west end of Holden•did not generally exceed 75
to 100 feet/year..
to
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC G�,NNjIiTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2816
71

Material for the mitigation beach fill would be obtained from the Shallotte Inlet borrow area.
Depending on the timing of when the need for mitigation beach fill is determined, the mitigation
beach fill could possibly be provided during the normal periodic nourishment operation. If the
timing does not coincide with the normal periodic nourishment cycle, the mitigation fill would be
provided during a separate nourishment operation.
Under the existing Federal storm damage reduction project, mitigation of adverse impacts of the
Shallotte Inlet borrow area on Holden Beach would be the responsibility of the Town of Ocean
Isle Beach. Separating terminal groin and borrow area impacts on the west end of Holden Beach
would be difficult if not impossible. However, with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach being
responsible for mitigation in both instances, identifying the culpable feature (borrow area or
terminal groin) would not be required.
In the event the negative impacts of the terminal groin cannot be mitigated with beach
nourishment or possible modifications to the design of the terminal groin, the terminal groin
would be removed. Removal would entail the extraction of the sheet pile from the shore
anchorage section and the complete removal of all stone, including bedding and armor stone. The
terminal groin construction materials would be transported off the island and placed in an
appropriate storage site. The terminal groin material, particularly the sheet pile and stone, would
have some salvage value; however, the opinion on the cost for removal of the terminal groin,
excluding any salvage value, is $2.0 million.
(4) Project Modifications. The terminal groin proposed for the east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the
applicant's preferred alternative (Alternative 5) is designed to allow littoral sediment to move
over, though, and/or around the structure. The so-called "leaky" nature of the design, a
nomenclature suggested by Olsen & Associates for the terminal groin on Amelia Island, Florida,
should allow sufficient volumes of sand to move past the structure and continue east along the
sand spit to maintain the integrity of the spit. As indicated above, the March 1999 configuration
of the sand spit on the Ocean Isle Beach side of Shallotte Inlet will be used as a "threshold" in
determining if modifications to the structure are needed to allow more sediment to move past the
structure. No such threshold is possible for the inlet shoreline on the Holden Beach side due to
the document erratic behavior of the shoreline prior to and following the initial construction of the
Ocean Isle Beach federal storm damage reduction project. In this regard, mitigation on the Holden
Beach side would be dictated by shoreline changes that exceed the thresholds established for the
federal project.
Consideration would also be given to possibly nourishing the area east of the terminal groin on
the Ocean Isle Beach side as a means of restoring the character of the sand spit. The post -
construction configuration of the sand spit will be evaluated through interpretation of the aerial
photographs. As stated above, should the sand spit diminish in size comparable to the March 1999
condition, consideration will be given to modifying the structure to allow more sediment to move
from west to east past the structure of possibly providing beach fill to the area east of the terminal
groin during regularly scheduled periodic nourishment operations. Modification to the structure
could include removal of stones to increase permeability, shortening the structure, or lowering the
crest elevation. The appropriate measures, i.e., structure modifications or beach fill, would be
determined following an assessment of the degree of impact the structure is having on the area.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROL A, INSCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 14 2016 FEB 2 3 206
DCM- MHD CITY

Reporting. Annual reports, comparable to the two monitoring reports previously published by the
USACE, would be prepared and submitted to the USACE Wilmington District Regulatory Office
and the NC Division of Coastal Management. The reports will summarize shoreline changes
observed during the previous year and will compare updated shoreline changes to shoreline
change thresholds. The results will be provided in both tabular and graphical form.
Should the monitoring surveys detect shoreline change rates exceeding the threshold rates, the
profile where the thresholds are exceeded will be "red flagged." Subsequent monitoring reports
over the following two years will closely follow changes at these profiles to determine if
corrective actions are needed.
Summary of Shoreline and Inlet Management Plan. The shoreline and inlet management plan for
the Ocean Isle Beach project would include the following:
1. Beach profile surveys every 6 months covering 27,000 feet of shoreline on Ocean Isle
Beach and 10,000 feet of shoreline east of Shallotte Inlet on Holden Beach.
2. The beach profiles will be spaced at 500-foot intervals along both Ocean Isle Beach and
Holden Beach.
3. Annual hydrographic surveys of Shallotte Inlet extending from the confluence of the inlet
with the AIWW seaward to the -30-foot NAVD depth contour in the ocean. The
hydrographic surveys will cover the area from approximately station 400+00 on Holden
Beach to station 0+00 on Ocean Isle Beach.
4. The 9 radial profiles on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and the 8 radial profiles on the
west end of Holden Beach, as shown in Figure 6.2, will be surveyed each spring and
graphs prepared to show changes over time.
5. The sand spit shoreline east of the terminal groin will be mapped from the aerial photos
taken each spring and plots of the changes in the spit shoreline shown graphically.
6. Similar shoreline mapping will also be performed on the Holden Beach side of Shallotte
Inlet.
7. An annual report will be prepared summarizing changes observed during the year and
identifying any profile stations where the shoreline change thresholds are exceeded.
8. The report will include a summary of significant meteorological events (tropical and
extratropical), man-made activities (beach nourishment), and any other factors that had
occurred that could have an impact of past as well as future shoreline changes.
9. The report will discuss if measures are needed to correct any observed negative shoreline
impacts and if so provide recommendations on how to address the impacts.
RE'CENED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. J U N 14 2016
DCM- K!HD C6TY

Reporting. Annual reports, comparable to the two monitoring reports previously published by the
USACE, would be prepared and submitted to the USACE Wilmington District Regulatory Office
and the NC Division of Coastal Management. The reports will summarize shoreline changes.
observed during the previous year and will compare updated shoreline changes to shoreline
change thresholds. The results will be provided in both tabular and graphical form.
Should the monitoring surveys detect shoreline change rates exceeding the threshold rates, the
profile where the thresholds are exceeded will be "red flagged." Subsequent monitoring reports
over the following two years will closely follow changes at these profiles to determine if
corrective actions are needed.
Summary of Shoreline and Inlet Management Plan. The shoreline and inlet management plan for
the Ocean Isle Beach project would include the following:
Beach profile surveys every 6 months covering 27,000 feet of shoreline on Ocean Isle
Beach and 10,000 feet of shoreline east of Shallotte Inlet on Holden Beach.
2. The beach profiles will be spaced at 500-foot intervals along both Ocean Isle Beach and
Holden Beach.
3. Annual hydrographic surveys of Shallotte Inlet extending from the confluence of the inlet
with the AIWW seaward to the -30-foot NAVD depth contour in the ocean. The
hydrographic surveys will cover the area from approximately station 400+00 on Holden
Beach to station 0+00 on Ocean Isle Beach.
4. The 9 radial profiles on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and the 8 radial profiles on the
west end of Holden Beach, as shown in Figure 6.2, will be surveyed each spring and
graphs prepared to show changes over time.
5. The sand spit shoreline east of the terminal groin will be mapped from the aerial photos
taken each spring and plots of the changes in the spit shoreline shown graphically.
6. Similar shoreline mapping will also be performed on the Holden Beach side of Shallotte
Inlet.
7. An annual report will be prepared summarizing changes observed during the year and
identifying any profile stations where the shoreline change thresholds are exceeded.
8. The report will include a summary of significant meteorological events (tropical and
extratropical), man-made activities (beach nourishment), and any other factors that had
occurred that could have an impact of past as well as future shoreline changes.
9. The report will discuss if measures are needed to correct any.observed negative shoreline
impacts and if so provide recommendations on how to address the impacts,
R'EC"EiVv'nT)
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC U N14
2016

Appendix G: Habitat Mapping
Purpose and Goals
It is anticipated that the implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact certain
biological resources and habitats found within the proposed Permit Area, particularly within the
complex of Shallotte Inlet. These include resources such as shellfish habitat, salt marsh, and
intertidal communities found within the area to be investigated. Determining the baseline
conditions of these resources prior to construction is a fundamental step in quantifying changes in
response to the implementation of Alternative 5. Existing data were utilized to delineate and
characterize habitats and select species within the proposed Permit Area. Data gathered from
these activities provided the baseline conditions of a number of biological resources as reported in
Chapter 4 of this document. The purpose of the baseline habitat mapping effort was to identify the
current extent of the biological resources within the area prior to the construction of the terminal
groin and subsequent beach fill and will serve as the baseline assessment of the subject resources
within the identified Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping Area, as designated in Figure 1. Subsequent
habitat mapping efforts will be utilized to assess the extent of change to these habitats within the
designated boundary following construction activities.
Figure I- Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping Area R E C E I V L .J
Monitoring Schedule
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEER®0A4N4A 4K$ AOff*, INC.

RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Pre -construction photographic interpretation of biotic communities and groundtruthing
investigations within the proposed habitat mapping area were completed in March 2014 utilizing
high -resolution aerial photography acquired in 2012.
The acquisition of high -resolution aerial photographs, ground -truth investigations and
identification of biotic communities will be conducted within the Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping
Area between 1 September and 30 November in the three (3) years following construction of the
proposed project. All surveys will be compared to the pre -construction conditions observed from
the 2012 aerial photography.
Monitoring Parameters
Aerial Photography:
Cartographic aerial photography will include the acquisition of ortho-rectified color digital
imagery of the 928-acre Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping Area. Resolution of the acquired imagery
will be sufficient to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental
significance within the survey area. The aerial platform from which the imagery is acquired will
have an onboard GPS that will provide an accurate basis for product correction. NMFS will be
consulted regarding the performance specifications on the imagery prior to finalizing the plan by
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and authorizing a contract.
In compliance with State and Federal agency requests, digital image acquisition will be
scheduled, to the greatest extent possible, to coincide with good weather conditions and an ebb
tide that may provide for increased accuracy of habitat interpretation. Considering the weather -
dependent nature of this activity, every effort will be made to accomplish this task under optimum
conditions.
Aerial imagery will be collected in accordance with NOAA's Coastal Services Center 2001
Guidance for Benthic Habitat Mapping — An Aerial Photographic Approach (Finkbeiner et al.,
2001). Aerial photographs include the acquisition of ortho-rectified color digital imagery of the
Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping area. Resolution of the acquired imagery will be sufficient (<0.6
m [2 ft]) to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental significance
within the survey area. An emphasis will be placed on those marine and estuarine habitats located
immediately within and adjacent to the Shallotte Inlet Habitat Mapping area. The aerial platform
from which the imagery is acquired will include an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS)
that will provide an accurate basis for product correction.
Salt Marsh, Intertidal Shoals, Supratidal Shoals and Subtidal Communities:
Visual interpretations of biotic community types were digitally mapped using ArcView 9.3
software over high -resolution georeferenced digital multispectral aerial photographs as part of the
initial pre -construction assessment of biotic communities. The methods employed for
interpretation of aerial photography included visual analysis of color variations in the photographs
to delineate habitats (dark areas = submerged land; white areas = sediment exposed above high
tide line). Resolution of this imagery (< 2 feet) allowed for adequate delineation of the habitats
and features within the Permit Area. Following the development of the preliminary biotic
community mapping within the Permit Area via visual interpretation, field investigations were
HI=c;E.iti _'
COASTAL PLANNING& ENGI]}i�6itpN40i nCARoI�llp tMINGTON,NC
1I�LCCIIrrCC�� VV 1..�+ FEB 2 3 '1616
JUN 14 2016
nrhn_ MlAn CITY

conducted to groundtruth the initial delineations. Sites selected for groundtruthing were
determined by identifying areas that were difficult to classify from the aerial photography. These
locations were visited via boat and the biotic community type (as identified through aerial
photographic interpretation) was then verified. Based on the results of the field investigations, the
preliminary habitat map was revised as necessary and acreages were determined.
Reporting
The final product from each post -construction assessment will include a report describing the
biotic community map derived from the methods explained above. This report will summarize the
acreage of each habitat identified and will compare the acreages to previous investigations (pre -
construction and any post -construction efforts that may have occurred). Results of these mapping
efforts will be incorporated into the Global Information System (GIS) database developed for this
project. Acreages of each habitat type present within the permit area will be provided in a report
to the USACE — Wilmington District, NMFS, USFWS, NCWRC and NCDCM by January I' of
each year.
RECENED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCJUN 14 2016
Mm- f',°;�D Co-rY

conducted to groundtruth the initial delineations. Sites selected for groundtruthing were
determined by identifying areas that were difficult to classify from the aerial photography. These
locations were visited via boat and the biotic community type (as identified through aerial
photographic interpretation) was then verified. Based on the results of the field investigations, the
preliminary habitat map was revised as necessary and acreages were determined.
Reporting
The final product from each post -construction assessment will include a report describing the
biotic community map derived from the methods explained above. This report will summarize the
acreage of each habitat identified and will compare the acreages to previous investigations (pre -
construction and any post -construction efforts that may have occurred). Results of these mapping
efforts will be incorporated into the Global Information System (GIS) database developed for this
project. Acreages of each habitat type present within the permit area will be provided in a report
to the USACE — Wilmington District, NMFS, USFWS, NCWRC and NCDCM by January lsi of
each year.
e_., C, CE J V �'
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCJUN 14 20I6
C,l P?3

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
PROJECT NAME: Oak Island Terminal Groin
COUNTY: Brunswick
LOCATION OF PROJECT: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallone Blvd, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle
Beach, Brunswick County.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 6-10-16
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: NO
To Be Forwarded: n/a
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: To Be Forwarded: n/a
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: T. MacPherson forth. Snider DISTRICT OFFICE: WUMINGTON
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: 0'e'
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 6-16-16
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO:
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:)fl
1
MAIL OUT DATE: 6-13-16
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
FEE REC'D: $4751 #68435
END OF NOTICE DATE: 7-7-16
DEED REC'D-
ON: i
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 7-7-16
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section (DEMLR)
Division of Water Resources (401)
Storm Water Management (DEMLR)
State Property Office
Division of Archives & History
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
RECEIVED
Local Permit Office
JUN 1 4 2016
Division of Marine Fisheries / DCM
Corps of Engineers

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
PROJECT NAME: Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Project site is located at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of
Shallotte Boulevard, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County.
Photo Index - 2006: 1-6158; 16, Q-U 2000: 1-11; 16, Q-U 1998: 1-11; 5-6, Q-U
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2184967 Y: 54846
Lat: 330 53' 56.28" N Long: 78" 23' 25.99" W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/ Dredge & Fill
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 10/06/15
Was Applicant Present - No
S. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - Complete on 6/10/16
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Land Classification From LUP - No classification.
(B) AEC(s) Involved: IHA, OEA, PT, EW
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing -N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - N/A.
Planned - Terminal Groin
(G) Estimated Rate of Erosion: 8' per year
Source- 2011 LTAASCR Update
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTH_FR
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
§404 wetlands
-0,63 acres
-0.43 acres
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
-82.8 acres
(terminal groin)
(temporary, trestle
(dredged for fillet)
-12.3 acres (fillet)
construction)
Other- High ground
-0.28 acres
(terminal groin)
-0.85 acres (staging
area/construction
-6.9 acres (fillet)
corridor)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: +/-100 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA/SB Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes construction of a terminal groin.
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Ocean Isle Beach- Terminal Groin
Page Two
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To locate the project site, travel south on US Highway 17 to Ocean Isle Beach Road SW. Turn left
onto Ocean Isle Beach Road SW and travel approximately 4 miles to the Ocean Isle Beach high rise
bridge. Cross the bridge and travel approximately 0.40 miles to 2"d Street and turn left. Travel
approximately 2.3 miles to Charlotte Street and turn left. Make an immediate right at the stop
sign onto East 3rd Street and travel one block to Shallotte Boulevard. The project site is located
from Shallotte Boulevard east to the end of 3'd Street, the location of the proposed groin.
The project site is often referred to as the "East End" of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County. The
project site is bordered by Holden Beach to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the south and the
AIWW to the north. Ocean Isle Beach is a barrier island located in Brunswick County near the Town
of Shallotte. It is flanked on the east end by the Shallotte River Inlet and on the west by Tubbs
Inlet. Ocean Isle Beach is adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) separates the island from the mainland. The island is heavily developed with mostly
residential development. The high ground portion of the property is vegetated primarily with
American Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata) and Sea Oats (Uniolo paniculato). The entire
project area is located within the Ocean Erodible and Inlet Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs). The annual erosion rate for the project area is 6.5 feet/year per the Division of Coastal
Management's 2011 Annual Erosion Rate maps. The Ocean Hazard AEC ranges from approximately
420 ft. to as much as 690 ft. near Shallotte Inlet.
The portion of the project located west of Shallotte Boulevard is part of an USACE Coastal Storm
Damage Reduction project which authorizes the placement of material excavated from Shallotte
Inlet borrow area along approximately 3.25 miles of beach west of Shallotte Boulevard on a 3-4
year cycle. The project area approximately 1,500 feet east and west of Shallotte Boulevard is an
approved disposal area for the ACOE federal navigation channel maintenance of the AIWW
Crossing Tangent 17-20. Additionally, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach was issued CAMA Major/
Dredge and Fill State Permit No. 91-05 on June 28, 2005 for the placement of approximately
135,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from the Shallotte Inlet borrow area. This permit
authorizes the nourishment of approximately 2,700 linear feet of oceanfront shoreline east of
Charlotte Street to Shallotte Inlet utilizing sand dredged from Shallotte Inlet. This permit was
modified on April 28, 2006'to authorize the use of a high ground borrow site known as the "Lakes
of Lockwood Borrow Site", which is authorized for use by the Town of Holden Beach under State
Permit #14-02, and authorized trucking this material to the beach. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach
nourishment project supplemented the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) project
authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers. The CSDR project has been conducted approximately
every four years utilizing sand material from the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area. On April 2, 2104 a
minor modification was issued for State Permit No. 91-05 in order to place sand in the area
landward of the 2014 USACE CSDR project. State Permit No. 91-05 was renewed on June 28, 2015
and is due to expire on December 31, 2016.
RECEIVED
All of the existing structures, street ends and imminently threatened infrastructure within the
project area have been protected with sandbags that have been incrementally constructed idUN 14 Z016
response to erosion events.
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Ocean Isle Beach- Terminal Groin
Page Three
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan does not have the dry sand beach classified;
however, the upland areas of this project are classified as Developed. The waters of the Atlantic
Ocean are classified as SA by the North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources.
The waters are not designated as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) by the N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries. They are OPEN to the harvesting of shellfish. There are no known archaeological sites
within the project vicinity.
10. PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing the construction of a 1,050 feet long terminal groin at the East End of
Ocean Isle Beach. The terminal groin would likely be constructed in two sections, the first being a
landward 300 feet long shore anchorage system consisting of sheet piles. The top of the landward
most portion of the shore anchorage section would have an elevation of 4.5+ feet NAVD and
would be located landward of the existing dune and would be below the existing grade. The
remaining 130 feet of sheet pile would have a top elevation of+4.9 feet NAVD feet between the
landward end of the rubble mound section and the existing dune (see sheet 7 of 12). The applicant
has not indicated a proposed width for the sheet pile section of the terminal groin. The proposed
shore anchorage section would be constructed by driving the sheets in place with a pile driver. A
construction corridor 50 feet wide would be established on either side of the shore anchorage
section. The applicant has stated the construction corridor would be restored to pre -construction
conditions as much as possible by grading any disturbed land and replanting with native
vegetation.
As proposed the 750 feet long rubble mound portion of the terminal groin would be constructed
of large loosely placed armor rock on a base of a rock -filled marine mattress or stone base. The
applicant has stated the landward 150-250 feet of the rubble mound section would require
minimal excavation or leveling in order to place the stone base or rock -filled marine mattress at an
elevation of -6.6 feet NAVD (see Sheet 7 of 12). From this point seaward the applicant is proposing
to place the rock -filled marine mattress or stone base on grade. Armor stone would be limited to
a uniform size (7.5 to 12.5 tons each with a 6'-8' diameter) and the structure would be constructed
at a maximum crest elevation of +4.9 feet NGVD 83 to allow some sediment to pass over the
structure during periods of high tide (see Sheet 6 of 12). The rubble mound portion of the groin
would be arranged in such a way that it would remain "leaky" and would facilitate the movement
of littoral material through the structure. The structure is designed with a maximum crest width of
15 feet and a maximum base width of 75 feet (see DCM MP-2 Form). The rubble mound portion
would be constructed at a 2:1 slope (see Sheet 6 of 12). As proposed, the eastern side of the
rubble mound portion of the terminal groin, nearest Shallotte Inlet, would have a flat profile
measuring approximately 15 feet in width. The proposed groin would have a maximum crest
elevation of +4.9' NAVD 83 to allow for sediment transport over the structure a high tides. The
applicant has proposed a 20 feet wide temporary trestle adjacent to the rubble mound section to
assist with construction. The applicant states the temporary trestle would be rem
,�Y
completion of the project. - 12TED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Town of Ocean Isle Beach- Terminal Groin
Page Four
Construction methodology for the rubble mound portion of the terminal groin would be to
transport the stone by barge to an off loading facility on the north end of Shallotte Boulevard,
where it would then be trucked to a temporary stone storage area located on the beach at the end
of 4' Street, near the shore anchorage portion of the groin.
The applicant has stated that the preferred sand source for the fillet creation is the Shallotte Inlet
borrow site authorized by State Permit 91-05 and the ACOE CSDRP for Ocean Isle Beach. The
preferred sand source the Town has identified for any needed mitigation on Holden Beach or
other areas is also the Shallotte Inlet borrow site. No alternative sand sources have been
proposed as part of this permit application. The beach fill project limits could extend up to 3,214
linear feet in length, from near Station -2+00 to Station 30+00, with an excavated volume of up to
264,000 cubic yards of material to be placed on the west side of the proposed terminal groin. As
proposed, the fillet would overlap approximately 1,000 linear feet of the CSDRP located west of
Shallotte Boulevard and approximately 2,200 linear feet East of Shallotte Boulevard including a
portion of the approved disposal area for the ACOE federal navigation channel maintenance and
CAMA Major Permit #91-05. The applicant has not stated if they intend to leave or remove the
existing sandbag revetment during project construction or upon completion of the project.
Surveying commitments and mitigation thresholds have been described in the Inlet Management
Plan submitted as part of the application package (see attached plan for details). A draft EIS has
been reviewed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and commenting agencies. The final EIS
has been released by the USACE and the Division of Coastal Management has submitted final
comments.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed terminal groin construction would result in the filling of approximately 69,670 sq. ft.
(0.63 acres) of Public Trust Area and Estuarine Waters below the mean high water line (MHW) and
the filling of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. (0.28 acres) of unvegetated beach above MHW. The
landward portion of the groin (the tie-back/ancho section) could also result in the temporary
excavation of up to 5,000 cubic yards of unvegetated beach. The fillet creation could result in up to
41,782 sq. ft. (1.0 acres) of fill above MHW, approximately 493,967 sq. ft. (11.3 acres) of fill below
MHW and the excavation of up to 82.8 acres of Public Trust Area and Estuarine Waters. Temporary
trestle construction may temporarily impact up to 18,731 sq. ft. (0.43 acres) of Public Trust Area
and Estuarine Waters below MHW. The proposed construction corridor and staging area may
temporarily disturb up to 37,026 sq. ft. (0.85 acres) of unvegetated beach above MHW. The
applicant anticipates that a properly installed terminal groin will likely decrease the frequency and
duration of future needed beach fill projects and erosion events.
RECEFIVED
Submitted by: Debra Wilson Date: June 13, 2016 Office: Wilmington JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

OCEAN ISLE BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
MM1913" 7U I_l W4\ 9 8-P C04"_CoUl
Prepared for:
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Prepared by:
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
February 2016 i V ED
DO ,NC
j6kEj % �o�016
DCM- MHD CITY

Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Contents
1 FORMS..............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 DCM MP-1.................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 DCM MP-2.................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 DCM MP-3.................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 DCM MP-4................................................................................................................................ 10
2 ATTACHMENTS.............................................................................................................................14
2.1 DCM MP-1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION......................................................................... 14
2.1.1 6a. Project Narrative........................................................................................................ 14
2.1.2 6b and c. Work Plats and Location Maps..................................................................... 19
2.1.3 6d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under
which the applicant claims title to the affected properties....................................................... 19
2.1.4 6h. Signed Agent Authorization Form........................................................................... 19
2.1.5 6j. Signed AEC Hazard Notice....................................................................................... 19
3 Appendices......................................................................................................................................20
Appendices
Appendix A: Work Plats and Location Maps
Appendix B: Signed Agent Authorization Form and AEC Notice
Appendix C: Inlet Management Plan
Appendix D: Financial Assurance
Appendix E: Pending Easements
Appendix F: Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notifications

Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project'
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Contents
1 FORMS.........................................:................ 1
1.1 DCM MP-1................................................................................................ 1
...............................
1.2 DCM MP-2..................................................................:...............................................................5
1.3 DCM MP-3.................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 DCM MP-4..............................................................................................................................M.10
2 ATTACHMENTS.............................................................................................................................14
2.1 DCM MP-1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ........................... ...................... ...................... :.. 14
2.1..1 6a. Project Narrative........................................................................................................ 14
2.1.2 6b and c. Work Plats and Location Maps..........................................................4.......... 19
2.1.3 6d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under
which the applicant claims title to the affected properties. ....................... * ......... M ..................... 19
2.1.4 6h. Signed Agent Authorization Form........................................................................... 19
2.1.5 6j. Signed AEC Hazard Notice ..................................................... .... 19
..............................
3 Appendices......................................................................................................................................20
Appendices
Appendix A: Work Plats and Location Maps
Appendix B: Signed Agent Authorization Form and AEC Notice
Appendix C: Inlet Management Plan
Appendix D: Financial Assurance
Appendix E: Pending Easements
Appendix F: Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notifications

2 ATTACHMENTS
2.1 DCM MP-1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2.1.1 6a. Project Narrative.
2.1.1.1 Project Purpose and Description
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach is seeking federal and state permits to allow development of a
shoreline protection project. The proposed project is designed to mitigate chronic erosion on the
eastern portion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline. The project would serve to preserve the
integrity of the Town's infrastructure, provide protection to existing development and ensure the
continued use of the oceanfront beach along this area.
The main concern of residents and property owners at Ocean Isle Beach are economic losses
resulting from damages to structures and their contents due to hurricane and storm activity and
the loss of beachfront land due to the ongoing shoreline erosion along the east end of the island
in proximity to Shallotte Inlet. A review of historical data suggests that current shoreline
management strategies have not been successful in providing the proper shoreline protection
sought by the Town. With a tax value of property within the limits of Ocean Isle Beach equaling
approximately $1,816,012,300 (based on the 2012 reappraisal), the Town realizes the need to
protect homes and infrastructure along the east end of the island. This valuation includes 3,247
commercial and residential structures and property and 1,456 vacant lots (Ivey, pers. comm.).
The proposed project includes the construction of a terminal groin located 148 feet east of
baseline station 0+00. Components of the structure will include a 300-foot shore anchorage
section (to protect against possible flanking of the landward end of the structure) and a 750-foot
rubble mound section extending 600 feet seaward of the baseline (Figure 1, Appendix A). The
300-foot shore anchorage section would be constructed with either steel or concrete sheet pile.
The sheet piles would have a top elevation of +4.9 feet NAVD for a distance of approximately
130 feet between the landward end of the rubblemound section and the existing dune. The top
elevation of the shore anchorage section would be reduced to +4.5 feet NAVD for the remaining
170 feet (Sheet 7 of 12, Appendix A). The top of the landward most portion of the shore
anchorage section would be below the existing ground level. The 750-foot rubblemound portion
of the terminal groin would be constructed with loosely placed armor stone on top of a
foundation mat or mattress and would have a crest elevation of +4.9 feet NAVD (Sheet 7 of 12,
Appendix A). The rubblemound portion of the groin will not include a "core" and will be
arranged such that it will remain "leaky" and will facilitate the movement of littoral material
through the structure. In addition, the relative low crest elevation of +4.9 feet NAVD would
allow some sediment to pass over the structure during periods of high tide.
In addition to the construction of the terminal groin, a pre -filled accretion fillet would be
constructed along a 3,214-foot section of oceanfront shoreline adjacent to the structure. The fillet
would be formed with approximately 264,000 cubic yards of material excavated from the borrow
area utilized by the USACE within Shallotte Inlet. Dredging will be performed by a t�� iVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. J U N 14 2016
14
DCM- MHD CITY

cutter -suction pipeline dredge (pipeline dredge) during the environmental dredge window of
November 15 through April 30.
Thirty-five (35) easements will be obtained to allow for the constriction of this project. This
includes twenty-seven (27) easements along the oceanfront shoreline, seven (7) within the shore
anchorage section and associated construction corridor, and one (1) within the footprint of the
proposed offloading area in proximity to the AIWW. At this time, all easements have been
obtained with the exception of one (1) along the oceanfront shoreline due to the inability to
locate the current owners. In addition, one (1) parcel located within the shore anchorage section
of the groin has not executed it's easement due to the pending sale of this property. The
prospective buyer, however, has verbally confirmed to the Town that they will sign the easement
once the sale is finalized.
2.1.1.2 Construction Methodology
The initial construction of the terminal groin and the placement of associated beach fill are not
intended to be coordinated with the construction of the federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
Project (CSDRP) that overlaps a portion of fill area. Rather, the initial construction should be
considered to be an independently contracted project by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach.
Maintenance events, however, would be coordinated to coincide with the maintenance of the
CSDRP. The eastern terminus of the federal project is located at station 10+00 (Shallotte
Boulevard). The fill for the terminal groin fillet would extend to station 30+00; therefore, the
fillet will overlap 2,000 feet of the CSDRP between station 10+00 and 30+00. Generally, the
USACE's navigation disposal activities on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach occur from
approximately station 0+00 (1,000 feet east of Shallotte Boulevard) and extend to around station
20+00 (1,000 feet west of Shallotte Boulevard). The exact area covered by the USACE disposal
operations, however, depends on the volume of material to be removed from the
AIWW/Shallotte Inlet crossing.
Preliminary methodology to transport the stone required to construct the terminal groin to Ocean
Isle Beach would be via the AIWW with barges loaded from a rail terminal similar to one
located in Wilmington, NC. The stone would be off-loaded on to trucks at the north end of
Shallotte Boulevard (Figure 4, Appendix A). The stone would be transported by trucks from the
offloading facility down Shallotte Boulevard and E. 4th Street to a temporary stone storage area
located on the beach at the end of E. 4th Street. The rubblemound portion of the terminal groin
would be constructed from a temporary trestle installed parallel to the alignment of the terminal
groin. The trestle would be removed upon completion of the rubblemound portion of the terminal
groin. Actual logistics and construction details are to be determined and are subject to change.
A minimal amount of excavation or leveling would be required for the landward 150 to 250 feet
of the rubblemound portion of the structure in order to place the foundation stone or mattress at
an elevation of -6.6 feet NAVD (Sheet 7 of 12, Appendix A). From that point seaward, the
foundation stone/mattress would be placed on grade.
The sheet pile for the landward portion of the terminal groin would be transported directly to the
site by truck from where it would be offloaded and driven into place with typical pile driving
equipment. A 50-foot wide construction corridor would be established on either sidf4*t�e D
&�V EIDCM WILMINGTON, NC
COASTAL PLANNING ERINO NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FEB 2 3 2n+ .5
JUN A 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

anchorage section. The construction corridor would be restored to pre -construction conditions as
much as possible by grading any disturbed land and replanting with native vegetation.
2.1.1.3 Shoreline and Inlet Management Plan Summary
See Appendix C for the complete plan. In summary, the shoreline and inlet management plan for
the Ocean Isle Beach project would include the following components:
1. Beach profile surveys every 6 months covering 27,000 feet of shoreline on Ocean Isle
Beach and 10,000 feet of shoreline east of Shallotte Inlet on Holden Beach.
2. The beach profiles will be spaced at 500-foot intervals along both Ocean Isle Beach and
Holden Beach.
3. Annual hydrographic surveys of Shallotte Inlet extending from the confluence of the inlet
with the AIWW seaward to the -30-foot NAVD depth contour in the ocean. The
hydrographic surveys will cover the area from approximately station 400+00 on Holden
Beach to station 0+00 on Ocean Isle Beach.
4. The 9 radial profiles on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and the 8 radial profiles on the
west end of Holden Beach will be surveyed each spring and graphs prepared to show
changes over time.
5. Shoreline change thresholds will be established, the need for remedial action and the type
of response would be evaluated and coordinated with all parties involved including the
Town of Holden Beach, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the State Division of Coastal
Management, and the USACE.
6. The sand spit shoreline east of the terminal groin will be mapped from the aerial photos
taken each spring and plots of the changes in the spit shoreline shown graphically.
7. Similar shoreline mapping will also be performed on the Holden Beach side of Shallotte
Inlet.
8. An annual report will be prepared summarizing changes observed during the year and
identifying any profile stations where the shoreline change thresholds are exceeded.
9. The report will include a summary of significant meteorological events (tropical and
extratropical), manmade activities (beach nourishment), and any other factors that had
occurred that could have an impact of past as well as future shoreline changes.
10. The report will discuss if measures are needed to correct any observed negative shoreline
impacts and if so provide recommendations on how to address the impacts.
If mitigation beach fill is needed on either the west end of Holden Beach or along portions of
Ocean Isle Beach west of station 30+00, the mitigation beach fill would be accomplished during
regularly scheduled periodic nourishment of the Ocean Isle Beach project. The location of
possible future mitigation beach fill will not be known until the after the beach monitoring
surveys are completed and analyzed. Should the need to provide beach fill to mitigate for project
related shoreline impacts be determined, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach would apply for
appropriate state and federal permits. All environmental documentation and required information
will be included with these permit applications. Since the location for the mitigation beach fill
cannot be determined in advance, the permit process could not begin until the monitoring
program identifies where the impacts have occurred. As a result, the time lapse between the
identification of a shoreline erosion problem and the initiation of construction to provide the
beach fill could be as long as three (3) years. This includes one year to identify the pro pLand I V E D
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 16 N 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

anchorage section. -The construction corridor would be restored to pre -construction conditions as
much as possible by grading any disturbed land and replanting with native vegetation.
2.1.1.3 Shoreline and Inlet Management Plan Summary
See Appendix C for the complete plan. In summary, the shoreline and inlet management plan for
the Ocean Isle Beach project would include the following components:
1. Beach profile surveys every 6 months covering 27,000 feet of shoreline on Ocean Isle
Beach and 10,000 feet of shoreline east of Shallotte Inlet on Holden Beach.
2. The beach profiles will be spaced at 500-Foot intervals along both Ocean Isle Beach and
Holden Beach.
3. Annual hydrographic surveys of Shallotte Inlet extending from the confluence of the inlet
with the AIWW seaward to the -30-foot NAVD depth contour in the ocean. The
hydrographic surveys will cover the area from approximately station 400+00 on Holden
Beach to station 0+00 on Ocean Isle Beach.
4. The 9 radial profiles on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and the 8 radial profiles on the
west end of Holden Beach will be surveyed each spring'and graphs prepared to show
changes over time.
5. Shoreline change thresholds will be established, the need for remedial action and the type
of response would be evaluated and coordinated with all parties involved including the
Town of Holden Beach, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the State Division of Coastal
Management, and the USAGE.
6. The sand spit shoreline east of the terminal groin will be mapped from the aerial photos
taken each spring and plots of the changes in the spit shoreline shown graphically.
7. Similar shoreline mapping will also be performed on the Holden Beach side of Shallotte
Inlet.
8. An annual report will be prepared summarizing changes observed during the year and
identifying any profile stations where the shoreline change thresholds are exceeded.
9. The report will include a summary of.significant meteorological events (tropical and
extratropical), manmade activities (beach nourishment), and any other factors that had
occurred that could have an impact of past as well as future shoreline changes.
10. The report will discuss if measures are needed to correct any observed negative shoreline
impacts and if so provide recommendations on how to address the impacts.
If mitigation beach fill is needed on either the west end of Holden Beach or along portions of
Ocean Isle Beach west of station 30+00, the mitigation beach fill would be accomplished during
regularly scheduled periodic nourishment of the Ocean Isle Beach project. The location of
possible future mitigation beach fill will not be known until the after the beach monitoring
surveys are completed and analyzed. Should the need to provide beach fill to mitigate for project
related shoreline. impacts be determined, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach would apply for
appropriate state and federal permits. All environmental documentation and required information
will be included with these permit applications. Since the location for the mitigation beach fill
cannot be determined in advance, the permit process could not begin until the monitoring.
program identifies where the impacts have occurred. As a result, the time lapse between the
identification of a shoreline erosion problem and the initiation of construction to provide the
beach fill could be as long as three (3) years. This includes one year to identify the pro b ate
EIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 16 jUN 14 201E
M& MHD CITE'

two years to verify if the problem still exists. During the first year of verification, work will
begin to obtain the necessary permits. Any mitigation measure would be limited to the
November 16 to March 31 environmental dredging window.
No agreement between the USACE, Holden Beach and Ocean Isle Beach has been executed nor
is one expected to be in the future. The statement indicating that one may be obtained has been
removed from the Inlet Management Plan. Refer to the Inlet Management Plan (Appendix Q.
The erratic behavior of the shoreline along the east shoulder of Shallotte Inlet on the Holden
Beach side, particularly in the area between the two islands, and the apparent tendency of the
extreme western tip of Holden Beach opposite the inlet gorge to erode under exiting conditions
makes it virtually impossible to establish a shoreline position along the west end of Holden
Beach that could serve as a shoreline a threshold similar to what is proposed for the Ocean Isle
Beach side. This notwithstanding, the shoreline condition on the west end of Holden Beach
adjacent to Shallotte Inlet will be monitored using aerial photographs at the Town's expense.
Should changes in the inlet shoreline pose a threat to existing development on the west end of
Holden Beach, methods to mitigate the threat would be evaluated. Consideration of mitigation
measures around the inlet shoreline on the Holden Beach side would be coordinated with the
USACE, NCDCM and the Town of Holden Beach.
The proposed SDI-5 project, proposed 30-Year Island -Wide Shoreline Protection Plan, federal
CSDRP, and any potential mitigation on Holden Beach, if required as a result of the proposed
terminal groin project, all use the same borrow area within Shallotte Inlet. Although each these
projects have been designed to excavate a pre -determined volume from the borrow area, the
amount removed from Shallotte Inlet as a result of these projects would not be cumulative.
Engineering analysis has determined the required beach fill density along the Town's oceanfront
shoreline. It is not anticipated that any project would be implemented to place fill above the
stated density requirement. The applicant acknowledges that the borrow source may be used for
these projects and proposes no action that would jeopardize the availability of material for any
existing or proposed projects.
2.1.1.4 Monitoring
All monitoring activities as stated within the forthcoming permit conditions issued by both
CAMA and the Department of Army along with the terms and conditions set forth within the
USFWS' Biological Opinion will be abided by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. Should some of
these monitoring requirements be performed by another entity (i.e. USACE, NCWRC, etc.), the
Town will ensure that all requirements are fully met. Ultimately, the Town is fully responsible
for each monitoring requirement as outlined in the permit conditions, the Biological OQ,iI�
and the Inlet Management Plan. A brief description of potential monitoring requiremol tl�&IU
ED
follows.
JUN 14 2016
Construction Observations (material color, escarpments, water quality
Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineers mns- u H D CITY
authorized representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation and
contract administration will be periodically performed during periods of active construction.
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, I NQCM WILMINGTON, NC
17
FEB 2 3 2116

Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may
be conducted. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative
will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in beach
nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project
design and permit conditions.
Biological Monitoring
Bird Monitoring
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission and partners have performed breeding
surveys for colonial nesting waterbirds within proximity to the Permit Area since 1977.
Specifically, surveys have been conducted along the eastern and western portion of the island in
proximity to Tubbs Inlet and Shallotte Inlet. Surveys for breeding piping plovers have been
conducted since 1989 at the same locations. Surveys for non -breeding piping plovers have been
conducted in more recent years. These surveys include data from breeding and non -breeding
seasons for several listed bird species as well as other shorebirds and waterbirds. This monitoring
is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Through a formal consultation process with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that a robust bird monitoring program may be
required on an annual basis for up to three years post -construction. The applicant will coordinate
with NCWRC to determine if the State's effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the
Town will assume the responsibility and perform bird monitoring as required by the USFWS
Biological Opinion.
Seabeach Amaranth
Ocean Isle Beach has been surveyed by the USACE for seabeach amaranth since 1992
(Piatkowski, pers. comm.). This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.
Through a formal consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that
a seabeach amaranth monitoring program may be required on an annual basis for up to three
years post -construction. The applicant will coordinate with USACE to determine if their
proposed effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the Town will assume the
responsibility and perform seabeach amaranth monitoring as required by the USFWS Biological
Opinion.
Sea Turtles
The Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Patrol has been actively monitoring sea turtle nests on their
beach since 1984. Currently, the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization provides
monitoring along the island. This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.
Through a formal consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that
a sea turtle monitoring program may be required on an annual basis for up to three years post -
construction. The applicant will coordinate with the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection
Organization to determine if their proposed effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the
Town will assume the responsibility and perform sea turtle monitoring as required by the
USFWS Biological Opinion.
Habitat Mapping
The implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact certain biological
resources and habitats found within the proposed project area, particularly within the Shallotte
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
18

Most observations will beduring daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may
be conducted. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative
will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in beach
nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project
design and permit conditions.
Biological Monitoring
Bird Monitoring
The North Carolina Wildlife. Resource Commission and partners have performed breeding
surveys for colonial nesting waterbirds within proximity to the Permit Area since 1977.
Specifically, surveys have been conducted along the eastern and western portion of the island in
proximity to Tubbs Inlet and Shallotte Inlet. Surveys for breeding piping plovers have been
conducted since 1989 at the same locations. Surveys for non -breeding piping plovers have been
conducted in more recent years. These surveys include data from breeding and non -breeding
seasons for several listed bird species as well as other shorebirds and waterbirds. This monitoring
is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Through a formal consultation process with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that a robust bird monitoring program may be
required on an annual basis for up to three years post -construction. The applicant will coordinate
with NCWRC to determine if the State's effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the
Town will assume the responsibility and perform bird monitoring as required by the USFWS
Biological Opinion.
Seabeach Amaranth
Ocean Isle Beach has been surveyed by the USACE for seabeach amaranth since 1992
(Piatkowski, pers. comm.). This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.
.Through a formal consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that
a seabeach amaranth monitoring program may be required on an annual basis for up to three
years post -construction. The applicant will coordinate with USACE to determine if their
proposed effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the Town will assume the
responsibility and perform'seabeach amaranth monitoring as required by the USFWS Biological
Opinion.
Sea Turtles
The Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Patrol has been actively monitoring sea turtle nests on their
beach since 1984. Currently, the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization provides
monitoring along the island. This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.
Through a formal consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is expected that
a sea turtle. monitoring program may be required on an annual basis for up to three years post -
construction. The applicant will coordinate with the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection
Organization to determine if their proposed effort may satisfy this requirement. If it does not, the
Town will assume the responsibility and perform sea turtle monitoring as required by the
USFWS Biological Opinion.
Habitat Mapping
The implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact certain biological
resources and habitats found within the proposed project area, particularly within the Shallotte
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
18

Inlet complex. These include resources such as shellfish habitat, salt marsh, and intertidal
communities found within the area to be investigated. Determining the baseline conditions of
these resources prior to construction is a fundamental step in quantifying changes in response to
the implementation of the proposed project. The Town has developed a baseline habitat map.
After initial construction, updates to the habitat map will occur on an annual basis for three years
to assess the extent of habitat change within the designated boundary. See Appendix G for a brief
description of the habitat mapping plan and the geographic extent of this effort.
Mvsicai Monitoring
The USACE established a comprehensive inlet and shoreline management plan in December
2002 for the Federal storm damage reduction project (USACE, 2002). The various aspects of that
plan, which are described in full within Appendix C of this permit application package and
summarized above in Section 2.1.1.3, are adopted for the Ocean Isle Beach preferred shoreline
management project involving a terminal groin and beach fill along the eastern end of the island.
2.1.2 6b and c. Work Plats and Location Maps.
See Appendix A.
2.1.3 6d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under
which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
The town is currently in the process of securing easements that will allow for the proposed
construction and maintenance of the project. See Appendix E.
2.1.4 6h. Signed Agent Authorization Form.
See Appendix B.
2.1.5 6j. Signed AEC Hazard Notice.
See Appendix B.
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON, NC
19
FEB 2 3 2n16

3 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Work Plats and Location Maps
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

1 FORMS
1.1 DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Midor Development Permit
(last revised 12127106)1 North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Town Of Ocean Isle Beach
Project Name (if applicable)
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project
Applicant 1: First Name
Debbie
MI
S
Last Name
Smith
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
IFadditional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
3 West Third Street
PO Box
City
Ocean Isle Beach
State
NC
ZIP
28469
Country
USA
Phone No.
910 - 579 - 2166 aid.
FAX No.
910-579-8804
Street Address (d dil i rent from above)
City
Stale
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent(Contractor Information
Business Name
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Agentl Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Brad
Rosov
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Greg
Finch
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
I`v
28409
910 - 791 -
9494 ext.
- - ��
FAX No.
Contractor #
J U N 14 20
910 7914129
Federal ID
# 020623961
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
IPC M - M H D
Email
[e-mail], [e-mail]
f3 C
D
6
C ITY
E EIV D
N, NC
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FEB 2 3 22.16
1

3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Brunswick
Eastern End of Ocean Isle Beach and Shallotte Inlet and near
N/A
469 East 3rd St.
Subdivision Name
City
Stale
Zip
N/A
N/A
NC
N/A -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
N/A - ext.
N/A, I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Shallotte Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes []No
work falls within.
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
3214 ft. (Accretion Fillet)
—536,748 s.f. (Accretion Fillet);—3,619,854 (Borrow Area)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A, I
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
—0 to 16 MSL ❑NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Typical beach and dune vegetation.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family residential structures, sandbags, man-made dunes and beach fill. Recreational beach usage and public
access.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Single family residences, recreational beach uses.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Residential (R-1)
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
®Yes []No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity pan of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible properly?
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN©C M _ MHD CITY

3 Protect Locationl
r
v_I
a
County (can be multiple) Street Address
p.._).
b.
..__... _ .,. .. ..— __..._.. _..
Brunswick, Eastern End of Ocean Ise Beach and Shallotte Inlet and near
S
71
469 East 3rd St.
N
Subdivision Name
city
State
Z
N/A
N/A
NC
W
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additonal page with list)
N/A - - ext.
N/A, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Shallotte Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d_. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes ❑No
work falls within. ,
Town of Ocean IsBeach
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.) ^L
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
3214 ft. (Accretion Fillet)
—535,748 s.f. (Accretion Fillet);—3,619,854 (Borrow Area)
c. Size of Individual lot(s) -
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A, I I
NWL (normal waterlevel)
(if many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
—0 to 15' MSL ❑NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Typical beach and dune vegetation.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Single family residential structures, sandbags, man-made dunes and beach fill. Recreational beach usage and public
access.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Single family residences, recreational beach uses.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Residential (R-1)
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if.applicable)
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
1. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
RE CEIVEE D
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. C M e M H D T,�
2

m. (I) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(it) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
Oil) If yes to either (i) or (a) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes NNo
(Attach documentation, if available) There are coastal wetlands near the offloading area.
All wetlands will be avoided and delineated as necessary prior to construction.
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Municipal
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Municipal
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
N/A
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public/Government
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The project purpose is to mitigate erosion on the eastern portion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the
integrity of its infrastructure, provide protection to existing development and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront
beach.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, typesof constriction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
A hydraulic pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines will be used during
construction. Storage of the equipment will not typically be a concern as the work will likely occur 24 hours a day. A 20' wide
temporary trestle will be installed parallel to the alignment of the terminal groin. The trestle would be removed upon
completion of the rubblemound portion of the terminal groin. Trestle length will be approximately 950', dependent on existing
grade and beach conditions at the time of construction. A crane will be placed upon the structure thereby allowing it to move
stones into position in the water. Temporary sand placement for construction pads will not be necessary.
d. List all development activities you propose.
The proposed activity includes the construction of a terminal groin along with beach nourishment and any required mitigation
measures.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? Approx. 100 ❑Sq.Ft or NAcres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public access way or other area NYes ❑No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
The placement location is the oceanfront beach adjacent to the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach.
REC
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes NNo ❑NA
JUN 1
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? []Yes ❑No NNA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA p A _ M
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. Only in the event of negative Impacts. See inlet D C tV I
management plan in Appendix C.
IVED
4 2016
HD CIT'
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. FEB 2 3 2016

6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application lorm, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. items (a) - (n am always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application instruction
booklet on crow to properly prepama ftre required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (indud'etg plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of
the proposed project. Is arty portion already complete? If previously authorized work, ctearly, indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instnxrnent under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
I. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront Initiation) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mall. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in which
to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name See Appendix A Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include pennit numbers, permihee and Issuing dates.
N/A
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Welland delineation, if necessary. --�—
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects In oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compllanee with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C. G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary, If the project involves
expenditure of public funds or use of public lards, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act.
1 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land I
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will Mow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the hest of my knowledge.
Date: \I11.1 A Print Name: C-r, A,�, Agent, Coastal Planning & Engineering ofNorth Carolina, Inc
Signature t Q i:- t1 z
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Pill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
®DCM MP-3 Upland Development
®DCM MP-4 Shwtures Information
RE 1�-�
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4 DCM- MHD CITY

b1b"must be
An 1"ngs) drawn to OAK
.�, - - PlO­aSe'QNthe PMtStatUs of
�iaWMy*mpfeis? if 0ous de�51rq,qn mapspwtq,qa . nqs M distinguTsfi
PA.and pmAoibdi.i'
nnnqur,tuwuon rnup,nwcinuromparIv" ntl'area tams;ske,
-6
only}
e. TCappraodete 4ppll6atloh W. Cha or money order mapayable
f.Arlstofthe flanwa'anp complete addrOsWofthe a
owmAis have rem"'W
-a cPpjf..'q- ' " '"" ftfib_dppifcatlon and plats liy'derfiflqd th&M6 6-
t4
'e'ndix' smwSM'A'W A t?fione No'
Address'
~I'farpe' '' ° � Pt(bna"Nq,
�pddresa - _
g A test of prevtousstate ortede1p6rMhL Issued forL%�&fk
ra Iss a R2: _11 6dt&,Oqtffijj ftunbers',petrpdtaa end Issuing'ditm'
lo-tied _00-F
- - V
-YYWN 4dnWohjf h(-e=- sss' '7
j. it) 10 "Irk b6tc -
qo P!bj 61�ohftntdmt I�lq� '!I�
--,Abtqtftbnt 61, Is If 11 pmjedjnv*Wo%,'L'
J . Dffshb . 6 with jhe Willi -
RE C�"7
JUN 14 2016
NOIRMICAR(#* Ai ce,
BIICPVI.- MHD CITY

1.2 DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other (excluding
Channel
Canal
Boat
Boat
Rock
Rock
shoreline
(NLW or
Basin
Ramp
Groin
Breakwater
stabilization)
NWL)
Length
Avg.3800'
750'
250
15' at
Width
Avg. 950'
top, 75'
75
at bottom
Avg. Existing
-6 MLW
NA
NA
2.5 NAVD88
Depth
Final Project
-15' MLW
NA
NA
-6.6 NAVD88
Depth
1. EXCAVATION ❑ This section not
applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
-264,000 cy within Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area; 2,000 to 3,000 cy
for landward 269 of rubblemound portion of terminal groin.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlandstmarsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW_ ❑SAV_ ❑SB_
OWL_ ®None
Ili) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
WA
Beach quality sand
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
None
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not
applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Oceanfront shoreline along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Irregular, 3214length, 535,749 s.f.
Beach between Charlotte St. and the end of E 3rd St.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
Easements
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW—
❑SAV_ ❑SB
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for futuRECEIVED
maintenance?
®Yes ONO ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Same location
JUN 14 2016
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area ir©P M H D C ITY
®Yes ONO ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
-516,000 s.f.
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016 1

OWL — ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
b.
Length: 1050
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other: Terminal
Width:
Groin
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 423' horn 2013
d.
Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 846.5'
shoreline (most recent survey data).
based on 2013 shoreline (most current survey data).
e. Type of stabilization material:
f.
(i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
Sheet pile, bedding and armor stone
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion
amount information.
8'lyr. based on DCM maps.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
h.
Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap _
Bedding and armor stone; sand
Breakwater/Sill Other Bedding and Armor Stone-
69.670 s.L Accretion Fillet- 493.967 s.f. Based on 2013 survey.
I. Source of fill material.
Offsite to be determined for terminal groin materials, Shallotte Inlet
borrow area for accretion fillet.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
b.
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh
If yes,
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked,
(if) Amount of material to be placed in the water _
provide the number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB
(iv) Purpose of fill
OWL_ ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
;;QED
1 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA9,41WM- M HID City
6

OWL — . ®None
(ID Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ®Other: Terminal Width: 65'
Groin —
c.Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 423' from 2013 d. Maximum distance walerward of NHW or NWL: 846.5'
shoreline (most recent survey data). based on 2013 shoreline (most current survey data).
e. Type of stabilization material:
Sheet pile, bedding and. armor stone
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap
Breakwater/Sill _ ' Other Bedding and Armor Stone-
69,670 s.f.: Accretion Fillet- 493,967 s f Based on 2013 survey.
I. Source of fill material.
Offsite to be determined for terminal groin materials, Shallotte Inlet
borrow area for accretion fillet.
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(III) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount oferosion and source of erosion
amount information.
87yr. based on DCM maps.
h. Type of fill material.
Bedding and armor stone; sand
(1) Will tin material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or otherwetlands OWL)? If any boxes are checked,
provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW_ ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL _ ❑None
CID Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
J;.a F-'. ,I •-- ,yam
yj•;
2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA�Y\cm�� ; d1ej D CQ
TY

a. How will excavated or fin material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
A temporary dike will be constructed seaward of the placement
area allowing sandy material to settle out before the water reenters
the ocean. Ultimately, the terminal groin will control the placed
sediment.
c. Yes
navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(o) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Date
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Project Name
Ocean Isle Beach, c/o Debbie S. Smith
Applicant Name
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g.,
dragim, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Cuderhead hydraulic dredge and pipeline, bulldozers,
front-end loaders and other earth moving machines.
Barges and cranes associated with the construction of
the terminal groin and temporary !resale.
d. lit Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to
project site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Agent, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
r?ECEWED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. DC" t"II.MINGTON, NC
7 FEB 2 3 2016

1.3 DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
GENERAL UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or structures
proposed.
None
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the units per
acre).
NA
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the
Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and
sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land -disturbing
activity begins.
(i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
[--]Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted
g. Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to
be covered by impervious and/or built -upon surfaces, such as
pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways
or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
1. Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious
and/or built -upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
NA
I. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the
state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/
commercial effluent, 'wash down" and residential discharges).
NA
b. Number of lots or parcels.
NA
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads,
ditches, etc.
Temporary staging areas and construction corridor: 37,132
s.f. (0.85 ac.).
f. List the materials (such as mad, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete)
to be used for impervious surfaces.
NA
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also
require a Stormwater Certification.
(i) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for review?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(it) If yes, list the dale submitted:
k. Have the facilities described in Item (i) received state or local
approval?
❑Yes []No ®NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
m. Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater
design?
❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, attach appropriate docraRE r�n°. E I VE D
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC M H D CITY
8

1.3 DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT -
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or structures
proposed.
None
G. Density (give the number of residential units and the units per
acre).
NA
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the
Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and
sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land -disturbing
activity begins.
(i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) Ifyes, list thedate submitted:
g. Give the percentage of the tractwithin the coastal shoreline AEC to
be covered by impervious and/or built -upon surfaces, such as
pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways
or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
i. Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious
and/or built -upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
NA. Temporary staging areas and construction corridor
only.
j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
NA
I. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the
stale (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industriat'
commercial effluent, 'Wash down' and residential discharges).
NA
b. Number of lots or parcels.
NA
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads,
ditches, etc.
Temporary staging areas and construction corridor: 37,132
s.f. (0.85 ac.).
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete)
to be.used for impervious surfaces.
NA
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also
require a Sloonwaler Certification.
(i) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for review?
❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted:
k. Have the facilities described in Item (i) received slate or local
approval?
[]Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
m. Does the proposed project include an innovative stonnwater
design?
[]Yes ❑No ®NA �
If yes, attach appropriate domul erjttation ', .6
ED
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLIPX INbr j1.j�.'�� D CITY
8

in Descnbe proposed drinking water supply source (e.g., well,
community, pubic system, etc.)
NA
o. When was the lots) platted and recorded?
NA
Date
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Project Name
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Applicant Name
\, Agent, Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Signature
n. (i) Will water be impounded? ❑Yea ❑No ®NA
(ii) If yes. how many acres?
p. If proposed development is a subdivision, will additional utilities be
installed for this upland development?
❑Yes ❑No ®NA
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INi WILMINGTON, NC
9 FEB 2 3 2016

1.4 DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina.
[_]Commercial ❑Publir/Govemment ❑Private/Community
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(!It) Length
IN) Width _
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(III) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dnpline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(l) Number of slips existing
i. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
[]Open water; dredging for basin arid/or channel
[]Open water; no dredging required
❑Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length:
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
❑Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
®This section not applicable
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ❑No
d. (1) Are Finger Piers included? []Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(III) Length
(iv) Width _
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? []Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ('Wet slips') only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats: _
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes ❑No
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
10 DCM- MHD CITY

1.4 DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES,
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this, proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina: -
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community
G. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width _
(v) Floating ❑Yes El No
a.. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(ii) Length
(iv) Width _
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from diipline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(Ii) Number of slips existing
. i. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
❑Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water; no dredging required
❑Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length: _
M. (1) Will the facility have tie pilings?
[]Yes []No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
b. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ❑No
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length _
(iv) Width _
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
f. (I) Are Boallifts included? 1_—]Yes []NO
If yes:
(ii) Number
(!it) Length
(iv) Width
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail,
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage (%vet slips') only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats: _ -
. ❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
repair or
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes ❑No
RECEIVED
JUN 14.2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
10 DCAn- 91AHD 0ITY

I DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number. Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boalholding tank pumpout Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpoul Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
RECEIVED
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided? J U N 14 2016
Y
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INQCM WILMINGTON, NC
11 FEB 2 3 2915

m. Is the marina docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes ❑No
Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
[-]Yes ❑No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB
❑WL_ ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? []Yes []No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including covered lies) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the boathouse slructure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(in) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP-2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Number
(i) Length
(iii) Width
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ®This section not applicable
a. Length b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
6. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s) : b. Number
❑Commercial ❑Pubhc/Government ❑Private/Community
c. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline _ d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Are of the swing
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.J U N 14 2016
12
DCM- MHD CITY

m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes ❑No
n.- Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes []No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB
OWL — ❑None
P. Is the: proposed marina/docking-facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PubliclGovernment ❑Private/Community
(i) Number _
Oil) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from driaine dimensions.
a. (I) Number
(ii) Length _
(iii) Width
a.. Length
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL orwetlands
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Pdvate/Community
C. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, If present.
e. Arc of the swing _
b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
b. Number
d. Descdpfion of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
CSVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. JUN 14 2016
12

7. GENERAL
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines b. Proximity cl structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
NA NA
Abte: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
ofvessel.
c. Width of water body
NA
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
As defined by the US Coast Guard
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NNL
— -8 to -10 MSL
18. OTHER ❑This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
A 20' wide temporary trestle will be installed parallel to the alignment of the terminal grom. The trestle would be removed upon coplpietion of the
rubblemound potion of the terminal groin. Trestle length will be approximately 950', dependent on existing grade and beach conditions at the
time of construction.
V.
Date
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Project Name
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Applicant Name 't
r1, \ _U , Agent, Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Applicant Signature
RECEME-0
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
IvPD
COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. VVILMINGTON, NO
13 FEB 23291.5

RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

OCEAN ISLE BEACH
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
r
U
w
0
0
Z K
ua
z�
ro 0 W
WON
W
SHEET INDEX c��srq �gTFR�Ay U w 0
NO. TITLE OCEAN ISLE o z
BEACH
0
1 COVER SHEET TERA9INAL GROIN ��� W
2 OVERALL PLAN VIEW �.,., LOCATION HOLDEN'
3 ADJACENT RIPARIAN OWNERS �
4 TERMINAL GROIN PLAN VIEW \ (/ BEACH
5 ACCRETION FILLET PROFILES r /
x 6 TYPICAL GROIN PROFILES A -A' AND B-B'
7 TYPICAL GROIN PROFILE C-C
e 8 BORROW AREA PLAN VIEW ACCRETION r/
9 BORROW AREA PROFILES D-D'. FILLET '
10 BORROW AREA PROFILES E-E' AND F-F /
11 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE `R\
PLAN VIEW ATLANTIC / `BORROW
12 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE OCEAN `. AREA
CROSS SECTION
w
ds
� ss
g =u
E _<
3 wLL
4 RALEIOH y}�co F = U
a C =_
m CHARLOTTE NDR� CAPE HATTERAS i C a
! A
J KSONNLLE• MOREHEAD CITY RCC4. wC o
s`
CAPE LOOKOUT Q lio
CAPE FEAR JUN 14 2016 §1
a ATLAs 3
N.TS. NTIC DATE.
ATE.
DCM- MHD CITY /3„5
s MOJECTSTE
g v:
s DATE BY DESCRIPTION HN
m COMM NO.:
47426
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET:
3 FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
a OF 12

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
SHEET4
r------------------------------- i
I
I
I
I
—�
W -
1
EXISTING 01 "Fr
SAND BAGS
1
AI
I
�n
I
z..
- - B
�;f✓`' /'1`' :
BI
p 4TH ST. —
.�>
I D
D
P
O
8
OI O } O
O
it
g
I O
O O O O
lO
ACCRETION
FILLET
I
TERMINAL
I
GROIN
L------------------------------- J
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
LEGEND
— — — PROPOSED TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
0 BEACH FILL (ACCRETION FILLET)
BORROWAREA
® PROPOSED STONE STAGING AREA
BORROW AREA
N
is
,. oxEIVED
DATE:
NOTES: JUN 14 2016
5/13f15
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLIN�p STATE PLANE COORDI
SYSTEM. NORTH MERICAN DATUKQF 1 Y
HN
COMM NO.
(NAD83).
2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAYJUNE 2012.
3. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
147426
HEE .
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
2 OF 12

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
if
NG
mci
SAND AGS
�Fo _nn
AiII ........ o _O° ■
i u
die
� vp I
W. 1
C. O
O p p O
10 1
o
I O O
O•
I 1
I
ACCRETION
1
I �
I
FILLET
1 I
1 I
I
'
I
TERMINAL
I I
I
GROIN
II
L---------- '-------------------- j 1
BORROWI
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
0600 � 0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
LEGEND:
— — PROPOSED TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
0 BEACH FILL (ACCRETION FILLET)
BORROW AREA
® PROPOSED STONE STAGING AREA
51
NOTES: ,IUN 14 2016
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE,PLANE GOO,K�INP�
SYSTEM, NORTH(AMERICFAN D'ATUMJv F)1l83 Q�
(NAD63).
2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012.
3. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
SH3115
Y.
FIN
OMM NO:
147426
HEED.
20F 12

aes�,�.�i�i4ae:
LEGEND:
PARCELS — SHEET PILE
® TERMINAL GROIN
O ACCRETION FILLET
h
y
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83).
2.2012 BACKGROUND IMAGERY IS FROM THE
NC ONEMAP IMAGERY SERVICE.
z
ATLANTIC
OCEAN'
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
0 375 750
pCM_ MHp CI-frmw:lFee1
Address
I-
U
w
0 Ow w
= (L
azo
wiz
mom¢
wwCE
J
�a
N O
z w K
Qar_
Uww
Oj0
w�
OQ
S
O
z
W V
W
zz
Z=
W =
log
ZQ
=U
zx
50
aU
Jz
Wo
a
0
U
01119116
HMV
FEB 2 3 2916

----- BASELINE
— — • — MEAN HIGH WATER AUGUST 2013
(MHW EL. +1.79' NAVD88)
— — — MEAN LOW WATER AUGUST 2013
(MLW EL. -2.94' NAVD88)
(BY OTHERS)
— — — TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
---2� EXISTING CONTOURS
ACCRETION FILLET
® PROPOSED STONE STAGING
AREAS = 16,417 S.F.
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
(NAD83).
2. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012.
3. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS DERIVED FROM
McKIM & CREED, JUNE 2013 SURVEY DATA.
4. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
5. DISTURBED AREA: (STAGING AREA+
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR) = 37,132 S.F.
w `.... '
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
F
U
LU
W
Paz
0 95
mFa
W UZ_
U)FO
N
Z K 0
Qa
0Z_
0j2
WC
O�
2
U)
5113115
Y.
HN
OMM NO:
147426
HEET:
4 OF 12

e , L. zsd�* e d +,
k; s i
NOTES,
1.. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE -
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
(NAD83).
2. ".. DATE OF AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012.
3. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS DERIVED FROM
McKIM & CREED, JUNE 2013 SURVEY DATA.
4. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE. +
5.- DISTURBED AREA: (STAGING AREA+
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR) = 37,132 S.F.
1 y t.
a afi 5 `-;.,r
t • J ,f' Y

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION O.OD
10
FOR REGULATORY
10
REVIEW ONLY
a
Z
Z15
Z
Z
O
H
a
W
5>
J
W
0
H
W
10
F
F
WQ
KG
-0 0
200 20 40 6 0 60
10 o 12015
Z 2
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
6 O
10
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION 5-00
10
G
0] F F
J F
F
N0N
W
to LL
8fo
a
Z
-1
Z
�W
p
O
=J
H
F -
Q
5>
LL
j
lu
W
J
0
w
W
I-
W
-1
10
D:
U
U
a
0t -1
15
-0 0
2DD 2110
m
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE(FFET)
s
TYPICAL PROFILE: STATION 10-00
m
10
a
_
5
E a
A
tl -
Y�
a Z
Z
+7
z
O_
tlC
a-
5>
am
n
:s
w
w
;
3�
LEGEND: -1
0
RI
° y
EXISTINGGRADE
^• JUNE, 2013 _1
15
DATE
€ - 0 200 2010 4110 6 0 8110 10 0 12 o
ACCRETION FILLET
DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
5113/15
DESIGN TEMPLATE
Y.
0�
$§ NOTES: `,CC
�JUE DRTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT
GK
OMM NO.
e 1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET
REFERENCED TO NORTH
bDATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
0 200 R C E I
1i
2. BATHYMETRIC SURVEY PERFORMED JUNE 2013, BYMCKIM & CR n'
3. ACCRETION FILLET WIDTH SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON A 1 4 2��6
ON
C
TVN'
HORIZONTAL
GR
a LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ATTIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
5OF 12
T",I. •I..r\ AST\/
5
0
10
15
i
s
o'
�
L. 6.0
5
I
_MHW
EL. 1.79'
0
\
,1
�
LW
EL.-
J
-s
-
5
D
376'
L
5
o
l
'
--
'
MLW
EL.-231'
0
�
s
aD
s0
eD
100
1zo
5
0
324�5
_MNW
-EL. 1.75
0
15
�\
„
MLW
EL. -296'
s
0
5
~ �
uer:vl- IVInv %,l I r

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY EXISTING ELEVATION VARIES
SHALLOTTTE INLET
No
ARMORSTONE
7.5 TO 12.5 TONS 15' (t)
�I
BOTTOI
LARGE VOIDS IN ARMOR 1.5' FOUNDATION LAYER
STONE BY DESIGN
BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES WITH BOTTOM ELEVATION
MINIMUM WIDTH65'(t)
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO NAVD88
SECTION A -A'
N.T.S.
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
VARIES FROM +6.0' TO 10.9 NAVD88
-------------------------
6 x
rn
Z l )
m_
OT N m['-�
ELEVATWIS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
2.. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PER ENGINEER
3. BEDDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDE
ROCK -FILLED MAT.
HW +1.79
MLW -299'
OF TRENCH ELEV. -6.6' (±)
ELEVATION OF SHEET PILE VARIES
FROM +4.5' TO +4.9 NAVD88
�— SHEET PILE (EITHER STEEL
OR CONCRETE - TO BE
_ DETERMINED)
DEPTH OF PENETRATION TO BE DETERMINED.
RANGE FROM -20.0' TO -25.0' NAVD88
SHEET PILE SECTION
PROFILE B-B'
N.T.S.
m b i COASTAL PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o a ; GIof HOST caaou NA, INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
TERMINAL GROIN PROFILES A -A' AND B$'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY EXISTING ELEVATION VARIES SHALLOTTTE INLET
ARMOR STONE
7.5 TO 12_5 TONS
FaOq` 1' (fYP.) ,
15, (±)
LARGE VOIDS IN ARMOR 1.5' FOUNDATION LAYER
STONE BY DESIGN
BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES WITH BOTTOM ELEVATION
MINIMUM WIDTH 66(t)
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELATNE TO NAVD88
SECTION A -A'
N.T.S.
C
z 0
.tom -
�-y N e
`NOT=�
-1:) ELEVAtOft SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88).
2.2. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN
CONSTRUCTION, DETAILS PER ENGINEER
8. BEDDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDEA
ROCK -FILLED MAT.
HW
PAP MLW -2.94'
BOTTOM OF TRENCH ELEV. -S.6'.
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
VARIES FROM +6.0' TO TO NAVD88
ELEVATION OF SHEET PILE VARIES
FROM +4.5' TO +4,9 NAVD88
Ift SHEET PILE (EITHER STEEL
OR CONCRETE - TO BE
DETERMINED)
DEPTH OF PENETRATION TO BE DETERMINED.
_ RANGE FROM -20.0' TO -25.0 NAVD88
SHEET PILE SECTION
PROFILE B-B'
N.T.S.
w Y n < a COASTAL PLANNING S ENGINEERING !' OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o p- x e oP Norsrx GwaouxA,.oyz ;' _, SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
N V1 aN]Wt-0`40101JW L' F.,..I. Of ..
m-mvarov.rczvus o�xuq;a . TERMINAL GROIN PROFILES A -A' AND B-B'
I

0
v
i
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
SEE NOTE 5.
750-ft TERMINAL GROIN PROFILE C-C'
1a
10
l RUBBE
MOUND
130' \'
EL. +4.5' NAVD88
i EL +4.9' NAVD88 _
—
5
5
�-
MHW EL. +1.79 (2013)
— — — - — — — — — — — —
— — — _ —
0
0
I
1i
w
MLW EL. -2.94 (2013)
w
LL
T TOP OF FOUNDATION
> $
S
EL. +6.6' NAVD88
Q
SHEET PILE
Z
z
0-10
— -
o
a
a
1.5' FOUNDATION
>
300'
LAYER
w
DEPTH OF PENETRATION OF
SHEET PILE TO BE DETERMINED -
I T I i I I i i i i i I .25
Z,^r' d - -1 1 2 0 4 7 1000 1100
` , DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET)
N�
_m
N /
o
m
v
v
N _ES: LEGEND:
-n 1. EVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL — — — EXISTING GRADE DUNE, 2013
0 5 0
R-1 TUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 750-FT TERMINAL GROIN
CO2. r 1WHYMETRIC SURVEY PERFORMED JUNE 2013, BY MCKIM & CREED.
tW. �Q ICAL PROFILE. ACTUAL TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PER ENGINEER VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
�. Z�GbDING LAYER FINAL DESIGN COULD INCLUDE A ROCK -FILLED MAT. -P�-ice TOP OF FOUNDATION 0 100 200
r3. 0<TANCE DEPENDS ON BOTTOM DEPTH AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
r� 4 ® EXCAVATION VOLUME=2363CU.YDS. HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE
C"
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OCEAN ISLE BEACH
J�c i OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT _
G •p ^ mreumA .wl«a* TERMINAL GROIN PROFILE C-C'
n�rcmw. Hc>w,� V rnx Pi«mua

®CM- MHD CCTV

DC,M- MHD UTY

rn
Ld
w
w
4
O
>¢
z
z
O
w
J
w
KI:
0 ..............1_ -I--- 2
L �►
-20.............. : ..3.
...........: .
SECTION D-D'
US
-40
-200 0 200 400
800 1000 1200 1400
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
GGRADF 13
co
Q
I
EXISTING
.
0]
w ........�1.;..........
Z�—
..... .. .....
_ _ _._ .......:............. - --------------
—-----------------
---- LLJ
IZ
J'
BORROW AREA LIMITS
S
............... ................... ......,.............. ............
...... .
...............................
... .......,.......
H
MAXIMUM AD EL.
Q
m
<
I
=-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW)
I
<
m1600
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
3000
e
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
m F-F
n
CO USACE AUGUST 201f
CO `. EXISTING GRADE
w rd
20 E
w
LL
cs
mZ I ............:..... .........................:.............. 0
--
Z m = BORR0WAFALlI011---_-_-
C.)......,...I......•............. :.........................................
-� C .....
Q I I . MAXIMUM AD EL.
OZM _-1 7.97'NAVD88 (-15' MLW)
I I I I
n 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
. I •:! O
-20 �
3
4200
w
-40 w
4400
o20 40
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN Ff
o100 � o
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN Ff
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEMNG OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o 1 a INc. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
; OF NORTH GA ROI
BORROW AREA PROFILES D-D'

2
Lu 0
Lu
4-
0
z
z
0 -20
Lu
-J -40
uj
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
8 X XCOASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OCEAN ISLE BEACH
0 61, -1 OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
z PBORROW AREA PROFILES E-E'AND F-F'
z bi p MILM T= O
40
SECTION E-E'
D-D'
............... ...... I .................................
USACE AUGUST2013
EXISTING GRADE
........... ...............
.... ....... .. ... .. .......
............... ..3....
................
MAXIMUM AD EL.
-17.97'NAVD88
............... ...... ........ . ......
BORROW AREA (-15'MLVV)
LIMITS
-604-
-200
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
0 200 : 400 600 800
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
SECTION F-F
D-D'
USACEAUGUST2013
EXISTING GRADE
....................................................... ........
....................................
— — — — — — - — — — — — — — BOR-R6WAREA
....... ... 4= .......... .......... 3
'3 ...... ........ * ....................... m . ..... ...............
MAXIMUM AD EL.
-17.97'NAVD88 (-15'MLW)
� 40
1600
20
0
-20

LU 20
w
u-
0
z
O -20
w
Lu 40
40
w 20
Lu
0
0
LD z
-20
Q
w
w -40
SECTION E-E'
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
00 0 200 400 600 800
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
SECTION F-F
.............................. .............. ........ .. ....... EXISTING USACE AUGUST 2013
II TING GRADE
-- ��; — --- B0k-R W AREA 7
1 L LIMITS /� 1
S 3..
MAXIMUM AD EL.
_-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW)
0 200 400 600 Bon 1nnn i9nn Tenn aar
DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET)
20
0
-20
-40 !
o
o
m D
COASTAL PLANNING S. ENGINEERING
1T
OCEAN ISLE BEACH
O
G)
OF NORTH CAROLINA� INC.
- SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
N �'
P`"
�.wwz•o°wawc °"I°'9'°'-0'°'
WI-VI'MiO v.•tlwa isl fltnllvN�a
BORROW AREA PROFILES E-E'AND F-F'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BEACH
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY
ICONS,T"'' ' n '0 JICORRIDOR ,—\
p.>.:A.. ......
LEGEND:
BASELINE
MEAN HIGH WATER AUGUST 2013
(MHW EL. +1.79' NAVD88)
MEAN LOW WATER AUGUST 2013
(MLW EL. -2.94' NAVD88)
(BY OTHERS)
TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
�- -2!— EXISTING CONTOURS
ACCRETION FILLET
f I•, a,1; �, PROPOSED STONE STAGING
'.. i.. •' ,.a, 1 js. +r" ® AREAS =16.417 S.F. W
t ' s ' ' I •.J r .+, - TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION j
TRESTLE QZ
NOTES: V g
� , %^M C CISTINGI I-�jl4 I I 1 COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE Ill yI
{ NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE 0 F
m�T __ SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 = 0_ N
NAD83
( ). U
W
• v� +yea +' -rFi � 1 ( I > � � � ^ 2. DATED AERIAL IMAGERY: MAY-JUNE 2012. Q Z R'
1 I ! 3. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS DERIVED FROM W O F
„ YY7
{' McKIM &CREED, JUNE 2013 SURVEY DATA m F- Z
o
4. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE W W
SUBJECT TO CHANGE. y
' 1 _ !' 5. TRESTLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON EITHER Z
SIDE ALONGSIDE ROCK GROIN. Q IL Q'
DISTURBED AREA: (STAGING AREA W W F
CORRIDOR = 37,132 S.F. O ] O
W U
ow
yCA IL
0
I. IL
rDi 1 •� Y FW-
5113115
IY:
HN
:OMM N0:
147426
HEE➢
11 OF 12
®CM- PIHD CITY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BEACH LEGEND:
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY —_—_— BASELINE
, - _ _ _ , , _ , , _ MEAN HIGH WATER AUGUST 2013
^-^"ISTRU TIO I CORRIDOR j (MHW EL +1 79' NAVD88)
MEAN LOW WATER AUGUST 2013
(MLW EL. -2.94' NAVD88)
1c +F+ (BY OTHERS)
PROPOSEDr
TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
EXISTING CONTOURS
A' E ACCRETION FILLET
v x PROPOSED STONE STAGING
AREAS = 16,417 S.F. W
E.,, ?. , a • _ }, , li,,,jv TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION Z
TRESTLE
NOTES: ~
} • 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE —, W
r SAND BAGS NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE O -1
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 = IY N W
(NAD83). 0 Z
2. DATED AERIAL IMAGERY: MAYJUNE 2012. QOF
3. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS DERIVED FROM UJ
MCKIM 8 CREED, JUNE 2013 SURVEY DATA. m p z
4. STAGING AREAS AND TRUCK HAUL ROUTE W w O
d I SUBJECT TO CHANGE. W F-
-r� 5. TRESTLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON EITHER O
SIDE ALONGSIDE ROCK GROIN. Q a D
6. DISTURBED AREA: (STAGING AREA W W H
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR=37,1325.F. L) z Z
v
W L)
O Y
t
:211D ST' _ _^ - - - - ---- -- O
f4, I . E
LIJ
5113115
3Y:
HN
:OMM NOaI
147426
SHEET:
11 OF 12

TOP OF
wlffiF.R /riF:i:.
PILE SPACING:
SEE NOTE 4.
I EXISTING GRADE
p TEMPORARY 20' WIDE TRESTLE
n TO BE REMOVED AT COMPLETION
OF STRUCTURE
zM z n
SEAWARD
Now
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
TRESTLE WIDTH: SEE NOTE 5.
PILE
PILE SIZE:
SEE NOTE 6.
o m = m TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
z C) No j N.T.S.
n ci; M
NOTES:
1. TRESTLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON EITHER SIDE
ALONGSIDE ROCK GROIN.
2. TRESTLE LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY BEACH
CONDITIONS AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
3. ALL TRESTLE MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE.
4. PILE SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR. POSSIBLE SPACING 6 FEET TO 12 FEET.
5. WIDTH OF THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE
TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR COULD RANGE
FROM 20 FEET TO 2 5FEET.
6. PILE SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. COULD
RANGE FROM 12 INCHES TO 24 INCHES.
PROPOSED GROIN
(+4.9 NAVD88)
BEDDING LAYER
N < D COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING 7RtF: OCEAN ISLE BEACH
o � V c Ie OF NORTH CAROLINII INC. SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
IN, z a .m.NNm o��No. ;..00m�«.. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRESTLE CROSS SECTION
N 0 p.yNOipNNC MYN ui Iln.tf

RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

OCEAN HAZARD AEC NOTICE
Project Is In an: X Ocean Erodible Area X High Hazard Flood Area X Inlet Hazard Area
Property Owner: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Property Address: Ocean isle Beach Ocean Front
Date Lot was Platted: Easements Pending
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
special risks and conditions associated with development in this
arcs, which Is subject to natural hazards such as slmins, erosion
and cunettes. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
require that you receive an ABC Hamrd Notice and
acknowledge that notice in writing before a permit for
development can be issued.
The Commission's rules on building standanls, oceanfront
setbacks and dun, elteratiorhs am designed to minimize, but not
eliminat, property loss from haards. By grunting permits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development. Permits issued In the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened
by changes in shoreline configuration. Tthe samisure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within hvo (2) years of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
subsidence.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual longterm
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your property is
located is up 10 8 feet per year,
The rate was established by cmefil analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past SD years.
Studies else indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
'AM feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm ere predicted to be about
I A feet deep in this area,
Preferred oceanfront protection measures arc beach nomislur cm
and relocation of threatened structures. Hard erosion control
structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, groins, jenics
and breakwaters ere prohibited. Temporary sand begs may be
authorized under certain corditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the space below. Without
the proper signature, the lien on(.1,11 not be complete.
Property Owner Slgnaturb Date
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required fro
development in areas subject to sudden and massive slomss and
erosion. Pennits issued for development in this area expire on
December Dt of the third year following the year in which the
permit was issued. Shortly before work begins on the project
sit, the Local Permit Officer must be contacted to determine the
vegetation line and setback distance at your site. If the property
has seen little change since the time of permit issuance, and the
proposed development can still meet the setback requirement,
the LPO will inform you that you may begin work. Substantial
program on the project must be made within 60 days of this
setback determination, or the setback must be re-mossumd. Alan,
the occamnce of a major shoreline change as the result of a
storm within the 60-day period will necessitate re -measurement
of the setback. It is in"riam that you check with the LPO
before the permit expires for official approval to commue the
work after the permit has expired. Centrally, if foundation
pilings have been placed and substantial progress is continuing,
permit renewal can be authorized. It is unlawful to continue
work after permit expiration.
For mare lnjommdon, arnrarC
Holley Snider
Local Permit Wriest
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Address
Wilmington, NC 28403
Locality
910-796-7215
Phone Number
Revised May 2010
REt EiVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB t &i c-D
COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
JUN 14 2016
DCM- Kill -ID CITY

Appendix B: Signed Agent Authorization Form and AEC Notice
N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date
Name of Property Owner Applying for Permit:
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Mailing Address:
3 West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
I certify that I have authorized (agent) Coastal Planning and Engineering of NC, Inc to act on my
behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA Permits necessary to
install or construct (activity)
Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
+
at (my property located at) Eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach oceanfront shoreline
This certification is valid thru (date) 6/30/2018
I1 ei a
I � f
ty Owner Signature Date
wrie,
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Environmental
Quality
June 13, 2016
Brad Rosov
c/o Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Rosov:
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
senetmy
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach, for State approval for development of the property located at the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, in Brunswick County. It was received complete on 6/13/16, and appears to be adequate
for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is 8/24/16. An additional75-day review period is provided
by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline
stated above, you should consider the review period extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of
an extended review. However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the 75th day.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from June 13, 2016, you may request a meeting with the Director
of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held within
five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property owner, developer, and project
designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed development. Enclosed you
will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the property of your proposed development. You should
post this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would
be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way fronting your property, or at a point along the
road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete
application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the appropriate State or
Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field
report and/or comments from reviewing agencies.
Sincerely,
n� P
Debra Wilson
District Manager
Enclosures
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM
Heather Coats, DCM
Tyler Crumbley, ACOE
Keith Dycus, Ocean Isle Beach LPO
Nothing Compares'
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- KIND CITY
State of North C 01= I Eamonmeatal Quality I Coastal Maegemeat
127 Cardinal Driw Ext, Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215

AMA PERMIT
^112
co�str`�a�rmDinal Feast
end c
adjac
Brun
z
OMM
.PAP"r. ICANT:
N
0
ENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH July 7, 2016
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
3 W. Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Agent: Brad Rosov (910) 79-9494
ch,
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
NC Div. of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Tara MacPherson, Field Specialist
910-796-7425

Appendix D: Financial Assurance
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pal McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 29, 2015
Ms. Daisy Ivey
Town Administrator/Finance Officer
3 W. Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina 28469
Re: Terminal Groin Project
Town of Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Proof of Financial Assurance
Dear Ms. Ivey,
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stet. § 113A-I 15.1(e)(6), the Secretary must verify that the proof of financial
assurance submitted on behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach is adequate to cover the cost of
implementing the following components of the inlet management plan:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
b. Implementation of mitigation measures.
c. Modification or removal of the terminal groin.
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, with assistance from the N.C.
Department of State Treasurer's State and Local Government Finance Division, has reviewed the
additional materials that you sent July 16, 2015, relating to the proof of financial assurance for the
Town of Ocean Isle Beach's proposed terminal groin project. The information that you provided
indicates that the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has the financial ability to support the estimated costs
of the terminal groin project, assuming that the projected costs am reasonable estimates and that the
accommodation tax continues to generate funds at current levels. Basel on our review, the Town of
Ocean Isle Beach has satisfied the proof of financial assurance requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat.
§113A-115.1(e)(6).
Secretary for the Environment
1601 Mail Sov9 Center, Ralso, North Cwdit 274101001
Phone'919-707-afi0 rlsmOtx A0alnrpw
M Epee CppMo" Arhme Aq E 0-W&a Why p1pY
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016 RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, WM WILMINGTON, NC
DCM- WHD CITY FEB 2 3 2016

Appendix E: Pending Easements
RECENEJ
JUN 14 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
DCM- ftr",-iC C"'-y

Appendix D: Financial Assurance
{Ir,
April 24,201S oceanisle
B E A C H
The Honorable Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1601
Re: Terminal Groin Project
Town of Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Proof of Financial Assurance
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Pursuant to the requirement of Session Law 2013-384 (Senate Bill 151), the Town of
Ocean Isle Beach submits the required proof of financial assurance to be verified by the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the form local
government taxing or assessment authority and collection of Room Accommodation "faxes that
are adequate to cover the cost of implementing the following components of the inlet
management plan:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
b. Implementation of mitigation measures.
c. Modification or removal of the terminal groin.
The projected maximum project costs, as shown on the attached Exhibit A form the Town's
coastal engineering firm, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., are:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring
of the terminal groin (30 years) $2,800,000
b. Implementation of mitigation measures (if necessary) $2,000,000
c. Modification or removal of the terminal groin
(if necessary) cost capped at removal of groin $2,500,000
RECEoVEJ
The project costs are assured by:
a. Local government taxing or assessment authority as provided by Article V. Finance of the NC Constitution. JUN 14 2016
b. Room Accommodation Taxes as authorized by G.S. IOS- I64.4(a)(3).
DCM- MHD CITY
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH / 3 W. THIRD STREET / OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NC 28M C E I V E D
[phone] / FAX [phone] / W W W.OIBGOV.COM
DCIM WILWIGTON, NC
MAY 14 2015
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

91OZ t I Nnr

Upon your review and satisfaction that the statutory requirements are met, please affix your
verification on the form attached hereto as Exhibit B and provide a copy to the Town of Ocean
Isle Beach. The applicant's financial assurance does not include the use of any type of funds that
are prohibited under G.S. 113A-115.1(h) and Senate Bill 151. Please let me know if any
additional information would be helpful.
Respectfully,
�I sy Iv
Town Administrator/Finance Officer
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DC v1- M.HD CITY
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH / 3 W 7 HIRD STREET / OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NC 28469
4910) 579-2166 / FAX [phone] / W W W OISGO V.COM
RECEIVED
I)CM WILMINGTON, NC
LA.4Y 1 4 2015
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- A,°{ SEA Cj 9 Y

oceanisle
B E A C H
April 24, 2015
EXHIBIT A
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE, BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
TERMINAL GROIN PROJECT
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST
Terminal Groin & Beach Fill for Fillet $5,700,000
OTHER PROJECT COST (over 30-years):
1. Long-term maintenance and monitoring
a. Groin Nlaimcnance S 630,000
b. Beach MonitoringSurveys(I) $1,100,000
c. Inlet Monitoring Surveys(I) $ 900,000
d. Habitat Monitoring line[. aerial photos) L g0¢000
Total Long-term maintenance and monitoring S3,430,000
2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures(2) $2,000,000
3. Modification or Removal of Groin(3) $2,300,000
(I)Assumes federal government would discontinue funding for beach and inlet monitoring.
121MIfIgation measures could Include beach nourishment on the west end of Holden Reach if
necessary.
(')Maximum cost based on removal of terminal groin. Does not Include salvage value of
stone or sheet piles.
Submitted by:
Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc.
RECENEJ
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH / 3 W. THIRD STREET / OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NC 26469
[phone] / FAX [phone] / WWW.OIBGOV.COM
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 1 4 206
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

v
JUN 14 20;6

EXHIBIT B
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to G.S. 113A-115.1(e)(6), the undersigned, upon review of due
submittals by the applicant, verifies that the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has submitted
satisfactory proof of financial assurance for its proposed terminal groin project,
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Action ID No. SAW-2011-
01241 in the form of local government taxing and assessment authority and room
accommodation taxes as authorized by G.S. 105-164.4(a)(3). These revenue
generation authorities are adequate to cover the cost of implementing the following
items of the inlet management plan:
1. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
2. Implementation of mitigation measures (if necessary).
3. Modification or removal of the terminal groin (if necessary).
The applicant's financial assurance does not include the use of any type of funds that are
prohibited under G.S. 113A-115.1(h) and Senate Bill 151.
This the day of April, 2015.
Donald R. van der Vaart, Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- WAD COTY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SAY 1 4 2019
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Appendix E: Pending Easements
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

w ?,
r
-56000
�®} i
r�1R� ilk.
--
5d000 r... b
T
LEGEND
EASEMENT PARCELS ^r 2013 MHW (+1,79 ft NAVD)
PARCELS 2013 MLW (-2.94 ft NAVD)
O 50FT CONSTRUCTION BUFFER
SHEET PILE
U
W
7
0
U O J
ZW
wQL)
W Ua<
W
J �
N O Z
Z w W
W0
UZ<
O J W
W
O
2
N
I7
� s
W U
Z Z
Z Z
W —
e6 O
U K
ZQ
U
ZS
H
a0 s
J Z c
FLL 0
W O rc
O m
U
0
�e
ACCRETION FILLET
Si
® TERMINAL GROIN
DATE:
NOTES:
RECEIVE©
U1@9„6
ev
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
HMV
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,
J U N 14 2016
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83).
0 200 400
COMM NO.
2.2012 BACKGROUND IMAGERY IS FROM THE
1111111= Feet
147426
NC ONEMAP IMAGERY SERVICE.
R °
SHEET:
DCM- IV.rlQ CVTY DCMv.
FEB 232016

Appendix F: Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notifications
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, i WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2016

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAX
May 14, 2015
Re: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notification
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
(CPE-NC), Inc. is submitting a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit application to the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) for work occurring within an Area of
Environmental Concern.
As more completely described in the attached application, the Town intends to submit a CAMA Major
Permit application to allow for the construction of a terminal groin and associated sand placement on the
eastern end of the Town's oceanfront shoreline.
Attached to this notice, please find a copy of the application as submitted to the NC .DCM office. Within
30 days from receipt of this notice, you may submit comments regarding the referenced project to the
following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Sincerely,
COASTAL
`PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Greg Finch, Agent, CPE-NC
Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
-4038MASONSORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAX
May 14, 2015
Re: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notification
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
(CPE-NC), Inc. is submitting a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit application to the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) for work occurring within an Area of
Environmental Concern.
As more completely described in the attached application, the Town intends to submit a CAMA Major
Permit application to allow for the construction of a terminal groin and associated sand placement on the
eastern end of the Town's oceanfront shoreline.
Attached to this notice, please find a copy of the application as submitted to the NC DCM office. Within
30 days from receipt of this notice, youmaysubmit comments regarding the referenced project to the
following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Greg Finch, Agent, CPE-NC
Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAx
May 14, 2015
Re: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notification
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
(CPE-NC), Inc. is submitting a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit application to the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) for work occurring within an Area of
Environmental Concern.
As more completely described in the attached application, the Town intends to submit a CAMA Major
Permit application to allow for the construction of a terminal groin and associated sand placement on the
eastern end of the Town's oceanfront shoreline.
Attached to this notice, please find a copy of the application as submitted to the NC DCM office. Within
30 days from receipt of this notice, you may submit comments regarding the referenced project to the
following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Greg Finch, Agent, CPE-NC
Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DC,M- M,HC C IT Y
RECEIV=U
DCM WILMING ON, NC
OCT 16 2015

Pursuant to the requirement of Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151 Part II (e) (3), the
Town of Ocean Isle Beach is notifying all property owners and local governments that
may be affected by the construction of the proposed terminal groin and accompanying
beach nourishment project.
Information on the proposed Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project, which
includes the construction of a terminal groin and associated beach nourishment, can be
found on the Town's website at htti)://www.oibgov.com/shoreline-arotection.cfm
Comments regarding the referenced project may be submitted to the following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RECEWC-o
JUN 14 2016
L)C4`4- hhir-
RECEI`.':'
DCMW;LV!��,i , 4 NC
OCT f C 2015

Pursuant to the requirement of Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151 Part II (e) (3), the
Town of Ocean Isle Beach is notifying all property owners and local governments that
may be affected by the construction of the proposed terminal groin and accompanying
beach nourishment project.
Information on the proposed Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project, which
includes the construction of a terminal groin and associated beach nourishment, can be
found on the Town's website at http://www.oibgov.com/shoreline-protection.cfm
Comments regarding the referenced project may be submitted to the following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RECENE®
JUN 14 Z016
DCt4- MHD cay
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
FEB 2 3 2616

■ Complete items i, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece
or on the front N space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
N
3 m
A. rz'
co 3
co3 Q
❑r- m
e
B ived by (Pit ) ,Date c_ _
S< m
N
0
D. Is delivery address , erehl from 'Item, 17 o
If YES, order delivery address below: ❑ f
LW Legacy Assets LLC & DW Assets LLC
11 Causeway Drive 1. service Type S
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 ❑ Certified Mail® ❑ Priority Mail Express-
0 Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Mar
❑ Insured Mail ❑ Collect on Delivery
I I. Restricted Delivery? (Extre Fee) ❑ Y
Article 2. (fansfNurom 7015 0920 D002 0824 3328
(rronsfa( from servke taboo 3"
'S Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to
B.
c
■ _
C3
L'
to
E3
.A
nl
C3
C3
O
C3
nJ
C3
I>
ru
W
W
t✓
L✓
C. Dap(ot It q
--j I D. Is delivery address different from item?t't L7 Ye
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 Ni
Sandwellers 11 110A Inc.
N
P.
119 Causeway Drive
I
3. service
o
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
typo
❑ certified Mail"
❑ Pnordy Mail Express-3
e
_
❑ Registered
❑ Return Receipt for Men 0
z z
❑ insured Mail
❑ Collect on Delivery
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ A
2. Article Number
7015 0920 0002
o
0824 3304 N
p
(rransfw from service taboo
w
cS Form 3811, July 2013
Domestic Return Receipt
0 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
re
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
--
III Print your name and address on the reverse
B, R by (Printed eme) .-
so that we can return the card to you.
a Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
—
D delivery address Tom
I YJYS, enter dgthily dress b
I . Articie Addressed to:
Maritime Place Property Owners
PO Box 8126
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
�
J
O
0 An
L-,
L ❑ Ad
to
AOKI,
C3
ji
C3
C3
nJ
C3
ru
N
3. Service type F
O Certified Mall° ❑ Priodty Mad Express'"
W
❑Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Mercl lal
❑ Insured Mail ❑ Collect on Delivery W
In
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ ye;
-- ---
cle
Numb
2. (fanst rfrom 7015 0920 0002 0824 3298
()-(anSie( i!D(n SiYVICe ,o,.^'/
'S Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt
O
owo
0)
O
n
a 33
� w_.c
a >v
D z
z
•m �£c•�m
N=
J
o
N a
a
a
v°
D N
w �
mmSa`�—�
aQW
W m
3 Fit H� w
N C)
y o a a D
j
0 0 y. 0
is @ a 3
. V
o m m
g mm
w
w
O
m
x D
m
❑ ID 0 �'
� w
'�"� v''
m wppp
3�$o
@
m
11'yQ
m
m
❑❑❑
13
w
Wz
0
0g
v
3 M d
❑INN
❑❑ .e 00
z
a
�<
• ■ ■
dam-,
T A>
0
> m o
o
Z
n
o
D
m sEm
N
in
O n n y m
Oo
.D
1p
m OE'wz a'
N
3
,Nh
to
n 0 w in
Zr z
N
w
g m m a
40
o
aow>
w
Ms n�
:z3
O m 0
�
m
A.
m
o
� v
y
0
m (1
z < g >
O N 0
a

Z l W 0 D p70 ry G
COMPLETE• a
m
0,0
complete items Jr 2 and 3,Also compA,; ur - m z a T w » o m `
1 Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desiredP ❑ j y c a I 9.'0- w m
Print your name and address on the reverse" a' I " =" '^ '� o ' z
❑ice m i o a�=3 3
sd that we can return the card to you, 9 Ned by 1Pn me) t Date' c 3 . j " a- m "
■Attach this cardto the back of. the mallpiece, :;, ",SIN �.., , d a 1'8 -m Xg La'�y_N•
' "or on the front if space penrits( _ .� . _ ,n .M o ��, m
•D.�Isdelrvery addrassdYerentfimn item l7 `1 c m,- O 1 9 a_
i, Artk1e Addressed to[ r'' W e,m 'Q m a
lfYES. enter defveyadtlress below • D t- - I O E.
_ m n q �, ,Z w
1 I N 0� aj p-y�
T l r0 m00 m000
LW Legacy Assets LLC & DW Assets LLC -' i. , ,'' o .m_• v 0 9 l
11 Causeway drive to s -1
sevee,rype g" 'm !
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 29469 o ceffed Man CI Priority Mad Express" `' C3 - m
. 0 Reglbtered ❑ Return Receipt for Mel c� '�
r .:a yA, ru 1 i
13Insured Mail ❑�eilectonDeWery p+
r 1. Aesldcted Delivery? (Fxpa Fee) -�_ x .�
2! Article Number ! 0 a ❑ Q'Q
l (rransierlrom q 7015 092➢. 0002. 0824: 3328 n ,�_
SBrykoJabe 1„ - li a ft.i X a m • R, `
iS Form 3811 July:2013 Domestic Return necerpt t O ? �. m r •' y t� ,o r 1
03
nU
�v
OENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THtS SFCT?ON ON VELAI W D 0 Q
Ld
n M v '
Complete items 1, 2 and 3: Also complete' Big ature - , - P °� 0'9 - . m
i�item 4 it Restricted Delivery is:desired. X.• [37Ci aa R. S N
Print yohr name and-addresson the reverse I7,4 !
'so that we ceh return the card to you, e. Ned by Hn d e)'•, G. D o%
■ Attach this card to the back of th@ mallplece, I^" ".
p' or on the front if space permits.. �- USS �� .R a .,
D:'IsddiveryetlareserltferentfromRem' - Ve'... ''Q 3 Qd ❑❑
1•-Art¢IeAddressed to; r - t t0 a '< h o gD
', If YES, enter deMery address below: ❑ Ni a o c . a
_ H
ha :.
Sandwellers IWOA'Inc. v N' ! : Q; - ■'
119 Causeway drive S. service Type o. <• ba o ' 3
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 9 ? `m .
-''❑certtrdMail' ❑ Priority Mail FXPresr y n ag -
W ❑ Red'tsm .0 Return Receipt foi Merr op _ Z m ? < $ m
Cl rosured Mall ❑'Cdlecton Delivery- 1 13 -N D 1 n ro.,r' m _ .l _ 3 �m»m
a. Restucted Deliva 7
r ry (ExVa Fee)' � ❑ Yt � �.. - I
2. Adkle Numbei �: •;y 7015 01120.0002r-0824'3304
II
t (transfer from service labep m
�S Fprm3811,July2D13 Domestic Re1LmRtimipt "�— j - Ro .0 to
m
Oco
rn o a
2
.CaVP FTr THIS SECTION ON DEUVEnY�r".artn� mom
3
i•complete Items'f, 2 end 3: Alswcor Clete
item 4 If Re--slrlcted Delivery -is de sired. ' p.A9 J��I �.
�. Pnnt your name,and addresson:the reverse - O. Ad. 7hf �I.. _
! so that we, can retum the card to you 8Fi (Perired-
1 Attach fhls caid to the back of the mallpieoe, '• o - „ i t, •„ > r m i
I or on the front If space permits: f S 2li C3
D vary address dt tomb 17 O Ym , m Q Q �jY_' K• m �
I. Ardcle Addres`sad-to: ' O '� o m { n m e.
¢1i3, enter debv4�' ftIsbelm ❑pray-� w
` I ��� m g'
W 1 n » m m.
. �N o III
Maritime Place Property Owners Ass O Y„ r , IC3
rf Is
PO Box 8126 n�i
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 s. Beryl etype
QCertified MalR O'rlority Ma'D Fimess"''•; I W - -"
O Registered ,' ❑ Return Receipt for Merit j W � ' • a .�
U insured Mall - ❑ Collect on Delivery ( I W 6'Sg , A a raj
LrI - o
. ___ _ _ '• 4: ,,Reslncted Del;very2 (ExUa Fev) ❑ Ye: ! �,'g. ,o 1 r•'•7ry ? r, ''
2 Articla'Number` , , f ,. 1 , -
7015 0920'000Z 0824,�3298
I (rrerufe{from seivke raoeq , ' � . { . • � � Q m � ❑ Q o Q Q
@5 Form 3811, JuIy2013 Domesdo Return Receipt

0 11 R_ Postal Service
11MAIL RECEIPT
'n
Domestic
m
m
rn
r..
S
c0
Postage
$S.
/I
gqh i {y�/,jam
13
Certified Fee
Retum Receipt Fee
f2.7
Q
O
=
p
(Endorsement Required)
vp.� Here
p
Restriced DraHery Fee
Required)ru
p
(Endorsement
f9,29
li
p
Total Postage &Fees
$
`1
4 Uri] �McwS
ro ..
N p
S � t TWE:
N u.
0 Postage $
p )(
Certified Fee
N 71
p Return Receipt Fee $2.70 gZP'
p (F�Morsernent Required) 441
p Restricted Delivery Fee sl).
p (EndgreemerrtRequired) A�(1 �.��RpV15
ti Total Postage & Fees $ s9. ��f?/14/i015
C3 y
NT sara Lw Lro
u-
NwPOBer Na U SL ti'L•1__41j .V.tr_____.
Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
a Domestic
ra
M
m. v,.. L U S E
N utul
m Postage $
p 07
Certified Fee
ru
O ReNm Receipt Fee C3erra Mrstar nt Required)
2
p ResMtged Delivery Fee
C3(Endorsement Required) ?8 ?g
N 49.29 15
V' Total Postage & Fees $
p
TO
a KXd11e- ------
C3- b -
ror PO Star
�P .._...�Sf!..k�xS!-! �.B.,r-1---�Zv � t
—
PostalCERTIFIEDI
.
IL�
RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
m
I
USE
s
N
�.
to
Postage
$
p
07
Ceetl Fee
N
p
ReNm Receipt Fee
(6Morsement Required)
s
J 8
AT/pA,� Hare
pp
Restricted De livery Poe
,00
!_
C3
(Endorsement Required)
�L
ru
Ir
Total Postage & F
$
Z
4 15
$
p
ees
?o
(p 11
ffi '3 -w-
�wpoBaxft.
p
N
^
it q
Postal
CERTIFIED MAILIRECEIPT
Cc Domestic11-i
ru
m U S S
Postage $ gtATIO*
N Certified Fee
p ReNm Receipt Fee E
C3 (Endorsement Required) Y 14 20 0
C3
Restricted DeNery Fee $� 2
p (Endorsement Required)
N 59.2 ae Er Total Total Postage & Fees $
C3 p
U71 TO
peisit6f.:.�_C>,1.,..La'!.41t[._.
[` wPOBoxNa--D11..1�8y._._.SLl___._.._.-_.........................
. k 1 1 L a4 µ& `1
t
RECENED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
I"..4Y 14 205

P "^ C3Fq 7 -U4i�4
9;01 p i Nnf

F
v
0�
*m
z
nM
a)
Fn
�m
4
m
�>
z-
o
v
n
<
m
a
m
0
0
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
t. Article Addressed to:
JVL a-` Lk(9
11111111111111 IF I I I11111111111111111 HIM III
9590 9403 0293 5155 2156 32
7015 0640 0007 0681
PS Form 3611, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
❑ Agent
Received by (Printed Name)
D. Is delivery address different from f6r, 11 ❑ Y&
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
' 3. SBNice Type
❑ Priority Me0 Express®
❑ A Uft Signature
❑ Registe Mad'.
C Adult Sigmture Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered Mail Restricts
F. CeNHed M.&
DeOvery
G Certified Mail ResMcted D wy
❑ Rwt m Receipt for
• Collect on Delivery
Merctrandise
11 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
❑ Sigmttae 00nft tamne
❑ Sigmb" Coff1motbn
7707 I Restricted Delivary
RasVlcWd Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt

From: Daisy Ivey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:41 PM
To: Rosov, Brad <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: OIB Session Law Notification
We are/have posted the notice as follows:
a. in both lobbies and on outside bulletin boards
b. On Town's public access television stations (ATMC and Time Warner)
C. Will insert a copy in upcoming utility bills
d. On Facebook
e. Mass Email to property owners and others
f. Copy emailed to David Hewett to post at Holden Beach Town Hall
Let me know if there is anything else we need to do.
ocea isle
Dais y .C. Ivey
7o1vn Administrator
Town. of Ocean IsCe Beach

From: Daisy Ivey [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:41 PM
To: Rosov, Brad <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: OIB Session Law Notification
We are/have posted the notice as follows:
a. In both lobbies and on outside bulletin boards
b. On Town's public access television stations (ATMC and Time Warner)
C. Will insert a copy in upcoming utility bills
d. On Facebook
e. Mass Email to property owners and others
f. Copy emailed to David Hewett to post at Holden Beach Town Hall
Let me know if there is anything else we need to do.
Daisy L. Ivey
Town .administrator
Town of Ocean IsCe Beach

EASEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THIS EASEMENT, made this _ day of May, 2015, by and between and
. hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTOR," and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, a
North Carolina municipal corporation, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469, hereinafter, whether one or
more, referred to as "GRANTEE":
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Grantee is undertaking a Terminal Groin Project within the Town to help control
erosion and protect waterfront lots; and
WHEREAS, in order to properly construct and complete the project, it is necessary for Grantee to acquire
certain easements for said project from affected property owners; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain tract of land located in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, more particularly described as which property is affected by, said
project; and ro.':...
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that they will also benefit from said project; and Jul" 1 4 2C'6
WHEREAS, Grantee has requested and Grantor has agreed to convey the r1f1pessa4y easement to,
1.. "
Grantee to enable it to undertake said project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for a valuable consideration, including the benefits Grantor may derive
from said project, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does give, grant, bargain,
dedicate and convey unto the Grantee and its successors and assigns a perpetual, irrevocable and assignable easement
and right-of-way in, on, over, through and across the land hereinafter described for the use by the Grantee and its'

JUN 14 M6
DCM— h!sip ? ,; y

representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers, consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, and assigns.
The easement area shall be all of the above -described property.
Grantor also conveys and grants to Grantee a non-exclusive access easement across any portion of the
above -described property for the purpose of permitting Grantee's inspection and, if necessary, observation, maintenance
and repair of the Grantee's work and activities within the easement area ( the "Access Easement")..
This easement is granted for the purpose of allowing Grantee to use the Easement Area for the placement of
beach compatible material, utilization of heavy machinery to place said material, construction of the terminal groin and
anchor section, and the staging and transportation of construction materials together with the right of ingress and egress
for such work. Grantee may use the Easement Area to evaluate, survey, inspect, construct, preserve, patrol, protect,
operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace a public beach, a dune system, and other erosion control and storm
damage reduction measures including the construction of a terminal groin and its associated shore anchorage system
together with appurtenances thereto, including the right to (a) deposit sand; (b) accomplish any alterations of contours on
said land; construct berms and dunes; (c) nourish and re -nourish periodically; (d) move, store and remove equipment and
supplies; (a) perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic re -nourishment and maintenance
of the Project; (f) plant vegetation on said dunes and berms; (g) erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand fences;
(h) facilitate preservation of dunes and vegetation through the limitation of access to dune areas; (i) trim, cut, fell, and
remove from said land all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles
within the boundaries of the Easement Area that would hinder the above described activities, and 0) removal of the
terminal groin in its entirety if directed by order of the U S Army Corps of Engineers.
There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be
used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid easement (including access easement) and all privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and its successors and assigns forever. Grantee shall have the right to
temporarily or permanently assign this easement to the federal, state or county governments, or any agency or
department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement beach re -nourishment or stabilization of the
beach within the Town. R E G L o ,vt J
JUN 14 2016
2 DCM- DAHD CVTY
RECEI`dEC
Prepared by Michael R. Isenberg DCM �NI WNGTON. NC
OCT 16 2015

AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the
right to convey this easement, that the property is free from encumbrances and that it will warrant and defend the said title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this easement the day and year first above
written.
(NAME)
(NAME)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby
certify that and personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due and
voluntary execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes set forth therein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 2015.
My commission expires:
, NOTARY PUBLIC
RECEeVED
JUN 14 2016
3 DCM- MHD CITY
RE -u
Prepared by Michael R. Isenberg DC,M ,Afl Nr1NG (-N nlc

EASEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THIS EASEMENT, made this _ day of May, 2015, by and between
, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTOR," and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, a
North Carolina municipal corporation, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469, hereinafter, whether one or
more, referred to as "GRANTEE":
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Grantee is undertaking a Terminal Groin Project within the Town to help control
erosion and protect waterfront lots; and
WHEREAS, in order to properly construct and complete the project, it is necessary for Grantee to acquire
certain easements for said project from affected property owners; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain tract of land located in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, more particularly described as PIN no. 108510450937 which property is affected by said project;
and
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that they will also benefit from said project; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has requested and Grantor has agreed to convey the necessary easement to
Grantee to enable it to undertake said project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for a valuable consideration, including the benefits Grantor may derive
from said project, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does give, grant, bargain,
dedicate and convey unto the Grantee and its successors and assigns a perpetual, irrevocable and assignable easement
and right-of-way in, on, over, through and across the land hereinafter described for the use by the Grantee and its'
representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers, consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, and assigns.
The easement area shall include all of that portion of the above -described property. located 100 feet south (landward) of
the Mean High Water shoreline along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
Grantor also conveys and grants to Grantee a non-exclusive access easement across any portion of the
above -described property for the purpose of permitting Grantee's inspection and, if nectss7q�Ll�a"e�p, n6aintenance
and repair of the Grantee's work and activities within the easement area ( the "Access Easemen
4 2016
DCM- h"HD CVT@'T 16 2015

This easement is granted for the purpose of allowing Grantee to use the Easement Area for the construction of
temporary offloading facilities, stockpiling of materials, utilization of heavy machinery to place and remove said material,
and the staging and transportation of construction materials together with the right of ingress and egress for such work.
Grantee may use the Easement Area to evaluate, survey, inspect, construct, preserve, patrol, protect, operate, maintain,
repair, rehabilitate, and replace a public beach, a dune system, and other erosion control and storm damage reduction
measures including the construction of a terminal groin and its associated shore anchorage system together with
appurtenances thereto, including the right to (a) deposit sand; (b) accomplish any alterations of contours on said land; (c)
move, store and remove equipment and supplies; (d) perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction,
periodic re -nourishment and maintenance of the Project; (a) plant vegetation ; (f) erect, maintain and remove silt screens
and sand fences; (g) trim, cut, fell, and remove from said land all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other
vegetation, structures and obstacles within the boundaries of the Easement Area that would hinder the above described
activities, and (h) removal of the terminal groin in its entirety if directed by order of the LI S Army Corps of Engineers.
. There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be
used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid easement (including access easement) and all privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and its successors and assigns forever. Grantee shall have the right to
temporarily or permanently assign this easement to the federal, state or county governments, or any agency or
department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement beach re -nourishment or stabilization of the
beach within the Town.
AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the
right to convey this easement, that the property is free from encumbrances and that it will warrant and defend the said title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this easement the day and year first above
written.
(SEAL)
(NAME)
( EAL)
(NAME) RECEf L ,
2 JUN 14 2016
�" Y
Prepared by Michael R. Iseg&r� DCM Vvi1 Nu!!i c, F c �'�c
OCT 16 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby
certify that and personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due and
voluntary execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes set forth therein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the _ day of , 2015.
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Prepared by Michael R. Isenberg
RECENED
JUN 14 Z016
DC:A- MAD CVTY

EASEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THIS EASEMENT, made this _ day of May, 2015, by and between and,
, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTOR," and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, a
North Carolina municipal corporation, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469, hereinafter, whether one or
more, referred to as "GRANTEE":
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Grantee is undertaking a Terminal Groin Project within the Town to help control
erosion and protect waterfront lots; and
WHEREAS, in order to properly construct and complete the project, it is necessary for Grantee to acquire
certain easements for said project from affected property owners; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain tract of land located in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, more particularly described as which property is affected bysaid
`project;
and RECE: Y r--)
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that they will also benefit from said project; and JUN 14 2016
WHEREAS, Grantee has requested and Grantor has agreed to convey the pegessary, easement to
Grantee to enable it to undertake said project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for a valuable consideration, including the benefits Grantor may derive
from said project, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does give, grant, bargain,
dedicate and convey unto the Grantee and its successors and assigns a perpetual, irrevocable and assignable easement
and right-of-way in, on, over, through and across the land hereinafter described for the use by the Grantee and its'

representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers, consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, and assigns.
The easement area shall be that portion of the above -described property located between (1) the mean high water mark
of the Atlantic Ocean, and (2) the landward toe of a sandbag revetment (if present). In the absence of a sandbag
revetment, the easement area shall be that portion of the Property located between (3) the mean high water mark of the
Atlantic Ocean, and (4) a point 15 feet seaward of the seaward most edge of any Permanent Structure located on the
Property as of the date of this Easement. In the absence of a sandbag revetment or a Permanent Structure, the easement
area shall be that portion of the Property located between (5) the mean high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and (6) an
eastern and/or western extension of the easement area for the property or properties adjoining the Property whose
comparable easement areas have been established using either the sandbag revetment or a Permanent Structure located
on such adjoining property (the "Easement Area").
Grantor also conveys and grants to Grantee a non-exclusive access easement across any portion of the
above -described property for the purpose of permitting Grantee's inspection and, if necessary, observation, maintenance
and repair of the Grantee's work and activities within the easement area ( the "Access Easement")..
This easement is granted for the purpose of allowing Grantee to use the Easement Area for the placement of
beach compatible material, utilization of heavy machinery to place said material, construction of the terminal groin and
anchor section, and the staging and transportation of construction materials together with the right of ingress and egress
for such work. Grantee may use the Easement Area to evaluate, survey, inspect, construct, preserve, patrol, protect,
operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace a public beach, a dune system, and other erosion control and storm
damage reduction measures including the construction of a terminal groin and its associated shore anchorage system
together with appurtenances thereto, including the right to (a) deposit sand; (b) accomplish any alterations of contours on
said land; construct berms and dunes; (c) nourish and re -nourish periodically; (d) move, store and remove equipment and
supplies; (e) perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic re -nourishment and maintenance
of the Project; (f) plant vegetation on said dunes and berms; (g) erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand fences;
(h) facilitate preservation of dunes and vegetation through the limitation of access to dune areas; (i) trim, cut, fell, and
remove from said land all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles
within the boundaries of the Easement Area that would hinder the above described activities, and Q) removal of the
terminal groin in its entirety if directed by order of the U S Army Corps of Engineers.
2
JUN 14 2016
Prepared by Michael R. Ise&r- `' `�

There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be
used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired.
For purposes of this easement, the following definitions shall apply:
Permanent Structure: A building, including a principal building and any accessory building(s), covered
decks, swimming pool, and improvements associated with a swimming pool, but not including any
uncovered decks or any improved dune walkover access or any associated gazebos or other improved
portions of an improved dune walkover access.
Sandbag Revetment: A stack of sandbags installed along the ocean side of the property to provide
temporary erosion protection.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid easement (including access easement) and all privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and its successors and assigns forever. Grantee shall have the right to
temporarily or permanently assign this easement to the federal, state or county governments, or any agency or
department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement beach re -nourishment or stabilization of the
beach within the Town.
AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the
right to convey this easement, that the property is free from encumbrances and that it will warrant and defend the said title
to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this easement the day and year first above
written.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
(SEAL)
(NAME)
(SEAL)
(NAME)
COUNTY OF R E C E N E D
JUN 14 2016
3 Mil- MHD CITY
Prepared by Michael R. Isenberg

I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby
certify that and personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due and
voluntary execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes set forth therein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 2015.
My commission expires:
. NOTARY PUBLIC
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DCM- W.HC Ci o Y
RECEIVED
Prepared by Michael It. Isenberg DCM \^°11'r ;NGTO"j NC
OCT 1 6 2015

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 3, 2016
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
c/o Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Dear Sirs:
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Directar
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has completed our review of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin
project located in Brunswick County, North Carolina. As you are aware, in 2011 the General
Assembly of North Carolina enacted Senate Bill 110 (SB 110), which amended the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) to allow for the permitting of up to four terminal groins in North
Carolina. SB 110 was further amended by Senate Bill 151 (SB 151) in 2013. For communities
pursuing a terminal groin project, the amended SB 151 set out several specific requirements that
must be met before a CAMA permit can be issued. These requirements, as well as those of the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Act, and rules of
the Coastal Resources Commission were used by DCM to provide comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for this project (see attached letter dated
March 26, 2015). DCM has subsequently reviewed the FEIS to ensure that our comments and
concerns provided for the DEIS have been adequately addressed, and we provide the following
comments on the FEIS for your consideration.
• No Comment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION
• DEIS Comment - Page 8 EIS — when the ocean bar channel of Shallotte Inlet is oriented
toward the west end of Holden Beach, the west side of the ebb tide delta of the inlet also
migrates toward the west exposing the east end of Ocean Isle to direct wave attack. With
the main bar channel situated closer to Holden Beach, the flood channels tend to form
close to shore along the east end of Ocean Isle. The presence of the flood channels
combined with wave driven currents transport sediment off the east end of the island and

into Shallotte Inlet at a faster rate than the supply of wave driven sand being transported
toward the east off the main portion of the island. Please address in the document how
construction of a terminal groin, coupled with current beach management practices,
would change those factors currently affecting chronic erosion east of Shallotte
Boulevard at Ocean Isle?
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 72 in Appendix G). In
response to this comment, the applicant states the factors affecting erosion will still be an
issue, although the construction of the terminal groin will provide some longevity and
performance to existing shoreline management efforts.
CHAPTER 2 — PURPOSE AND NEED
DEIS Comment - Page 17: Please provide additional information on the overlapping of
currently approved projects that authorize the placement of sand east and west of
Shallotte Boulevard, specifically the placement ofsand authorized by the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) navigation maintenance project, the USACE placement template,
CAMA Major Permit #91-05 issued to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, and the USACE
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction project, including the volumes of materials associated
with each specific project.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 73 in Appendix G). The
applicant addressed this comment adequately and provided additional language in the text
clarifying previous beach fill projects, including location, volume and frequency.
DEIS Comment - Pg. 17: Please provide additional information on the frequency at
which sand has been placed on the beach, including the 2014 activities, and the volume
of materials associated with each specific project.
DCM reply to FEIS — It does not appear that this item was addressed as a specific
response item in Appendix G. Please provide the additional requested information as a
response item in Appendix G.
CHAPTER 3 — PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
DEIS Comment - As a general comment on this chapter, it appears that not all alternatives were
analyzed with the same or similar levels of detail. It is suggested that the DEIS be re-examined
to ensure that similar information is provided for each alternative.
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 74 in Appendix G). DCM offers the following
comments and recommendations to the response to this item:
- For all Alternatives, the document assumes a 3-year federal project volume of
408,000 cy, despite the fact that the last three projects have all exceeded—450,000 cy.
This lower average volume is due to the skipped project in 2004 (which according to

the Town, wasn't needed), which therefore lowers the overall average per -event
average. The project was initially constructed in 2001. In 2007, 449,400 cy of
material was placed between Stations 10+00 and 72+00. In 2010, 509,200 cy of
material was placed west of station 10+00 with federal funds. In 2014,—800,000 cy
of material was placed. The lower average volume (408,000) artificially increases the
risk of damage in Alt 1-3, as shown by the assumed land and property losses in 2015
that did not actually occur. DCM recommends this information be updated to reflect
more current data.
- Assumptions are made on sandbag failure due to events in 2005, but shoreline
position data stops in 2009-2010 and does not include data since 2010. This post-
2010 information should be provided.
Placement of sand on the Town's east end due to the federal navigation project is
only mentioned in passing and is not addressed in any detail. DCM suggests including
a discussion of this project in a manner consistent with that of the other projects.
Alternative 1- No Action (Continue Current Management Practices)
• DEIS Comment - Page 23: The document indicates that periodic nourishment was to
occur approximately every three years following the initial storm damage reduction
project in 2001, which would have triggered the nourishment event in 2004; however, it
was decided that the "project performed so well" that nourishment would not be
necessary until 6 years after the initial project (Ocean Isle Beach, NC Static Line
Exception Progress Report, 2014). This information from the 2014 Static Line Exception
Report is not mentioned in this section of the DEIS, which only notes the chronic erosion
and that beach nourishment alone will not fix the problem. Additionally, the DEIS
indicated that a portion of the project area did not receive sand in 2010, because of the
`poor performance of the fill placed east of Station 10+00 in January 2007 ". Please
address why this portion of the project performed well after the 2001 event, and then very
poorly after the 2007 project?
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 75 in Appendix G).
DEIS Comment - Page 27: The DEIS states the total economic cost for Alternative 1,
over a 30 year period, to be $101.49 million. Of this $101.48 million, it is stated the
Federal government share of the Federal nourishment project is $43.19 million. Would
this not make the total economic cost to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach $58.29 million?
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 76 in Appendix G). DCM recommends that
the document provide more detailed information on the cost of the "non-federal" support.
Specifically, estimated separate costs to the Town and the State of North Carolina should
be provided.

DEIS Comment - Page 24-25: Please speck whether the $1.6 million loss in estimated
appraised value since 2005 includes only the five (5) homes, or the homes plus a number
of the 20-25 buildable parcels.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 77 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment -Page 25: Table 3.1: Please verify that the cost/loss for each item is
counted only once; for example, "sandbags" and `public/beach accesses" are mentioned
multiple times.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 78 in Appendix G). The
document stated in that nothing was duplicated, and that this information was provided
for historical information purposes only, and was not used in determining future long-
term damages.
• DEIS Comment - Page 27: The statement that 45 houses and 238 parcels would be lost
within the next 30 years assumes that sandbag revetments would fail completely and
permanently after five years; that storm damage reduction projects would be ineffective
for mitigating erosion; and that all of the houses and parcels would be completely and
permanently lost or need to be relocated. "at is the basis for stating none of these
above mitigation measures will protect these parcels and homes? Additionally, a cursory
review of available GIS data appears to show that a significant portion of the 238 parcels
may in fact be currently either fully or partially submerged. The document should be
revised to clearly separate highground parcels from submerged parcels that may now lie
within public ownership. The various economic analysis's contained in the document
should also be changed to reflect any changes in this information.
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 79 in Appendix G). Alternative 1 still does not
adequately explain the assertion that that 155 buildable parcels and 25 homes are
vulnerable to erosion and loss in the next 30 years under current management practices.
Figure 3.1 does not clearly show the 155 parcels identified as being at risk. Additionally,
Figure 3.1 should be updated to reflect actual 2015 conditions. The 2015 scarp predicted
the loss of 11+ homes which are still standing and protected by sandbags as of the date of
this letter. Also, the assumption that sandbags will fail within 5 years is not substantiated
by recent history- given that the sandbags in the area were installed between 2005 and
2009. DCM recommends additional revisions to the presentation of this data.
• DEIS Comment -Page 27: Based on the one-third relocation assumption the average
value of each of the fifteen (15) relocated homes would be $86, 667. Please verify that this
is an appropriate valuation.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 80 in Appendix G).

Alternative 2- Abandon/Retreat
• DEIS Comment -Page 27: The total economic cost for Alternative 2 includes the
Federal portions of the project cost and should only include the total economic cost to
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach.
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 81in Appendix G). DCM recommends that the
document provide more detailed information on the cost of the "non-federal" support.
Specifically, estimated separate costs to the Town and the State of North Carolina should
be provided.
DEIS Comment - Page 28: The statement that the same homes and infrastructure
damaged under Alternative 1 within 30 years would also be damaged under Alternative 2
repeats the assumption that sandbag revetments will be entirely ineffective over this
period. What is the basis for this assertion?
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 82 in Appendix G). The document assumes
"potential damages would begin in 2015" and continue. As of the date of this letter, these
damages have not occurred. DCM recommends additional revisions to of this data to
reflect actual current conditions.
Alternative 3- Beach Fill Only (Including Federal Project)
• DEIS Comment - Page 29: According to the Delft3D model assessment of beach
nourishment performance on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach, the volumetric losses from
a beach fill project (east of station 30+00) would be expected to erode a rate of 140, 000
cubic yards/year. On pages 38-39, reference is made that there is very little difference
between Alternative I and Alternative 5 in terms of impacting volume changes above -6'
NA VD depth contour along the western end of Holden Beach, indicating that the results
were within the accuracy of the model, thus suggesting no difference in the response on
the west end of Holden Beach. Given that forces influencing sediment transport will
remain in place, with or without a terminal groin structure, please explain how volume
changes along the western end of Holden Beach remain relatively the same before and
after construction of the project? Would it not be the case that the accretional side (west)
of the structure would benefit, but the downdrift side (east) would lose material gained
from littoral transport?
DCM reply to FEIS - (see response item 83 in Appendix G). DCM offers the following
comments and recommendations to the response to this item:
- The document did not make any changes to the section for Alternative 3, and
simply stated that the depth of the channel influences sediment transport and

would not affect Holden Beach. Further supporting documentation on this
statement is requested.
As was stated in a response above, the impacts of Alternatives 1-3 appear flawed
and overstated due to the assumption of a maximum average federal project
volume of 408,OOOcy, when the last three projects (2007, 2010 and 2014) have
exceeded that volume. DCM recommends this information be updated to reflect
more current data.
It is unclear to how the expected volumetric loss of 140,000 cy/year east of
Station 30+00 was derived, when the Engineering Report calculates an average
loss of 92,OOOcy from 2001 to 2013 and a-88,OOOcy annual rate of change from
2007 and 2010 (Tables 3.2 and 3.4, Appendix B).
The document appears to have changed some the figures in the FEIS relative to
the DEIS. For example, the overall cost of Alternative 3 was reduced from
$115.5M to $108.77M, and the non-federal interest balance was reduced from
$72.3M to $65.58M. Federal share percentage was increased to 39.7% from
37.4% and non-federal share was reduced from 62.6% to 60.3%. Please describe
the reason behind these changed values.
The volume losses described for Holden Beach in Alternative 5 (p.40) have
changed from original estimates in the DEIS. The justification for these changes
should be detailed.
Alternative 5- Terminal Groin with Beach Fill (Including Federal Proiectl/Avolicant's Preferred
Alternative
• DEIS Comment - Pages 34-37: In reference to the three terminal groin schematics
generated by the Delft3D model used to assess the impacts of the proposed options (250,
500, and 750 ft.), the only visible difference is there is more material in the area of the
terminal groin fillet (west side of structure, or updrift side), and the model does not
predict any negative effects (erosion) east of the structure (downdrift side). On page 37 it
is stated that "differences in the response of the model relative to Alternative 1 could be
attributed to the structures and their accompanying beach fill. " The model output
images illustrate this, but how likely is it that there would not be a negative impact in
some location?
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 84 in Appendix G)
• DEIS Comment - Page 34: What is meant by, "The resulting position and alignment of
the shoreline within the accretion fillet would mimic that of the shoreline immediately to
the west"?

DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 85 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment - Page 34: The statement "Since wave induced sediment transport (i.e.,
littoral sand transport) would still be in play, erosion will continue to be a management
issue for the shorelines lying outside the direct influence of the terminal groin. " implies
that shorelines lying within the direct influence of the terminal groin will not be subject
to erosion. Please clarify whether this is the intended claim.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 86 in Appendix G).
DEIS Comment - Page 39: Although it is stated in the preceding narrative, for ease of
comparison it would be helpful to include nourishment requirements for Alternative I in
Table 3.5.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 87 in Appendix G).
DEIS Comment - Page 39: In paragraph 3, when comparing the modeling for the
different size terminal groins and the results indicating a relatively stable beach, please
use the same measurement increments for comparison. In one instance the modeling
results are expressed in feet, in the other, the modeling results are referenced against
survey stations.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 88 in Appendix G).
DEIS Comment - Page 39-40: While the total volume of sediment required under the
500 foot and 750 foot terminal groin options are claimed to allow a less frequent
nourishment interval, the stated volumes are cumulative over the entire beach strand
from the terminal groin to station 120+00. It is also stated that nourishment
requirements are only reduced from the terminal groin to station 30+00. No claims are
made as to the potential impacts or feasibility of increasing the nourishment interval
specifically between stations 30+00 and 120+00 which would see no reduced
nourishment requirements from any of the terminal groin alternatives. Is it anticipated
that there could be potential impacts or a feasibility of an increases nourishment interval
between stations 30+00 and 120+00?
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 89 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment - Page 40: The impacts of losing the ability to combine contracts with
Wrightsville Beach, Masonboro Inlet, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach are not
adequately addressed. The claim that "the potential cost savings for extending the
nourishment interval would offset most of if not all of the cost impacts" is not
substantiated. These impacts should be quantified with assumptions clearly stated.
Potential nourishment schedules, showing the years in which combined contracts are
possible, would be helpful.

DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 90 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment -Page 41: The source of the maintenance cost estimates should be
stated.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 91 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment - Page 41: Please specify whether the stated periodic nourishment costs
are based on combined'contracts with other municipalities, and if not, provide the
differential cost estimates.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 92 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment - No claim is made as to how a terminal groin would perform relative to
the 45 houses and 238 parcels that are would be lost within the next 30 years under the
other alternatives.
DCM reply to FEIS - The response to this item (see response item 93 in Appendix G)
indicates that Table 3.11 provides economic impacts with all five studied alternatives. It
does not seem reasonable that long-term erosion damages and response costs would be $0
for the alternatives of beach nourishment, channel relocation, and a 750' terminal groin.
In DCM's experience, damages to properties and structures still may occur following
implementation of a beach nourishment or channel relocation, resulting in additional
costs. It is also uncertain if resulting monitoring and possible mitigation costs are
factored into these costs estimates. DCM recommends additional clarifications on this
issue.
• DEIS Comment - No claim is made as to whether sandbag revetments would be required
or anticipated in the project area following completion of the terminal groin.
DCM reply to FEIS - The answer provided for this item (see response item 94 in
Appendix G) indicates that the preferred alternative would "relieve the necessity of
sandbag revetments in the project area." While DCM acknowledges that the design of
the preferred alternative is intended to protect properties within the project area, we
suggest adding a statement that also acknowledges that in response to erosional events
not associated with the terminal groin (for example erosion related to a storm or
hurricane), individual property owners may still choose to pursue sandbag stabilization of
their properties after groin construction. Therefore, it is suggested that the document
contain a statement of this possibility.
• DEIS Comment -Please provide information on existing sandbags within the project
area.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 95 in Appendix G).
Alternative Analysis Additional Information

• DEIS Comment -Page 44: Table 3.10 and 3.11 should be updated to remove any cost to
be paid by the Federal government.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 96 in Appendix G).
CHAPTER 4 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
• DEIS Comment - The DEIS states that the large armor stone will have spaces large
enough to facilitate along -shore transport of both sediment and larval fish. It is
requested that additional information be provided which explores potential impacts to
larval fish movement through Shallotte Inlet.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 97 in Appendix G). The
applicant states in the DEIS that there is some research is available to support the notion
that larval transport around the terminal groin structure would act similarly to sand by-
pass through and around the terminal groin structure.
• DEIS Comment -Information is requested as to what will keep open spaces from filling
with sediment which would no longer allow passage of sediment and/or fish larvae
through the structure.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 98 in Appendix G).
DEIS Comment - Page 188: The DEIS refers to the environmental dredge window as
November 15 —April 30. Please be aware that additional limitations necessary to
protect fisheries resources may apply to dredging activities after March 31.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 99 in Appendix G).
CHAPTER 5 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
• No Comment
CHAPTER 6 — AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
• DEIS Comment - Senate Bill 151 (Session Law 2013-384) requires that the applicant for
a terminal groin project address certain financial obligations for the project, including
long-term maintenance. In order to ensure that the required financial information is
provided in an acceptable fashion, the financial costs associated with the requirements of
Senate Bill 151 (Session Law 2013-384) should be included in the DEIS in as detailed a
manner as is possible at this stage in the project development process. The Division
would therefore request more detailed cost information in the Final EIS. Items of
specific interest include:

Costs associated with any additional monitoring initiatives (See Items to be Resolved,
DEIS Page iii);
Costs associated with each monitoring event currently implemented by the Corps of
Engineers. This information will be necessary for a full disclosure ofpotential costs
committed to by the Town should the Town be required to carry out a portion of the
monitoring if Federal funding for the monitoring falls short in any year (See DEIS
Page 204). Additionally, similar information should be provided regarding potential
costs to the Town to implement mitigation efforts if Federal funding for beach
nourishment falls short (See DEIS Page 205).
- Cost estimates for the full removal of the terminal groin structure should be stated if
it is determined that the structure is not functioning as intended, and groin
modifications are deemed ineffective in minimizing or eliminating these negative
impacts.
- The inclusion of the above -listed financial information into the cost analysis of the
terminal groin portions of the alternatives section of the DEIS.
DCM reply to FEIS - As referenced in the response to this item (see response item 100
in Appendix G), on September 29, 2015, the Department of Environmental Quality did
certify that the financial assurance components of N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-115.1(e)(6) have
been satisfied for this project.
• DEIS Comment - With regards to verification of the final financial assurance package,
113A-115.1(e) (6) requires that a financial assurance plan be verified either by the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or by the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). DCM and the Department have taken the
position that the choice of verification pathway (DENR Secretary or CRC) should fall to
the discretion of the applicant. Therefore, as the financial assurance package becomes
more detailed and refined, and the project moves closer to the permit application stage,
the Division suggests a meeting between the Town and the Division to determine which of
the two verification pathways are preferred by the Town.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 101 in Appendix G), on
September 29, 2015, the Department of Environmental Quality did certify that the
financial assurance components of N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-115.1(e)(6) have been satisfied
for this project.
• DEIS Comment - Page 191: The Wildlife Resources Commission should be included in
the list of agencies for which pipeline placement coordination should take place.
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 102 in Appendix G).

• DEIS Comment - Page 192: In the paragraph labeled "escarpments ", the second
sentence should state, "18 inches or greater for 100 ft"
DCM reply to FEIS - Answer is satisfactory (see response item 103 in Appendix G).
• DEIS Comment - Page 198-204: Senate Bill 151 states the permittee shall, "Define the
baseline for assessing any adverse impacts and the thresholds for when adverse impacts
must be mitigated. " The DEIS states that no thresholds were established for the inlet due
to the variable nature of the shoreline changes. DCM believes the Senate Bill 151 is
explicit in stating a baseline and corresponding thresholds must be established. Please
provide the baseline and thresholds to determine adverse impacts from the construction
of the terminal groin at Stations 375-400 on Holden Beach and from the inlet to Station 5
on Ocean Isle Beach.
DCM reply to FEIS - As indicated in response item 104 in Appendix G, the Inlet
Management Plan for this project now includes baselines and thresholds for Stations 375-
400 on Holden Beach and from the inlet to Station 5 on Ocean Isle Beach. The plan also
includes commitments by the Town to cover the cost of monitoring should the Corps of
Engineers be unable to perform their traditional monitoring efforts for any reason. The
Division finds these additions to the Inlet Management Plan to be satisfactory. However,
DCM is concerned about the use of the March 1999 shoreline position as the mitigation
threshold for the Ocean Isle Beach Sand Spit. The questions the use of the 1999
shoreline configuration, which appears to be the most landward extent of the existing
shoreline surveys, to establish mitigation thresholds. DCM requests that the applicant
provide additional information on how this shoreline position was chosen.
The Division of Coastal Management appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project,
and we look forward to further discussions on the issues raised in this letter. If you have any
questions concerning any of these comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone]
ext. 212.
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits Section
Cc: Heather Coats, DCM
Jonathan Howell, DCM
Debbie Wilson, DCM
Sean Farrell, DCM
Lynn Hardison, DEQ

C,
Supports the construction of the proposed terminal groin
Delbert Bowen
Alternative a5
N/A
Noted.
51
Supports the constrpctlan of the proposed terminal groin
Rage and Valerie Gafford
Alternative q5
N/A
Noted.
53
Supports the construction of the proposed terminal groin
Unda and Steve ReTrhaTWi
Alternative 05
N/A
Noted.
54
Supports the consumption of the proposed terminal groin
Bill and Glenda Browning
Alternative p5
N/A
Noted
55
The EIS does not address any potential Impacts or mitigation on islands or properties Immediately
David A. Eastburn
Downddit
Chapters-Questlon
Noted. DelR3D modeling was not performed to assess potential Impacts to Sunset Beach. However, the sediment budget
down-driftfrom this project, Including the wastem end of Ocean Isle Beach, the bland of Sunset
effects
3.; Chapter 3.1,
presented in the Engineering Report (Appendix B) found the predominant direction of littoral send transport was to theeast
Beach, and BIN Island.
Appendix B Section
for areas east Of baseline station 110400. With the model results indicating no change in the shoreline response west of
45
baseline station SOHN) on Ocean Isle Beach with the terminal groin in place, the areas farther to the west, Including the west
56
end of Ocean Isle Beach, Tubbs Inlet, and Sunset Beach would not be Impacted by the terminal groin. The wave refadion
phenomenon, which exists around most Inlets, is one Ofthe factors conWbuting to the high rate of sediment loss off the east
•
end of Ocean Isle Beach. Consequently, installation of a terminal groin In the area between Shallotte Inlet and Shallotte
Boulevard would not have an Impact on the infrequent occasions when sediment Is tranzponed to the wart out of the area.
Supports the comments previously made by Sunset Beach and by Sunset Beach resident Jan Harris
David A. Eastburn
Monitoring
Chapter 5-Question
Bemuse terminal groin4nducad Impacts are not anticipated to occur n Sunset Beach, no monitoring or mitigation would be
relating to the monitoring and mltlgatlon aspects of this project.
3.; Chapter 3.1;
required along that harder island.
57
Appendix B Section
4.5
58
Supports the mourners made praylously by Jan Harris of Sunset Beach relating
David A. Eantbam
General
N/A
Noted.
The US made no consideration given to Cropertyownerihlp. It should be pointed out that the vast
Oavid A. Eastburn
property
WA
One of the stated purpose and needs ofthe proposed project is to preserve theTown's tax base. Sallsfying this goal is not
59
majority ofproperNthat stands to gain the most benefit from this project is controlled or owned by
ownershT,
contained by who may awn a p'iem of property that would receive a direct or Indirect benefit from the project. Arrydoeslo
on�familV- We Odell WIIIIamsOn Family, it's [casts and heirs.
to implement a project to protect the east end of Ocean Isle Beach will be made by the Town Board of Commissl0ners after
mceNInB annout from propert,owners on Oman Isle Beach.
The erosion anthe east end of Ocean Isle Beach is due to the very -well commented mining of
Ian Pietmfesa
General
Chapter3,Alremative
As stated in Chapter3 ofee EIS, 'a Federal storm damage reduction project was constructed along 17,200 feet & the Town'
sediments from the tidal delta to apptempt to promotthe houses built attheueryeartem tip of OIB
LNo Argon
shoreline went of shallofieBoulevard between March 10 and May 7,1D01.°This project does not serveto protect the horn
especially during the passage of winter storms. _
east of the fill area. In fac4 the high rate of erosion ocmNng east of Shalom¢ Boulevard during the time the project was
GO
-
being formulated was the primary reason the USAGE did not Inlcude. the extreme east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the federal
-
project as periodic nourishment requirments along this section ofhe beach would not meet the USACE standards for
justifyingfedeml nrotedlon of the area.
The advocates of the groin at OlB are real estate developers and owners and their town council
Len Pietmfesa
Economics
NA
Noted-
61
entatives,especially the ma
The impllmtlom of the groin is that following the damage due to the proposed grain there could be
Len PleVafeso
General
Chapter 1-
As stated in the US, This proposed terminal groin is one offoursuch structures approved by the Geneml Assembly to be
Me more grains in the future- one at the pier and one at Tubbs Inlet
Introdurgon
constructed in North Carollna following passing of Senate Blll(SR)110. As such, grolm located neart the pair or any other
location aside from the terminus ofan island would be considered Illegal. A terminal groin at Tubbs Inlet would be
61
considered to be legal,however. At this time, the Town of Ocean Isle Beaty has no plans for mnsideatlon of any type of
additional hard erosion control structure for its shoreline. The area west of the (ideal peeled has been relatively stable,
however, the Town is considering options for possible increased storm damage protection for the area through the
Implementation of a beach nourishment program that would extend the beach fill area wart to Tubbs inlet
The recruitment of marsh and inshore nueservy dependent finffsh could be greatly altered and
ten Placer.
Hsh Ingress
Chapter 4, Larval
it is Oared in Chapter 4that the mass Of Flowing water flowing in and out of the inlet dunngtidal exchange ads as a coodult
reduced by the Imposition of thegMlh.
Transport, Chapter S.
for larvae found within the water column in proximity to the Inlet Surge at al. (3005) estimated that the larval fish
_
Alternative S: Water
comntations in proximity to Bogue Inlet ranged throughout the water column between OS and 5.0 larvae per rabic meter.
Column(laml
Assumingthatthere is similar larval concentration In proximltyto Shallotte Inlet, Shallotte lnletwould also serve as an
Tramportl
Important pathway for numerous species of zooplaruden Into the ertuary.The Impacts to [am? lamport Into Shallotte Inlet
In response to the constro.tlon ofhe terminal groin are disaussed in Chaptori: Alternative 5: Water Column Qleml
63
Transport). Specifically, It etes the CECTerminal Groin Studywhich shares 'As noted in the PhWIml Assessment Section,
once a beach problems to nearthe end of the structure, either by natural lengthens baroportar through beach
urishment.wave processestionsport sand around and overthe groins Into the tidal inlet The same sand by-passing action
would also affect the bV-pass of estuarine dependent larval form( (NCDENR, 1010). Also cited Is the Olsen Associate, Inc.
numerical model study that Investigated larval transport off Bald Head Island In response to lhier proposed terminal groin
which would ..It In minlmal Impacts associated with larval transport. This has also been addressed under the EFH and BA
doamentc. .
•Aaem Wmm.ma row t.en.wnmarsae. H.ma mr.mnwaal.ea.wmm.mrlw.mmm.

Moving the 30 at risk homes to the northwest on the island would cost$5,000,000.
An Pietmfesa
Economks
Appendix8,Table 4.2
An assessment off the economic Impact a Alternatives l and 2, bMM1 a which includetl relocation and/or demolishion of
threatened structures, is provided In Engineering Report (Appendix B) of the DEIS. For Alternative 1, which Includes
6d
continuation of eals,lng erosion response measures (Mndbati the economic costs over thirty years wovW he over $35.1
million. For Alternative 2, which would eliminate the use a temporary sandbags and simply now or demolish threatens
homes, the total cost over 30 years would W about$29.6 million.
Traces, ofgroin Installation and ensumdownstream beschmalntenanclawbkh has been shownla
Ian Pletmfeu
Economics
N/A
Noted. The Fort Macon project was originally(ormualted to include beach nourishment, However, the need for periotliC
occur by groin Induced beach destruction at Pea Island, Fort Macon, and other locations has curt at
nourishment of the Fort Macon State Park shoreline was eliminated when material from maintenance of the federal
least $1.61hib/vear and will cos, a total of $26M over the neat 10 ye1
navigation channels connecting to Morehead City Harbor began to W routinely tleyosiled along the shoreline ways Otte
Fort Mecon terminal groin. Simllarlg the material deposited an Pea Island following the commuctkn a the terminal groin
acontinuation of the Agreement between the USAGE and the US Fish & Widlife Semite which was Implemented before
ndaria don of the terminal gmin. In this agreement, the USACE would retun all of the Oregon Inlet channel maintenance
65
material to the Illtoral zone along the north end of Pea Island. This has been done at no additional cost to the State of North
Carolina which com mcled the terminal groin. Channel maintenance material has been deposited on Pea Island using cutter
suction pipeline dredges which place material directly on the goneline with the majority of the dredged material placed in
the rearal using will hell hopper sedges. After ever 24yeam Vine its completion, the monitoring of the Pea Island
shoreline has only shown positive Impacts along the shoreline south of the structure. shallotte inlet is not a Federal
Navigation Channel, as are the other two. The maintenance Interval proposed is every 5 years under the Preferred!
aftemative.
Theappi.ntIsm dtabulidanexperimenMi"anifluio rorafternatfw Ol rreeronthee.9
Een Pietnfem
Alternative g5
1
Noted.
end of Ocean Isle Bead.
67
A latter written by NC SM... DI.ten Pietmf.citingpalentlaldow Hftafrectsfromthepmposed
Dean Walters
DowndrH[
N/A
Noted.
terminal Amin on Ocean Isle Beach lsn not based on site Specific modeling
effects
Aletter written by Dr. Robert Borysen, registered PE and Prof. EmeMus at NC State, stated that
Dean Wakens
Alternative g5
N/A
Noted.
6B
"._after Studying the Ell the construction of a terminal groin will have wbs,aMial beafic, to the
Town and I largely support the proposed application'.
Sasetl on the modeling In the Ell the proposed terminal groin shows notliHerent affect on Holden
Dean Walters
Dawedrift
Chapter 5-Du ion
AS; stated in Chapter 3 a the Els, the purpose of a termlral gran an the east end of Don Isle Beach would W to creates
Baud, mid -Island of Ocean Isle Beach, and Sumer Beach.
effects
3.; Chapter 3.1;
permanent accretion fillet west a the Structure. ThIs would be accomplished by cantelliry tide induced or influenced
Appendix B Section
sediment transport off the Mreme cart end of the Island The resulting position and alignment a the shoreline within the
4.5
aeration fillet would mink that a the shoreline immedletelym the weft. The elimination or reduction In tide Induced
Sediment transport off the extreme east end of the island should Improve the performance and longevity of peach fill placed
69
east of 5lallotte Boulevard as well as the Performance of
pe portion federal dorm damage reduction at
extends yRysaShantinu am.nSince wave timm
sediment transport littoral sand Kamen) wouldstillhein
be
would oil be
too ssueinduced outs
for
pry, erosion will continue to be a management issue for the shorelines lying outside the cliche influence a[he terminal
gmin. No information has supported the notion that the resulting adjacent peaches will be steeper than under nam cal
conditionsfogswlngthe installation of the proposed terminal groin.
TO
Science has proven that the terminal min alternative is a viable tool In stabilizing our shoreline and
Dean Walters
Gararcl
N/A
Noted.
asks for the approval &therequired permits.
SB110 was amended by SB151 in 200 and set out several requirements that must he met beforea
NC DCM
Terminal Groin
Chapter l-
Test amended to Inclde,'S8110 was amended by Senate full 151(SBI51)In 2013 and set forth additional stipulations that
Tl
(AMA permit ran he Issued.
tegisation
introduction
must W met prior to the Issuance of State of North Carolina permits".
How will construction M a terminal gmin, coupled with current beach management Practices change
NCDCM
Alternative g5
Chol 3, Altermative
The factors that currently affect the chronic erosion will not clamp (Le, the flood channels will still ram Sediment intothe
the hears that currently affect chronic erosion (i.e. fiend channels that have formed close to the 013
S.
Inlet from the 018 shoreline and as long as the Channel remains in it's current position, the ebb We delta will na afford
shoreline, ebb tide delta located farther east, etc.) east of Shall Blvd.?
protection from wave attack on the east end a OIB. However, as Stated in Chapter 3, elimination or reduction In tide
Induced Sediment transport off the extreme east end of the island should Improve the performance and longevity &beach
72
fill placed eras, of Shallme Boulizi as well as the performance a a portion of the federal storm damage reduction pmjett
that extends west M Shallotte Boulevard. Since wave Induced sediment transport (i.e., IMmal sand transport) would still W
In play, small will continue to be a management Issue for the shorelines lying curslde the direct influence of the terminal
.In.
•A, sever.. ..n..rmea. FwwvA.al,awa.pn..rwm ..omwn

52
Supports the construction of the proposed terminal groin
Delbert Bowen
Alternative 05
N/A
Noted.
53
Supports the construction of the proposed terminal groin
Roge and Valerie Brafford
Alternative g5
N/A
Noted.
54
Supports the construction of the proposed terminalgroln
lines and Steve Reinhalte
Alternative 45
N/A
Noted.
SS
Supports the construction of the proposed terminal ban
Bill and Glenda Browning
Alternative h5
N/A
Noted.
The EIS does not address any potential Impacts or mitigation on Islands or properties Immediately
David A. Eastburn
Downdrif[
Chapter 5-question
Noted.Delft3D modeling was not performed to assess potential impacts to Sunset Beach. Haweveq the sediment budget
down-0rlft from this project, including the weetem end of Ocean Isle Beach, the island of Sunset
effects
3.; Chapter 3.1;
presented in the Engineering Report(Appendix B) found the predominant direction of littoral sa ntl tmnsport was to the east
Beach, and BIN Island.
Appendix B Section
for areas east ofbasellne station 120+UU. With the model results indicating no change in the shoreline response west of
4.5
baseline station 30a00 on Ocean Isle Beach with be terminal groin in place, the areas fertherto the west, lncludingthe west
56
end of Ocean Isle Beach, Tubbs Inlet, and Sunset Beach would not be impacted by the terminal groin. The wave refraction
phenomenon, which exists around most Inlets, Is one of the factors contributing to the high rate of sediment loss off the east
end of Oman Isle Beach. Consequently, installation of a terminal groin In the area between Shallotte Inlet and Shallotte
Boulevard would not have an impact an the infrequent occasions when sediment is transported to the west out of the area.
Supports the Comments previously made by Sunset Beach and by Sunset Beach resident Ian Harris
David A. Milburn
Monitoring
Chapter 5-question
Because terminal groin -Induced Impacts are not anticipated to occur on Sunset Beach, no monitoring or mitigation would be
relating to the monitoring and mitigation aspects of this project.
3.; Chapter 3.1;
required along that border Island.
52
Appendix B Section
4.5
SB
Supports the comndnets made previously by Ian Harris of Sunset Beach relating
David A. Eastburn
General
N/A
Noted.
The EIS made no consideration given to property ownership. It should be painted out that the vast
David A. Eastburn
Property
N/A
One Of the stated purpose and needs of the protested project is to preserve the Town's tax base. Satisfying this goal is not
59
majority of property that stands to gain the most benefit from this project is controlled or owned by
ownership
contrained by who may own a piece ofpropertythat would receive a dint or Indirect benefit from the project. AWdecisio
one family -the Odell Williamson Family, It's Droste and heirs.
to Implement a project to protect the east end of Ocean Isle Beach will be made by the town Board of Commissioners after
recialargImputfromproperricumers on Ocean Isle Beach.
The emslon onthe east end of Ocean Isle Beach is due to the very -well documented mining of
Len Pietafesa
General
Chapter 3, Alternative
As stated in Chepie r3 of the EIS, 'a Federal storm damage redu coon project was coname died along 12,100 feet of che Town'
sediments from the tidal delta to apetempt to protect the houses built at the very eastern tip of 018
1: NO Action
shoreline west of Shallotte Boulevard between March 10 and May 7,2COV The project does not serve to protect the home
especially during the passage of winter storms.
east of the fill area. In fact, the high rate of eroslan occurring east Shallotte Boulevard during the time be projettwas
60
-
being formulated was the primary reason the USACE did not inlcude the extreme east end of Ocean Isle Beach In the federal
project as periedic nourishment requinnents along this section of the beach would not meet the USACE standards for
justifying federal protection of the area.
61
The advocates of the groin at 013 are real estate developers and owners and their town council
Len Nepalese
Economics
N/A
Noted.
representatives, ez eciaeythe mayor
The Implications ofthe groin is that fallowing the damage due to the proposed groin there could be
Len Pietrafesa
General
Chapter I.
As stated in the EIS, This proposedterminal groin is one of four such structures approved by the General Assembly to be
We more groins in the future- one at the pier and one at Tubbs Inlet.
Introduction
conetructed in North Caaline following passing of Senate Bill (SB) 110. As such, grolns located neart the pair r any other
location aside hand the terminus of an Island would be considered illegal. A terminal groin at Tubbs Inlet would be
62
considered to be legal, however. At this time, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has no plans for comiEeratlon of any type of
additional hand erosion Control structure for its shoreline. The area west of the federel project has been relatively stable,
however, the Town Is considering options for possible Increased storm damage protection for the area through the
implementation of a beach nourishment program that would eatend the beach fill area west to Tubbs Inlet.
The recruitment of marsh and Inshore nurser, dependent finfish could be greatly altered a ntl
Len Pietrafesa
Fish ingress
Chapter4, larval
It is stated in Chapler4 that the mass offlowing waterflowing in and out of the inlet durngtidal exchange acts as a conduit
reduced by the Imposition of the groin.
Transport. Chapter S.
lorlarvae found within the watermlumn in proximity to the inlet. Settle at al. (2005) estimated that the larval fish
Alternative S: Water
concentrations In proximity to Bope Inlet ranged(haughoutthe water column between 0.5 and 5.0 lame per cubic meter.
Column(larval
Assuming that there is elmllar larval concentration In phohnityto Shallotte Inlet, Shallotte Inlet would also serve as an
Transport)
Important patheadi numerous species oftooplaaklon into the estuary. The Impacts to larval transport into Shallotte Inlet
In response to the constrcutlan of the terminal groin are discussed in Chapter 5: Alternative 5: Water Column (Ilarval
63
Transport). Specifically, It dies the CEC Terminal Groin Study which states °Ai noted in the Physical Assessment Section,
once a beach protmdes to near the end of the structure, either by natural longshore transport or through beach
nourishment, wave processes transport sand around and Over the grolns into the tidal Inlet. The same sand by -posing action
would also affect the by-pass of estuarine dependent larval fond l (NCDENR, 2010). Also cited is the Olsen Assadate, Inc.
numerical model study that Investigated larval transport off Bald Head Island In response to thier proposed terminal groin
which would result in minimal Impacts associated with larval transport. This has dsd been addressed under the EFH and Be
documents.
'perry.—.. Nen¢urvnanuE. prea. en,, 1. ad. rymey nEen or It—tai

Please provl@ imperial information on the overlapping of dumently approved projects that
NC OCM
General
Chapter 3, Alternative
The lanuary 2007OIB project pat placed 155,000 cubic yeds offal between baseline stations 3+001013"IroounderGMA
au[hodieahe placement o/sand east antl west of SM1allotte BlM.(USACE Nadgartion Project, USAGE
1.
permrttl91O5wasaone-Croameration. Due to the fillu, of the beach fill to provide any long- term shmellne protection,
placement template, USACE CSDR project, ant CAMA Major Permit g91-05 issued to OIBj. Inhcude tit
the Town of Ocean Isle Beath has mind not to attempt beach nourishment in this area as a stand alone project The federal
frequency of these events and volumes of materials associated with each project.
storm damage ruction project, which lavers 17,100 feet of sfwrellne from SM1allotte Boulevard (station 10a00) wells to
Dunside Dr. (Station 18,1001, was initially consulted In 2WI ant has been nourbbetl on three separate orsslonz, 200602,
2010, and 2013. In general, the three pence is nourishment operations have been limited to the shore me from SM1allotte
Boulevard weer to baseline station 1201 The project west of 120,00 has not needed any nouisM1ment to maintain the
rvtherism beach 011 design template. Thus, the only overlap of the Tdi mtrfederal beach nourishment effort and that o
23
the Federal Slope damage reduction project was the one-time occurrence when material from bent efforts was placed
between Wseline stations lO+N and llt00. Inserted the following language under Alternative 1 in Chapter 3: 'in addition 1
the construction of tM1e sandbag revetment, the Town placed 155,000 cubic yams of material between Stations-3.00and
17fWin 2002 under LAMA permit gllaS. Theareabetween SD+Wantl7a overlapswiththe Federalpmjd, Need
the mihum of this locally funded nourishment project to provide any long-term shoreline proportion along the east end of the
Island, the Town has opted not to allempt beaus nourishment as a stand-alone project within this area again."
It appears that notall altemativeswerc analysed wth the same or all levels ofdetall.Ills
NC DCM
Alternatives
Various locations
All mtemathes were evaluated using similar levels ofimmil. The model simulation used to evaluate Alternative 2 was all
suggested that the DEIS be reexamined to ensure that similar information is prodded for each
Aryityla
applicable to Alternative l since the only differences between the two almoatives in terms of man-made shoreline response
alternative
measures was the use of sandba gsorinthe use ofAlternative, mthe non use Sandbags, asatemporary erosbnresponse
continue.All otherfeaturei themiwoaom l
same i.e., IM1efederal storm damage projectworld
theShsarcthe
thereductilm
continue 10 be noutlshed usiry material from the Sbllol[e Inlat Borrow area. The Performance of the beocM1 fill under
tech
Alternative 3, the beach FlII only alternatives, was also mndeled tot" Same degree as Allemative 2. Alternative 4 whitlN
74
Included realignment of the channel, was represented by the results for Alternative 2 which included tha USAGE bonow are
through the middle of Shelintte Inlet Additional modeling for Mt.4 M1as been conducted and the results of the Modeling are
proposed in derail In Chapter 5..... All of the terminal groin options evaluated for Alternative 5 were modeled under the
Same Model input conditions as used for the other alternatives. With regard to economic impacts, the costs for all of the
alternatives were computed over the 301ear planning "red with equivalent avenge annual costs presented for each.
The document indicates that periodic nourishment was to occur approximately every three years
NC DCM
General
Chapter 3, ANernatNe
The Static lire exception report was prepared by the Town &Ocean lske Beach. While most Perhaps of the federal project
following the Initial storm damage reduction Project in 2001, which would have triggered the
1.
west of station performed reasonably well following initial construction In 2001, project performance was not the and
nourishment event in 2004; however, it was decided that the 'project performed m wale that
factor that postponed the first nourishment until 20Dgl as there were also federal and spite funding Issues and is Poor
srurishmenl would not be necessary until 6 years after the Initial project (Ocean Isle Beach, NC Static
dredging climate due to the Impacts of 1004 hurricanes In the State Of Florida. The decision not to place and east of atetion
Ure Exception Progress Report, 2014). This information from the 2014 Safe line Exception Report is
10r00, which lies outside the authodied limits of the federal projM, was a local decision and was based on the rapid loss of
not mentioned In this section of the DEIS, which only rotes the chronic erosion ant that beaus
thefill placed in Meare bythe Townof0com Isle Beach lnlamary2W7. W1lbregamtothe Performance oft" federal
nourishment alone will not TO the Problem. Additionally, the DEIS indicated that a portion W the
project following each periodic nourishment member, Figures 3.5 to 3J in the Engineering Report (Appendix B) shows
project area tlld not receive antl In 2010, because of me'nopr perfomance of the fill palled east of
losers from the Of area east of Station 30sW canged from approRimrtely 25 ry/If/yr to 45 ey filyr after each operation.
75
Station 10f00 In January 2007'. Please address why this portion of the project Performed well after
Comparison N these three figures does netlndlcate any Imposed parformace of the fill along the east end of the federal
the 2001 event, and then very poorly after the 2007 pffil
poor performance' was only made with project.TM reference m" ym regard to the, area ease of SM1allotte Boulevard was
nourished beach Town in 2007. The follewinmlanguage was inserted into 3, Alternative lconthat
Initial construction
e Although ce of this Project Schedul'Sloce
tl
Ocean Isle Beaus feu been nouriMed three limes.A2W1,tthe maintenanceof Mis projectwasschetlulatlrobecoed
cyclefollowingIntheIthement construction in 2W3,Indperformanceof Project was better Mani anticipated and
am
need
for
allowed for a tlelry In [M1e Implementation of Me firs[ maintenance event (Ocean Isle Beach, NC Static Lire Exception Progre
eanI
Report, 2014).'
The DEIS states the total economic cast forAitematrie 1, over a 30year paned, to be$101.49 million.
NCOCM
Ecommiu
Chapler3,AltemaMe
The decide a the$I01.SS million is supported by non-federal Interests, Including the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and the
76
Of this$101.48 million, it is Stated the Federal government share ofahe Federal nourishment project 1
1
State of North Carolina
$43.19 million. Would this not make the total economic cost to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach $ST29
million?
Please specify whether the$1.6 million loss In ertlmated appraised value since 2005 loduda only the
NC DCM
Economica
Chapter 3,Alterrealye
The ntimated appcalsed value of the fort homes and parcels since 2005 totals approximately$1.6 million
A
8ve(5) homey or homes plusa number of the 20-25 buildable parcels.
1
Table 3.1: Please vemfy that the bell for each Rem is counletl only once; for nardi'andbaw
NC DCM
EcanorNe
Chapter 3, Alternative
Tebie 3.2 is a list of damages/rasl the Town of Ocean Isle Beach actually experienced drora 2034. There arc no duplications)
78
am'Publiclioach arcesmf art mentioned multiple times.
1
the able. This able was provided for information purposes and ores rot used in determining future lane -term darnall
'w xrrmml..nrnnenus. Re .I .ww Iwwvblulovi

The statement that aS houses and 238 parcels would M lost within the wart M years assumes that
NC DCM
Econpi
AppendixB, Table 6.2
Table a3 in Appendix 8 has been amended. The number of parcels having a value greater than $2,000 Is 156. Parcels with
sandbag revetments would fait completely and permanenlhafter five years; that storm damage
and A.S
value less that n$2000 arc nonconforming parcels and will be excluded from the summary table and the EIS will w modified
reduction prolacts would be ineffective for mitigating eroson; and that all of the houses and parcels
acoordindit. Therefereoce to 45 houses is correct. The assumption that sandbag revetments would only have an effective
would be completely and permanently fort or need to M reported. What m the basis for soling none
life of 5-years was based on the actual performance of wndbag revetments previously Installed in the area. This is d6cuased
of these above mitigation measures will protect thew Parcels and homes? Additionally, a cursory
In some detail intM Engineering Report and demonstrated on Figure 3.0 in the Engineering Report (Appendix B). The sectio
79
review of available 615 date appears to show that. significant portion of the 238 Panels may in fact
of the area included in the anelysis of future losses either is not included In the federal storm damage reduction project(i.e.,
M currently either fully or partially submerged. The document should M revised to clearly separate
Its lies east of station 1OHM) or lies In an area where the federal project has not Performed well, essentially the area betwee
hlghyound parcels from submerged persels that may ow lie within public ownership. The vorlous
station ss«oo and lo.oD.
economic analysis's combined in the document should also be changed to reflect any changes In this
Infprmallon.
Bawd on the one-third refutation assumption, nMaverage value of each of the fifteen (15)relocated!
NC Mal
Ecommice
WA
The average value 0the moved structures is correct. The average value of the 30 structures assumed to be demolisMd is
80
homes would W$86,662. Please verify that this is an appmorbte valuation.
$%,193.
The total economic cost forAlternative 2 Includes the Federal portions of the project rest and should
NC DCM
Economics
N/A
When Presenting the cost of the other alternatives that Include continuation Of the federal projett, the total cost of the
81
only Include the total economic cost to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach.
federal project is included In the total cost of that alternative.Therefore, the Cowl met of the federal project is the
appropriate vlaue to use for AferneUW2.
The statement that the woe homes and infrastructure damaged under Alternative l within 30 Were
NC DCM
Economics;
WA
Following the progression of the movement ofthe erosion spars under Alternative 2 ys. Alternative 1, the only difference in
would also M damaged under Attemathe 2 repeamthe assumption that sandbag revetmentswill M
the emomic impact is when the structures would be last. That is, with Alternative 1, there would be a 5 year delay in the
entirely ineffective Over this period. What Is the basis for this asserton?
ultimate demise of a structure but it would evantsuf ly M Imt during the 30-year analysis period. The onlydiNerencein me
82
1n. Alternative2 Isduc In the annual cost
averap,of
annual costtures
when would for Apentavarege
whenpertainstmttweature. Mtort and the retluced cost forAMma6ve2assaiated with not using sandbags to delay
th notsaffectedbythe delay
the
Me eventual loss of a rtmdure.
According to the Delft3D model, the olumetric Items from a Mach fill Project(east of station 3W00)
NCDCM
Downdrift
Chapters
The following test has been added to Chapter 5: The area west of the terminal groin (the accretion fillet) would beartificially
would be expected to erode a rate of14up"cubic yatds/maras stated on Page 29, On Pages 38-39,
effects
filled which would Pat mMuche to the continued movement of l'groral sediment to the east past the structure. As a result of
reference is made that Mere is very little difference, between Alternative 1 and Alternative S in terms
the artificial insiders of the fillet and the movement of material to the east through, over, and around the terminal groin, the
Of Impacting volume changes above-6' NAVD depth contour along the western end of Holden Beach,
terminal grain shield of have an Impact on the west end of Holden Beach. Under existing conditions, the west end of
Indicating that the results were within the accuracy of the a pefel, thus suggesting but i iRereoe in the
Holden Beach is separated from the east end of Ocean Isle Beach W the borrow area In Shelburne Inlet which IS dredged to a
83
response on the wen end of Holden Beach. Given that forces influencing sediment transport will
depthof15tu1Bfeet Mlosv NAVD. The sediment trap and the behavior ofthe inlet would have a much greater influence on
remaln In place, with or without a terminal groin structure, please explain how volume changes along
the ability of littoral sediment to move from west to east across the Inlet compared to the relatively minor changes in
the wester end of Holden Beach remain rebativaby the same before and after construction of the
sediment [pension patterns associated with the terminal groin.
Protect? Would It Out be Me caw that the accretional side (west) of the structure would benefit, but
the dowMrift aide (east) would lose material gained from IRtorel transport?
In reference to the three terminal groin whematks generated by the Delft3D model used to assess
NC DCM
Numerical
Chapter 6, Inlet
The inlet management plan takes this uncertainty into account and establishes a threshold for the sin of the send spit eartp
the impacts of the proposed Options(250, 50,and7Soft.), the only visible difference is there is more
Model
Management Plan,
the grdn. Should the sand spit reduce In size to thethreshold size, mitigated measures wood be take to Increase Me rate of
materal in the area of theterminal groin fill (west side of structure, Or upddfr side), and the model
send Spit section
sediment movement to the east best the structure. In addition to possibly modifying the structure to Increase movement to
dues not predict any negative efects(emslonl east of the structure (do mill side). On page 3?it is
the east past the structure, nourishment of the spit would M an option.
stated that 'differences in the response of the model relative to Alternative 1 could M attributed to
the structures and their accompanying beach fill.' The model Output Images illustrate this, but how
likely Is It the there would rut be a negaive Impact In some location?
What is meant by, 9M1e resulting position and alignment of the ehoreline within the accretion fillet
NC DCM
Alternative RS
Chapter3,Alterotive
This statement is lmerMedtosuggest that the shoreline, once modified by the terminal groin and beach fill, would extend th
8s
would mimic that Of the shoreline immediately to the west"?
S.
existing shoreline wawand and follow the some tangent of the shoreline to the west of the fillet.
The statement'Slnce wave induced sediment transport(i.e., littoral sand transport) would still be In
NC DCM
Alternative g5
Chapter 3, Alternative
inserted the following language: The shoreline directly adjacent and in Proximity to the proposed terminal would,
play, efoslon will continue to be a management Issue for the shorelines lying outside the direct
S.
groin
however M relatively stabilized due to the protection afforded by the structure.
86
Influence Of the terminal groin.' implies that shorelines Ming within the direct influence Of the
terminal grain wilt not M subject to erasion. Please clarify whether this is the Intended claim.
MthmghltisstatedlntMprecedingmptl ,foreawofcomWria itw ldbehelpfultoiWuda
NCOCM
Alterative RS
Chapter3,MtemalNe
It is important to mep in mind that Table 3.5 depicts the fill that incompletely the terminal groin fillet ffrom base station 0s0
nourishment requirements for Alternative l In Table 3.$.
5.
to 30,00 AND tMfederal MR project that extends to Station 120b0and, therefore, Including the nourishment
repuberient for Altematiee 1 would not be an accurate comparison. It should M noted, however, that It Is stated two
8)
sentences belp eTape 35 that'Sime the part, nourishment operations have placed an average of 406,000 cubic yards on
Ocean Isle Beach every three years, the target volume for nourishment operaton for the three (3) terminal groin options was
ant to M equal to or less than 408,o00 cubic pros per causation. -
In paragraph 3, when comfort the mpdelln, for the different size termithe groins and tlu results
NC DCM
Alternative as
Chapter 3, Altemathe
lnlcuded[M taw of survey station numbers where applicable.
Indicating a relatively stable Mach, please use the same measurement instrument for companion. In
5,
one Instance the modeling results are exiaessed in feet, In the other the modeling results are
referencetl againstsua stations.
Nwe,wa, 10

The statement that 45 houses and 238 parcels would be lost within the nexl30Wam assumes that
NCDCM
Eccoomla
Appendix B, Table 4.2
Table 4.21n Appendix B has been amended. The number of parcels having a value greater the.$2,000 Is 156. Parcels with.
sandbag revelments would fill completely and permanently after five years; that storm damage
z'.�
and 4.5
value less than$2000 are naoconforming parcels and will be excluded from the summary table and the EIS will be modified
projects would be Ineffective for mitigating erosion; and that all of the houses andparcels
accorco dingly. The reference to 45 houses Is rrect The assumption that sandbag revelmerimmuld onlyhave an effective
would be completely and pemn.ently lost or need to be relocated What is the basis for stating none
life of 5-yeamms based on the actual performance of sandbag revelments previously Installed In the area. This Is EBcusaed
ofthese above mitigation measures will protect these pareb and homes? Additlonallg a corsory
In some detail In the Engmeedng Report and demonstrated on figure 3.41n the Engineering Report (Appendix B). Theseol. ll
79
review of available GIs data appears to showthat a significant potion of the 238 parcels may in fact
of the area included in the analysis offuture lasses either is not Included In the federal storm damage reduction project (Le,
be currently either fully or partially submerged. no document should be revised to dearly separate
A
Its Iles east of ovation lOH10)or lies in an area where the fideml project has not performed well, essentially the area became
highground camels from submerged parcels that may now lie within public ownership. The various
station n WD and ID,00.
economic analysifs contained In the document should also be changed to reflect any changes Inthis
$ }
Informed...
(,{
Gazed on the one-third relocation assumption, the average value of each of the fifteen(151 relocated
WCDCM
Economics
N/A
The average value of the moved structures is correct. The average value of the 30 structures assumed to be demolished
8o
homes aid be$86,60. Please vaifythat this is an appropriate valuation.
I
$96,193. -
The mail economic cast for Alternative 2 Includes late Federal potions ofthe project mat and should
NC DCMi
Economics
WA
When presenting the cost of the otheraltemadves that include continuation of the federalprojed, the total cost of the
81
only Include the total economic cart to the Town of Ocean Isle Beath.
p§
federal project is included in the total cast of that alternative. Therefore. the total cost of the federal project is the
F.�
-
appropriate vaaue to use for Alternative 2.
The andement that the same homes and Infrastructure damaged under Alternative l within 30 years
NCDCM
Economics
N/A
Following vie progression of the movement of the endlOn, warp underAlternative 2 vs. Alternative 1, the only difference in
would aeo be damaged under Alemative 2 repeats the assumption that sandbag revetments will he
the economic impact is when the structures would be lost That is, with Alternative 1, there would be a 5 year delay in the
entirely ineffective over the period. What is the basis for Hub assertion?
i'
ultimate demise of a structure but it would eventually be lost during the 36"ar analysis period. The only difference in the
82
3
average annual cost of Alternative S ss.Alternative 21s In the equivalent avenge annual cost which is affected by the timing
Of when cartain s[recNres would be lost and the reduced and for A temative 2 mandated with not using sandbags to delay
the eventual low of a Anicture.
According to the Delft3D model, the volumetric [owes from a beach fill projOct(east of station 30W0)
NCOC!!ltttM
Downddft
Chapters
The fallowing teat has been added to Creators: no me west of the terminal grain (the accretion fillet) would be artifidally
would be expected to erode a rate of 140,000 ableyards/year as stated on Page 29. On pages 38-39,
+
effects
filled which would be rand. v. b the continued movement of littoral sediment to the cart part the structure. As a result of
reference is made that there is very little difference between Alternative l and Alternative S In terms
tf
the artifidal creation ofbe fillet and the movement of material to the east through, Over, and around the terminal groin, the
of impacting volume changes above -6- NA" depth contour a long the western end of Holden Beach,
.{
terminal groin should not have an impact on the west end of Holden Beach. Under witting creations, the west end of
indicating that the results were within the accurst, of the model, thus suggesting no difference In the
,!
Holden Beach is separated from the east end of Ocean Isle Beach by the borrow area in Shallotte Inlet which is dredged tea
response on the westend of Holden Beach. Given that forces influencing sediment transport will
depth of15to19 feet below NAW. The sediment trap and the behavior of Inlet would have a much greater influence on
83
he main In place, with orwithout a terminal gminstrecture, please explain howvolume changes a long
'
F
-�
the ability of littoral sediment to move from west to east across be Inlet compared to the relatively minor changes in
the western end of Holden Beach remain relatively the came before and after construction of the
sediment transport patterns associated with the terminal groin.
project? Would it not be the case that the accretlonal side(wart) of the structure would benefit, but
the downdrlft side (east)would lose material gained from littoral transport?
In reference to the three terminal grain schematiagenerated bythe Delft3D model used to assess
NCDCM
Numerical
Chapter6, Inlet
The lnletmanagement plan taxes this udcerainty Into account and esabllshesathmnioldforthesize oflhe sand spit easts
theimpactsafthe proposed options (250, 500, and 750 fit), the only visible differencelstherels more
Model
Management Plan,
thegmin. Should the sand spit reduce in size to the threshold site, mitigative measures woud betake to increase the rate of
material In the area of the terminal groin fillet (west side of structure, or updrift side), and the model
Send Spit section
sediment movement to the east part the samdure. In addition to possibly modifying the stmdum to increase movement to
does not predict any negative effects(emslon) east of the structure(downdrift side). On page 37 It is
the east past the structure, nourishment of the spit would be an option.
84
=led that 'differences in the response of the model relative to Alte minve l multi be attributed to
{p
V
the structures and their accompanying beach FIV The model output images illustrate this, but haw
i€
IiPely is It that there would not be a negative Impact In some location?
Cp
What is meant by, -The resulting position and alignment oflhe shoreline within the accretion filet
NCDCMI
Alternative 85
Chapter 3, Alternative
This statement is intended to Suggest Oat the shoreline; once modified by the terminal grain and beach fill, would extend lh
85
would mimic that of the shoreline Immediately to the wee?
S.
existing shoreline seaward and fallow the same tangent of the shoreline to the west of the VOL
The statement wave Induced sediment transport (Le, littoral sand tamport) would still be In
NCDCM'(
Alternative g5
Chapmr3,Altermthm
Inserted the following language: The shoreline directly adjacent and In proximity to the proposed terminal groin would,
play, erasion will continue to be a management issue for the shorelines lying outside the direct
S.
however, be relatively Stabilized due to the protection afforded by Me structure.
86
influence of the terminal groin.' Implies that shorelines lying wlthh,the direct influence of the
}
terminal groin will not be subject to erosion. Pleme clarify whether this is the intended calm.
Although ltis stated in be preceding namadve, for ewe Of comparison it would be helpful to Include
NCDCM [6�YS
Alfemativeg5
Chapter 3, Alternative
it is Important to keep In mind lhat'rable 35 depicts the fill that incorporates the terminal groin fillet lfmm base station GHC
nourishment requirements for Alternative l In Table 3.5.
Z.
S.
to 30t00 AND the federal CSDR project that extends to Station 120l00 and, therefore, including the nourishment
requirement for Alternative 1 would not be an accurate comparison. It should be noted, however, that It is stated two
87
sentences lielowTable35 that'Since the part, nourishment operations have placed an average of 408,OO8mbic yams on
Ocean Isle Beach every three years, the target volume for nourishment operation for the three (3) terminal grain optiche wan
set to be equal to or less than 408,I1o0 cubicyanis per operation."
In paragraph 3, when comparing the modeling far the different size terminal grobas and the results
NCDCM
Alternative US
Chapter 3, Alternative
Inladed the use ofaurvey station numbers where applicable.
indicating a helatheNsable beach, please use the same measurement increments for mmparlson. In
5.
88
one instance the modeling results are expressed in feet, in the Other, the modeling results are
referencedagainst survey cations.
"ray-ts NwbmwlMemM. Flaw Mern N6W W epe ,how,cm4ID mnW1

While the total vdumedudimenvequired undertha500toot and 750-f000tecmkal groin options
NC OEM
Alternative g5
Chapter 3, Alternative
The Increased murshment lnreml as a result Of constructing the terminal groin options would adorns the entire fill area
re claimed to allow a less frequent nourishment Interval, the slated volumes arc cumulative Over the
5.
fterniivlVein to 1201 not just the area betwen the terminal groin and 30HOO. jeow,rige39hasbeenamenededto
entire beach strand from the terminal groin to motion 120x00. It is also gated that nourishment
read "The reduction in Fail nourishment requirement, particularly for the So0-/oot and 250-fad terminal groin options,
requirements are only reduced from the terminal groin 10 station 30a . No claims are made as to tha
Provides an opportunity to Increase the time Interval between nourishment operations from the locaton of the proposed
89
potential lmpaals or feasibility of increasing the nourishment interval specifically between stations
terminal groin tostation 12GH)O.-
3(1 and 12DVOo which would we has reduced nourishment equiremens from arc/ of the terminal
Brain altethatives. Is it anticipated that there could M potential Impacts or a feasallhy of an increase
oudmhmenO Interval between station 30a00 and 11Dr007
The impacts of losing the ability to combine connects with Wrightsville Bead, MamnMro Inlet
NC Mad
Alternative 05
N/A
The combination of nourishment opanlions for WrigdsMlle Beach, Cwdim Beach, Kure Beach, and Down Isle Beach along
Caroflna Beach and Kure Branch, arc not adequately addressed. The claim that 'the potential cost
with the sand bypassing at Masonboro Inlet was done W the USAGE In 2009 to encourage more dredging companies no bid
savings for extending the nourishment inteml would offset most of N rid all of the cost inspects' is
on the p idects. The combination of the projects Into one contract did not necessarily result in any substantial coat savings
not substantiated. new impacts should be quani with assumptions clearly gated Potential
for any Individual project. For example, the trial cost of mobilization and demobllltgion in the 2009-10 contract for all
nourishment schedules, showing the years in which combined contracts are possiblq would be
projects was $6.5 million. Allocation or the mobEethob cost based on the fill volume for each project would Ideal the mob
helpful.
demob casts for Ocean Isle Beach would havebeen around $1.2 million. Inflating this cost to 2016 at ante of 3 s/yearwoul
result Ina mob Eemob cart of about $2.1 million. The cost estimates for mob-cemob for Aherwtive 51n the DEIS is $2.5
million. In this regard, all cost estimates for the alternatives assumed the project would be bid as standalone projects, i.e.,
the cost did not assume combining the Ocean Isle poled with any other project. The discussion of the Impacts AT not being
able to combine the projects Into one contract will be clarified In the EIS to reflect the real intent of combining the projects,
Le., W encourage a more dredge companies to rid on the total Package.
The source of the maintenance cost estimates should be stated
NC Mad
Economics
Chapter 3, Alternative
The maintenance cost for the terminal groin options was based on the assump0an an average of l% of the armor gone
S.
w Whavetob mplacedorrepairedeveryynr. Haw egasmtedonpage03of Chader3,thewcogswauldnd
91
necessarily Orrvr every year Out that aver the 3 year malvgs parWa, the average annual equmal<d was for normal Brain
repairwouW W associated with replacing or reporting 1%of the gone. The explardtion dthe 1%/year damage cog has
tweraddedbotineElSontegoe4loClundul
93
Please specify whether the stated periodic nourishment cents arc baud on combined contracts with
NC DCM
Economics
Chapter 3, Alternative
The cost estimates in the DEIS were bawd on stand alone projects and the combination of multiple projects as was done by
other municipalities. and if not rovids the differential cost estimates
5.
the USACE in 2D09-10. This has been dairified in Chapter 3In the EIS
No claim is made as to how a terminal groin would perform relative to the 45 Muses and 238 parsea
NC OCM
Alternative IS
Charier 3, Agernetwe
The woramk impact of the terminal groin alternative as well as the other alternatives invoi beach fill is Implied in Table
93
that are would be log within the lust Wyears under the other alternatives.
5.
3.11 of Charier 3 which Indicates longterm erosion damp would be$0, Nord AT the alternatives were evaluated for their
ability to reduce smrm eta
No cloth is made as to whether sanding revetments would be required or anticipated In the project
NCDOM
Alternative#5
Chapter 3, Alternative
Under Alternative 5, the applicants preferred alternative, a250 feet terminal groin with bead fill would be constructed lag
area following completion of the while groin.
5.
feet east Of baseline gotten Ovid. This structure is intended W provide shoreline stabilintum and would seen to reduce the
94
erothe rate further west thereby refuciag the nourishment interval AT the Fetlenl project from every 3 yearns to every 5
years and relieve the hacassily AT handbag revelments wlthin the project area.
Please provide information on ax611n, sandbags within the project area.
NC DCM
Sometimes
Charier 3, Alternative
As stated in Charier 3, 'Additional erosion remorse measures undertaken by the Town on the east end Include placemento
1.
asandbag revetment along 1,400 het of shoreline, beginning at a point west of Shallotte Boulevard and extending east to
9S
the end &development. This revetment was Installed around 2005. The sandbag revetment has recently been extended ADD
feet to the west or just past Charlotte Street. Some of the recent sandbag placement was accompOshed W NCDOT in an
attempt to protect the eastern end of 2nd Street."
Table3.10and 3.11should be updated tommpveanycosbto Wpaid bythe lederalgovernment.
NC DCM
Economics
Chapter 3, Alternative
A primary featureof Alternative 5 would be its impact of periodic nourishment of the federal project. Periodic nourishment
5.
the fedml project constitutes a real cost to both the local mother and the federal government. By Implementing Alternative
96
5, the costs to Mob entitles would be reduced whereas the Other Alternatives InmMng beach fill and periodic nourishment
do net have this same Impact. Therefore in order to present the trial ecemmic impact of all of the alternatives considered,
Inclusion of both federal and not -federal torts Over the 30-year planning period Is Imperative.
The DEIS gates that the large armor stone will have spaces large awugh to facRgate alorgsbore
ROOM
larval
Chamber 5, Alternative
The impacts to larval transport into SMOdte Inlet In response to the construr n of the terminal groin are discussed to
transport of both sediment and larval fish. It Is readmitted that additional information be provided
tomport
5-U-1 Transport
Charier 5: Alternative 5: Water Column (Itaml Tompart). Spec?call,!! does the CEC Terminal Groin Stud, which gates
which expires potential impacts to larval fish movement hrough Shallotte Inlet.
'As haled to the Physical Assessment Section, once a beach protrudes to near the end of the structure, either be natural
97
Ion{shore transport or through beach nourishment wive processes transport sand around and over she i into the tidal
Inlet The same mind bypalaction would elm affect the by-pass of estuarine dependent larval forms' INCDENR, 2010).
Alm cited is the Olsen Assdlte, mr, hametical model study that investigated lanai transport off Bald Hod Island in
response To th er proposed termbul groin which would mull In mmimal Impacts associated with laml transport.
Information is requested as to what will keep open spaces From filling with sediment which would no
NCOCM
larval
Chapter 5, Alternative
Sedimentand/or larvae would not W expected to passthrough the structure; re"Thsy maygo Over and around the
Iongerallow passage ofsedimentfirl fish larvae through the structure,
transport
5-IavalTransport
structure. As stated on page 185,"Ohaetha beach protmdem to near the end of the structure, either by Ali longshore
transport or through beach nourishment wave processes transport sand around and over the groins Into the tidal inlet. The
come mnd by-passing adkn would and affect the movement destuarire dependent lam! forms Thomas reducing any
Ina ctslo numehwer ksI
•Aperai ashereaexl Y'nnl . Rowe Mx.a.mwnywexeurw..
10

The DEIS refers tothe enkronmemal dredge Years. as November 15—April 30. Please be aware take
NCDCM
Emimnmental
Chapters
Noted.
99
additional limitations necessary to protect fzherles resources may apply to dredging actlaitias Offer
Dredge
March 31,
Windows
Senate Bill 151(Session law 2013-38a)resubeathat the appicant for a terminal grain porlect address
NC DCM
Economics
AppeMix
The Town of Orals Isle Beach's firanclal assurance plan has been approved by the Secretary Of the NC Department of
Will finandsl obligations far the project, Including long-term maintenance. In order to ensure that
Emironment and Natural Resources. It has been Included in an Appendix to the FEIS
the resulted financial infarmrtlon Is provides In an acceptable fashion, the financial ports associated
100
with the repuirements of Senate Bill 151(Sessin law 2013-38l should Ibis Induced In the DEIS if as
detailed a manner as is possible at this stage In the protect development process. The Division would
therefore mouser more detailed cost information In the NPaI EIS.
WRh reprds to verification of the final financial assurance package, 113A-115.1)e))6) requires that a
NCDCM
Economics
WA
Notel
financial assurance plan be vented either by the Secretary of the Department of Emironmenl and
Natural Resourar)DENR) or bythe Car l Resources Commission(atC). D(M and the Department
have taken the position that the choice of vedficatlon pathway IDENR Secretary or CRC) should fall to
101
the discretion of the applicant Therefore, as the financial assurance package becomes more detalled
and refined, and the protect makes closer to the permit application stage, the Division suggests a
meeting between the Town and the DMion to delemrine which of the two verifotion PaHrwey, are
Preferred by the Town.
The Wildlife Resources Commission should be lnoludedlnthe list of agerrles for which pipeline
NCDCM
General
Chapter
Test has been amended to Intel 'in aMtt to minimize impacts on wintering plying plover, the pholim alignment will be
102
placement coordination should take place.
designed to avoid potential piping plover wlnledng habitat. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the
USAGE NCDCM and the NC WRCP
In Me paragraph labeled"escarranni the second sentence should state,"18 inches or greater for
NC OCM
General
Chapter
Ten has been ammemeed to Include'Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area loomed aMyafto
103
100 ft..
completion of construction. Esoromentt the newly placed beach fill chit exceed 18 inches or greater than for 300 B shall
be re match as ......radas a beach'
Senate ROI151Apply the tbebate.-tsar asustitesthschemes,
NCDCM
Monitoring
Chaptilnageme Inlet
solint
Thesberegne changecolusethreshold rates an the wertend have been to
or whenpetmitteeacts'uefine
nothimpxtsag
the lamholdsfar when adverse impacts mustbemltip[etlJThe DER sbtestha[nothrezbeltls were
Management Plan
shHolden
USAC shorllcbeMeeoushokns325aeoCW
Thisca
reflect the came protocol used by the USAGE to establish shoreline change tM1rezbeks tar Use other tnnsetts. This Mange
rg
established for the inlet due to the variable nature of the Martial changes. DCM believes the Senate
reaps in paitive or accretionery shorellne Orange threshold far these stations. As for the east end of Ocean Isle Reach, as
Bill 1511s explicit in stating a beseline and corresponding threabek, must M established Please
posted in the DEIS the same spit did not exist until after the pomtmction of the federal Protect In 2001. Therefore, the
Prwke the haseline and thresMlds to determine adverse Impacts from the composition of the
establishment of stmreline change threslwlds based on the past history of the sherelf changes along the sand spit was not
10e
terminal than A Stations 375-100 on Holden Beach age from the Inlet to Station S on Ocean We
possible. Alan alternative, the configmllon of the sand soft as 0 eined in2009 or prior to the(final communist of the
Beach.
federal project is being proposed as the threshok condition for the extreme east end of the island. Given the 20D9 sand spit
configuration, should the and spit demkisb In size to something less than what existed In 200%mitigative measures would
be evaluated. These measures would Include possible rwuridro ent of the send spit or modification of the terminal groin to
iMude mom and movement t0 the east peat the structure.
Puosndal effects M sea bartlea include roMamef Of hatchllrrg fumes on beaches edtecant to the
USFWS and USIg01
Sea Tapes
Chapter 5. Allemadve
Noul Adlressed in Chapter S and the Biological Assessment.
rombuctbn area as May emerge from Me neat and pawl to Me water as a result of fighting or
Si OPaan6aN Dry
pmtano of Me groin, and behavior modification of nesting fomalas during the nesting grown reeugrg
Beech Dread Imapw
In Mee cmNs Of s'llurtirns where they choose marginal or unsubeble nesting areas to tlepoall eggs
105
tluk to asaroment formation or presence of the groin within the action area.... The presenceOf Ne
prom may create a physical obstacle to nesting sea tunes, and Me poposed grain he aotidpabd to
resurt in moused nesting and loss of nests that do get laid within the project area for all subsequent
nwling seasons folkrw'ing the completion of the proposed scaled.
Potential effects to piping plover and red knots include degradation and log of habitat,Particularly
USPNS and USD01
Shorebirds
Chapters-Duestion
Sherelino change thresholds on the west end of Holden Beach between 375 and 400 have been madlfyto conform wlth the
down-0nft ofthe aretture. GorMs can act as barriers to lonphore santl tnmion and cause
3.; Chapter 3. 1;
a meprouocolusedfores rtheotherlramects. ThisuhsinpasittvesMmlinechangethresmidalnthi,area.
cowmen m erosion and Michel 2008), which prevee Optimal habitat createm by limiting
Appendix B Section
sediment deposition and nostrum. The proposed attlon has the potential to adversely affect
0.5
106
wintering and Miami red knots, wintering and migrating piping plovers and their habitat form all
breeding populations, and bouncing PlPing players from the Atlantic Coeet. breeding popo etion that
MY use the project area. Although the piping plover is not currently known to next in the Action Area
the stabilization of the shoreline may also hi in lass suitable nesting habitat for all sMrebirds,
I. act, the piping packer.
Where heard! stabilization is installed, the eventual loss of the beach and Its mackdated habitats is
USFWSad1USDDI
Shorebirds
N/A
erratic mom 0 the send spit notwithstanding, the DEIS did establish a threshold for the same sphs.
virtually assured (Rice 201 absent beach nourishment, which may also impact piping plover and red
SOT
knots. Where they are maintained, hand structures are likely to significantly iremorm the amount
171he
Piping plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rlee.
flueenvicsyxAw you. Naen...'

The DEIS refers to the eavlmnmernal dredge window as November 15—April 30. Please be aware than
NCDCM
Environmenal
Chapters
Noted. "
99
additional limitations necessmyto protect fisheries resources may apply to dredging activities; after
A
Dredge
March 3L
Windows
Senate Bill 01(Sesion 1aw2013-3U)requlresthatthe appllantfora lenninalgmin project address
NC DCM
Economics
Appendix
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach's financial aaumnm plan has been approved bythe Secrearyof the NC Department of
certain financial obligations artDe project, Including long-term maintenance. In orderto ensure that
^F^"
Envbonment and Natural Resources. It has been Included In an Appendix to the FEIS
the required financial Information is provided In an acceptable fashion, the financial costs associated
h'
100
with the requirements ofSenate 8111151(Session law 2013-384) should be Included in the DEIS In as
yy{{
detailed. mZgneras is possible at this stage in the project development pmcess.Tho Division would
4'
therefore request more detailed cost Infora lam In the Final EIS.
§).
With regards to verification of the final financial assurance package, 113A-315.1(e)(6) requms that a
NCDCM
Eamomica
N/A
Noted.
'
financial assumnce plan be verified either by the Secretary ofthe Department of Environment and
g
Natural Resources(DENR) or by the Coastal RetwocaS Commialon(CRQ. DCM and the Department
f.
have taken the position that the choice of vedfiation pathway IDENR Secretary, or CRCj should fail to
101
the dlsardlon of the applicant. Therefare, as the financial assurance package becomes mare detailed
and refined, and the project moves closer to the permit application stage, the DWhlon suggests a
meeting between the Town and the Division to determine which ofthe two verification pathways are
preferred by the Town.
The WIIdIHe Resources Commission should be Included In the list of agencies far which pipeline
NCDCM
Geraml
Chapter6
Text has been amended to Include: order to minimize impacts on wintering piping plover, the pipeline alignmentwill be
102
placement coordination should take place.
d
designed to avold potential piping plover wintering habitat. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the
USACE, NCDCM, and the NC WRC.°
Intheparagmph labeled"esmrpmen[s',the second sentence should Sam,'18 inches or greater for
NCDCM
General
Chapter
Text has been ammended to include: Wlsual Surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area Immediately after
103
100R. -�
mmpletlon ofconstrodlon: Escarpments In the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18Inches or greater than for ISO It shall
be coded to match atljamnt grades on the boa h.°
Senate Bill S51 States the pennitt.Shall, 'Define the baseline for oreaing any adverse Impacts and
NCDCM
Monitoring
Chapter 6, Inlet
The shoreline change threshold rates on the west end Holden Beach between sd0am325 and MD have been revived to
the thresholds for when adverse impacts must be refil tl.' The DEIS states that no thresholds were
({1
Management Plan
reflect the Same protocol used by the USACE to establish shoreline change threslwlds for the other tmnvects. This change
established for the Inlet due to the variable nature of the shoreline changes. DCM believes the Senate
results in positive or accretionary shoreline change thresholds forthese Stations.M f,rthe east end of Oman Isle Beach, as
Bill 151 Is explicit In sating a baseline and corresponding thresholds must be established. Please
stated In the DEIS the Sand spit did not exist until after the mostrudion ofthe federal project In 2W1. Therefore, the
provide the baseline and thresholds to determine adverse Impacts from the mnstuNon of the
establishment of shoreline change thresholds based on the part history of the shoreline changes along the sand spit was net
104
terminal groin at Stations 325-000 on Holden Beach and from the Inlet to Station 5 on Ocean Isle
V
possible. As an alternative, the configuntion of the sand spit as it existed in 2009 or prior o the Initial conttmstion of the
Beach.
federal projed is being proposed as the threshold condition for the extreme east end of than Island. Given the 2009 santl spit
'
cong mation, should the sand It deminish In sizetoSomething less than what existed in 2009; mitigativemeasureswould
be evaluated. These measures would Include possible nourishment ofthe Sand spit or modification ofthe terminal grain to
Induce more Sand movement to the east past the grucmre.
Paantial eReds 1p sea Nines atdWe disodenatim olhetchlatg aches on Deaden "jacenlro Ne
USEWS andi USD01
Sea Tukes
Chapter 5, Alternative
Noted. Addressed InCJupter5 and the Blologlal Assessment.
construction area AS, they emerge from the nest and conA to Na water as a result of Iigh" or
6OtaaMroM Dry
pmsenm of this groin, antl murder mom lion of nesting favorite during the nesting season resulting
Beach Direct lm,pca
In false comme or situations whet, May choose marginal or mougable resgng areas to deposit eggs
105
clue to attainment formation or presence of the grain wNtln the Action area.... The presence OF Uvo
groat may create a phyalal omb de to nesting sea turtles. and the preposetl groin is anticipated to
result In decreased reeling and ban W nests that do gel laid within the project ama for all subsequent
offal mesons fdlowirg the mmpledee M the prolacal w 1cull
Potential effects to piping plover and red knots include dagmdation and loss of habitat. particularly
USFWS and USD01
Shorebirds
ChapterSQuestlen
Shoreline change thresholds on Me west end of Holden Beach between 395 and400 have been modify to conform with the
down-crift ofthestucturs. Groins an ad as barriersto lengshore Sand transport and muse
3.; Chapter 3.1;
ve mepromceiusedfortheothertrameas. This results In positive shoreline change Nreshalds In this area,
dawnro drift esion(Hayes and Mlchel 2009), which prevents optimal habitat creation bylimlting
Appendix 8 Section
sediment deposition and accretion. The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect
4.5
wintering and migrating red knots, whitening and mlgmting piping plovers and their habitat from all
105
breeding populations, and breeding piping plovers from the Atlantic Coast. treating population that
may use the project area. Although the piping plover is not currently known to nest In the Action Area
the stabilization of the shareline may also result in less suitable nesting habitat for all shorebleds,
Including the piping plovet.
Where hand stabilization is Install", the eventual loss ofthe beach and is associated hablaa B
USFWS and USD01 -
Shorebirds
N/A
The erotic nature of the sand spit notwlthsandin&the DOS did establish a threshold for the sand spits.
virtually assured (Rice 2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also Impact piping plover and red
102
know. Where they are maintained, hard structures are likely to slgnlBmndy Increase the amount of
piping plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise.
,
•Ppoerymnmenn Me menaume,teM1 Ruse re(ra4MrHUNperryMrx ruGa m�wd - -
C

t+-."
Coats, Heather
From: Brad Rosov <[e-mail]>
Sent: ` Friday, June 10, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Coats, Heather; Huggett, Doug
Subject: Easements for Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin project
Attachments: doc00560920160610132519.pdf; Easement_Parcels.pdf
Good afternoon Heather and Doug,
Holley requested that I provide you with the signed easements within the footprint of the terminal groin proposed for
Ocean Isle Beach. In total, there are 7 parcels that fall within the domain of the groin and it's construction corridor (see
Parcel #84, 85, 86, 87, 119, 123, and the small subset of parcel 124 in the attached figure). Also attached are two signed
easements. One easement represents the area within Parcel #124 and the other one is the owner of the other
parcels. Keep in mind- our naming convention (#84, 85, etc.) is not the legal description in the tax records... the signed
easement provides that information. Give a call if you have any questions. And have a terrific weekend. We officially
have 29 minutes until Spm...
Thanks,
Brad Rosov, M.S.
Scientist IV
Coastal & Maritime Services
Environmental & Sustainability
Tel: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
brad.rosovro)cbi.com
CB&I
4038 Masonboro Loop Rd..
Wilmington, NC 28409
United Stales
w .CBl.com
QciRiN
..
•2�RE.."t,
This e-mail and any attached files may contain CB&1(or its affiliates) confidential and privileged information. This information is
protected bylaw and/or agreements between CB&I (or its affiliates) and either you, your employer or any contract provider with which
you or your employer are associated. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all
copies of this e-mail; further, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited.

'PpaP
Brunswick CourtY, C Register of B3611dP1031.°osa=6
� /] Rvs},-�-�In4
`—r JIc S C0;V Cash S
Refund: Cash$_Fpla M—
❑PoNaAaefdoeumentmkgibiedeeldmoON 1. '
ofodginal. _t i
'>OC+InIEvnCOnlalr¢sea9 vented bYarigC� -.
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK
THIS NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, made this I— day of August, 2015, by and between DW
Legacy Assets, LLC, and LW Legacy Assets, LLC, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTOR," and
Town of Ocean Isle Beach, a North Carolina municipal corporation, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, INC
28469, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTEE':
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Grantee is undertaking a Terminal Groin Project within the Town to help control
erosion and protect waterfront lots; and
WHEREAS, in order to property construct and complete the project, it is necessary for Grantee to
acquire certain non-exclusive easements for said project from affected property owners; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of those certain tracts of land located in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, more particularly described as Lots 8,9,10,11,12 & 13, Block 9, Section A, as shown in Map
Cabinet H at Page 375 of the Brunswick County Registry, which property is affected by said project; and
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that they will also benefit from said project; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has requested and Grantor has agreed to convey the necessary nonexclusive
easement to Grantee to enable it to undertake said project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for a valuable consideration, including the benefits Grantor may derive
from said project, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does give, grant, bargain,
dedicate and convey unto the Grantee and as successors and assigns a perpetual, irrevocable and non -assignable
(except as specifically stated herein), non-exclusive easement and right-of-way in, on, over, through and across the land
hereinafter described for the use by the Grantee and its' representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers,
consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, and assigns. The nonexclusive easement area shall be all of the
above -described properly. In the event that the non-exclusive easement area described herein is no longer being used
s17-GtiVED
DOM WILMINGTON, NO
JUN 1 02016

P103810-61:20.021
BrendaM. Clemmons PROP
Brunswick Count
y, NC Register of Deeds page 2 of 6
and deemed necessary for purposes specifically related to the Terminal Groin Project, the rights granted herein to,
Grantee shall terminate and this non-exclusive easement shall be no longer of any effect.
This non-exclusive easement is granted for the purpose of allowing Grantee to use the Non-Fxclusive Easement
Area for the placement of beach compatible material, utilization of heavy machinery to place said material, construction
of the terminal groin and anchor section, and the staging and transportation of construction materials together with the
right.of ingress and egress for such'work. Grantee may use the Non -Exclusive Easement Area to evaluate, survey,
inspect, construct; preserve; patrol, protect, operate, maintain, repairi rehabilitate, and replace a public beach, a dune
system, and other erosion control and storm damage reduction measures including the construction of a terminal groin
and its associated shore anchorage system together with appurtenances thereto, including the rightto (a) deposit.sand;
(b) accomplish any alterations of contours on said land; construct berms and dunes;. (c) nourish and re -nourish
periodically; (d) move, store and remove equipment and supplies; (a) perform any other work necessary and incident to
the -construction, periodic.re-nourishment and maintenance of the Project; (f) plant vegetation on said dunes and berms;
(g) erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand fences; (h) facilitate preservation of dunes and vegetation through
the limitation of access to dune areas; (i) trim, cut, fell, and remove from said land all trees, underbrush, debris,
obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles within the, boundariesi of the Non -Exclusive Easement
Area that would hinder the above described activities; and 0) removal of the terminal groin in its entirety if directed by
order of the U S Army Corps of Engineers. Grantor agrees not to convey any other easement which would impedethe
purpose of the Non -Exclusive Easement granted herein..
Grantor also conveys and.grants to Grantee a non-exclusive access easement across the side setback of each
lot area of the above -described property for the purpose of permitting Grantee's, inspection and, if necessary,
observation, maintenance. and repair of the Grantee's work and`activitieswithin the non-exclusive easement area. In the
event that the non-exclusive easement area and/or the non-exclusive access easement described herein. Is no longer
being used and deemed necessary for purposes Specifically related to the Terminal Groin Project, the.rights granted
herein to Grantee shall terminate and this non-exclusive easement and/or the non-exclusive easement area shall, be no
longer of any effect.
Grantee assures Grantor that Grantee shall contractually require all of Grantee's contractors and subcontractors
to provide and maintainfull liability insurance coverage to protect and indemnify Grantee and Grantor. Grantee shall

IIIIICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIIIIiIIIIIIIII
OR PRE irb,1:20,02i
Brunswick County NC Re mmans , PROP
.4 1 aster of Deeds p,gd 2 of a -
and'doemed necessary for purposes specifically related f0the Terminal Groin Project, the rights qraot6d-hqr.&h to
Grantee shiiiii.ermi'naieand this non-exclusive easement shall be nobriger of any effect
,
This non;oxcljuejva easement Isgranted for the PUTPOs6 Of AlItAN419 Grantee to use. tho Non-Eixalitsive taserrient
Area for the plecament-of beachcompatible matedA Utirizatfon of heavy ; Machinery to,place said material, construction
of the termrnal grolhand" anchor section, and the staging and transportation ofoonsthiction matierials. together with the
Nght0f fnVress anal PgresVfdr such Work. Grantee may use the gesernentArea to evaluate, survey,
inspect, COnstruct, pres&rve,- peikol, protect. operate,, maintain rep8lir, rehabilitate j,and replace-apublic beach, Od4ne
tYttem;4riOpther,e*!,t)n.ddt,lfrol.tlhdstotm:damageredqcUbnMeasures.int:lucringth6construcrionpf.21,.tgir,,mfp RFQ[
and its a§sociatedshDre anchorage system together with appurtenariemthereto, including the rightto (a)Aepasit sand;
(6) accompIlWPqyaltdraV06srPf Contours on said land;constiuct,40rms and dunes:':(0) nourish and re -nourish
periodically,- (d). move, AtOMend f6ffiWe :eCiUiprftbnt and supplies; (e): peff
on any other work necessary. and incident W
thP-, doffstniction, and rn0intddbiIc6 of.the!Proj
ect (0 plant vegetation oft:8dild dunes and bqirmS;,
(g), erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand f6rices: (h , - � - ) facliltAte Preservation ofdunes and vegetation through
the limitation ofaccess tadune. areas; (!), trim, cut; ,fOJl, and remove from sal.d1prid all tma% und6ibrugh, dabris,
obstructions, and ft.;Iother vegetation,; structures and '--
obIstacles Whin the, bogrideriesof-the, Non -Exclusive Easement
Area that WO-Utd,1110def the: above described go ie% and 0), forild'Vall.of-the terminal g(Pini in its, entirety il.directedby
Order Of -the U: $ ArMY qorps- of.8rigineers; Gran bwagmes not td, convey any other easement Whigh. would impaderthe
PWPOSeofft NonyFxolutl* 5agernentgranted herein,
Grantor also conveys and grants to Grantee a(ion.-ekdlUslVea6CeSS Oas6rftefitacross tbq%siOA setback of each
lot area of the above -described property f& the purpose of PerMilting, Gran tee inspection and, if necessary,
observation, malglenance, And repair of the Gpafitae'srk, and
wo aotfvltles:vnthiln the non-exclusive easerp9pt
arpa,loffia
event that the, norf-exrIus.1ve easement area aridlor the non-exclusive access easement desbritbedbere[R [s no longer
being used and
deemed necessary f6r" purposes specifically related totheTOrnllrat Groin P' r q 6 I dt, th&:right,5 granted
herein to Grantee- shalftormijoatef a _nd, this non-exclusive�easerne qnqIqrIherfo o.-aXqtU$Ive easernentarea shall. be no
lon0erof any effept,
Granteeassures Grantor that Grantee shall contiactuallIr recluke all of Graniteifs contractors and subcontractors
to provide -and main(pift full lfeij?illity insurance coverage -to protectand indemnify'fi 6
Grantee and Ora t r. Grantee shall

Cif
IIIIIII IIIIi 11111llllll lllill11111111 a3s» TC31em0 ons 20i021
PROP
Brunswick County, NC Register of Deeds page 3 of B
In the event the Terminal Groin Project permitting and Groin construction has not been initiated within two years
from the signing of this non-exclusive easement, this Agreement in its entirety shall be no longer of any effect.
There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used
without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid non-exclusive easement (including non-exclusive access easement)
and all privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and its successors and assigns for the life of
the terminal groin project. With the express written approval of the Grantor, or their heirs or successors, Grantee shall
have the right to temporarily or permanently assign this non-exclusive easement in its entirety to the federal, state or
county governments, or any agency or department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement
beach re -nourishment or stabilization of the beach within the Town.
AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to
convey this non-exclusive easement and that the property is free from encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this Non -Exclusive Easement the day and year
first above written in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all constituting only one
agreement.
DW Legacy Assets, LLC
0
Manager
LW Legac Assets, LLC
Bpi, `
anager
(SEAL)
113 EC' EIVEG
GCM WILMINGTON, NO
JUN 1 0 2016

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
IIIIIIIIlllfllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIII a3s�? a eaa ohi PROP
z 021
Brunswick County, -NC Register of Deeds page 4 of 6.
a Notary Public of the aforesald County and State; do hereby, certify that
Manager of DW Legacy Assets, LLC, a limited liability company, personally appeared
before.me this day and acknowledged the due executionof the foregoing instrument in the capacity indicated herein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal; this
My commission expires:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF &4,jj rS'--
day of .2015.
Notary Public
I, jJ12� Lnn t .oema. , a Notary Public of the aforesaid Countyand state, do hereby certify that
LQ ha. Ki, l) c+mso i , Manager of LW Legacy Assets, LLC, a limited liability company, personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the, due execution of the foregoing instrument in the capacity, indicated herein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this 14Nay of, 2015.
Moat), LMA (hg! , Notary Public
My commission expires: . _ )b `�pnnmm�
c = _ kY ()
<o O w
O�4z

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA '011-1,7-2 . 00 5
to. ; _'sj� 02i
QPUNTYOF' r4nswick C&MV, )NO ReR4�4*r of"D d em"401,6,, G PROP
, � Deeds P;�Eje
A Notary P , ub-lic of the aforesaid CPU* and State; do hereby certify. that
Manager of OW Legacy Assets, LUG.,.; -appeared
q JjMI(qd.I!a�jrJfy,,0Qmpany,, pet6ondll
bdforpMp.}his day-o.nd,aqk-nowledgedthe' due eX6t%fidmofthe'fbre q[ngfnstrum
9 ant In the c6p4ci6iffidiceted fibraln.
Witness MY ITIAndand notarial seal; this —day -- d f
1 wo,
—i,Notary. Public
My commission expires-
StATF3OFNORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF-&-lu s--
ML 1w An &ma. i.6NbtaryPubIiq0fthaafbresa' id Gburity- and State, do hereby certify that
lj-.soi Manager of LWLeggcy,-Asse§-,, LLO, a 11MRed liability COMPSDY;. personally appeared before:
methis 0ey-enderU"Iedgpd tha.-du9-eXddUfl0'n,6f thie4brOogilng Instrum6ntin the indicated,
--1. 1 . yherein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this Ljf-day of 45we . .:zn5.
My commission expires:

W /
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I B3671 R1 I mmo�s 2m'PRop
Brunswick County, NC Register of Deeds page 5 of 6
In the event the Terminal Groin Project permitting and Groin construction has not been initiated within two years
from the signing of this non-exclusive easement, this Agreement in its entirety shall be no longer of any effect.
There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used
without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid non-exclusive easement (including non-exclusive access easement)
and all privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and its successors and assigns for the life of
the terminal groin project. With the express written approval of the Grantor, or their heirs or successors, Grantee shall
have the right to temporarily or permanently assign this non-exclusive easement in its entirety to the federal, state or
county governments, or any agency or department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement
beach re -nourishment or stabilization of the beach within the Town.
AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to
convey this non-exclusive easement and that the property is free from encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this Non -Exclusive Easement the day and year
first above written in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all constituting only one
agreement.
DW Legady ts,
By: SEAL
Manager
LW Legacy Assets, LLC
By: (SEAL)
Manager
iEGt=tt/EG
DCiJt WILMINGTON, NC
JuN 1 0 'c016

STATE OF LAWNORTH CARO�LInNA II IIIII IIIII III II II IIII illlll II I II III 1 17 P3042 m ons 201
PROP
lV COUNTY OF :.iAi yy( Brunswick County, NC Register of Deeds page 6 of 6
I^, twN �'tWl aS- , a Notary Public of the aforesaid County and State, do hereby certify that
� mot 1ItL1UaM5D6 Manager of DW Legacy Assets, LLC, a limited liability company, personally appeared
before me -this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument in the capacity indicated herein.
Witness my hand' and notarial seal„thl' I day of 5�1ALjT, 2015.
d�P� �W Ad4W-�
'i'L G-WI11I(el4tS:NotaryPubllc
A 4.
My commission expires: (e 2a . 'Z NOTARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
PUB%-\0
a Notary Public of the aforesaid County and State, do hereby certify that
Manager of LW Legacy Assets, LLC, a limited liability company, personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument in the capacity indicated herein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal,. this _:day of 2015.
Notary Public
My commission expires:,

STATE OF Nbftmi CAROLINA.
doumlyoo, kwt6mVv(
-CUM
bob PROP
-Ar.tin-iiijelc County, NO' ReOlaterl cl Deede. pa-qq A, O.i
a NptaryL PqIplic of the qfpTp4qjd County and State, do hereby certify that
Manager of DVV LeapOy Assets, LUC, Olin eqliabil.!tToompany,petsohgyappoared
before methisd6ygrida6knowledged the doe execution of the
forego 1pq r in trurgent In the.mpa&W indicated herafri,
Witness my hand arid, ridt6nal seal, . th!O±day0�, 3015:
lwaq public
My Qdmml§slOft McplrWl
,61AT9 OF NORTH. CAROLINA
COUNIYOF
a NblarY. PUbiloof the afdrassfd Cow,* and State, Oohereby certify Itrat
Manager of LW Legady Assets, LLC, a rimited liability, qQMpany, personally appeared before
me thl5 day and a4*nQwl04q00.jhq0Imp execution ofthe foregoing, irstrument in cap
acity
jt,y Inclicateditarbiri.
witn&§s my tfand and notarial seal., thtp _ day of` 2015.
NotAry Public
My,pornmisift molr6W.

tzl
02-70-20t6
44,24 GOO
Brunswick County, NC Register DeedspageIns PROP
Preset l—Ret:
:.I Total _ C P Rev Int.
Ck$ Ck#fCash$
Refund: Cssl i u _ Finance
❑ Potions Of Cocuclmt are il:,;ue cue to condition
of original.
11 Document contains seals vanfrd h original
inelrament that cannot be ragrcdcced or toped.
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BRUNSW ICK
THIS NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, made this 13th day of October, 2015, by and between The Point
OIB, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTOR," and
Town of Ocean Isle Beach, a North Carolina municipal corporation, Three West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC
28469, hereinafter, whether one or more, referred to as "GRANTEE":
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Grantee is undertaking a Terminal Groin Project within the Town to help control
erosion and protect waterfront lots, and
WHEREAS, in order to properly construct and complete the project, it is necessary for Grantee to
acquire certain non-exclusive easements for said project from affected property owners; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain tract of land located in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick
County, North Carolina, as more particularly shown and described on a survey attached hereto as Exhibit A ; and
WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that they will also benefit from said project; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has requested and Grantor has agreed to convey the necessary non-exclusive
easement to Grantee to enable it to undertake said project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for a valuable consideration, including the benefits Grantor may
derive from said project, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does give, grant,
bargain, dedicate and convey unto the Grantee and its successors and assigns an irrevocable and non -assignable
(except as specifically stated herein), non-exclusive easement and right-of-way in, on, over, through and across the land
hereinafter described for the use by the Grantee and its' representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers,
consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, and assigns. The non-exclusive easement area shall be that
property as shown on the Survey attached hereto as Exhibit A. DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 1 0 2016

02-10-0016
'BrI11wi!1kCloultyll.1NC11R,e1gist1er B3735aP0!At
Mm ns. PROP
Grantor also. conveys and grants to Grantee: a non-exclusive access easement across portion of the above -
described property as specified on Exhibit A for the purpose of permitting. Grantee's inspection and, if necessary,
observation, maintenance and repair of the Grantee's work and activities within the non-exclusive easement area ( the
"Non -Exclusive Access Easement'). In the event that Grantee no longer uses or needs the non-exclusive easement
areas described herein for purposes related to the Terminal Groin Project, the rights granted herein to Grantee.shall
terminate and this non-exclusive easementshall be no longer of any effect.
This non-exclusive.easement is granted for the purpose of allowing Grantee to use the Non -Exclusive Easement
Area for the placement of beach.compatible material, utilization of heavy machinery -to place said material, construction
of the terminal groin and anchor section, and the staging and transportation of construction materials.together with the
right of ingress and egress for such work. Grantee may use the Non -Exclusive Easement Area: to evaluate, survey,
inspect, construct, preserve, patrol, protect,, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace a public beach, a dune
system, and other erosion control and storm damage reduction measures including the construction of a terminal groin
and its associated shore anchorage system together with appurtenances thereto,; Including the right to (a) deposit sand;
(b) accomplish any alterations of contours on:said land; construct berms and dunes; (c) nourish and re -nourish
,periodically; (d) move, store and remove equipment and supplies during the construction phase; (e)perform any other
work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic re=nourishment and maintenance of the Project; (f) plant
vegetation on said dunes and berms; (g) erect, maintain and remove silt screens and sand fences; (h) facilitate
preservation of dunes and vegetation through the limitation of -access to dune areas;' (1) trim, cut, fell, and remove from
said land all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles within the
boundaries of the Non -Exclusive. Easement Area that would hinder the above described activities,, and 0) removal of the
terminal groin in Its entirety if directed. by order of the U. S'Army Corps of Engineers. Grantor agrees not to convey any
other easementwhich would interfere with the Non -Exclusive Easement granted herein.
Grantee assures: Grantor that it will contractually require all of Grantee's contractors and subcontractors to
provide and maintain liability insurance coverage to protect and, indemnify Grantee and Grantor.
There is reserved, however, to the Grantor, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be
used without interfering with or abridging the rights and'easement hereby acquired..
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid non-exclusive easement (Including non-exclusive access easement) and
all privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging to the Grantee and Its successors and assigns for the life of the
terrriinal.groin project: With the express written approval of the Grantor, or their heirs or successors, Grantee. shall have

0 4,000
!13f clo'lid-ons. PROP
Brunswick iiii Rqgis 2
'GrjMt9T also MIMOYS' and 9!ant$ t0-Grantea, 9 nCin4*c(U9LVe d6tesaeasement acrdss-a portion of the above_
described property as spea)fjed on Exhibit A far the purpose of permitting. Grantees inspection and, ifnece sary,
observation, npintepance an repair he0rantea
swork and activities -Within the non exclusive. easement area { the
'Non-ExpWsiva-Appe": Easibmenf.), In the -event that Grantee no longer uses at, needs the non-exclusive easement:
areas described herein for purposes related to the Terminal Orblfti`66166f, the flghtbr, granted herein to Grantee shall
terminate and this rion-excluelve vasament,,shall, :be no kriger of any effect;
This non-exclusive. easement is granted for-thapurpose of allowing Grantee to use th& Moh7EXAsiveE6sement
-Area for-theplacement of beach:compatib r ie.mate !at uti(tzbtlarj of heavy modhinerY40, P1006 said material, construction
of the terminal groin and anchor section, and the p1pglino anal tra di4flonof colistiuotion MateelilsJogether with ; the
right,of ingress andegress for such work. Grantee M !late, AUNAY,
may use the Nqn-Exclusive E�semj.�nt-Ardgijo:ovaj
inspect;_ construct; preserve; patrol, protect;, operate; maintain, rep4k, rehaVililat%andreplapa.7a, pilujblarbeach, adune-
Aystan;"and otmterdsfoh cbritr6f and storm dama areductlo meapoirmInplpfflo n g the construction of alorm I pal groin
and its associated shore anchorage systerrilogotherwith
jb) acroMprish. any alterations nUcanictifs dritald lanq, construct berm and dunev (a) nourish and .reRpurfsh
parlo, olcally; (0) move, store and, remove equipmonrondAupplies; dUrtqgth0,cbns.trucUon: phase; (0)perform arryothor
Work necessary and incident to the c.ons.trUcffon,,IYerfodicr6.-n6ilri§hriiLiht, and inalritefibrice of the Prbjecf;; (f) plant
vagetallort art said dunes arid berms; (Q) arectj maintain and remove -silt screens arid sand - fe n 6 as ; (b y fa a I I itate
preoeryptio,ii, of'duqes and .vegetation through the -limitation of -access to d0ho areas; (1) inert, aut, fell, bridrernove *am
said land all, trees, underbrush, debrip,_ obstructionsi and onyOftr vegetation, structures and obstacles within the
boundaries of the Non -Exclusive: EasernentAreafhat would hinder the above described activities,, and (j)removal of the
terminal groin- In its.entirety if directed by order of, the V &- Army Qqrps, of Engineers. GranJor' agreas riorlo convey any
other oasem eht, which would interfere with the Non -Exclusive Easement gra-pted herein.. n
Grantee assures. Grantor that it, will contractually reqgire, all of Grantee's pontractgrs an.tj. Aubc pritractonvto.
praividoaft6maintain HaMiltyinsurance coverage.to protect and, Indempify0jantee aridG
I - rantor*,
There is reserved, hoWoVer,16 the Grantor,. their tielm and assigns, all such rights and p r)VII 6 0 so. = 4 s Tqay 4er,
used without interfering with drabridging; the rights ericleasementhereby acquired..
TO HAVE AND. TO HOLE-) theaforesaid non-exclusive easement (including non-exclu access o..asemoriV,
and
all privileges, and appuildqarices thaitedhto belonging to the. Grantee and Its successors.: and assigns for the, lffe�of the
terminal groin prqj!ect. With the express written approval of the Grantor, or their heirs or. 's qcces$ors, Grantee, shal(have

Kl�
IIIII IIIII II► IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIII II III Brend M. Cl 10!44morons 241
6.000
PROP
Brunswick County, NC Register of Deeds page 3 of 4
the right to temporarily or permanently assign this non-exclusive easement to the federal, state or county governments,
or any agency or department thereof or any other governmental authority formed to implement beach re -nourishment or
stabilization of the beach within the Town.
AND the Grantor covenants with the Grantee that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to
convey this non-exclusive easement and that the property is free from encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto executed this Non -Exclusive Easement the day and year
first above written.
The PoJp' 00071:1 C
By: SEAL)
Hager
STATE OF GOLXL( CAROLINA
COUNTY OF¢.t2
I, -war 2L7TR A . Hap- it , a Notary Public of the aforesaid County and State, do hereby certify that
T I� wit �- Manager of The Point OIB, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument in the capacity indicated
herein.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this day of �L, 2015.
My commission expires: r - ZB- La y K
RECtei/ED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUN 1 0 2016

oz-tm zma
II11111111111111111�IIIIIIIIIII111111 83135 M.P@126 Clem ors: PR9P
Brunswick Coun y; ,NC Register of Deeds page of 4
A.
�o Sg g
9 IS
112
ImwmrtaP.WAr 1
fill
51
A� a
5 ' €Eq
5qq� t e
Se \ 1 R _ 6 _
AAA t a ���Q
PIS e T Sig199HP if
4
1.
tT� t x
5 '�'__•_ -� C Airr? d t>-
W.0 y „•
FI - �CO,
�1yh
O C) T S��
pq S}$® el 0 O
I $
>
Id �'i ; - E�• I [C.' r) tam: C>•� ! x d C�sgggga'J3$
t j €qq�FI xl n z H `< O rn C c _5m.g
e 2 P '1 It gip al t�`}gjppF z.XK< E. 9yg58�F�
14
Fs3SIB
�R��
a I S��
pp PxwEClF. I9m16 -.. GSFAfENfS11RVEY EOx: p
U CAMOFISdC13' }•Gt
3 mwxsxw suunrre
nAM m RMW1M KRGINM ALMA i LEMMSON,, TRUSTEE
r SGte T-Im aSY Coast Engi g & Surveying, PC & OIBHOLDINGS.LLC
9 _ NE ENGINEERS• ER5•SURYEYORS
TAK Im SULNO]f 31t3AHn3uvol Tvr;flmJldvlr APOKRONOPTIix IAi•WUALMDx10EE0 x00K 1I3), PAOEWI
�. MWNUV: C69 Pp,l arce.�sUr ( - rsslva3mn
_ SMaM.HUNCvo4gmW mnue.eerA.wvwoli

J#i6027"' 20 ar
1 -3 'a !0;4,4--g4�!10
iaijs R!Qp
Brun u -yj:NCRdj3lsterl of Qgqos ipapp; 4 6f
4 ,4
PRio
alo
a
— = =4oun .QD..0 — — — — — —
'IF., 7, "
4r
o

k,
LEGEND:
PARCELS O EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 124
w O 5OFT. CONSTRUCTION BUFFER EASEMENT PARCELS
SHEET PILE ACCRETION FILLET
® TERMINAL GROIN
1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83).
2.2012 BACKGROUND IMAGERY IS FROM THE
NC ONEMAP IMAGERY SERVICE.
U
Lu
n
0
U ( J
Z W
w0�
m � Q
Lu
_j LU
Lr
h Z
z wRLU
aaw
w
UZ4
J W
W
w
O
2
rn
ATLANTIC
3EGr__�VEU
�o o;
DCM WILMINGTON,
NC
a m':
U °n'
JUN 1
0 L016
R;
St
DATE:
04N 0115
9Y:
ALS
0 200
400
COMM NO.'
= Feet
147426

MEMORANDUM
To: Heather Coats
From: Michael Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner
Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Applicati , — Town of
Ocean Isle Beach, Groin/Shoreline Protection Project, Ocean Isle
Beach, Brunswick County
Date: September 28, 2016
This project is consistent and not in conflict with the Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan
Update.
The applicant is proposing to construct a terminal groin at the east end of Ocean Isle
Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) impacted by the proposal are IHA, OEA, PT
and EW. Waters at the project site are classified as SA/SB and are not open to the
harvesting of shellfish. The area is not a Primary Nursery Area.
I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan
and offer the following comments.
The general area of the project is classified as no classification
In general, Ocean Isle Beach allows development in AECs, which is consistent with the
State's minimum use standards. The Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan contains some
policies, which exceed the State's minimum use standards. However, none of these
standards appear to be applicable to this proposal.
This project appears to be consistent with the Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan update.
Cc: File

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Dan Sams
District Manager
DEMLR - WiRO
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
JUN 4 2010
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(o).ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA/D&F Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Project Location: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 7, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes/
�n r; r�are
l incorporated.
See attached. 1; one_ ocr',_ or o"arit- .�/m_cl "a d;-SA)"J�
a„baJG 44k S1,sf /i.+l oT 9"/t-VA,p, f.Aw a►A, eras;*^ 4Za.p:..�a..} ".I'DI a-.L s7t/nw).7aY ap py
of� rc�cssar�
This agency Cbjects to the project fdr reasons described in the attached comme%ssp
SIGNED DATE ` 712e 16
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NO
Nothing Compares?� JUN 2 8 2016
State ofNoM Carolina I Em,wonmenlal Quality; Conical Management
127 Cardinal Drive Eo L, Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

©'
Ni
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
August 11, 2016
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Attn: Mayor Debbie Smith
3 West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrehuy
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Direclor
DWR # 15-0220 v2
Brunswick County
Subject: Approval of Individual 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin & Shoreline Management Project
USACE Action ID. No. SAW-2011-01241
Dear Mayor Smith:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 4069 issued to Mayor Debbie Smith and Ocean Isle
Beach, dated August 11, 2016. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before proceeding with the subject project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. This Certification can be
contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150E by filing a written petition for an
administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within sixty
(60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at htto://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding official state
holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within fiIVED
business days following the faxed transmission. DCMWILMINGTON, NC
AUG 19 2016
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

I
Ocean Isle BeaA
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Individual Certification #4069
Page 2 of 8
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to Department of Environmental Quality:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Unless such a petition is filed, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This certification completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act
and 15A NCAC 02H .0500. Please contact Chad Coburn at 910-796-7379 or
[e-mail] or Jennifer Burdette at 919-807-6364 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409
Greg Finch, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409
Heather Coats, NC DEQ-DCM, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405
USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Todd Bowers, EPA, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
DWR WiRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
RECEIVED
Filename: 150220v2OceanlsleBeachTerminalGroi WW_�*'OlQtJ.dN&
AUG 19 2016

Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 2 of 8
If sending via delivery service (UPS, Fed Ex, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to Department of Environmental Quality:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Unless such a petition is filed, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This certification completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act
and 15A NCAC 02H .0500. Please contact Chad Coburn at 910-796-7379 or
[e-mail] or Jennifer Burdette at 919-807-6364.or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or concerns.
I.-----1..
Karen rugglns,,)upervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409 .
Greg Finch, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409
USACE'Wilm ngton Regulatory Field Office
Todd Bowers, EPA, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303,
DWR WiRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
RECEIVED
Filename: 150220v2Ocea nlsle BeachTerminalGroiQPA)MIMQTQ�.dU
AUG 1 9, 2016

Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 3 of 8
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION #4069 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws
92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina's Regulations in 15 NCAC
02H .0500, to Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who have authorization for the
impacts listed below, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water
Resources (Division) on July 12, 2016 and subsequent information on April 29, 2016 and by Public
Notice issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and received by the Division on January 23,
2015. „
The State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and general
conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental
impacts. [15A NCAC 02B .0506(b)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved (units)
Amount Approved (units)
Permanent
Temporary
Open Waters
82.8 (acres)
0 (acres)
(dredging)
Open Waters (fill)
0.63 (acres) terminal groin
0.43 (acres) trestle
12.3 (acres) sand fillet
construction
2. The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be exceeded as
described in 15 A NCAC 02B .0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must
be used to meet this standard.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
AUG 1 a 2%

Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 4 of 8
3. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a hydrocarbon
or chemical spill, the permitee/contractor shall immediately contact the Division of Water
Resources, between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington Regional Office at 910-
796-7215 and after hours and on weekends call [phone]. Management of such spills
shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances
Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f), and GS 143
Article 21A]
4. Construction Moratoriums and Coordination
If activities must occur during periods of high biological activity (i.e. sea turtle nesting, fish
spawning, or bird nesting), then biological monitoring may be required at the request of
other state or federal agencies and coordinated with these activities.
All moratoriums on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impacts on trout, anadromous
fish, larval/post-larval fishes and crustaceans, or other aquatic species of concern shall be
implemented. Exceptions to this condition require written approval by the resource agency
responsible for the given moratorium.
Work within identified state or federal endangered or threatened species habitat shall be
coordinated with the appropriate WRC, USFWS, NMFS, and/or DMF personnel.
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification for this
project. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and
maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are
enforceable parts of this permit. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
6. Sediment and Erosion Control
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices and if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and
requirements of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit issued to the site: [15A NCAC
02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
RECENETON,NC
DCM V0LMW4G
WU 19 ZA

Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 3 of 8
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION #4069 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws
92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina's Regulations in 15 NCAC
02H .0500, to Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who have authorization for the
impacts listed below, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water
Resources (Division) on July 12, 2016 and subsequent information on April 29, 2016 and by Public
Notice issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and received by the Division on January 23,
2015.
The State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below.
Conditions of Certification:
Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and general
conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental
impacts. [15A NCAC 02B .0506(b)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved (units)
Amount Approved (units)
Permanent
Temporary
Open Waters
82.8 (acres)
0 (acres)
(dredging)
Open Waters (fill)
0.63 (acres) terminal groin
0.43 (acres) trestle
12.3 (acres) sand fillet
construction
2. The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be exceeded as
described in 15 A NCAC 02B .0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must
be used to meet this standard.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
AUG 19 2016

Ocean Isle Beach
DW R# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 5 of 8
a. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal or exceed the requirements specified in the
most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The
devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile
(spoil) projects, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of
the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
c. Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the
Mining Act of 1971.
d. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control
measures and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
e. For PNA, SA, WS-I, WI -II, HQW, ORW waters. The sediment and erosion control
designs must comply with the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 04B .0124 Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters.
Exceptions to this condition require application submittal to and written approval by the
Division. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, then design and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands, stream beds, or banks,
adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above structures. All sediment and erosion
control devices shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two (2) months of
the date that the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) or locally
delegated program has released the specific area within the project. [15A NCAC 02H .0501
and .0502]
8. Construction Stormwater Permit NCG010000
An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required for construction projects that disturb
one (1) or more acres of land. This Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land
disturbing construction activities as stipulated in the conditions of the permit. If your project
is covered by this permit, full compliance with permit conditions including the erosion &
sedimentation control plan, inspections and maintenance, self -monitoring, record keeping
and reporting requirements is required. A copy of the general permit (NCGO10000),
inspection log sheets, and other information may be found at:
htto://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wcl/ws/su/npdessw#tab-w. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5) and
(c)(5)]
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, INC
AUG 19 2016

f
Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 6 of 8
9. Work in the Dry
All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does
not come in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the
most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams,
and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
10. If concrete is used during the construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to
prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water
that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state
due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life/fish kills. [15A NCAC 02B .0200]
11. All temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted area returned to natural
conditions, within 60 days of the determination that the temporary impact is no longer
necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade, including each stream's
original cross sectional dimensions, plan form pattern, and longitudinal bed and bed profile,
and the various sites shall be stabilized with natural woody vegetation (except approved
maintenance areas) and restored to prevent erosion. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)
12. All temporary pipes/culverts/riprap pads etc, shall be installed in all streams as outlined in the
most recent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual so as not to restrict stream flow or cause dis-equilibrium. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)
and (c)(2)]
13. Any riprap required for proper culvert placement, stream stabilization, or restoration of
temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved
construction activity. All riprap shall be buried and/or "keyed in" such that the original stream
elevation and streambank contours are restored and maintained. Placement of riprap or other
approved materials shall not result in de -stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or
downstream of the area. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
14. Any riprap used for stream stabilization shall be of a size and density to prevent movement by
wave action, current action, or stream flows and consist of clean rock or masonry material free
of debris or toxic pollutants. Riprap shall not be installed in the streambed except in specific
areas required for velocity control and to ensure integrity of bank stabilization measures. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON. NC
AUG 19 2016

Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 6 of 8
9. Work in the Dry
All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does
not come in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the
most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags; rock berms, cofferdams,
and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
10. If concrete is used during the construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to
prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water
that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state
due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life/fish kills. [15A NCAC 02B .02001
11. All temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted area returned to natural
conditions, within 60 days of the determination that the temporary impact is no longer
necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade, including each stream's
original cross sectional dimensions, plan form pattern, and longitudinal bed and bed profile,
and the various sites shall be stabilized with natural woody vegetation (except approved
maintenance areas) and restored to prevent erosion. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)
12. All temporary pipes/culverts/riprap pads etc, shall be installed in all streams as outlined in the
most, recent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual so as not to restrict stream flow or cause dis-equilibrium. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)
and (c)(2)]
13. Any riprap required for proper culvert placement, stream stabilization, or restoration of
temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved
construction activity. All riprap shall be buried and/or "keyed in" such that the original stream
elevation and streambank contours are restored and maintained. Placement of riprap or other
approved materials shall not result in de -stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or
downstream of the area. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
14. Any riprap used for stream stabilization shall be of a size and density to prevent movement by
wave action, current action, or stream flows and consist of clean rock or masonry material free
of debris or toxic pollutants. Riprap shall 'not be installed in the streambed except in specific
areas required for velocity control and to ensure integrity of bank stabilization measures. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]

Ocean Isle Beach
DWR# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 5 of
a. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal or exceed the requirements specified in the
most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The
devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile
.(spoil) projects, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of
the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
c. Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the
Mining Act of 1971.
d. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control
measures and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site, at all times.
e. For PNA, SA, WS-I, WI -II, HQW, ORW waters. The sediment and erosion control
designs must comply with the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 04B .0124 Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters.
Exceptions to this condition require application submittal to and written approval by the
Division. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, then design and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands; stream beds, or banks,
adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above structures. All sediment and erosion
control devices shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two (2) months of
the date that the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) or locally
delegated program has released the specific area within the project. [15A NCAC 02H .0501
and .0502]
8. Construction Stormwater Permit NCG010000
An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required for construction projects that disturb
one (1) or more acres of land. This Permit allows stormwaterto be discharged during land
disturbing construction activities as stipulated in the conditions of the permit. If your project
is covered by this permit, full compliance with permit conditions including the erosion &
sedimentation control plan, inspections and maintenance, self -monitoring, record keeping
and reporting requirements is required. A copy of the general permit (NCG010000),
inspection log sheets, and other information may be found at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/npdessw#tab-w. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5) and
(c)(5)]

Ocean Isle Beach
DW R# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 7 of 8
15. A one-time application of fertilizer tore -establish vegetation is allowed in disturbed areas
including riparian buffers, but is restricted to no closer than.10 feet from top of bank of
streams. Any fertilizer application must comply with all other Federal; State and Local
regulations. [15A NCAC 02,6 .0231]
16. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all other
required Federal, State, or Local approvals.
17. Continuing Compliance
Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach shall conduct construction activities in a
manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting
from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate
requirements of State and Federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State
or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance,
the Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification. Before modifying the Certification,
the Division shall notify Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0503 and provide
opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0504. Any new or revised
conditions shall be provided to Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach in writing,
shall be provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404
Permit for the project.
18. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application and as described in
the Public Notice. The plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are an enforceable part of the Certification. If you change your project, you must notify
the Division and you may be required to submit a new application package with the
appropriate fee. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and is responsible for complying with all conditions. Any new owner must notify
the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and
.0502]
19. The applicant and/or authorized agent shall provide a completed Certificate of Completion
Form to the DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch within ten days of project completion
(available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/swp/ws/401/certsandpermits/apply/forms).
[15A NCAC 02H .0502(f)]
20. This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the
Director, or DEQ staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property
during normal business hours. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(e)]

. V,
Ocean Isle Beath
DW R# 15-0220 J2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 8 of 8
This approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit. The
conditions in effect ,on'the, date, of issuance shall remain in effect for thelifeof the project,
regardless of the expiration date of this Certification,
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth may result in revocation of
this Certification and may also result in criminal and/or civil penalties.
Thisthe11th day of August 2016
�-F�+ \
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/jab

Ocean Isle Beath
DW # 1$-0220 V2
Individual Certificiltion 4W,-,
page 8 Qf 8
NS aPprOvarto
depicted - - - proceed With Your proposed impacts or to conduct irnpacts.to waters.
in your a I pplicatiOn $hall o xpi I re (10- on
Conditions in effect; on'the, date ofissu explrat'Orl Of the 4.0.4,br 6MA
anceshallrenna' Permit: The
regardless of the ekpiration date . Of this Certification. In in effect far the, fife Of'the project,
Non-compliance with or violation . e w . , atlonofthecondljtcnshere, this CertiffCafion and may als ' re It In set f00 MaY result, in revocation. of
0 sU criminal and/or civil Penalties.
KAH/Jab
M
Als the 11th day of
Ka ren, H !!b*lnsS14pen
401 ,
erm-)ttlng grphch

WaterResources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Em
August 11, 2016
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Attn: Mayor Debbie Smith
3 West Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
PAT MCCRORY
riovernof
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Senetary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
DbeGlor
DWR # 15-0220 0
Brunswick County
Subject: Approval of Individual 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin & Shoreline Management Project
USACE Action ID. No. SAW-2011-01241
Dear Mayor Smith
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No, 4069 issued to Mayor Debbie Smith and Ocean Isle
Beach, dated August 11, 2016. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before proceeding with the subject project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. This Certification can be
contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150.8 by filing a written petition for an
administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within sixty
(60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed When the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding official state
holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at (919) 4,31-3100, provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.
Slate of North Carolina I Erwin n ncruit Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 907 6300

i
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
.Ocean Isle Beach
DW R# 15-0220 v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 2 of 8
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc)
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to Department of Environmental quality:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-,1601
Unless such a petition is filed, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This certification completes the -review. of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act
and 15A NCAC 02H .0500. Please contact Chad Coburn at 910-796-7379 or
[e-mail] or Jennifer Burdetteat 919-807-6364 or
[e-mail] have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning &' Engineering of NC; Inc,, 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409
Greg Finch, Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc., 4038 Masonboro Loop Road,
Wilmington, NC 28409
Heather Coats, NC DEQ-DCM, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405
USACE Wilmington Regulatory. Field Office
Todd Bowers, EPA, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
DWR WIRO401 file
DWR 401 &.Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename:'150220v2OceanIsfeBeachTermina]Groin,(Brunswick) 401_IC,docx

Mailing ad d ress for the OAH:
Ifsending Wa USPostalService:
Office of; Admmisteativd Hearings
6.71,4Mail .SeF.vjce Center
Raleigh, NC27699-6714-,
Oman Jsle �Beach
OWR# 15-,0220 V2
indivfdoal Certlfl 4004009
Rage Z of 8
If sending via delivery service -(UPS, FedEx -., etc).
Office of AdministiratiVe Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Rqleigfi, NC 27609-6285
Qne (1) Copy Of the petition must also be served to; Department of Environmental.
nv orip I al Quality!
Sam K Hayeis, Gerferal. Counsel
Department of Environmental Qualit
1.601.Mail Service CarLt&
Raleigh, NC27695-,1601
Unlesssuch a petition is filed, this Certification sh9lI be final and bifiding.
This certification completes the reVidW.0f the O'WiSiorfunder- Section 401 of the Clean MterAct
arid. ISA NCAC 02H. :050.0, Please contact Chad Coburn ,at9lo-79E-7379or
chad,coburnPncdenr.gavorJenT,li.ferBufd'ett6atgl9-807-6$64or
ienriif6r.btirdetter&ncdenr.kovifyou have, any questions .or coricierns.
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Cc! Bnad Rom Coastal: Planning &.Engineering of NC, Inc:, 4038 Masonbo.-M Ldbp Road,
Wil, gtpn; NC2a,4.09
Greg Finch, Coastal Planning 9tEngineering of KC, Inc., 4088 Masonbbro Loop Road,
Wilmingtoo, RC-'29409
Heather Coats,.NC DEC-DCM,127 Ci4rdfrial Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405
USAGE W11WngtOrl. Regulatory Field Office.
Todd Bowers,,. EFA,.5.jqrjT Nunn Federal Centers 61 Forsyth Street SW,, Atlanta; GA 30303
bWk WiRO 401 file
DWR 401 & BufferVermitfirig Branch file
Filename:'15022Dv2O.ceanlsteSeachTerWinalGro!R(Brunswicky__401.IC.docx

Ocean Isle Beach
D W R# 15-0220 v2.
Individual Certification 94069
Page 3 of
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION #4069 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws
92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina's Regulations in 15 NCAC
02H .0500, to Mayor Debbie Smith and Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who have authorization for the
impacts listed below, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water
Resources (Division) on July 12, 2016 and subsequent information on April 29, 2016 and by Public
Notice issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and received by the Division on January 23,
2015.
The State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of
Sections 301, 302, 303,'306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and general
conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental
impacts. [15A NCAC 02B .0506(b)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved (units)
Amount Approved (units)
Permanent
Temporary
Open Waters
82.8 (acres)
0 (acres)
(dredging)
Open Waters (fill)
0.63 (acres) terminal groin
0.43 (acres) trestle
12.3 (acres) sand fillet
construction
2. The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be exceeded as
described in 15 A NCAC 02B .0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must
be used to meet this standard.

Ocean Isle. Beach
DWR# 15-0220v2
Individual Certification #4069
Page 4 of S
3. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a hydrocarbon
or chemical spill, the permitee/contractor shall immediately contact the Division of Water
Resources, between. the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington Regional Office at 930-
796-7215 and after hours and on weekends call [phone]. Management of such spills
shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances
Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f), and GS 143
Article 21A]
4. Construction Moratoriums and Coordination
If activities must occur during periods of high biological activity (i.e..sea turtle nesting; fish
spawning, or bird nesting), then biological monitoring may be required at the request of
other state or federalagencies and coordinated with these activities.
All.moratoriums on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife, Resources
Commission (WRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impacts on trout, anadromous
fish, larval/post-larval fishes and crustaceans, or other aquatic species of concern shall be
implemented. Exceptions to this condition require written approval by the resource agency
responsible for the given moratorium.
Work within identified state or federal endangered orthreatened species habitat shall be
coordinated with the appropriate WRC, USFWS, NMFS, and/or DMF personnel.
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification for this
project.. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and
maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are
enforceable parts of this permit. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
6. Sediment and Erosion Control
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices and if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and
requirements of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit issued to the site: [15A NCAC
0214 .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]

Ocearvisle Beach
DWR# 15-0220,v2
- Individual Certification 44069
._Page 4 of 8
3. R(I mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly
inspected and_maintain ed to prevent contamination of waters and, wetlands from fuels,,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic, chemicals: In the eventofa hydrocarbon
orcf.emical spill, the permitee/contractor sba,ll immediately contact,the Division of Water
Resources; between the hours of 8"am to 5 pm at the Wilmington, RegionaLOffice at 910-
796-7215and after hours °antl on weekends.eall [phone]. Management 11
of"such spills'
shall comply With provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution Hazardous Substances
ControiAct. [15A NCRCO2H .U506 (b)(3) and (c)"(3), 15A`NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f),"and 6$'143
Article:21A] -
4: Construction Moratoriums and Coordination
If activities must ;occur _during periods;of high biological activity (i.e,:sea turtle nesting; fish.
spawning, or'bird nesting), then biological monitoring maybe re wired at the.request of
ather,state.orfederal agencies and coordinated with,ihese activttf s ;
All moratoriums on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRG), US Fish and"Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division"ofMarin$Ftsheries
(DMF); or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impacts on trout; anadrem6us
"fish, larval/post larval,fish'esand crustaceans, or other agpatic specle's of. concern shah,be
implemented. Exceptions to this contlition require Written approval by the resourc
responsible for the g!Ven moratorium, e agency
Work within identified stateib federal. erdangered ortfirratenedspecies habit" at"shall be
cob"rditlated with the appropriate"WRC =USFWS; NMFS, an'd/or DMF,gers6nneL '
5.` No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur In wetlands, waters, or riparian areas."
beyond the footprint of thejnlpacts depicted in the Pre-Construction'No""tification for this• _
protect, k(I cgnstruction activities, including the cdesjgn, Installation,;operation,and '
maintenance Qf sedirnentand erosion control Best Management Practices sYiail be
"
performed so that no"violations of state watee quality standards statutes, or rules occur.
Approved plans and specifcationsforthis projectare incorporated by reference and are
enforceaEile parts ofthis"permit [15A NCAC 02H :0501 and p502]
6_ Sediment and Frosion Control
Erosaon and sediment control practices must be in full co
governing the propemplianccfieati
r design; installation and operone
ration and maintenance
w,ith.aN spentenance of such Best.
Management Practices and if. applicable,complywtth the specific conditions and
"requirements of the, NPD
02H .0506(b)(3)and (c)(3)) ES Construction ;Stormwater Permit issued to,the site> [15A NCAC
._

DCM Coordinator: Permit #: to 7—��
_ MAILING DISTRIBUTION SHEET
Permitee: I0ulA ✓ OCNO Zsk &C-164
1� C pd-
rhosonGf& IVtJ R1
�, //Y, I n, , �C- -z Srq o4
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City (with revised work plan drawings)
Morehead City
Washington /
Wilmington/
US ACOE Offices:
Washington: Raleigh Bland
Josh Pelletier
William Westcott (NC DOT)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT)
Wilmington: Tyler Crumbley
Liz Hair
Cultural Resources: Renee Gledhill -Early or ([e-mail]) ✓
Public Water Supply: Heidi Cox (WIRO) ✓
Joey White (WARD)
Marine Fisheries:
Shane Staples
Gregg Bodnar ✓
NC DOT:
Ben Hughes ✓
✓
Shellfish Sanitation:
Shannon Jenkins
State Property:
Tim Walton
Water Quality:
Karen Higgins (Raleigh)V.
John Hennessy (NC DOT)
Washington:
Anthony Scarbraugh — 401
Wilmington:
Robb Mairs — 401
Chad Coburn - 401 ✓
It)slu14
Washington: Scott Vinson - Stormwater
Wilmington: Georgette Scott - Stormwater ✓
Wildlife Resources: Maria Dunn ✓
LPO:
Fax Distribution:
Permitee
Agent #:.

a
Nil
CoastalManagement
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13,2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
DCM, Morehead City
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ = Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather.coancdenr.00v
Fax:[phone] YCourier04-1B-33
SUBJECT: CAMA /D & FApplication Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Project Location: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your a ency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
Vet —um this form to Heather Coats let the address above by July 7, 2016. If you have any
_questions regarding the proposed project,. contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. .
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency hasXcomment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in. the attached comments.
SIGNED. i DATE CQ
CE
JUN 14 2016
nothing Compares
CITY
State ofNorih Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management JUN G 2 2016
127 Cardinal Driw ExL. Wilmington, NC 29405
910-796-7215
DCM

f�"
Environmental
Quality .
MEMORANDUM:
PAT MCCRORY'
riown6r
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
TO: Heather Coats, DCM:Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin
DATE: 6/22/2016.
A North.. Carolina..Division of CoastaiManagement (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the
subject permitapplication for proposed, actions. that impact fish and: fish habitats. A North:Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). Fisheries ResourceSpecialist has.reviewed the subject permit
application for proposed actions that impact fish.afid fish habitats. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach has
identified Alternative 5 for construction, a 1;03oft terminal groin. located near Shallotte Inlet, with.
supplemental beach nourishment from Charlotte. Street to Shallotte'Inlet. The NCDMF attended scoping .
and PRT meetings in 2012 and2013 respectively. Comments included the:need to address down drift
impacts, larval and juvenile fish distribution and'monitoring commitments, and concerns with larval
transport and habitat. impacts, altered Iongshore sediment transport, and commercial and recreational
fishing impacts:: The current Specialist has reviewedthe FEIS document for completeness concerning
fisheries related issues.
The.FEIS does acknowledge eidstingresearch that terminal groins have the potential to significantly reduce
larval fish' passage.. Modelling was.conducted'ao provide additional information on larval transport.
Though the applicant does not believe thisto be an issue due to the sand fillet pushing the.beach towards
the terminal.end of the groin, the applicant does state that there is limited research available to support
_.
the opinion.: .
The: borrow site (Shallotte::Inlet) for the groin project and beach nourishment is the source.for a'number, of
separate'dredge/nourishmentprojects (SDI-5, 01B 30-yearshoreline management plan; federal CSDRP;
and. ((litigation for potential Holden.Beach terminal groin effects): There is concerri that the numberof
projects utilizing the same borrow site will affectcuinulatroe sand availability and impact the:surrounding
habitat in unforeseen ways:' It would be beneficial'ifthese'projects were monit'oeed'cumulatively to detail
the volume of sand removed and what the system can replenish over time, ' ..
A. monitoring plan is in place, which includes relevant biotic.communities and habitats, with baselines and
thresholds for mitigation, and are described within the 'HIS iiin detail:. No, significant. issues with the
framework are apparent at this. time..''A full reportwill be provided.by January!" of.each year, to
concerned agencies, to. include NC DCM. It is.encouraged that all relevant moratoria, monitoring,:
mapping, mitigation thresholds and reporting commitments identified'in the FEIS do6ument be, required.
Contact Gregg Bodnar at (2521.808-2808 ext. 213 or greee.bodnar(alncdenr.eov with further questions or .
concerns:.:, "
. - State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality -
-i 400 Commerce Avenue/Morehead City. N.C. 28557
252408.28081 252-247-33M f ail An Equal Oppodunity%A(firmative Adlon Employer

PAT MCCRORY'
Environmental DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Quarry ,
" '. ,,Sepefary
MEMORANDUM
TO: " Heather Coats, DCM:Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist .�
" SUBJECT: Ocean.Isle Beach Terminal GrofW
DATE: ,. 6/22/2016 .
A Nor.h.Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the subject permitapplication'forproposed.actiorls that impact fish andilish habitats. A North Carolina . Division of Coastal Management (DCM).Fisheries ResourceSpecialist has.revievied thesubjeef,permit ' application for'proposed'actioris thafimpact;fiish.andfish'habitats. The iownofOcean We'Beachhas
ide,ritified Alternatide 5 for construction, a.i;050ft terminalgroinaocated wear Shaliotte Inlet; wit
supplemental beach nourishment; from' Charlotte. Street' to Shallotte Inlet The NCDMF attended scoping . and PRT meetings in 2012 and 2013 respectively.'Comments Included the.now.to address'dowmdrift'
impacts, larval and juvenile fish distributlonand'moriltoring comniitrnents and concerns witfi`larval
transport and habitat _imp acts,alteredlongshore sediment transport, and commercial and recreational
fishing impacts.:: The current Specialist has re,'viewedthe,' FEIS'document for completeness concerning fisheries related issues,
The FEIS.does'acknowledge existing research that terminal groins have the potential to'sigmflcantly reduce ' Will fish' pa'sage..Ivlodelling was conducfed to provide additional` information on larvaltransport.'` Though the applicant does not believe thisto be an issue due to the sand fillet
'pushing'the beactitoviards
the terminal. end ofthe groin, the applicant does state that there is limlted'researchavaiable to support. the opinion.'.
The.borrow site (Shaliotte:lnlet) forthe groin projectand.6ea6 nourishment Is. -the source fora number'of'
.p. g / P j ( y _.. .
se' arate'dred a nourisfimenf 'ro ects SDI-5' OIB 30 eaeshoreline management plan; federal GSDRP,
and mitigation for potential Holden Beach"terminal groin effects): There'is concern that the nUmtierof
project§ utilizing the same borrouvslte will affect cumulative sand agailabtijty and fmpactthesurrounding habitat in unforeseen ways, it would.be beneficial;ifthese projects were:monifored'cumulatively to detail the Volume ofsand removed and what the"system, cart replenish over time,
A monitoring plan is in place; which includes relevant biotic,communities and habitats; with baselinesand " thresholds for.'mitigation, and.are des4ibed.within the'FEIS 'in detail., .No sighificant.issueswith the
framework' are apparent at this time. A full report will be. provided by January,Yn of each'.year, to :.:.:
concerned agencies, to. include. NC DCM. It is.encouraged that all relevant moratoria, monitoring;:
Mapping,'rnitfgativn thresholds and reportirig Commitments idt ntified'in"the kEls'do ument be.requireii,'.
...Contact Gregg Bodnar at (2521.808-2808 ext. 213 or re ".bodnar6Dhcdenr eoV with further questions or .
concerns....'
State of North Carolina l Environmental 4ualitY
400 Commeroe AV nue/Morehead Cily.: N.C. 28557 '
.. .. ..
252-80�T. tis 12li2-2473370 [fazj
Y-} An Equal Opporhmily tMmatrm Adon Employer -

PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
?,a
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Shannon Jenkins
NC DMF
Shellfish Sanitation Section
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
BRAXTON DAVIS
Dov,lor
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a_ncdenrgov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA/D & FApplication Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Project Location: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 7, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
XThis agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED I DATE I t L
Received
JUN 17 2016
Nothing Compares .` DCM
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
kW
RECEIVED
Jul 2 0 2016
DOA
STATE PROPERTY
OFFICE
Tim Walton
Dept of Administration
State Property Office
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Seemlary
BRAXTON DAVIS
nUectra
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa()..ncdenr.gov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA / D & F Application Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Project Location: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 7, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY:
SIGNED
Nr,
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
✓ This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
�iCt�(rdp� tbI I '(JLAO�' DATE
Nothing Compares . _
�-1'zOt(u
RECEIVED
DCM WIL HIINGTCN. NC
JUL 0 8 2016
State ofNolth Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

ri
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
KATHRYNJOHNSTON
Secretary
State Property Office
ADMINISTRATION
July 1, 2016
MEMORANDUM
To: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Wanda Hilliard I W cuv t ky t C% CM k
Real Property Agent
Re: To construct a terminal groin
Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Brunswick County
Please confirm that the proposed facilities are not located within the USACE AIWW 1000'
easement area. If not, then the State Property Office has no comment on the proposed project.
RECEIVED
OCM Wli 1.4IKGTCd, NC
JUL 0 8 2016
!`/'Nothing Compares'%_
State of North Carolina I Administration I State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center 1116 W. Jones Street I Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
http�//www.ncspo.or 1919 807 4650 T 1919 7331431 F

i
i
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMFNTALOUAUTY
June 13, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
31J�4 % a Zq$
Renee Gledhill -Early
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives & History
PA'r MCCRORY
fso"em"
ALD R. VAN DF,R VAART
&".Idn
BRAXTON DAVIS
Ar d.r
Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsaa ncdenr.gov
Max: 395-3964 (Courier 11Q-1tr331
CAMA / D & F Application Review
Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shailotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 7, 2016. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED 1�= DATE
Received
-5:7�-Nothtng Compares..� JUN 2 7 201OU14
State of NWh C oal m I Fmimmcntal Quality l CNstal Mmmgcment
127 CaduW 11riw Ext., Wilmington, NC 2MO5 D��
919-796-7215

PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
La
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 13, 2016
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Maria Dunn
NCWRC
For WiRO
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
t�o-eem.
FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa)..ncdenrgov
Fax: [phone] (Courier 04-16-33)
SUBJECT: CAMA/D & FApplication Review
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Terminal Groin)
Project Location: east end of Ocean Isle Beach, east of Shallotte Blvd., adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: to construct a terminal groin
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by July 7, 2016, If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Tara MacPherson at [phone] when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED 1 . DATE A 5
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
fNothtngCompares�_ Jlll 12 '�
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Coats
NC Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Habitat Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: July 5, 2016
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application, Town of Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline
Management Project, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Biologists with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with regards to potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S.
113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach has submitted their application with a preferred alternative to construct a
750' terminal groin with a 300' shore anchorage system on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to address
erosion and provide beach restoration for Ocean Isle Beach. In addition to the terminal groin, associated
beach nourishment for 3,214' of the shoreline west of the groin is proposed on a 5 year nourishment
interval. The sand source for the fillet creation is the Shallotte Inlet borrow site, #91-05. To avoid and/or
minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, the applicant proposes the following:
— Construction would occur between the environmental dredge window of November 16 to
April 30;
— A hydraulic cutterhead is proposed for dredging the proposed borrow area within Shallotte
Inlet;
— Construction observation will be periodically performed during periods of active construction
for material color and composition, turbidity, and escarpments;
— Monitoring for shorebirds and threatened and endangered species is expected to continue;
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 `l)
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] UCM MINGTON. NC
JUL 12 Z016

ytv I
CbIDF_Ooean Isle Terminal Groin Page 2 July 5, 2016
— The design of the groin will be "leaky" in nature, which will permit seawater and fish larvae to
flow over the top and through the structure serving to minimize impacts associated with
restricting the passage of fish larvae;
— In order to minimize the impact on wintering piping plover, the pipeline alignment will be
designed to avoid potential piping plover wintering habitat;
— Sediment obtained from the Shallotte Inlet will be required to adhere to criteria outlined in
15A NCAC 07H.0312.
This alternative also includes the continuation of the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction project currently
conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The total permit area is 4,413 acres and includes both
sides of the inlet, the AIW W, Saucepan Creek, and saltmarsh complexes of these systems. This area
encompasses primary nursery areas (PNAs) and critical habitat for piping plover.
The NCWRC has reviewed the application and still has concern with several aspects of the project. Many
of these concerns were presented in our reply to the DEIS (Dunn, 16 March 2015). In general our agency
believes projects that affect oceanfront beaches and natural inlet processes such as beach nourishment,
inlet dredging, inlet relocation and the construction of hardened structures on or along beaches may
adversely affect sea turtle nesting areas, shorebird foraging and nesting areas, and ingress and egress
within the inlet of fishery resources. Federal and state listed turtles that utilize the area include
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate),
Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles as well as the Carolina
diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin centrata). Shorebirds of equal significance include piping
plover (CharadHus melodus), red knot (Calidrts canutus rufa), Wilson's plover (Charadrtus w 1sonia),
American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), common tern (Sterna hirundo), gull -billed tern (Sterna
nilotica), and black skimmer (Rynchops niger). Protected fishery resources include shortnose sturgeon
(Aeipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Each of these species utilize
different aspects of the inlet complex and impacts to the system, especially cumulative impacts from long
term management, may reduce habitat availability.
Information within the application and FEIS includes projections of shoreline response from modeling.
However it is difficult to incorporate outside factors, such as shoreline management activities on Holden
Beach and other river / inlet channel manipulations, in these projections. These factors further complicate
the ability to manage the dynamic barrier island system and thereby lead to concerns of impacts to
wildlife and wildlife habitats. Impacts would not be limited to Ocean Isle Beach, but also affect shoreline
profiles on Holden Beach, shoal and sand spit formations within the inlet, and potential impacts to
saltmarsh complexes associated with designated PNAs. The concern for the accuracy of the model's
projection, including the intervals between nourishment events and estimated material volumes, in such a
dynamic system is increased with the consideration of only long term erosion and not storm events.
Although the model states nourishment events would only occur every 5 years, this does net take into
consideration storm events that may trigger separate nourishment activities, further impacting inlet
habitats and benthic invertebrate recruitment.
Shallotte Inlet is a shallow water inlet system with portions of the inlet complex and project area
designated as critical habitat for piping plover. The construction of a terminal groin on either side of the
inlet will significantly change sediment transport and likely have a direct and indirect impact to these
habitat areas. The presence of hardened structures as well as changes in sediment transport will remove
nesting and foraging habitat for several shorebird species as well as reduce forage opportunities by
impacting benthic invertebrate populations through continued nourishment activities and inssAcient
RECEI
DCM WILh41NGTCR NC
JUL 12 2016

0
CMDF_Ooean Isle Terminal Groin Page 3 July 5, 2016
recovery periods. This is exasperated by allowing construction and nourishment activities during the
month of April when shorebirds arrive to these areas. To avoid and minimize these impacts, any
shoreline management activities should include a moratorium of April 1— November 15. The
importance of the month of April should be recognized by this project, particularly since critical habitat
for piping plover is designated within the permit area. The FEIS states that some of the impact would be
mitigated through the expansion of beach. However, it is unlikely any increase in shoreline west of the
proposed structure would significantly increase colonial waterbird or shorebird habitat opportunities due
to the influence of human activity.
With specific regard to the use of the area by piping plover, the applicant notes that there are many "no
data" entries. It should be noted that this should not be interpreted as no presence or use of the area by the
species, but rather the inability to adequately survey the area. This is can be attributed to the majority of
the area being in private ownership and the inability to access or the need for more regular, standardized
surveys by trained personnel. It should not be assumed that existing monitoring is adequate or that
increased monitoring can be handled by state and federal agencies.
In addition to impacts to shorebirds, the change in sediment transport will likely affect nesting
opportunities for sea turtles. This would occur on Holden Beach as well as Ocean Isle Beach. Continued
monitoring throughout the duration of the project should be done to determine if increases in false crawls
occur or if overall nesting decreases. If significant changes occur, measures should be made to mitigate
the loss. Any hatchlings that emerge from nests could be disoriented from lighting associated with the
groin Therefore if the structure is constructed, lighting should be done to minimize this impact, especially
after hatchlings begin to emerge.
The design of the terminal groin is stated to be "leaky" in nature and that the structure would not
significantly affect juvenile and larvae transport in the inlet complex. This statement is based on the
assumption that in time the beach will migrate to the terminus of the structure and essentially the groin
will be buried under the beach and not project into the ocean. We have still have concern that juvenile and
larvae transport, especially for Atlantic and shortaose sturgeon, will be impacted until the groin is buried
or continued if the structure is never covered
The FEIS reviewed under the USACE public notice states the project will be monitored for success and if
necessary mitigation for negative impacts would be implemented. Although the FEIS addresses
mitigation for some impacts, it is unclear how impacts will be measured and mitigation implemented for
numerous impacts to biological resources. It should be further noted that if nourishment activities increase
as a direct relationship to groin construction, for either Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach, impacts to
wildlife resources are increased Mitigation should be considered for these impacts with creation or
protection of similar habitat types.
Impacts to wildlife resources are considerate in this area due to the number of species that utilize Shallotte
Inlet. Careful consideration should be given with regard to the project's benefit to infrastructure, built -
upon area, and buildable lots; the project's long-term costs and feasibility; and the overall impact to
wildlife resources during and after project implementation. If it is determined that the project can be
permitted, careful consideration should be given to the following:
— Any shoreline management activities should be done outside April 1— November 16 of any
year to avoid impacts to nesting shorebirds and sea turtles;
— Standardized surveys for piping plover, red knot, and other beach -dependent birds should be
conducted by a contractor trained in bird identification and surveys before, during, and after
pipeline placement and removal;
RECEIVED
DCM WILI•AINGTCN, NC
JUL 12 2016

CbIDF_Oaean late Terminal Groin Page 4 July 5, 2016
— Standardized surveys for piping plover, red knot, and other beach -dependent birds should be
conducted by a contractor trained in bird identification and surveys before, during, and after
construction. Monitoring should be continued for a period of time post -construction to
assess habitat impacts and resource use;
— In a continued effort to protect nesting shorebird habitat each year, potential nesting areas
could be marked each March with posts, signs, and flagged string tied between posts. Posted
areas would be maintained through August 15'; thereafter, posts and other materials could
be removed Further information can be obtained via contact with the NCWRC;
— A periodic mapping assessment of the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach and at the inlet
would be a benefit in determining actual sediment transport and vegetation establishment
after groin construction. This would help measure the effectiveness of the groin to gauge
response for Ocean Isle's shoreline management and provide data for other terminal groin
projects;
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application. Please feel free to
contact me at [phone] or at maria.dunn!a_lncwildlifc.ore if there are any questions or comments
pertaining to this project.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
JUL 12 2016

V
Coats, Heather
From: Huggett, Doug
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:23 PM
To: Coats, Heather
Subject: FW: Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin proposal
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits and Federal Consistency Section North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 212
-----Original Message -----
From: Davis, Braxton C
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:31 PM
To: Geoff Gisler <[e-mail]>
Cc: Todd Miller <[e-mail]>; Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Mike Giles
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin proposal
Mr. Gisler, Thank you for submitting comments on this project, I am confirming receipt and will also forward to
appropriate staff.
Braxton C. Davis
Director
NC Divisions of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Management Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8013 Marine Fisheries Office
252 808 2808 x202 Coastal Management Office [e-mail]
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Geoff Gisler [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:47 PM
To: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Todd Miller <[e-mail]>; Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Mike Giles
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin proposal
Mr. Davis:
I have attached a copy of comments on Ocean Isle's application to construct a terminal groin. A hard copy with
attachments will follow by mail. Thank you for considering these comments.
Geoff
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney

Southern Environmental Law Center 1
601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220 \
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
P: [phone]
F: [phone]
www.SouthernEnvironment.org
This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s)
named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney -client, work product or other privileges.
If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the
intended recipient(s), and/or you have received this communication in error, then any review, use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, copying or other distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email
message and permanently delete the original message.

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
July 7, 2016
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Braxton C. Davis
Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
[e-mail]
Re: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Proposal
Dear Mr. Davis:
Please accept these comments on Ocean Isle Beach's application for a Coastal Area
Management Act ("CAMA') permit to construct a 750-foot terminal groin near Shallotte Inlet.
The Southern Environmental Law Center submits these comments on behalf of the North
Carolina Coastal Federation.
As described below, the Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") cannot lawfully issue
a permit for the proposed groin for two primary reasons. First, the final environmental impact
statement ("FEIS") submitted in support of the proposed terminal groin violates the National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), does not meet the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, and cannot satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-
115.1(e). Second, even if the EIS i� accepted, it plainly demonstrates that Alternative 5, the
proposed terminal groin, will dramatically increase costs borne by Ocean Isle Beach over the 30-
year period. Further, the EIS demonstrates that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is a lower -
cost alternative, meets the purpose and need, and maintains the recreational beach and wildlife
habitat that currently exists east of the proposed groin location.
I. The EIS Included as Part of the Application Violates NEPA.
As described above and more fully in the attached comments of May 31, 2016, from
SELC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the FEIS violates NEPA and cannot be accepted.
For those same reasons, it violates the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, which similarly
requires a thorough, objective analysis of alternatives and a full explanation of the basis for the
conclusions reached. Rather than restate the multitude of errors in the FEIS, we attach ouR EC E I V E D
comments to the Corps regarding the FEIS and incorporate them by reference.
II. If the Erroneous FEIS Analysis Is Accepted, the Terminal Groin Cannot Be JUL 11 2016
Permitted.
DCM- MHD CI
If the FEIS is accepted, however, the proposed terminal groin cannot be permitted. As
the FEIS concedes, inlet realignment is not only a practicable alternative that would address
Charlottesville - Chapel Hill - Atlanta - Asheville - Birmingham - Charleston - Nashville - Richmond - Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

erosion on the east end —it is significantly cheaper than building the proposed terminal groin.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are all significantly cheaper that the proposed terminal groin when the
actual cost to Ocean Isle is evaluated.
DCM cannot approve the proposed terminal groin if "considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the
overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 113A-120(a)(9), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115.1(e) (requiring compliance with CAMA). Here, it is
clear that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is feasible from an engineering perspective, is the
cheapest alternative available to Ocean Isle, accomplishes the overall project purpose, and would
have significantly less adverse impact on public resources than the proposed terminal groin.
First, it cannot be disputed that Alternative 4 is feasible "considering engineering
requirements." Alternative 4 differs from alternatives 1-3 in that it requires more focused
dredging to maintain a specific channel orientation.' Such dredging is plainly feasible and would
accomplish the desired effect. The FEIS concludes that as a result of Alternative 4, "the
shoreline on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach should respond in much the same manner as was
observed between 1954 and 1965 during which time the east end of the island accreted.s2
Second, the FEIS concedes that Alternative 4 is cheaper than building the proposed
terminal groin when only non-federal costs are considered. The FEIS summarizes the cost of
each alternative as follows:
T.M. 3.11 Summnm of 30-vear imnlementation cost% of alternatives
Alternative
Total 30-Year Beach
Nourishmentlimplementation
Cost
Federal Share
Non -Federal
Share
1- No New Action
$66,440,0000)
$43,190,000
$23,250,000
2—Abandon/Retreat
$66,440,0000)
$43,190.000
$23,250,000
3—Beach Nourishment
$108,768,000
$43,190,000
$65,578,000
4— Channel Relocation
$53,150,000
$30,866,000
$22,264,000
5 — 750-ft terminal groin
$45,864,000
$23,034.000
$22,830,000
(')Nourishment of federal storm damage reduction project only, does not include demolition, relocation, or
sandbags.
Clearly, the Channel Relocation alternative is not only feasible, but it is the lowest -cost option
when federal funding is excluded. That this alternative would require a greater federal
contribution is immaterial. The FEIS assumes the federal government will continue to fund
nourishment under each alternative as part of the federal stone damage reduction project °
Moreover, there is no plausible explanation why the additional federal share of $7,832,000 over
the 30-year span is impracticable. The FEIS does not assert that it is impracticable.
'See FEIS at 33.
' FEIS at 34.
3 FEIS at 47.
° Id.; see also FEIS at 28 (Alt.
1), 32 (Alt. 3), 35 (Alt. 4), 44 (Alt. 5).
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY

Further, the costs reported in the FEIS do not represent the actual cost to Ocean Isle
Beach. The non-federal portion for alternatives 1-4 would be eligible for state
funding.5 Therefore, Ocean Isle would pay as little as 25% of the eligible costs. As presented in
the table below, for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the cost to Ocean Isle Beach is $5,813,500.
For Alternative 4, the cost is higher at approximately $9,823,633. By comparison, total cost of
building the groin would be approximately $13,531,351, because none of the funding for the
terminal groin is eligible for state cost share. That represents 130% greater cost than maintaining
the status quo and nearly a 40% greater cost than Alternative 4.
Federally
Additional
Authorized
Federal
Eligible
Required
Local Costs
Alternative
Nourishme
Share
State Share
Local Share
for
Total Local Costs
at Cost
(65%)
(26.25%)
(8.75%)
Alternative
(total)
No Action
$66,440;000
$43,190,000
$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$0
$5,813,500
Abandon
$66,440,000
$43,190,000
$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$0
$5,813,500
Beach
$66,440,000
$43,190,000
$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$42,330,644
$48,144,144
Nourishment
Channel
$47,486,154
$30,866,000
$12,460,367
$4,155,038
$5,668,595
$9,823,633
Relocation
750-ft Groin
$35,436,923
$23,034,000
$9,298,649
$3,100,731
$10,430,620
$13,531,351
Critically, any reduction in beach nourishment costs would be significantly less than the
cost of building the terminal groin. The FEIS rejected the 250-foot groin proposal on that very
basis, finding that because of "the inability of the 250-foot structure to reduce periodic
nourishment requirements that would offset the cost of constructing and maintaining the
structure ... [it is] not considered to be a viable option."6 Because the 750-foot groin also fails
that test, it is not a "viable option."
Third, Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need. Critically, Alternative 5 does not, as
discussed in further detail below. The purpose and need described in the FEIS has four parts:
a To reduce or mitigate erosion along 3,500 feet of Ocean Isle Beach oceanfront
shoreline west of Shallotte Inlet;
o To maintain the Town's tax base by providing long-term protection of property
and infrastructure through reduced storm damage and erosion on the oceanfront
shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach between Shallotte Inlet and the western terminus of
the Federal Project;
a Maintain existing recreational resources;
s See N.C. Beach Inlet Management Plan, Final Report at XII-23, https://ncdenr.s3.arnazonaws.com/s3iRECEIVED
public/Coastal%20Management/documents/PDF/BIMP/BIMP%2OSection%2OXlI%20-
%20Funding%20Prioritization%20Formatted.pdf. JUL 11 2016
e FEIS at 44.
DCM- MHD CITY

• Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing
natural resources. 7
The FEIS goes on to identify "the development of a shoreline protection project that would
mitigate chronic erosion" as the "particular" purpose and need of the projects The document
concludes that "Alternative 4 would prevent long-term erosion damage to development along the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the area east of baseline station 30+00,"9 thereby satisfying the
"particular" purpose and need identified by the Town. Moreover, as discussed in further detail
below, only the non -groin alternatives meet the "purpose and need" statements with respect to
recreational resources and the existing natural environment.
Finally, as discussed in additional detail below, Alternative 4 has significantly less
adverse impact on public resources. Alternative 4 would maintain the beach east of the proposed
groin location for both recreation and wildlife. As described in the FEIS, after six years under
projections under Alternative 4, "sediment [would continue] to accumulate west of Shallotte
Inlet which is one of the desired results associated with the channel relocation altemative.i10
Therefore, implementation of the cheapest alternative would result in a larger beach on the east
end of Ocean Isle.
III. The Application Does Not Adequately Evaluate Indirect Effects.
Ocean Isle Beach is required to submit with its application "[a]n environmental impact
statement that satisfies the requirements of GS 113A-4." N.C. Gen. Stat § 113A-15.1(e). Here,
that includes an EIS that fully evaluates the indirect effects of the proposed groin. See 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25.0603 (describing contents of EIS).
The indirect effects of this project are not only insufficiently analyzed, but the limited
analysis presented is misleading. As discussed in the attached comment letter on the FEIS, the
two- to -five-year analysis of indirect effects of alternatives is indefensible and incomplete. As
detailed in our FEIS comments to the Corps, which are incorporated here by reference, CPE
scaled the erosion rates predicted by the Delft3D model in order to justify building the terminal
groin. For example, when the model predicted erosion between the location of the proposed
groin and station OI 30 to be 24,000 cy/yr—which would be more than compensated for by
nourishment—CPE assumed without explanation that erosion would nonetheless continue at the
previously observed rate of 91,000 cy/yr and that any increased erosion greater than 24,000 cy/yr
would indicate a proportional increase in the previously observed rate.11 CPE proportionally
increased beach nourishment need estimates based on that assumption, dramatically increasing
nourishment requirements.1z
RECEIVED
' FEIS at 16 JUL 112016
e/d
FEIS at35.
FEIS aatt 129. DCM- MHD CITY
10
" See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
y the model").
See FEIS at 31 (summarizing determination that Alternative 3 would require fill to offset 140,000 cy/yr erosion
based on Delft3D modeling that predicted 37,000 cy/yr erosion).
0

East of the groin, however, CPE did not proportionally increase the modeled erosion rates
and has therefore dramatically underestimated the effect of the proposed groin on the existing
beach. If the Delft3D model under -estimates erosion west of the groin,13 it must also be
considered to under -estimate erosion east of the groin, or CPE must provide a credible scientific
explanation for the discrepancy. As predicted by the De1ft3D model, the proposed groin will
increase erosion rates east of the groin by 4.5 times the rates predicted under Alternative I.14
Given CPE's assumption that the modeled rate for Alternative I of 24,000 cy/year is equivalent
to 91,000 cy/year, the proposed terminal groin will cause Ocean Isle Beach east of the groin to
erode by hundreds of thousands of cubic yards per year —eliminating the recreational beach and
available wildlife habitat.15
IV. Elimination of the Recreational Beach and Wildlife Habitat East of the Proposed
Groin Cannot Be Permitted.
The substantially increased erosion predicted east of the proposed groin both fails to meet
the project's purpose and need and violates applicable law. First, the purpose and need as
described in the FEIS includes both maintaining the existing recreational beach and reaching a
balance between protecting property and natural resources. Alternative 5 fails to satisfy either of
those stated purposes and needs. As described in the FEIS, the beach east of the proposed
terminal groin will be eliminated. CPE failed to evaluate adequately the indirect effects of the
project by arbitrarily limiting its analysis to five years of a 30-year project, thereby intentionally
understating its effects, but even that limited analysis demonstrates that the existing recreational
beach will be lost. In addition, the elimination of that beach will have a significant adverse
effect on wildlife that could be avoided with Alternative 4, thereby failing to strike an
appropriate balance.
Beyond failing to meet the purpose and need, Alternative 5 violates applicable law.
Under CAMA, DCM cannot issue a permit for a terminal groin project unless it finds that:
[c]onstruction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in significant
adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach. In
making this finding, the Commission shall take into account the potential benefits
of the project, including the protection of the terminus of the island from shoreline
erosion and inlet migration, beaches, protective dunes, wildlife habitats, roads,
homes, and infrastructure, and mitigation measures, including the accompanyinP
beach fill project that will be incorporated into the project design and constructidR EC E IVED
and the inlet management plan.
JUL 11 Zoos
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-115.1(f)(4) (emphasis added).
DCM- MHD CITY
" To be clear, the Corps' decision to inflate erosion rates without providing any rationale is arbitrary and capricious.
That said, if it inflates erosion rates as described in an attempt to justify building the groin, it must do so east of the
proposed groin as well. (
See FEIS at 41 (showing that a 750-ft terminal groin will increase erosion between station -5 and station -20 from
11,000 cy/yr to 49,900 cy/yr).
15 See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").

In addition, CAMA's other provisions still apply. For example, DCM cannot
issue a permit that would "jeopardize the public rights or interests" in public trust waters,
id. I I3A-120(a)(5), such as the ocean beaches east of the proposed groin. Rules make
clear that "[t]he public has rights in these areas including ... recreation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 07H .0207(b). The objective in identifying public trust areas such as the
beaches east of the proposed groin is "[t]o protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and
perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value." Id. 07H .0207(c). Crucially,
"[p]rojects which would ... increase shoreline erosion ... are considered incompatible
with the management policies of public trust areas." Id. 07H.0207(d) (emphasis added),
see id. 07H .0306(g) ("Development shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of,
public resources, nor shall such development increase the risk of damage to public trust
areas.").
The CRC's policy statements with respect to erosion control measures are
unequivocal: "protection of the recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the
public interest." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 07M .0201. Those policies continue, stating:
The public right to use and enjoy the ocean beaches must be protected. The
protected uses include traditional recreational uses (such as walking, swimming,
surf -fishing, and sunbathing) as well as commercial fishing and emergency access
for beach rescue services. Private property rights to oceanfront properties
including the right to protect property in ways that are consistent with public
rights should be protected.
Id. 07M.0202(a) (emphasis added). "Erosion response measures designed to minimize the loss
of private and public resources to erosion should be economically, socially, and environmentally
justified." Id. 07M .0202(b).
The dredge and fill law similarly directs DCM to "deny an application for a dredge or fill
permit upon finding: (1) that there will be significant adverse effect of the proposed dredging and
filling on the use of the water by the public; ... or (3) that there will be significant adverse effect
on public health, safety, and welfare; ... or (5) that there will be significant adverse effect on
wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries." N.C. Gen. Stat. § I I3-229(e); see N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A-120(a)(2).
The effect of the proposed groin on both human recreational and wildlife use of the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach are intertwined. Because the proposed groin will cause significantly
increased erosion, the recreational beach and the available wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
The significant, adverse effect of the proposed groin on wildlife is clear. Here, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

knots, and seabeach amaranth within the project area" and recommended that the project not be
authorized.16 As early as its 2011 scoping comments on the project, FWS wrote:
The issues are clear. A project of this nature will destroy the ecological
functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas. The science is unequivocal.
I see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty. We oppose this project.
There is nothing more to discuss. 17
And in its most recent letter, FWS stated that the agency's "comments and concerns about
impacts to our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a
30-year project were not" adequately addressed.ls The agency goes on to say that "it is unlikely
that the applicant could address these comments adequately without significantly revising the
project or changing their preferred alternative, and as far as we can tell, there have not been any
significant revisions to the preferred project."19
The Service is clear in its Biological Opinion about the negative impacts of the project to
loggerhead sea turtles:
The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects
to sea turtles, including the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle.
Due to downdrift erosion, there may be loss or degradation of loggerhead
terrestrial Critical Habitat Unity LOGG-T-NC-08. The Service expects there may
be morphological changes to adjacent nesting habitat. Activities that affect or
alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species may decrease
the survival and recovery potential of the loggerhead and other sea turtles. °
These broad statements about likely harm are further supported by specific statements about the
impacts to the habitat's primary constituent elements ("PCEs"), the "physical or biological
feature[s] essential to the conservation of a species for which its designated or proposed critical
habitat is based on."21 These can include "space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; ... nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; ... and habitats that are protected from disturbance
or are representative of the species' historic geographic and ecological distribution."22 Agencies
must use the "best scientific data" when conducting and relying on these Biological Opinions in
order to evaluate whether proposed actions result in adverse modification of critical habitat.
Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943, 36 (D. Cal. 2012).
16 See letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (May 20, 2016) (Attachment 1 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto); letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (March 12, 2015) (Attachment 2
SELC comments to Corps, attached hereto).
"Email from W. Laney, FWS, to C. Weaver, NCDENR (Dec. 19, 2011) (Attachment 3 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto).
18 See May 20, 2016 letter at 5.
19Id RECEIVED
20 Biological Opinion at 63.
21 FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/plossary.12d 2
JUL 11 201622 id.
DCM- MHD CITY

For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes."23 Indeed, PCEs for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings," and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions....s24
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and
foraging habitat in several ways. 25
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers....
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline. These combined actions affect the availability of piping plover
habitat. 6
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat.
V. Conclusion
In sum, the lowest -cost alternative as described in the FEIS not only meets the stated
purpose and need —it preserves the recreational beach and wildlife habitat formed by the natural
inlet processes. Therefore, Channel Relocation as described in Alternative 4 is the only
alternative that can be permitted. The proposed terminal groin simply does not meet the legal
requirements outlined above and cannot be permitted.
23 Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
24Id. at 30-31.
zs Id. at 98.
zs Biological Opinion at 99.
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD Cjq-,,y

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and request to be notified if any
action is taken with respect to Ocean Isle Beach's application.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
GRG/rgd
Enclosures
Cc:
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

RECEIVED
JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET SUITE 220
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275162356
May 31, 2016
Via U.S. Postal Service and Electronic Mail
Mr. Tyler Crumbley
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[e-mail]
Facsimile 919-929-9421.
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY
Re: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at the Eastern End of Ocean Isle
Beach, Extending Into the Atlantic Ocean, West of Shallotte Inlet (Brunswick
County, NC) (SAW2011-01241)
Mr. Crumbley:
Please accept these comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for
the Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project. The Southern Environmental Law Center
submits these comments on behalf of itself and the North Carolina Coastal Federation. The
comments follow a March 16, 2015 submission of comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ("DEIS") for this project detailing significant inadequacies with that document.'
The FEIS does little to remedy the substantial concerns raised in our earlier comments.
Rather than stop and make any attempt to set forth an analysis that actually takes a hard look at
alternatives and impacts, the document doubles down on the wholly inadequate methodologies
and arbitrary assumptions of the DEIS. As such, the FEIS continues to fail to meet the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq; the
Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.; and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"),
16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.
' On May 9a, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the North Carolina Coastal Federation's request for an
extension of time to submit public comments. Since that time, online access to the EIS has been periodically
unavailable and, indeed, was restored only after the North Carolina Coastal Federation informed the Corps of this
problem. This lack of access violates the Corps' responsibility to make the EIS available to the public. 42 U.S.C. §
4332 (requiring that copies of environmental impact statements be available to the public); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.19.
("Agencies shall circulate the entire draft and final environmental impact statements except for certain appendices as
provided in § 1502.18(d) and unchanged statements as provided in § 1503.4(c)."); Id. § 1506.6 (f).
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington. DC
100% recycled paper

I. The responsible federal agency did not independently evaluate the EIS, but
instead conducted an illegal exercise in predetermined decisionmaking.
Statements in the FEIS make clear that the document is nothing more than an exercise in
predetermined decisionmaking to justify construction of the terminal groin. As such, the
document violates NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations
specifically require that an EIS be more than merely a "disclosure document," stating that an
"environmental impact statement shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact
of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made." 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1,
1502.2(g). And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit itself has recognized
that NEPA requires action and study based on "good faith objectivity." Fayetteville Area
Chamber of Commerce v. Volpe, 515 F.2d 1021, 1026 (4th Cir. 1975).
In our earlier comments we noted that the engineering report upon which the whole EIS
depends was "Prepared For" the "Town of Ocean Isle Beach" by the engineering firm CPE2 and
that the DEIS made clear that "[t]he objective of the Engineering Report (Appendix B) and this
numerical study is to refine the terminal groin's design and develT a recommended plan which
includes groin construction and strategic placement of beach f ll." Rather than consider the
fundamental concern behind this critique —that the report is focused on justifying one particular
alternative rather than objectively analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives as NEPA
requires —the FEIS instead elects to simply change the title of the report and how it is discussed 4
This window-dressing alteration does little to alleviate the underlying problem that the
EIS —with its different and contradictory rates of erosion, its overstated costs of alternative
options, and its failure to take a "hard look" at environmental impacts —was prepared by private
consultants working for Ocean Isle Beach for the sole purpose of justifying the construction of
the terminal -groin. The requirements of NEPA are clear. Agencies must take a "hard look" at a
reasonable range of alternatives and that "hard look" "must be taken objectively and in good
faith, not as an exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a
decision already made." Forest Guardians v. USFWS, 611 F.3d 692, 712 (10th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000)). This has not been done.
Ordinarily, a degree of deference is owed to a federal agency's NEPA analysis. Such
deference is based on the idea that the agency is bringing its expertise to bear on the matters
being considered. See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462, U.S. 87, 104 (1983). In this case,
however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") did not exercise that expertise; rather, it
relied entirely on the shoddy analysis performed by CPE5 and paid for by the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach. There is no evidence in the EIS or elsewhere that any degree of experience and skill was
2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), Appendix B cover.
' DEIS Appendix C at 2 (emphasis added). 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), Appendix G at 19, response to comment 173.
5
As noted in our earlier comments on the DEIS, work by CPE should be treated with substantial skepticism. ThA
group's work on the Figure Eight Island terminal groin has been determined to be utterly incorrect. Moreover, ate,
N O
North Topsail, the town, Corps, and Division of Coastal Management are currently working to remove substantitu
*- _
quantities of rock from the beach nourishment project that was permitted based on CPE's assessment of the sand
y
source. Trista Talton, Pumping Project Dumps Tons ofRocks at N. Topsail, COASTAL REVIEW ONLINE, Mar.
UJ
13.2015, http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/03/pumping-project-litters-beach-with-rocks/.
2

----- --- -- ---- - I. The responsible federal agency didnot independently evaluate -the EIS,.but
instead conducted an illegal exercise in predetermined decisionmaking.
Statements in the FEIS make clear that the document is nothing more than an exercise in
predetermined decisionmaking to justify construction of the terminal groin. As such, the
document violates NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations
specifically require that an EIS be more than merely a "disclosure document," stating that an
"environmental impact statement shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact
of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made." 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1,
1502.2(g). And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit itself has recognized
that NEPA requires action and study based on "good faith objectivity." Fayetteville Area
Chamber of Commerce v. Volpe, 515 F.2d 1021, 1026 (4th Cir. 1975).
In our earlier comments we noted that the engineering report upon which the whole EIS
depends was "Prepared For" the "Town of Ocean Isle Beach" by the engineering firm CPEZ and
that the DEIS made clear that "[t]he objective of the Engineering Report (Appendix B) and this
numerical study is to refine the terminal groin's design and develop a recommended plan which
includes groin construction and strategic placement of beach fill." Rather than consider the
fundamental concern behind this critique —that the report is focused on justifying one particular
alternative rather than objectively analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives as NEPA
requires —the FEIS instead elects to simply change the title of the report and how it is discussed.
4
This -window-dressing alteration does little to alleviate the underlying problem that the
EIS —with its different and contradictory rates of erosion, its overstated costs of alternative
options,'and its failure to take a "hard look" at environmental impacts —was prepared by private
consultants working for Ocean Isle Beach for the sole purpose of justifying the construction of
the terminal, groin. The requirements of NEPA are clear. Agencies must take a "hard look" at a
reasonable range of alternatives and that "hard look" "must be taken objectively and in good
faith, not as an exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a
decision already made." Forest Guardians v. USFWS, 611 F.3d 692, 712 (loth Cir. 2010)
(quoting Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000)). This has not been done.
Ordinarily, a degree of deference is owed to a federal agency's NEPA analysis. Such
deference is based on the idea that the agency is bringing its expertise to bear on the matters
being considered. See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462, U.S. 87, 104 (1983). In this case,
however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") did not exercise that expertise; rather, it
relied entirely on the shoddy analysis performed by CPE5 and paid for by the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach. There is no evidence in the EIS or elsewhere that any degree of experience and skill was
'Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), Appendix B cover.
'DEIS Appendix C at 2 (emphasis added).
' Final, Environmental Impact Statement CTEIS"), Appendix G at 19, response to comment 173. m
5 As noted in our earlier comments on the DEIS, work by CPE should be treated with substantial skepticism. The U. � (,
group's work on the Figure Eight Island terminal groin has been determined to be utterly incorrect. Moreover, at, w
North Topsail, the town, Corps, and Division of Coastal Management'are currently working to remove substanti X
quantities of rock from the beach nourishment project that was permitted based on CPE's assessment of the sand
source. Trista Talton, Pumping Project Dumps Tons ofRockr'at N. Topsail, COASTAL REVIEW ONLINE, Mar.
13.2015, http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/03/pumping-project-litters-beach-with-rocks/. cc
2

employed by the Corps during the NEPA process. And despite substantial questions raised by
state and federal partner agencies during the public comment process, the FEIS remains as
fundamentally flawed as the DEIS before it.
NEPA requires the Corps to "independently evaluate the information submitted" by an
applicant seeking the preparation of an EIS, and the Corps is "responsible for its accuracy." 40
C.F.R. § 1506.5(a). Adopting an applicants' analysis wholesale, without independently
reviewing aspects such as the statement of purpose and need and the range of alternatives, and
without exercising independent judgment, violates NEPA. See Simmons v. United States Army
Corps of Eng'rs, 120 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that an agency has the duty under
NEPA to "exercise a degree of skepticism with self-serving statements" and failed to do so
where the Corps did not consider all reasonable alternatives, instead restricting its analysis to the
"alternative means by which a particular applicant can reach his goals") (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted); 33 C.F.R. Part 325 App. B 21.8.£(2) (stating that "the district
engineer should document in the record the Corps' independent evaluation of the information
and its accuracy"). As a basic NEPA requirement, when an agency does choose to "use the
information submitted by the applicant in the environmental impact statement, either directly or
by reference, then the names of the persons responsible for the independent evaluation shall be
included in the list of preparers." 40 C.F.R. 1506.5(a). The FEIS, which fails even to include a
list of preparers —let alone identify any individual responsible for the independent evaluation —
violates not only this provision, but also the more general requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 1502.17.
Even had the Corps identified that it had independently verified CPE's analysis and
exercised its own expertise, deference accorded an agency's scientific or technical expertise is
not unlimited. Brower v. Evans, 257 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). The presumption of
agency expertise can be rebutted when the agency's decisions are not reasoned. Id. Specifically,
an agency's analysis must have a "rational basis," be "consistently applied," and take "relevant
considerations into account." Druid Hills Civic Ass'n v. FHWA, 772 F.2d 700, 711 (11th Cir.
1985)),
Here the FEIS falls down at every step. The FEIS admits that the methodology used has
no "rational basis." In fact, the FEIS makes clear over and over again that the underlying
WWI) model used to forecast future impacts was "not intended to represent predictions of what
changes to expect in the future.i6 Likewise, far from being "consistently applied," entirely
different erosion rates and methodologies were used to calculate the economic and
environmental impacts of the project. And "relevant considerations," such as the fact that recent
trends on the beach have been the exact opposite of those predicted by the model used in the EIS,
have not been taken "into account," but rather ignored entirely. "Deference ... does not mean
dormancy, and the rule of reason does not give agencies license to fulfill their own prophecies,
whatever the parochial impulses that drive them." Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938
F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
If the Corps intends to continue to move forward with permitting this project, it cannot
stand on the illegal, arbitrary, and capricious analysis performed by CPE. Rather, the Corps
must prepare a Supplemental EIS in which it independently verifies CPE's analysis, and then
s FEIS at 23.
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY

conduct additional analysis to fully, accurately, and consistently analyze a reasonable range of
alternatives and their environmental impacts.
II. The FEIS failed to thoroughly, accurately, and transparently analyze a
reasonable range of alternatives.
Central to the NEPA process is the analysis and disclosure of reasonable alternatives.
After identifying the underlying purpose and need for their intended project, agencies must
"[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" that could achieve that
underlying purpose. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). An "informed and meaningful consideration of
alternatives - including the no action alternative - is an integral part of the statutory scheme."
Friends of Southeast's Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cit. 1998). The agency
must "[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the
proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits." 40 C.F.R.
§ 1502.14(b). Only those alternatives that are deemed to be unreasonable can be eliminated from
study. Id. § 1502.14(a). Detailing all feasible solutions forces the agency to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposed project and to evaluate those against the effects of
alternatives. Piedmont Heights Civic Club Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 1981).
Just like the DEIS, the FEIS fails to conduct the objective analysis of alternatives NEPA
requires. Different and conflicting methodologies continue to be used to assess the
environmental and economic impacts of the project. The analyses remain rooted in arbitrary
assumptions, admittedly erroneous methodologies, and incomplete information. The flimsy
responses to our earlier comments contained in Appendix G do little —if anything —to rectify th©
fundamental violations of NEPA. LLl
A. The FEIS fails to analyze the environmental impacts of different LLI
alternatives. (�
LLI
1. The Delft3D model cannot be used to compare alternatives.
As we noted at length in our comments on the DEIS, the Delft3D model used to analyze
the environmental impacts of some project alternatives has significant limitations and is
unsuitable for use in the NEPA process. The FEIS concedes many of the inadequacies of the
model identified in our previous comments, including the fact that it cannot predict the direction
of sand transport or past erosion rates accurately,7 much less provide any indication of future
erosion rates or shoreline change.8 Indeed, the Corps acknowledges that "the Delft3D model is
not intended or [sic] is claimed to be a predictor of the future.s9 Given this definitive statement
about the model's utter lack of utility, it is stunning that the Corps continues to rely on it for the
entire analysis of environmental impacts. While agencies have some discretion to select tools for
their analysis, an agency's use of a model is arbitrary "if the model bears no rational relationship
'See, e.g., FEIS, Appendix G at 20, response to comment 177. "Granted the model indicated changes at anyone
[sic] particular station did not agree with observed changes but, taken as a whole, the trends on both sides of the inlet
obtained from Model Run 43A were judged to be sufficient to allow relative comparisons between the model results
for each alternative."
See generally discussion in FEIS Appendix Q Appendix G at 19-26, response to comments 173-225.
' FEIS, Appendix G at 20, response to comment 174.
ll
G.)

-- - - conduct additional analysis to fully, accurately, and -consistently analyze. a reasonable range of.
alternatives and their environmental impacts.
II. The FEIS failed to thoroughly, accurately, and transparently analyze a
reasonable range of alternatives.
Central to the NEPA process is the analysis and. disclosure of reasonable alternatives.
After identifying the underlying purpose and need for their intended project, agencies must
"[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" that could achieve that
underlying purpose. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). An "informed and meaningful consideration of
alternatives - including the no action alternative - is an integral part of the statutory scheme."
Friends of Southeast's Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 1998). The agency
must "[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the
proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits." 40 C.F.R.
§ 1502.14(b). Only those alternatives that are deemed to be unreasonable can be eliminated from.
study. Id. § 1502.14(a). Detailing all feasible solutions forces the agency to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposed project and to evaluate those against the effects of
alternatives. Piedmont Heights Civic Club Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 1981).
Just like the DEIS, the FEIS fails to conduct the objective analysis of alternatives NEPA
requires. Different and conflicting methodologies continue to be used to assess the
environmental and economic impacts of the project. The. analyses remain rooted in arbitrary
assumptions, admittedly erroneous methodologies, and incomplete information. The flimsy
responses to our earlier comments contained in Appendix G do little —if anything —to rectify tha
fundamental violations of NEPA. L9e9
A. The FEIS fails to analyze the environmental impacts of different LLU
alternatives.
—may
1. The Delft3D model cannot be used to compare alternatives.
As we noted at length in our comments on the DEIS, the De1ft3D model used to analyze
the environmental impacts of some project alternatives has significant limitations and is
unsuitable for use in the NEPA process. The FEIS concedes many of the inadequacies of the
model identified in our previous comments, including the fact that it cannot predict the direction
of sand transport or past erosion rates accurately,7 much less provide any indication of future
erosion rates or shoreline changes Indeed, the Corps acknowledges that "the Delft3D model is
not intended or [sic] is claimed to be a predictor of the future."9 Given this definitive statement
about the model's utter lack of utility, it is stunning that the Corps continues to rely on it for the
entire analysis of environmental impacts. While agencies have some discretion to select tools for
their analysis, an agency's use of a model is arbitrary "if the model bears no rational relationship
' See, e.g., FEIS, Appendix G at 20, response to comment 177. "Granted the model indicated changes at anyone
[sic] particular station did not agree with observed changes but, taken as a whole, the trends on both sides of the inlet
obtained from Model Run 43A were judged to be sufficient to allow relative comparisons between the model results
for each alternative."
'See generally discussion in FEIS Appendix Q Appendix G at 19-26, response to comments 173-225.
' FEIS, Appendix G at 20, response to comment 174.
Ell

to the reality it purports to represent." American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, 1005
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
"Accurate scientific analysis ... [is] essential to implementing NEPA." 40 C.F.R. §
1500.1(b). Agencies have a duty to "insure the professional integrity, including scientific
integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements." Id. § 1502.24.
The Corps' continued reliance on a model it acknowledges to be wholly inaccurate fails to
"satisfy the requirements of NEPA," and the FEIS "cannot provide the basis for an informed
evaluation or a reasoned decision." Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 701 F.2d 1011,
1030 (2d Cir. 1983).
The FEIS attempts to explain away the fact that this key model does not work by noting
that while the model results did not agree with observed changes, those realities do not matter
because the sole purpose of Delft3D is to predict "relative" changes between various
altematives.10 The FEIS does not explain why it is appropriate to use the model in this way. No
reasoning is given as to why, if the model does come anywhere close to accurately predicting the
future, it nonetheless can be trusted to accurately model proportional differences between future
outcomes for different alternatives. Rather, the FEIS simply states that "an assumption was
made, based on engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be
proportionally the same as indicated by the model.""
The HIS fails to back up this fundamental and counterintuitive assumption with any
explanation as to why it is nonetheless reasonable. When an agency's analysis relies on a key
assumption such as this one, it is required to explain the assumption so that the public may fully
scrutinize the analysis and its roots. See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 334 (D.C. Cir.
1981) ("the safety valves in the use of such sophisticated methodology are the requirement of
public exposure of the assumptions and data incorporated into the analysis and the acceptance
and consideration of public comment"); Kennecou Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1007, 1019 (D.C. Cir.
1982) (noting that because the "reasonableness and accuracy of the forecast data is critical," an
agency is required to provide access in a manner that allows interested persons to exercise their
right "to make their views known and influence the rulemaking process in a meaningful way").
Rather than explain why the assumption about proportionality is legitimate and allow
such scrutiny, the only citation given in support of the validity of this assumption is to a
"personal communication" from Beck, T., the Chief of Coastal Engineering at the Corps, in
2014.12 No transcript or copy of this "personal communication" is included in the FEIS, yet it is
cited for the fundamental proposition that the model —that all admit cannot predict future
changes, and which has failed even to replicate past changes when all relevant factors were
known —is nonetheless "valid for qualitative comparisons."13 The reasoning behind such a
fundamental assumption of the EIS demands more explanation.
10 FEIS, Appendix C at 60; Appendix G at 20, response to comment 178.
FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184.
2 FEIS at 23.
13 id.
RECFlvED
JUL 112016
DAM_
r'

Without more, the public, state, and federal resource agencies and other decisionmakers
cannot know if the assumption is, in fact, reasonable. In the list of "Literature Cited," the
communication with Beck is noted to concern "the predictability of future changes using coastal
modeling.i14 But the broader subject of whether coastal models are predictable or not is quite a
separate inquiry. Without more information, it is impossible to tell whether Beck addressed the
more pertinent issue as to whether models, and specifically the Delft3D model, can reasonably
be used to "pro -rate" the impacts of different project alternatives.15
The Fourth Circuit has made clear that "[w]hen relevant information `is not available
during the [impact statement] process and is not available to the public for comment[,] ... the
[impact statement] process cannot serve its larger informational role, and the public is deprived
of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision -making process." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n v. N. C.
Dep't of Transp., 677 F.3d 596, 603 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v.
Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011) and Robertson v. Methow Valley
Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). Here, the public has been deprived of any
explanation as to why the Delft3D model, despite its failure to accurately document and predict
shoreline changes in the real world, is nonetheless a reasonable tool to use to compare the
impacts of different shoreline management solutions.
That information is particularly crucial here, where the assumption is contradicted by the
same agency (the Corps) evaluating a similar project (Figure Eight Island) based on use of the
same model (Delft3D) by the same firm (CPE). In the Figure Eight Island DEIS and SEIS,
neither CPEnor the Corps engaged in any "scaling" of past erosion rates based on the Delft3D
results. CPE and the Corps simply adopted the results of the Delft3D modeling.16 The reason is
manifest —the model gave CPE and the Corps high enough erosion rates to support an argument
for a terminal groin. Here, the Delft3D model, as described in our DEIS comments, predicts
erosion rates that are more than compensated for with minimal beach nourishment, failing to
meet CPE's goal of justifying a terminal groin. That reason cannot justify the cryptic reliance on
unjustified assumptions regarding the use of the Delft3D model to manufacture excessive erosion
rates.
As a related matter, in our previous comments we highlighted the assertion in the DEIS
that the Delft3D model has "inherent accuracy" and asked that the error rate be included in the
FEIS. In response to our comments the FEIS notes that "modeled elevation changes have an
accuracy of (plus or minus) 0.2 feet —noting that for a 10 acre area the volume changes would
have an accuracy of plus or minus 3,226 cubic yards.i17 This "explanation" is entirely useless.
Rather than present the error rate for an arbitrary 10 acres, the FEIS should have explained how
accurate the model was for the area under study. Moreover, the FEIS fails to explain what this
"inherent accuracy" means for a model which has been shown to be inherently inaccurate. Q
LU
W
14, FEIS at 224.
16 FEIS at Appendix G at 20, response to comment 183.
16 See, e.g., Figure Eight Island Inlet and Shoreline Management Project SEIS at 224-225 (July 9, 2015); Figure
Eight Island Inlet and Shoreline Management Project DEIS at 4749 (May 23, 2012).
17 id
M
N
U
0

Without more, the public, state, -and federal resource agencies and,other decisionmakers
cannot know if the assumption is, in fact, reasonable. In the list of "Literature Cited," the
communication with Beck is noted to concern "the predictability of future changes using coastal
modeling.i14 But the broader subject of whether coastal models are predictable or not is quite a
separate inquiry. Without more information, it is impossible to tell whether Beck addressed the
more pertinent issue as to whether models, and specifically the Delft3D model, can reasonably
be used to "pro -rate" the impacts of different project alternatives.15
The Fourth Circuit has made clear that "[w]hen relevant information `is not available
during the [impact statement] process and is not available to the public for comment[,] ... the
[impact statement] process cannot serve its larger informational role, and the public is deprived
of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision -making process." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n v. N. C.
Dep't of Transp., 677 F.3d 596, 603 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v.
Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cit. 2011) and Robertson v. Methow Valley
Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). Here, the public has been deprived of any
explanation as to why the Delft3D model, despite its failure to accurately document and predict
shoreline changes in the real world, is nonetheless a reasonable tool to use to compare the
impacts of different shoreline management solutions.
That information is particularly crucial here, where the assumption is contradicted by the
same agency (the Corps) evaluating a similar project (Figure Eight Island) based on use of the
same -model'(Delft3D) by the same firm (CPE). In the Figure Eight Island DEIS and SEIS,
neither CPE'nor the Corps engaged in any "scaling" of past erosion rates based on the Delft3D
results. `CPE and the Corps simply adopted the results of the Delft3D modeling.16 The reason is
manifest$ the model gave CPE and the Corps high enough erosion rates to support an argument
for a terminal groin. Here, the Delft3D model, as described in our DEIS comments, predicts
erosion rates that are more than compensated for with minimal beach nourishment, failing to
meet CPE's goal of justifying a terminal groin. That reason cannot justify the cryptic reliance on
unjustified assumptions regarding the use of the Delft3D model to manufacture excessive erosion
rates.
As a related matter, in our previous comments we highlighted the assertion in the DEIS
that the Delft3D model has "inherent accuracy" and asked that the error rate be included in the
FEIS. In response to our comments the FEIS notes that "modeled elevation changes have an
accuracy of (plus or minus) 0.2 feet —noting that for a 10 acre area the volume changes would
have an accuracy of plus or minus 3,226 cubic yards.s17 This "explanation" is entirely useless.
Rather than present the error rate for an arbitrary 10 acres, the FEIS should have explained how
accurate the model was for the area under study. Moreover, the FEIS fails to explain what this
"inherent accuracy" means for a model which has been shown to be inherently inaccurate. n
LU
0
LU
Ir
4 FEIS at 224.
s FEIS at Appendix G at 20, response to comment 183.
16 See, e.g., Figure Eight Island Inlet and Shoreline Management Project SEIS at 224-225 (July 9, 2015); Figure
Eight Island Inlet and Shoreline Management Project DEIS at 47-49 (May 23, 2012).
17 Id

B. The economic analysis of alternatives is based on separate, conflicting,
but equally arbitrary methodologies.
For no legitimate reason, the FEIS continues to use an entirely separate process to assess
the supposed economic impact of different project alternatives. This analysis continues to
contain the significant flaws we outlined in our previous comments.
The FEIS cherry -picks an arbitrary baseline sample to calculate
future movement of the scarp line.
The economic analysis in the FEIS continues to center on the assumption that under
Alternatives 1 or 2, erosion will take place at a consistently high rate modeled on the level
witnessed between 1999 and 2010.18 As a primary matter, this assumption is contradicted by the
results of the Delft3D published elsewhere in the FEIS—further undercutting the public
information process the NEPA process is intended to serve. Moreover, the use of that specific
period as the rate at which erosion could be expected to "uniformly continue" for the next 30
years is entirely arbitrary. In response to our initial comments, the FEIS states that the use of this
specific ten year period is appropriate to determine future erosion rates because it includes
"recent man -induced changes that would have an impact on movement." This is not a rational
explanation.
First, the "man -induced changes" listed took place from between 2001 and 2010. The
period used does not match this time frame —it begins in 1999. No explanation is given as to
why it was appropriate to include data from 1999.but not available data from 1998 or 1997. The
period between 1997 and 2010 includes the "man -induced changes" just as completely as the ten
year period between 1999 and 2010,t9 but has the added benefit of also including an example of
the natural accretion that occurs at the inlet. The arbitrary decision to exclude this relevant
information when projecting future erosion violates NEPA.
Moreover, the decision to place high importance on "man -induced changes" but to then
ignore the equally important accretion that occurred between 1997 and 1999 requires
explanation. But the FEIS includes no rationale as to why the "man -induced changes" should
form part of the baseline whereas other indications of the natural cycle of erosion and accretion
should not. Without directly stating as much, the FEIS appears to be asserting that natural
accretion would no longer happen with "man -induced" changes in place. No explanation is
given to support this assumption, however. Nor could one be offered. The addition of factors
such as nourishment and the installation of sandbags into the baseline condition would not lead
to automatically less accretion in the future. Moreover, the entire purpose of the EIS is to
- determine how additional "man -induced changes" may alter the erosion rate. The background
"natural" condition before any "man -induced changes" should therefore be factored into the
analysis.
18 FEIS, Appendix B at 27.
19 While Appendix B and the response to comments continue to suggest that the period between 1999 and 2010 was
used to calculate the future movement of the scarp line, page 120 of the HIS suggests that the erioddy�qi�
1997 to 2010. These different accounts further frustrate NEPA's purpose in informing the putR. I VV
7 JUL 11 2016

The FEIS disregards entirely our reminder about the natural changes at Rich Inlet that
have not only eliminated erosion at Figure Eight Island, but have resulted in substantial accretion
of the northern end of the island in just a few years.20 To shrug off such relevant information
about erosion rates at similarly -situated inlets with the mere phrase "noted" violates NEPA's
requirement to take a "hard look" and to consider and respond to public comments. Suffolk Cty.
v. Sec y of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1383 (2d Cir. 1977) ("Where evidence presented to the
preparing agency is ignored or otherwise inadequately dealt with, serious questions may arise
about the adequacy of the authors' efforts to compile a complete statement"); 40 C.F.R. §
1503.4(a) (requiring agencies to consider and respond to public comments on environmental
impact statements).
Without more explanation, it appears that the Corps is cherry -picking LiDAR data that
will support a quickly eroding coastline and disregarding data that demonstrates accretion as part
of its bid to justify the terminal groin. This use of data to justify a predetermined outcome is
exactly what NEPA prohibits. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1, 1502.2(g).
The Fourth Circuit has made clear that "[w]ithout [accurate baseline] data, an agency
cannot carefully consider information about significant environmental impacts" and therefore the
analysis will "result[] in an arbitrary and capricious decision." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n 677 F.3d at
603 (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. 668 F.3d at 1085). It is fundamental that baseline data
for the analysis of environmental impacts represent reality. See Friends of Back Bay v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng's, 681 F.3d 581, 588 (4th Cir. 2012) ("A material misapprehension of the
baseline conditions existing in advance of an agency action can lay the groundwork for an
arbitrary and capricious decision"). Without an accurate assessment of baseline conditions, "the
[impact statement] process cannot serve its larger informational role, and the public is deprived
of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision -making process." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n, 677 F.3d
at 603 (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, 668 F.3d at 1085). Assuming erroneously high erosion
rates based on the arbitrary, cherry -picked high erosion sample violates NEPA.
2. The FEIS arbitrarily overstates the costs of non -groin alternatives.
The DEIS used the overstated linear retreat of the scarp line to assert that 45 houses and
238 parcels would be lost over the next 30 years. We, along with several state and federal
agencies, questioned this number and the FEIS was revised to state that 155 parcels would be
lost 21 Curiously, despite the removal of 83 parcels from the analysis the overall costs associated
with the loss of these properties only diminished by $30,000.22 Moreover, it remains unclear
how the Corps is calculating this 155 parcel fi ure. A review of Figure 3.1 appears to show a
2
much smaller number of parcels under threat The 155 parcels are not clearly described either
}
in the text or in any figure in the FEIS, thus the public is left without any ability to determine Q
where or what the parcels are and whether they are truly under threat in the next 30 years. j CO
U
0
� N
Q
W
_
20 FEIS, Appendix G. W
21 id.
C1
C
22 Compare DEIS at 27 ($21.39 million for the loss of approximately 238 parcels), with FEIS at 28 ($21.36 million
(.)
for the loss of 155 parcels).
0
23 FEIS, Figure 3.1 at 27. _
8

- The FEIS disregards entirely our reminder about the natural changesatRich Inlet that
have not only eliminated erosion at Figure Eight Island, but have resulted in substantial accretion
of the northern end of the island in just a few years.20 To shrug off such relevant information
about erosion rates at similarly -situated inlets with the mere phrase "noted" violates NEPA's
requirement to take a "hard look" and to consider and respond to public comments. Suffolk Cry.
v. Sec y oflnterior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1383 (2d Cir. 1977) ("Where evidence presented to the
preparing agency is ignored or otherwise inadequately dealt with, serious questions may arise
about the adequacy of the authors' efforts to compile a complete statement"); 40 C.F.R. §
1503.4(a) (requiring agencies to consider and respond to public comments on environmental
impact statements).
Without more explanation, it appears that the Corps is cherry -picking LiDAR data that
will support a quickly eroding coastline and disregarding data that demonstrates accretion as part
of its bid to justify the terminal groin. This use of data to justify a predetermined outcome is
exactly what NEPA prohibits. 40.C.F.R. § 1502.1, 1502.2(g).
The Fourth Circuit has made clear that "[w]ithout [accurate baseline] data, an agency
cannot carefully consider information about significant environmental impacts" and therefore the
analysis will "result[] in an arbitrary and capricious decision." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n 677 F.3d at
603 (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. 668 F.3d at 1085). It is fundamental that baseline data
for the analysis of environmental impacts represent reality. See Friends of Back Bay v. U.S.
Army Corps;of Eng's, 681 F.3d 581, 588 (4th Cir. 2012) ("A material misapprehension of the
baseline conditions existing in advance of an agency action can lay the groundwork for an
arbitrary and capricious decision"). Without an accurate assessment of baseline conditions, "the
[impact statement] process cannot serve its larger informational role; and the public is deprived
of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision -malting process." N.C. Wildlife Fed'n, 677 F:3d
at 603 (quoting.N. Plains Res. Council, 668 F.3d at 1085). Assuming erroneously high erosion
rates based on the arbitrary, cherry -picked high erosion sample violates NEPA.
2. The FEIS arbitrarily overstates the costs of non -groin alternatives.
The DEIS used the overstated linear retreat of the scarp line to assert that 45 houses and
238 parcels would be lost over the next 30 years. We, along with several state and federal
agencies, questioned this number and the FEIS was revised to state that 155 parcels would be
lost 21 Curiously, despite the removal of 83 parcels from the analysis the overall costs associated
with the loss of these properties only diminished by $30,000.22 Moreover, it remains unclear
how the Corps is calculating this 155 parcel fr ure. A review of Figure 3.1 appears to show a
much smaller number of parcels under threat 2 The 155 parcels are not clearly described either
in the text or in any figure in the FEIS, thus the public is left without any ability to determine
where or what the parcels are and whether they are truly under threat in the next 30 years. L
g�
U u
20 FEIS, Appendix G. LU
21 Id.
22 Compare DEIS at 27 ($21.39 million for the loss of approximately 238 parcels), with FEIS at 28 ($21.36 million
for the loss of 155 parcels).
23 FEIS, Figure. 3.1 at 27.

Over the past 15 years just six houses have been lost to erosion in the project study area .24
For the FEIS to make the leap to conclude that erosion in the next 30 years will result in losses
that are orders of magnitude greater than what has been seen to date requires significantly more
support than is presented. It is essential that this information be made clear to the public and
decisionmakers. The 155-parcel figure forms the basis for much of the economic analysis in the
FEIS, and the justification for constructing the 750 foot groin. For example, the FEIS concludes
that under Alternatives 1 and 2 the loss of all 155 parcels is expected to amount to $21.36
million.25
Moreover, the FEIS continues to improperly consider costs beyond those that flow to the
Town of Ocean Isle Beach. As we have noted, the Town does not own the properties at issue; its
only loss is future profit from tax revenue which would be a significantly lower cost.26 In
response, comments in the FEIS state that the economic analysis "was not presented as a cost to
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach per se, rather, the analysis presented the potential future loses as
an overall economic impact ....,,27 This analysis apparently disregards NEPA's requirement
that alternatives be evaluated with reference to the stated purpose and need. See City of Carmel -
By -The -Sea v. U.S. Dept of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997); Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975). The FEIS clearly states that the
purpose and need for this project includes the aim "to maintain the Town's tax base by providing
long-term protection of property and infrastructure ..."28 The FEIS does not state that the
purpose is to look generally at `overall economic impact." Not only would such a purpose be
impermissibly broad, but it would require the consideration of a much expanded analysis.29
Likewise, the stated purpose and need of the project is not to reduce federal costs, yet the
federal cost share remains factored into the economic analysis in the EIS. In response,
comments in the FEIS state that the federal cost share was included to take account of the fact
that it would be less under other alternatives. 30 In other words, it appears the federal share is
being included to justify construction of the project. But again, reducing the federal cost share is
not a stated aim of the project, and if it were, many other options might need to be considered.
When the federal cost share is removed from consideration and the Town's cost share alone is
compared for the various alternatives, there is very little difference between each one.31
Similarly, the FEIS continues to err by assessing the value of lost property and
infrastructure at the "replacement cost i32 With regard to individual properties, the FEIS itself
makes clear why this is not an appropriate assessment. The document notes that when homes
30 FEIS at 27.
zs Id. at 28.
26 See Andrew S. Coburn, "A Fiscal Analysis of Shifting Inlets and Terminal Groins in North Carolina" at 8,
http://www.wcu.eduAVebFiles/PDFs/TG_White_papecpdf (calculating tax revenue of properties within 30-year risk
area identified by Coastal Resources Commission) (attached to DEIS comments as Ex. 6).
27 FEIS, Appendix G at 26, response to comment 225.
ze Id. at 16.
29 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Economic Analysis in the Context of 404(b) 1 Alternatives Analysis at 14-
15 (Sept. 1999).
30 FEIS, Appendix G at 28, response to comment 239. RECEIVED
31 FEIS at 44.
32 HIS at 27.
9 JUL 112016
Ipi�m- MI HD CITY

become threatened it is individual property owners, not the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who
decide whether they will abandon it or move a different location.33 In other words, in the event
that properties are lost, the loss is not the Town's. The only loss to the Town is the potential
minimal loss in tax revenue as noted above. Similarly, the FEIS inappropriately includes the full
replacement costs of infrastructure such as roads to submerged houses. These roads would not
be replaced, thus the Town would incur only the cost of removing them —not the greater
additional replacement cost. Replacement costs for infrastructure that will not be replaced
should not be factored into the financial analysis.
As a final matter, in calculating annual losses from the various alternatives, the EIS
employs a discount rate of 4.125%. It is unclear from where this discount rate originates. There
is nothing in the FEIS to support its use. The federal Office of Management and Budget
currently recommends the use of a discount rate of 1.5%.34 The FEIS should explain why it is
departing so dramatically from this discount rate.
Even with these errors, the analysis in the FEIS makes clear that all alternatives are
"practicable." No statement is given to suggest that any one alternative could not be pursued for
financial reasons, and no other barriers are noted. When determining whether an alternative is
"practicable" the Corps must consider the cost to the applicant. Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, 45 Fed. Reg. 85336, 85343 (Dec. 24, 1980); see
Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 882 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1989). As explained
above, even when the inflated cost estimates for non -groin alternatives are included, the cost to
the applicant —the Town of Ocean Isle —is essentially the same under each alternative.35
The Corps may not consider other general factors such as which alternative poses the
overall lowest financial cost to society —as they apparently attempt to do here. The Corps'
guidance makes clear that the inquiry surrounding its duty to select the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative ("LEDPA") is "not whether an alternative `more fully or better
addresses' management plans, goals, desire, political wishes" or other "non project purpose
aspects.1136 Rather, the Corps has to consider alternatives based on the purpose and need and
determine which are practicable. If all are practicable, only the alternative with the least aquatic
resource impacts may be selected, even if an alternative had greater economic or social
benefits.37 Here, where all alternatives are practicable, the analysis must turn to which is the
"least environmentally damaging."
0
W
77 FEIS at 27. _ - W
as See OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, CIRCULAR NO. A-94, Appendix C (2015), available at U
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_ a094/a94_appx-c. W
76 FEIS at 44. MM
J6 Chandler Peter, Alternatives Analysis: Satisfying NEPA, Public Interest Review & 404b1, U.S. ARMY CORP;
OF ENGINEERS at slide 11 (July 24, 2014), available at
http://www. swf.usace. army.mil/Portals/47/docs/regulatory/Hot%2OTopics/2014%2OJu1%2OA ltematives.pdf.http://
ww.swf.usace. army.mil/Portals/47/docs/regulatory/Hot%2OTopics/2014%2OJu1%2OAltematives.pdf.
77 id.
10
Lo Cv

-- -- --- - become -threatened it is individual property owners, not the- Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who
decide whether they will abandon it or move a different location.33 In other words, in the event
that properties are lost, the loss is not the Town's. The only loss to the Town is the potential
minimal loss in tax revenue as noted above. Similarly, the FEIS inappropriately includes the full
replacement costs of infrastructure such as roads to submerged houses. These roads would not
be replaced, thus the Town would incur only the cost of removing them —not the greater
additional replacement cost. Replacement costs for infrastructure that will not be replaced
should not be factored into the financial analysis.
As a final matter, in calculating annual losses from the various alternatives, the EIS -
employs a discount rate of 4.125%. It is unclear from where this discount rate originates. There
is nothing in the FEIS to support its use. The federal Office of Management and Budget
currently recommends the use of a discount,rate of 1.5%.34 The FEIS should explain why it is
departing so dramatically from this discount rate.
Even with these errors, the analysis in the FEIS makes clear that all alternatives are
"practicable." No statement is given to suggest that any one alternative could not be pursued for
financial reasons, and no other barriers are noted. When determining whether an alternative is
"practicable" the Corps must consider the cost to the applicant. Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, 45 Fed. Reg. 85336, 85343 (Dec. 24, 1980); see
Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 882 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1989). As explained
above, even when the inflated cost estimates for non -groin alternatives are included, the cost to
the applicant —the Town of Ocean Isle —is essentially the same under each alternative.35
The Corps may not consider other general factors such as which alternative poses the
overall lowest financial cost to society —as they apparently attempt to do here. The Corps'
guidance makes clear that the inquiry surrounding its duty to select the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative ("LEDPA') is "not whether an alternative `more fully or better
addresses' management plans, goals, desire, political wishes" or other "non project purpose
aspects.i36 Rather, the Corps has to consider alternatives based on the purpose and need and
determine which are practicable. If all are practicable, only the alternative with the least aquatic
resource impacts may be selected, even if an alternative had greater economic or social
benefits. 37 Here, where all alternatives are practicable, the analysis must turn to which is the
"least environmentally damaging."
LU
33 FEIS at 27.LUP"
34 See OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, CIRCULAR NO. A-94, Appendix C (2015), available at
https:/lwww.Whitehouse.gov/omb/circulazs_a094/a94_appx-c. L
t,
3s FEIS at 44.
36 Chandler Peter, Alternatives Analysis: Satisfying NEPA, Public Interest Review & 404b1, U.S. ARMY CORPS'
OF ENGINEERS at slide 11 (July 24, 2014), available at
ww.swfusace.anny
37 Id.
10
pdf.

III. The FEIS's analysis of natural resources does not remedy the DEIS's
failures.
In addition to our concern about the environmental models and economic assumptions
used in the DEIS, we also objected to the DEIS's treatment of natural resources in the proposed
project and alternatives considered. This analysis is essential to the evaluation of the alternatives
under the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines, which require not just informed analysis, as NEPA
requires, but also the selection of the LEDPA. Notably, practicable is defined by regulation to
mean "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics." 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(q). Once this threshold has been met —which, as
noted above, has been for all of the alternatives considered —the analysis must switch to which is
the least environmentally damaging. This is an environmental consideration, rendering
irrelevant the FEIS's consideration of cost among the various alternatives.
A. The FEIS fails to properly evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts.
Direct effects are those "which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and
place." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are those that "are caused by the action and are
later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." 40 C.F.R. §
1508.8(b). Because the purpose of this project is to modify natural sand transport processes, the
analysis of indirect effects is a crucial part of the DEIS. The importance of the indirect effects
analysis is heightened for the terminal groin alternatives because they would permanently disrupt
natural inlet dynamics.
In the DEIS, "[i]ndirect impacts were determined by the changes to the shoreline at Year
1 Post -construction as interpreted from the Delft3D modeling results."38 Two aspects of this
analysis are critical. First, the impacts are based solely on the shoreline predicted by the Delft3D
model as discussed above. Second, the analysis was limited to three and five years post
construction.39 While this is a very marginal improvement over the single year of modeling
indicated in the DEIS, it remains entirely inadequate. The supposed economic benefit of the
project is presented over a 30-year time period and the indirect effects on a variety of natural
resources will continue well beyond that time.
Finally, the FEIS's cumulative impacts analysis fails to meet basic requirements. A
"[c]umulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed project threatens
to degrade habitat for birds, turtles, and fish that use inlets like Shallotte Inlet for key portions of
their life cycles. There are a limited number of inlets in North Carolina and several are
intensively managed'hardened'41 or have proposed terminal groin projects.42ft
�D
38 DEIS at 113. JUL 112016
3' FEIS at Appendix G at 24, response to comment 203.
40 Oregon Inlet, Beaufort Inlet, Mason Inlet, Rich Inlet, Shallotte Inlet, and New River inlet, tyixe D C ITY
managed through dredging.
41 Oregon Inlet, Beaufort Inlet, Masonboro Inlet, and Bald Head Island each have some type of hardened structure.
11

permitting agency for each of these inlet management projects. Yet the FEIS provides no
analysis of the cumulative impact of these numerous projects on species that depend on
functioning inlet systems. That failure violates NEPA. See Nat'l Audubon Soc y, 422 F.3d at
187 ("The hallmarks of a `hard look' are thorough investigation into environmental impacts and
forthright acknowledgment of potential environmental harms"). The wildlife that depend on the
dynamic processes at Shallotte Inlet cannot simply go somewhere else —the Corps is evaluating
projects to destroy those processes at the "somewhere else" as well. Yet the FEIS fails to
conduct a meaningful analysis of that cumulative impact.
B. The FEIS does not provide information required to satisfy the 404(b)(1)
guidelines.
Since, as noted above, all alternatives are "practicable," the inquiry under the 404(b)(1)
guidelines shifts to the selection of the alternative with the least environmental damage. In order
to make this decision, the EIS must "consider[] the alternatives in sufficient detail to respond to
the requirements of these Guidelines" discussed below and it is "necessary to supplement these
NEPA documents with this additional information." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(4). For the reasons
described above, the analysis of environmental impacts based on a terminal -groin -oriented
analysis does not provide the objective evaluation necessary to complete that analysis.
The alternatives fall into two categories. The first includes the non-structural
alternatives, whose environmental impacts —dredging, smothering benthic organisms, altered
beach profile, etc. vary by degree. The second category includes the terminal groin alternatives,
whose unique environmental impacts —hardening of the shoreline, loss of overwash areas, etc. —
are permanent. We noted in our previous comments that Alternative 4 appears to be the LEDPA
and the only alternative that can be permitted.
In its application of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the Corps must evaluate "the nature and
degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have, individually and cumulatively, on the
characteristics at the proposed disposal sites." 40 C.F.R. § 230.11(a). That effect is measured by
how the project will change the "physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
substrate" and affect "bottom -dwelling organisms at the site by smothering immobile forms or
forcing mobile forms to migrate." 40 C.F.R. § 230.20(b).
The analysis of these factors reveals a clear. divide. The non-structural alternatives will
have varying degrees of impact on infaunal communities in both the dredged areas and the
nourished areas. Because it would require decreasing dredging and nourishment, Alternative 4
would have the least impact on substrate and benthic organisms. Unlike any of the non-
structural alternatives, however, the terminal groin alternatives will permanently alter the
characteristics of the inlet. The intertidal areas lost in the area that would be impacted by the }
terminal groin will not redevelop, eliminating the possibility that the benthic organisms buried e�
displaced could repopulate the area. The terminal groin alternatives will fundamentally changes U
the nature of the eastern end of the island, eliminating overwash areas and permanently alterirt>
CJ
rl
42 The Wilmington District's web page lists terminal groin projects proposed for Holden Beach and Figure Eigh�
Island in addition to Ocean Isle Beach and Bald Head Island. �y s?
12 �i 0

permitting agency for each of these inletmanagementprojects. Yet the FEIS provides no.,.
analysis of the cumulative impact of these numerous projects on species that depend on
functioning inlet systems. That failure violates NEPA. See Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, 422 F.3d at
187 ("The hallmarks of a `hard look'. are thorough investigation into environmental impacts and
forthright acknowledgment of potential environmental harms"). The wildlife that depend on the
dynamic processes at Shallotte Inlet cannot simply go somewhere else —the Corps is evaluating
projects to destroy those processes at the "somewhere else" as well. Yet the FEIS fails to
conduct a meaningful analysis of that cumulative impact.
B. The FEIS does. not provide information required to satisfy the 404(b)(1)
guidelines.
Since, as noted above, all alternatives are "practicable," the inquiry under the 404(b)(1)
guidelines shifts to the selection of the alternative with the least environmental damage. In order
to make this decision, the EIS must ` considero the alternatives in sufficient detail to respond to
the requirements of these Guidelines" discussed below and it is "necessary to supplement these
NEPA documents with this additional information." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(4). For the reasons
described above, the analysis of environmental impacts based on a terminal -groin -oriented
analysis does not provide the objective evaluation necessary to complete that analysis.
The alternatives fall into two categories. The first includes the non-structural
alternatives; whose environmental impacts —dredging, smothering benthic organisms, altered
beach profile, etc. vary by degree. The second category includes the terminal groin alternatives,
whose unique environmental impacts —hardening of the shoreline, loss of overwash areas, etc. —
are permanent. We noted in our previous comments that Alternative 4 appears to be the LEDPA
and the only, alternative that can be permitted.
In its application of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the Corps must evaluate "the nature and
degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have, individually and cumulatively, on the
characteristics at the proposed disposal sites." 40 C.F.R. § 230.1l(a). That effect is measured by
how the proj ect will change the "physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the .
substrate" and affect "bottom -dwelling organisms at the site by smothering immobile forms or
forcing mobile forms to migrate." 40 C.F.R. § 230.20(b).
The analysis of these factors reveals a clear. divide. The non-structural alternatives will
have varying degrees of impact on infaunal communities in both the dredged areas and the
nourished areas. Because it would require decreasing dredging and nourishment, Alternative 4
would have the least impact on substrate and benthic organisms. Unlike any of the non-
structural alternatives, however, the terminal groin alternatives will permanently alter the
characteristics of the inlet. The intertidal areas lost in the area that would be impacted by the
terminal groin will not redevelop, eliminating the possibility that the benthic organisms buried oar
displaced could repopulate the area. The terminal groin alternatives will fundamentally change
the nature of the eastern end of the island, eliminating overwash areas and permanently alterin>
e b
42 The Wilmington District's web page lists terminal groin projects proposed for Holden Beach and Figure Eighu _> 3
Island in addition to Ocean Isle Beach and Bald Head Island. Jr
12

substrate and eliminating habit for benthic organisms. Alternatives 5a, 5b, and 5c are the most
environmentally damaging alternatives when evaluated under the factors in 40 C.F.R. § 230.20.
The Corps must also evaluate "the nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge
will have individually and cumulatively on water, current patterns, circulation including
downstream flows, and normal water fluctuation." 40 C.F.R. § 230.11(b). These effects are
measured by the "adverse changes" that occur in "[1]ocation, structure, and dynamics of aquatic
communities; shoreline and substrate erosion and deposition rates; [and] the deposition of
suspended particulates." 40 C.F.R. § 230.23(b).
As with impacts to substrate, Alternative 4 clearly has the least environmental impact on
the aquatic communities and deposition of suspended particles. It would less adversely affect
aquatic communities and would continue to allow deposition of suspended particles on the
overwash areas at the eastern end of the island (as would the other non-structural alternatives).
By comparison, the terminal groin alternatives would permanently displace aquatic communities
at the eastern end of the island and eliminate overwash, cementing the accompanying adverse
environmental impacts.
The Corps' consideration of the fluctuation of normal water level must include
consideration of "modifications [that] can alter or destroy communities and populations of
aquatic animals and vegetation, ... modify habitat, reduce food supply, restrict movement of
aquatic fauna, destroy spawning areas, and change adjacent, upstream, and downstream areas."
40 C.F.R. § 230.24.
For the reasons described above and the impacts on the benthic communities, Alternative
4 appears to have the least environmental impact. Alternative 4 would also appear to have the
least adverse environmental effect on wet beach habitat, adjacent dry beach habitat, and back
beach habitat. Other non-structural alternatives would similarly have temporally limited
environmental impacts to these habitats. Alternatives 5a, 5b, and 5c would have significant,
permanent impacts to these areas. They would eliminate wet beach habitats and the associated
benthic organisms, significantly modify dry beach habitats, and result in dense vegetation of
what are now sparsely vegetated back beach habitats. They would therefore have the greatest
adverse impacts of any of the alternatives.
C. The Project will have unacceptable impacts on threatened and
endangered species and their habitat.
We discussed extensively in our previous comments the reasonably foreseeable impacts
of terminal groin construction on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. In
those comments, we noted that consultation must be undertaken pursuant to the ESA to "insure
that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to ... result in the
destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat." 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). While the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS" or "Service") has undertaken this analysis in its August
6, 2015 Biological Opinion (`Biological Opinion") for the project, the inquiry cannot stop there.
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
13
DCW MHD CITY

First, we are concerned that the FWS's Biological Opinion does not satisfy the Corps'
independent duty to insure its actions will not cause jeopardy to the species or adverse
modification to critical habitat. "The ultimate burden remains on the acting agency to insure any
action it pursues is not likely to jeopardize protected species" or adversely modify or destroy
critical habitat. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300 (8a' Cir.
1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, an agency is not insulated from this
responsibility merely by relying on a biological opinion; rather, "its decision to rely on [that]
biological opinion must not have been arbitrary or capricious." Fla. Key Deer v. Paulison, 522
F.3d 1133, 1144 (1 la' Cir. 2008) (quoting Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe oflndians v. U.S. Dep't of
the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9' Cir. 1990)). There are numerous flaws in the August 6, 2015
Biological Opinion which render the Corps' reliance on it fundamentally flawed.
Second, and critical in this case, the Corps' legal duty goes beyond the no jeopardy
mandate of the ESA to include the LEDPA mandate under CWA Section 404(b)(1). See
generally GYC v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257 (10`s Cir. 2004) (discussing separate duties under ESA
and CWA). While the ESA no jeopardy standard looks at the species as a whole, the 404(b)(1)
guidelines focuses on the impacts to the immediate project area. Under the CWA, the Corps
must compare alternatives based on their potential impact on "nesting areas, protective cover,
adequate and reliable food supply and resting areas for migratory species." 40 C.F.R. §
230.30(b)(2). The Corps must also consider "the loss or change of breeding and nesting areas,
escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and transient wildlife
species associated with the aquatic system." 40 C.F.R. § 230.32(b).
Here, the FWS has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
knots, and seabeach amaranth within the project area" and recommended that it not be
authorized.43 As early as its 2011 scoping comments on the project, FWS wrote:
The issues are clear. A project of this nature will destroy the ecological
functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas. The science is unequivocal. I
see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty. We oppose this project.
There is nothing more to discuss. 44
And in its most recent letter, FWS stated that the agency's "comments and concerns about
impacts to our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a
30-year project were not" adequately addressed.45 The agency goes on to say that "it is unlikely
that the applicant could address these comments adequately without significantly revising the
project or changing their preferred alternative, and as far as we can tell, there have not been any
significant revisions to the preferred project."46
43 See letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (May 20, 2016) (attached to these comments
A
;
Attachment 1); letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (March 12, 2015) (attached to these
LU
secomments
as Attachment 2).
i
N
f.
44 Email from W. Laney, FWS, to C. Weaver, NCDENR, (Dec. 19, 2011) (attached to these comments as
Attachment 3).
41
0`
See May 20, 2016 letter at 5.
W
-t
ir
14
0

First; we are concerned that the FWS's Biological Opinion does not satisfy the Corps' -
independent duty to insure its actions will not cause jeopardy to the species or adverse
modification to critical habitat. "The ultimate burden remains on the acting agency to insure any
action it pursues is riot likely to jeopardize protected species" or adversely modify or destroy
critical habitat. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300 (8a' Cir.
1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, an agency is not insulated from this
responsibility merely by relying on a biological opinion; rather, "its decision to rely on [that]
biological opinion must not have been arbitrary or capricious." Fla. Key Deer v. Paulison, 522
F.3d 1133, 1144 (11a' Cir. 2008) (quoting Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe oflndians v. U.S. Dept of
the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9a' Cir. 1990)). There are numerous flaws in the August 6, 2015
Biological Opinion which render the Corps' reliance on it fundamentally flawed.
Second, and critical in this case, the Corps' legal duty goes beyond the no jeopardy
mandate of the ESA to include the LEDPA mandate under CWA Section 404(b)(1). See
generally GYC v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257 (10`h Cir. 2004) (discussing separate duties under ESA
and CWA). While the ESA no jeopardy standard looks at the species as a whole, the 404(b)(1)
guidelines focuses on the impacts to the immediate project area. Under the CWA, the Corps
must compare alternatives based on their potential impact on "nesting areas, protective cover,
adequate and reliable food supply and resting areas for migratory species." 40 C.F.R. §
230.30(b)(2). The Corps must also consider "the loss or change of breeding and nesting areas,
escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and transient wildlife
species associated with the aquatic system. 40 C.F.R. § 230.32(b).
Here, the FWS has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely�,affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
knots, an&'cabeach amaranth within the project area" and recommended that it not be
authorized.`.. As early as its 2011 scoping comments on the project, FWS. wrote:
The issues are clear. A project of this nature will destroy the ecological
functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas. The science is unequivocal. I
see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty. We oppose this project.
There is, nothing more to discuss as
And in its most recent letter, FWS stated that the agency's "comments and concerns about
impacts to our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a
30-year project were not" adequately addressed.45 The agency goes on to say that "it is unlikely
that the applicant could address these comments adequately without significantly revising the
project or changing their preferred alternative, and as far as we can tell, there have not been any
significant revisions to the preferred project „46
43 See letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE 20, 2016) to these
g "'
(May (attached comments
Attachment 1); letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to.T. Crumbley, USCOE (March 12, 2015) (attached to these
as®
LU
�e
comments as Attachment 2).
>
N
a Email from W. Laney, FWS, to C. Weaver, NCDENR, (Dec. 19, 2011) (attached to these comments as
LM
Attachment3).
45
See May 20, 2016 letter at 5,
46 Id..
LU
c:
14

These clearly stated concerns and objections raise significant questions about the Corps
proceeding with permitting the proposed project. Such questions have not been answered in the
FEIS and the Corps appears legally vulnerable under both the ESA and the CWA.
1. The Corps may not rely on the August 6, 2015 Biological Opinion to
avoid ESA liability.
At base, neither the 2015 Biological Opinion nor the FEIS into which it is incorporated
provide information sufficient to show that the agency has insured that its actions are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species present in the project area or adversely
modify or destroy designated critical habitat. Rather, the Biological Opinion and FEIS merely
list concerns about negative impacts likely to result from the construction of the terminal groin
proposed at Ocean Isle, and then determine without analysis that the project will not cause
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. Importantly the ESA's standards are not just
about preventing harm to existing members of the species, but about providing for the recovery
of the species over time. In Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F.3d 1059, 1070-70 (9th Cir. 2004), the 9s' Circuit explained that Congress enacted the ESA "not
merely to forestall the extinction of [a] species (i.e., promote a species['] survival), but to allow a
species to recover to the point where it may be delisted." Id. at 1070.
While we do not detail all of the flaws of the 2015 Biological Opinion here, we note that
they are more than sufficient to raise questions about the Corps' ability to meet its legal duties
under both the ESA and the CWA. As one glaring example, the Biological Opinion fails to
assess the essential legal question of whether the project will impair the ability of sea turtles,
piping plovers, red knots, and seabeach amaranth to recover to the point where they may be
delisted. Instead, it repeatedly insinuates that the number of animals and amount of habitat likely
to be affected by the project are modest relative to the population or critical habitat designation
as a whole.. Such a comparison does not serve to explain the impacts of the project on the
species. Courts have repeatedly held that "a mere listing of activities does not constitute an
analysis of the impacts of these activities." Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d
121, 128 n.8 (D.D.C. 2001); see also Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 855 F.
Supp. 2d 1199, 1222-1223 (D. Or. 2012) (invalidating a biological opinion where the agency
"discussed general biological and geographical information for [listed species] but then provided
scant analysis of how each proposed criterion would affect [such species]").
Loggerhead Sea Turtles
The Service is clear in its Biological Opinion about the negative impacts of the project to
loggerhead sea turtles:
The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects
to sea turtles, including the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle.
Due to downdrift erosion, there may be loss or degradation of 'loggerhead
terrestrial Critical Habitat Unity LOGG-T-NC-08. The Service expects there may
be morphological changes to adjacent nesting habitat. Activities that affect or
EIVED
REC
15 JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY

alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species may decrease
the survival and recovery potential of the loggerhead and other sea turtles.47
These broad statements about likely harm are further supported by specific statements about the
impacts to the habitat's primary constituent elements ("PCEs"), the "physical or biological
feature[s] essential to the conservation of a species for which its designated or proposed critical
habitat is based on.s48 These can include "space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; ... nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; ... and habitats that are protected from disturbance
or are representative of the species' historic geographic and ecological distribution."49 Agencies
must use the "best scientific data" when conducting and relying on these Biological Opinions in
order to evaluate whether proposed actions result in adverse modification of critical habitat.
Conservation Cong. v. United States Forest Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943, 36 (D. Cal.
2012).
For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes.s50 Indeed, PCEs for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach.for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings," and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions..."51
While the Service notes the potential benefits of erosion control measures to ensure the
availability of sea turtle nesting beaches, the Biological Opinion is also clear that erosion control
measures do not guarantee the availability of suitable nesting habitat. Shoreline hardening, as
opposed to sand placement activities, increases the risk that nesting habitat will not be available.
"The Service determined there is a potential for long-term adverse effects on sea turtles,
particularly hatchlings, as a result of the presence of the groin. However, the Service
acknowledges the potential benefits of the erosion control structure since it may minimize the
effects of erosion on sea turtle nesting habitat and extend the sane placement interval.
Nonetheless, an increase in sandy beach may not necessarily equate to an increase in suitable sea
turtle habitat.""
Ding Plovers
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
4' Biological Opinion at 63.
"B FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, available at: www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/glossary.pdf.
49 Id.
50 Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
si Id. at 30-31.
sa Id at 72.
16

alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance -to the species may decrease
the survival and recovery potential of the loggerhead and other sea turtles.47
These broad statements about likely harm are further supported by specific statements about the
impacts to the habitat's primary constituent elements ("PCEs"), the "physical or biological
feature[s] essential to the conservation of a species for which its designated or proposed critical
habitat is based on.i48 These can include "space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; ... nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; ... and habitats that are protected from disturbance
or are representative of the species' historic geographic and ecological distribution."49 Agencies
must use the "best scientific data" when conducting and relying on these Biological Opinions in
order to evaluate whether proposed actions result in adverse modification of critical habitat.
Conservation Cong. v. United States Forest Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943, 36 (1). Cal.
2012). .
For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes.i50 Indeed, PCEs for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach.for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings," and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions..."51.
While the Service notes the potential benefits of erosion control measures to ensure the
availability of sea turtle nesting beaches, the Biological Opinion is also clear that erosion control
measures do not guarantee the availability of suitable nesting habitat. Shoreline hardening, as
opposed to sand placement activities, increases the risk that nesting habitat will not be available.
"The Service determined there is a potential for long-term adverse effects on sea turtles,
particularly hatchlings, as a result of the presence of the groin. However, the Service
acknowledges the potential benefits of the erosion control structure since it may minimize the
effects of erosion on sea turtle nesting habitat and extend the sane placement interval.
Nonetheless, an increase in sandy beach may not necessarily equate to an increase in suitable sea
turtle habitat."52
Piping Plovers
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
4' Biological Opinion at 63.
48 FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, available at: www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/glossary.pdf.
49 7d
so Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
ss Id. at 30-31.
sz Id. at 72.
16

Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strange and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and
foraging habitat in several ways.53
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers...
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline. These combined actions affect the availability of piping plover
habitat.54
Nevertheless, the Biological Opinion takes the comparative approach mentioned above,
noting that 32.5% of inlets throughout the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico have been hardened,
including 12.5% in North Carolina.55 It also notes that 50% of sites surveyed in the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico during the 2006 winter International Piping Plover Census had hardened or
developed structures adjacent to the shoreline.56
This is effectively a listing of activities, rather than assessment of impacts. As with sea
turtles above, there is no estimation of the impact of the loss of habitat from this project, the pre-
existing ones, or any future ones on piping plover life functions such as feeding and breeding or
the additive effect of the proposed project. Nor is there any other discussion of the impact of this
project or adjacent projects on the population as a whole. There is, however, this caution, which
indicates that the impact to populations that use North Carolina beaches could be
disproportionately high:
North Carolina is the only state where the piping plover's breeding and wintering
ranges overlap and the birds are present year-round.... 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 overwinter on North Carolina' beaches.57
Reconciling these statements with the no jeopardy or adverse modification requires a leap
of faith not rationally based in the science cited by the agency. The duty is on the Corps to
ensure that its action in relying on the FWS' Biological Opinion is not arbitrary and capricious.
This is a challenge when, according to the Biological Opinion,
"Id. at98.
54 Biological Opinion at 99.
ss Id. at 99, table 6.
s61d. at 107, table 8.
s� Id. at 75.
17

Habitat loss and degradation on winter and migration grounds from shoreline and
inlet stabilization efforts, both within and outside of designated critical habitat,
remain a serious threat to all piping plover populations. Modeling strongly
suggests that the population is very sensitive to adult and juvenile survival... On
the wintering grounds, the shoreline areas used by wintering piping plovers are
being developed, stabilized, or otherwise altered, making it unsuitable. 6
Red Knot
For the red knot, another shore bird that uses North Carolina beaches for foraging and
resting, the expected impacts of the proposed project are expected to be similar. Unfortunately,
the Biological Opinion does not include nearly as much detail on this species, presumably
because no critical habitat has yet been designated for the species,59 and no recovery plan has yet
been completed.60 Notably, however, shoreline stabilization like that involved in the proposed
project is identified as one of the primary threats to the species.61
Seabeach Amaranth
Once again, "construction of beach stabilization structures" is identified as one of the
"most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth."62 Although this
discussion is less extensive than the others, it also indicates there are likely to be significant
impacts to the species.
Overarchina Flaws
For all of these species, one of the remaining and highly concerning flaws in the August
2015 Biological Opinion is the Incidental Take Statement ("ITS"). Even when a federal action is
not likely to jeopardize a species, a Biological Opinion must still analyze whether a "taking" of
listed species may occur. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4). The definition of "take" includes "to harass,
harm... or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Id. § 1532(19). Whenever "such take may
occur," the Biological Opinion must include an ITS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(7) (emphasis added).
"If the Bi[ological ]Op[inion] concludes that the action is not likely to jeopardize the species, but
is likely to result in some take, the Service will provide an ITS along with the Bi[ological
]Op[inion]." See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 909 (9th Cit. Alaska
2012); Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The FWS must
issue an Incidental Take Statement if the Bi[ological ]Op[inion] concludes no jeopardy to listed
species or adverse modification of critical habitat will result from the proposed action, but the
action is likely to result in incidental takings."); Strahan v. Roughead, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
181824, at * 11 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2012).
LU
U
s8Id. at 109.
>
N
0
ss Biological Opinion at 119.
W
so Id. at 124.
U
U
"�
61 Id.LU
r
62 Id. at 141.
M
U
18

- Habitat -loss and degradation on winter -and migration grounds from shoreline and -
inlet stabilization efforts,both within and outside of designated critical habitat,
remain a serious threat to all piping plover populations. Modeling strongly
suggests that the population is very sensitive to adult and juvenile survival... On
the wintering grounds, the shoreline areas used by wintering piping plovers are
being developed, stabilized, or otherwise altered, making it unsuitable.
Red Knot
For the red knot, another shore bird that uses North Carolina beaches for foraging and
resting, the expected impacts of the proposed project are expected to be similar: Unfortunately,
the Biological Opinion does not include nearly as much detail on this species, presumably
because no critical habitat has yet been designated for the species,59, and no recovery plan has yet
been completed.60 Notably, however, shoreline stabilization like that involved in the proposed
project is identified as one of the primary threats to the species.61
Seabeach Amaranth
Once again, "construction of beach stabilization structures" is identified as one of the
"most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth."62 Although this
discussion is less extensive than the others, it also indicates there are likely to be significant
impacts to the species.
Overarchine Flaws
;;For all of these species, one of the remaining and highly concerning flaws in the August
2015 Biological Opinion is the Incidental Take Statement ("ITS"). Even when a federal action is
not likely to jeopardize a species, a Biological Opinion must still analyze whether a "taking" of
listed species may occur. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4). The definition of "take" includes "to harass,
harm... or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Id. § 1532(19). Whenever "such take may
occur," the Biological Opinion must include an ITS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(7) (emphasis added).
"If the Bi[ological ]Op[inion] concludes that the action is not likely to jeopardize the species, but
is likely to result in some take, the Service will provide an ITS along with the Bi[ological
]Op[inion]." See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 909 (9th Cit. Alaska
2012); Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The FWS must
issue an Incidental Take Statement if the Bi[ological ]Op[inion] concludes no jeopardy to listed
species or adverse modification of critical habitat will result from the proposed action, but the
action is likely to result in incidental takings."); Strahan v. Roughead, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
181824, at * 11 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2012).
®
F--
LU
C
U
se Id. at 109.
>
C
se Biological Opinion at 119.
LU
*—+
60Id. at 124.
`—'
61 Id.
ea Id. at 141.
-
18
�5

While the FWS included an ITS in its Biological Opinion, it is wholly inadequate to meet
its intended purpose. A primary function of any ITS is to identify triggers to reinitiate
consultation with FWS to ensure that an action agency can meet its ongoing obligations to ensure
against jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat over time. Importantly, the action
agency "must immediately reinitiate consultation with [the expert agency] if the amount or
extent of incidental taking is exceeded." Or. Natural Res. Council, 476 F.3d at 1034-35, citing
50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(i)(4), 402.16(a). "This statutory and regulatory language obligates [the
agency] to minimize the impact of the proposed action and also acts as a trigger for the
reinitiation of formal consultation." See Pac. Shores Subdivision Cal. Water Dist. v. U.S. Army
Corps of Eng'rs, 538 F. Supp. 2d 242, 258 (D.D.C. 2008). "[T]he permissible level of take [in an
ITS] ideally should be expressed as a specific number." Or. Natural Res. Council, 476 F.3d at
1037 (citing Ariz. Cattle Growers'Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Land Mgmt., 273
F.3d 1229, 1249 (9th Cit. 2001)); Miccosukee Tribe oflndians of Fla. v. U.S., 566 F.3d 1257,
1274-75 (11th Cir. 2009).
The ITS for each of the affected species and the critical habitat affected by the project
limits the effect of the activity to 24,5001£63 Under the terms of the Biological Opinion, any
amount of take or habitat disturbance within that area is allowed. Yet pursuant to the ESA's
explicit requirements, FWS must have attempted to quantify the take expected to occur as a
result of the proposed project, and if specific quantification was impossible, identify a surrogate
that would provide a reasonable estimate. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla., 566 F.3d at
1275 (rejecting FWS' argument that because a sparrow has "secretive" behavior, "cryptic" color,
and "move[s] over expansive and remote areas," a surrogate measure of take was required, and
observing that FWS develops annual population data for the species); Or. Natural Res. Council,
476 F.3d at 1037-38 (invalidating Biological Opinion that "offers no explanation of why the
FWS was unable numerically to quantify the level of take of northern spotted owls.... The FWS
... never states that it is not possible to update the survey data in order to estimate the number of
takings, only that it has not actually done the surveys. This does not establish the numerical
measure's impracticality."); Ariz. Cattle Growers' Assn, 273 F.3d at 1249-51 (invalidating
Biological Opinion where agency "fail[ed] to properly specify the amount of anticipated take in
the [ITS] for the Cow Flat Allotment" and failed "to provide a clear standard for determining
when the authorized level of take has been exceeded" and noting that "[i]deally, this `trigger'
should be a specific number"); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 422 F.
Supp. 2d 1115, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[D]efendants have not pointed to any evidence in the
record that it was impractical to estimate desert tortoise take. Indeed, the Service has estimated
the numbers of desert tortoise in other areas of the Dunes ....").
"The terms of an [ITS] do not operate in a vacuum. To the contrary, they are integral
parts of the statutory scheme, determining, among other things, when consultation must be
reinitiated." Ariz. Cattle Growers, 273 F.3d at 1251; 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(b) ("Reinitiation of
formal consultation is required ... [i]f new information reveals effects of the action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered").
Finally, we note in closing that the Timeline contained in the Biological Opinion at page
9 reflects the Corps' review and revisions to the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms
63 See Biological Opinion at 149-151.
RECEIVED
19
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

and Conditions imposed in the Biological Opinion. These revisions should be disclosed to the
public as part of the NEPA process and the public's review of whether the Corps' permitting of
the proposed project meets applicable conservation requirements under the ESA and CWA.
2. Impacts to listed species under Section 404(b)(1)(a).
As detailed above, the Biological Opinion for the project details numerous direct and
indirect effects to sea turtles, piping plover, red knots, and seabeach amaranth. While we
disagree with the Biological Opinion's no jeopardy and adverse modification findings and object
to its legally and biologically inadequate ITS, our concerns do not end there. For all of the harms
to listed species discussed above, the proposed project cannot represent the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative required by Section 404(b)(1)(a).
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat. While there may be
some benefits to addressing erosion on the affected beaches, the overall concern is that beach
hardening, such as with the construction of the proposed terminal groin, will so harm coastal
dynamics necessary for habitat maintenance that there will be long term impacts to each of these
listed species.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the FEIS fails to meet the minimum requirements of
NEPA and fails to provide the analysis of shoreline changes and environmental and natural
resources impacts necessary to meet the Corps' obligations under the CWA or ESA. Before the
Corps can legally move forward with this project it must issue a Supplemental EIS addressing
the issues raised in these comments.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding their content.
Sincerely,
Aa- /
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
�. -Ilk V,
Sierra Weaver
Senior Attorney
20
�
F—
W
> o
U
N
W
U
Q

- and Conditions imposed in the Biological Opinion. These revisions should be disclosed to the
public as part of the NEPA process and the public's review of whether the Corps' permitting of
the proposed project meets applicable conservation requirements under the ESA and CWA.
2. Impacts to listed species under Section 404(b)(1)(a).
As detailed above, the Biological Opinion for the project details numerous direct and
indirect effects to sea turtles, piping plover, red knots, and seabeach amaranth. While we
disagree with the Biological Opinion',s no jeopardy and adverse modification findings and object
to its legally and biologically inadequate ITS, our concerns do not end there. For all of the harms
to listed species discussed above, the proposed project cannot represent the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative required by Section 404(b)(1)(a).
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat. While there may be
some benefits to addressing erosion on the affected beaches, the overall concern is that beach
hardening, such as with the construction of the proposed terminal groin, will so harm coastal
dynamics necessary for habitat maintenance that there will be long term impacts to each of these
listed species.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the FEIS fails to meet the minimum requirements of
NEPA and fails to provide the analysis of shoreline changes and environmental and natural
resources impacts necessary to meet the Corps' obligations under the CWA or ESA. Before the
Corps can,legally move forward with this project it must issue a Supplemental EIS addressing
the issues raised in these comments.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding their content.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
Sierra Weaver
Senior Attorney
20
L
N
ppp®pp
L..
y.
1y
G
LU
A
C3

v
i.J�
Kym Hunter
Staff Attorney
Enclosures
cc (via email):
Todd Miller, N.C. Coastal Federation
Mike Giles, N.C. Coastal Federation
Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic, N.C. Coastal Federation
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
21 DCM- MHD CITY

ATTACHMENT I
RECENED
JUG 11 Z016
pCM- MHD CITY

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 20, 2016
Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Subject: Town of Ocean Isle Beach: Terminal Groin RECEIVED
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action ID. No. SAW-2011-01241 JUL 112016
Dear Mr. Crumbley: DCM- MHD CITY
This is in response to the April 29, 2016 public notice for the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach plans to
construct a 750 linear foot (If) terminal groin, with a 3001f shore anchorage system and
associated beach nourishment on Ocean Isle Beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has reviewed the public notice and the April 2016 FEIS, and other information
concerning the project. This letter is provided in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Project Description
The project is on the oceanfront of the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to Shallotte
Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. According to the FEIS, the
purpose of the proposed project is to mitigate chronic erosion on the eastern portion of the
Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its infrastructure, provide
protection to existing development, and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront beach along
this area.
The applicant's preferred alternative includes construction of a 750 if terminal groin with a 300
If anchorage system. The applicant also proposes to dredge portions of Shallotte Inlet every five
years and place 264,000 cubic yards (cy) of beach fill along approximately 3,214 if of shoreline

west of the terminal groin. Beach fill, groin construction, and sand fillet maintenance activities
are proposed to be conducted between November 16 and April 30. The preferred alternative also
includes the continuation of the Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR)
project on Ocean Isle Beach.
Federally -listed species
The following Federally- listed species are found within the project area: West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa),
seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Whales, shormose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevisrostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and sea turtles in the water are under
the jurisdiction ofNOAA Fisheries' Protected Species Division.
All five sea turtle species may nest in the project area. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated
Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment of the loggerhead
sea turtle. Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-08 is just east of the project area on Holden Beach.
Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17 is located in Shallotte Inlet and on Holden Beach, east
of the proposed project. The entire unit is privately owned. This unit begins just west of
Skimmer Court on the western end of Holden Beach. It includes land south of SR 1116, to
where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent
elements no longer occur to the MLLW along the Atlantic Ocean. It includes the contiguous
shoreline from MLLW to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins
and where the constituent elements no longer occur along the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, and
Intracoastal Waterway stopping north of Skimmer Court Road. The unnamed island and
emergent sandbars to MLLW within Shallotte Inlet are also included.
Potential affects to the piping plover, red knot, West Indian manatee, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles were addressed through formal consultation and issuance of a biological opinion on
August 6, 2015. Therefore, this letter primarily addresses comments concerning the project itself
and the FEIS. 0 %'
LLI
Service Comments , N
W
1. The Service continues to recommend that the proposed project not be authorized. TheLU
V c
proposed project has the potential to adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and ir
hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red knots, and seabeach amaranth within the proposed U
project area. Q

Ea
west of the terminal groin. ,Beach fill, groin construction, and sand fillet maintenance activities
are proposed to be conducted between November 16 and April 30, The preferred alternative also
includes the continuation of the Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR)
project on Ocean Isle Beach.
Federally -listed species
The following Federally- listed species are found within the project area: West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa),
seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Whales, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevisrostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and sea turtles in the water are under
the jurisdiction ofNOAA Fisheries' ProtectedSpecies Division.
All five sea turtle species may nest in the project area. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated
Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment of the loggerhead
sea turtle. Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-08'is just east of the project area on Holden Beach.
Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17 is located in Shallotte Inlet and on Holden Beach, east
of the proposed project. The entire unit is privately owned. This unit begins just west of
Skimmer Court on the western end of Holden Beach. It includes land south of SR 1116, to
where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent
elements no longer occur to the MLLW along the Atlantic Ocean. It includes the contiguous
shoreline from MLLW to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins
and where the constituent elements no longer occur along the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, and
Intracoastal Waterway stopping north of Skimmer Court Road. The unnamed island and
emergent sandbars to MLLW within Shallotte Inlet are also included.
Potential affects.to the piping plover, red knot, West Indian manatee, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles were addressed through formal consultation and issuance of a biological opinion on
August 6, 2015. Therefore, this letter primarily addresses comments concerning the project itself
and the FEIS.
Service Comments C=0
(
N �x
_ LU y F
1. The Service continues to recommend that the proposed project not be authorized. The
proposed project has the potential to adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and UJ
hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red knots, and seabeach amaranth within the proposed
project area. Q

Potential effects to sea turtles include disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to
the construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of lighting
or presence of the groin, and behavior modification of nesting females during the nesting season
resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to
deposit eggs due to escarpment formation or presence of the groin within the action area. The
presence of the groin could affect the movement of sand by altering the natural coastal processes
and could affect the ability of female turtles to nest, the suitability of the nest incubation
environment, and the ability of hatchlings to emerge from the nest and crawl to the ocean. The
presence of the groin may create a physical obstacle to nesting sea turtles, and the proposed groin
is anticipated to result in decreased nesting and loss of nests that do get laid within the project
area for all subsequent nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed project.
Potential effects to piping plover and red knots include degradation and loss of habitat,
particularly down -drift of the structure. Groins can act as barriers to longshore sand transport
and cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008), which prevents optimal habitat creation
by limiting sediment deposition and accretion. The proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots, wintering and migrating piping plovers and
their habitat from all breeding populations, and breeding piping plovers from the Atlantic Coast
breeding population that may use the project area. Potential effects to piping plover and red knot
include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat in the Action Area and in the updrift and
downdrift portions of the project area, degradation of foraging habitat and destruction of the prey
base from sand disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste from the construction
crew. Plovers and red knots face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are present
year-round on the wintering and nesting grounds. Although the piping plover is not currently
known to nest in the Action Area, the stabilization of the shoreline may also result in less
suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover.
Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota,
especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced habitat area
for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan
and Hubbard 2006). Shorebird habitat has been, and may continue to be, lost where hard
structures have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to directly eliminating
red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird habitats by
interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is
installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice
2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact piping plover and red knots. Where
they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of pip ng, ED
plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise. REC V
11 zoos
DCM. MHp C1TY

Potential impacts to seabeach amaranth include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result
of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational
activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 15 and March 31 of any
given year. However, given favorable weather, seabeach amaranth plants may persist until
January. Therefore, there is still the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in
the Action Area. Indirect impacts to seabeach amaranth include degradation of habitat from
stabilization of the shoreline.
2. Responses to Comments 106, 107, and 108 (Appendix G, Pages 11 and 12) do not adequately
address the Service's concerns for potential down -drift erosion within Shallotte Inlet.
3. Responses to Comments 109, 110, and 115 do not adequately address the Service's concerns
with the estimation of costs of the five alternatives. The FEIS discusses 45 dwellings and 155
total parcels east of station 15+00 which are threatened by erosion over the next 30 years. The
Draft EIS listed 238 total parcels, but concerns expressed by our agency and others led to
revision of the total lot number. However, the location of the 155 parcels is still not clearly
demarcated on any figures, nor are their locations adequately described in the text. There is no
discussion in the FEIS about why these empty parcels are threatened by erosion over the next 30
years, and so the level of threat to those parcels is not clear. Figure 3.1 on page 27, which shows
future scarp'line positions under Alternative I does not appear to be revised since the DEIS and
does not show 155 parcels within the erosive area. As stated in our comments to the DEIS,
there are approximately 80-90 parcels shown on this figure. Please clearly explain where the
other 65-75 parcels are located with respect to the proposed project, and why they are threatened
by erosion over the next 30 years.
On Page i of the Executive Summary, and pages 155 and 160, the text still refers to 238 parcels
that are vulnerable to erosion.
The predicted loss or protection of the 155 parcels factors heavily in the estimated costs of each
alternative. For example, on pages 27 and 28, in the discussion of the 30-year cost of Alternative
1 (No Additional Action) and Alternative 2 (Abandon/Retreat), the loss of the 155 parcels is
estimated to cost $21.36 million. This is only $30,000 less than the cost when 238 parcels were
considered to be threatened. The Service recommends that the precise area that the FEIS claims
will be impacted by Alternative 1 and protected from long-term erosion by Alternative 5 should
be clearly demarcated on a figure, including clear demarcation of all 155 parcels. If a figure
cannot be provided, then a list of all 155 parcels (including street addresses) and their current tax
values should be provided in the Appendix. RECEIVED
JUL 112016
DCM- MHD CITY

Potential impacts to seabeach amaranth include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result
of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational
activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 15 and March 31 of any
given year. However, given favorable weather, seabeach amaranth plants may persist until
January. Therefore, there is still the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in
the Action Area. Indirect impacts to.seabeach amaranth include degradation of habitat from
stabilization of the shoreline.
2. Responses to Comments 106, 107, and 108.(Appendix G, Pages 11 and 12) do not adequately
address the Service's concerns for potential down -drift erosion within Shallotte Inlet.
3. Responses to Comments 1.09,110, and 115 do not adequately address the:Service's concerns
with the estimationof costs of the five alternatives'. The FEIS discusses 45,dwellings and 155
total parcels east of station 15+00 which are threatened by erosion over the next 30 years. The
Draft EIS listed 238 total parcels, but concerns expressed:by our agency;,and others led to
revision of the total lot number. However, the location of the 155 parcels is still not clearly
:demarcated im any figures, nor are their locations adequately described in the text. There is no
"discussion in the FEIS about why these empty parcels are threatened by erosion over the next 30
years, and so the level of threat to those parcels is not clear. Figure 3.1 on page 27, which shows
`future scarp4ine positions under Alternative 1 does not appear to be revised since the DEIS and.
"does not show 155 parcels within the erosive area. As stated in our comments to the DEIS,
there are approximately 80-90 parcels shown on this figure. Please clearly explain where the
other 65-75 parcels are located with respect to the proposed project, and why they are threatened
by erosion over the next 30 years.
On Page i of the Executive Summary, and pages 155 and 160, the text still refers to 238 parcels
that are vulnerable to erosion.
The predicted loss or protection of the 155 parcels factors heavily in the estimated costs of each
alternative. For example„on pages 27 and 28, in the discussion of the 30-year cost of Alternative
1 (No Additional Action) and Alternative 2 (Abandon/Retreat), the loss of the 155 parcels is
estimated to cost $21.36 million. This is, only $30,000 less than the cost when 238 parcels were
considered to be threatened. The Service recommends that the precise area that the FEIS claims
will be impacted by Alternative 1 and protected from long-term erosion by Alternative 5 should
'be clearly demarcated on a figure, including clear demarcation of all 155 parcels. If a figure
cannot be provided, then a list of all 155 parcels (including street addresses) and their current tax
values should be provided in the Appendix. RECEIVED
JUL 112016
CM- MHD CITY

3. Table 5.5 on Page 82 of the Engineering Report indicates that over 30 years, the costs for the
non-federal share of the five alternatives are so similar that the differences appear to be
insignificant. In fact, the costs for Alternative 1 (No New Action) and Alternative 2
(Abandon/Retreat) are only $420,000 more than the preferred alternative, a difference of less
than 2%. We recognize that the federal share (and the total cost) is higher for Alternatives 1 and
2 than for Alternative 5
As for the remainder of our comments, the Service believes that our mostly editorial comments
were adequately addressed in the FEIS. The Service's comments and concerns about impacts to
our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a 30-year
project were not. However, it is unlikely that the applicant could address these comments
adequately without significantly revising the project or changing their preferred alternative, and
as far as we can tell, there have not been any significant revisions to the preferred project.
Service Recommendations
As stated above, the Service recommends that the project, as currently proposed not be
authorized, due to potential impacts to piping plovers, red knot, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles. We recommend that the Final EIS incorporate our comments listed above. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning these
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone], Ext. 27, or by e-mail at
<[e-mail]>.
cc:
Fritz Rohde, NOAA Fisheries
Daniel Holliman, USEPA
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington, NC
Doug Huggett, NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
Debra Wilson, NCDCM, Wilmington, NC
Jessi Baker, NCDMF, Morehead City, NC
Karen Higgins, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

ATTACHMENT 2
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleieh. North Carolina 27636-3726
March 12, 2015
Mr. 'Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington. NC 28403-1343
Subject: Town of Ocean Isle Beach: Terminal Groin
Action ID, No. SAW-2011-01241
Dear Mr. Crumbley:
Ibis is in response to the January 23, 2015 public notice for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's
application for construction of a 750 linear foot (It) terminal groin, with a 300 If shore anchorage
system and associated beach nourishment on Ocean Isle Beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) has reviewed the public notice and the January 2015 draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), and other information concerning the project. This letter is provided
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Project Description
The project is on the oceanfront of the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to Shallotte
Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. According to the DEIS, the
purpose of the proposed project is to mitigate chronic erosion on the eastern portion of the
Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its infrastructure, provide
protection to existing development, and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront beach along
this area.
The applicant's preferred alternative includes construction of a 750 If terminal groin with a 300
If anchorage system. The applicant also proposes to dredge portions of Shallotte Inlet every five
years and place 264,000 cubic yards (cy) of beach fill along approximately 3.214 If of'shoreline
west of the terminal groin. Beach fill, groin construction, and sand fillet maintenance activities
are proposed to be conducted between November 16 and April 30. 'fhe preferred alternative also
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2m
DCM- MHD CITY

includes the continuation of the Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR)
project on Ocean Isle Beach.
Federally -listed species
The following Federally- listed species are found within the project area: West Indian manatee
('L'richcchus manatus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (C'alidris canutus rufcr).
scabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pundlus), and the Kemp's ridley (L,epidochelys kempi),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Derrnochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
carena), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Whales, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
hrevisrostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and sea turtles in the water are under
the jurisdiction ofNOAA Fisheries' Protected Species Division.
Of the five sea turtle species, the leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtle
may nest in the project area. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated Critical habitat for the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment of the loggerhead sea turtle. Critical
Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-08 is just east of the project area on Holden Beach.
Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17 is located in Shallotte Inlet and on Holden Beach, east
of the proposed project. The entire unit is privately owned. This unit begins just west of
Skimmer Court on the western end or Holden Beach. It includes land south of SR 1116, to
where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent
elements no longer occur to the MLLW along the Atlantic Ocean. It includes the contiguous
shoreline from MLLW to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins
and where the constituent elements no longer occur along the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, and
Intracoastal Waterway stopping north of Skimmer Court Road. The unnamed island and
emergent sandbars to MLLW within Shallotte Inlet are also included.
On December 11, 2014, the Service listed the rufa red knot (or red knot) as threatened
throughout its range. The rule became effective on January 12, 2015. Please refer to 79 Fit
73706 for more information on the listing of the red knot.
The Corps has determined that the proposed project may affect federally listed endangered or
threatened species, and has requested initiation of formal consultation. Potential affects to the
piping plover, red knot, West Indian manatee, seabeach amaranth, and sea turtles are being
addressed through formal consultation. Therefore, this letter primarily addresses comments
concerning the project itself and the DEIS.
J�W-1I 2A
ocM- MNO G��Y

includes the continuation of the Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) .
.project on Ocean Isle Beach.
Federally -listed species
The following Federally listed species are found within the project area: West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), piping plover (C"haradrius melodus), red knot (Ccdidhis canums rt fa),
seabeach amaranth (Amarcmthus pumtlus), and. the Kemp's ridley (Lcpidochelys kentpi),
hawksbill (fretmochelys imbrieaia), leatherbaek (Dertnuchelys coriacea), loggerhead (Careita
caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Whales, shormose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevisrostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and sea turtles in the water are under
the jurisdiction ofNOAA Fisheries' Protected Species Division.
Of the five sea turtle species; the leatherbaek; loggerhead; Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtle
may nest in the project area. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated Critical Habitat for the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment of the loggerhead sea turtle. Critical
Habitat,U nit LOGG-T-NC-08 is just east of the project area on Holden Beach.
Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17 is located.in Shallotte'Inlet and on Holden Beach, east
Of the proposed project. The entire unit is privately owned. This twit begins just west of
Skimmer., Court on the western end of Holden Beach. It includes land south of SR 1116, to
where, densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent
elcment5 nollonger occur to the MLL,W along the Atlantic Ocean. It includes the contiguous
shoreline=from MLLW to where densely vegetated habitat, not used. by the piping plover, begins
and where the constituent elements no longer occur along the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, and
Intracoastal Waterway stopping north of Skimmer Court Road. The unnamed island and
emergent sandbars to MLLW within Shallotte Inlet are also included.
On December 11, 2014, the Service listed the rufa red knot (or red knot) as threatened
throughout.its range. Therule became effective on January 12, 2015. Please refer to 79 FR
73706 for more information on the listing of the red knot.
The Corps has determined that the proposed project may affect federally listed endangered or
threatened species, and, has requested initiation of formal consultation, Potential affects to the
piping plover, red knot, West Indian manatee, seabeach amaranth, and sea turtlesare being
addressed through formal consultation. Therefore, this letter primarily addresses comments
concerning the project itself and the DFIS.

Service Comments
1. The Service recommends that the proposed project not be authorized. The proposed project
has the potential to adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach,
piping plovers, red knots, and seabeach amaranth within the proposed project area.
Potential effects to sea turtles include disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to
the construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of lighting
or presence of the groin, and behavior modification of nesting females during the nesting season
resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to
deposit eggs due to escarpment formation or presence of the groin within the action area. The
presence of the groin could affect the movement of sand by altering the natural coastal processes
and could affect the ability of female turtles to nest, the suitability of the nest incubation
environment, and the ability of hatchlings to emerge from the nest and crawl to the ocean. The
presence of the groin may create a physical obstacle to nesting sea turtles, and the proposed groin
is anticipated to result in decreased nesting and loss of nests that do get laid within the project
area for all subsequent nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed project.
Potential effects to piping plover and red knots include degradation and loss of habitat,
particularly down -drift of the structure. Groins can act as barriers to longshore sand transport
and cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008), which prevents optimal habitat creation
by limiting sediment deposition and accretion. The proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots, wintering and migrating piping plovers and
their habitat from all breeding populations, and breeding piping plovers from the Atlantic Coast
breeding population that may use the project area. Potential effects to piping plover and red knot
include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat in the Action Area and in the updrift and
downdrift portions of the project area, degradation of foraging habitat and destruction of the prey
base from sand disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste from the construction
crew. Plovers and red knots face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are present
year-round on the wintering and nesting grounds. Although the piping plover is not currently
known to nest in the Action Area, the stabilization of the shoreline may also result in less
suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover.
Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota,
especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced habitat area
for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan
and Hubbard 2006). Shorebird habitat has been, and may continue to be, lost where hard
structures have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to directly eliminating
red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation Atagvt bgbird habitats by
JUL 11 2016
DCM— MHD CITY

.19
interrupting the natural processes of overwasli and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is
installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice
2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact piping plover and red knots. Where
they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of piping
plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise.
Potential impacts to seabeach amaranth include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result
of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational
activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 15 and March 31 of any
given year. I lowever, given favorable weather, seabeach amaranth plants may persist until
January. 'therefore, there is still the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in
the Action Area. Indirect impacts to seabeach amaranth include degradation of habitat from
stabilization of the shoreline.
2. The Service has significant concerns for the estimation of costs of the five alternatives. In
Chapters 2 (Purpose and Need), 3 (Alternatives), 5, and 6, and Appendix A, the DEIS discusses
45 dwellings and 238 total parcels which are threatened by erosion for the next 30 years. The
predicted loss or protection of these 238 parcels factors heavily in the estimated costs of each
alternative. for example, on pages 27 and 28, in the discussion of the 30-year cost of Alternative
I ('No Additional Action) and Alternative 2 (Abandon/Retreat), the loss of the 238 parcels is
estimated to Lost $21.39 million. Conversely, the discussion of Alternative 5 ('Terminal Groin
with Beach Fill), the applicant's preferred alternative. makes no mention of the number of
parcels that may be lost or protected by the proposed groin, and does not factor in the costs of
parcel losses.
However, there is no figure showing 238 parcels and very little description in the text. Page 25
states that there are "238 parcels east of station 15+00 (located just west of Shallotte Boulevard);
45 of which have homes. All of the parcels and homes are vulnerable to erosion damage over
the next 30 years, should the past erosion trends continue." A quick count of the number of
parcels shown in the DEIS as affected by erosion up to year 2045 (in Figure 3.1) indicates that 0
there are approximately 88 parcels total (this estimate is high, as some are already below high
tide, and some are west of station 15+00). The DEIS does not indicate where the other 150 or so j o
parcels are. A review of the Town's zoning map (accessed at W ,� E
http://www.oibgov.com/uset-files/File/Zoning_Map_Current.pdf on March 4, 2015) and 0
information from the Brunswick County Register of Deeds (accessed March 4, 2015) indicatesLU
that most, if not all of the other 150 parcels are likely waterward of the existing shoreline, with
the footprint of the proposed project, or east (downdriti) of the proposed terminal groin location.
Many of these parcels are already below the high tide line and are currently unbuildable. If this
is the case, then the terminal groin will not protect the majority of these parcels from erosion, as

ll
interrupting the natural processes of overwasfi and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is
installed, the eventual loss of the beach aid its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice
2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact piping plover and red knots. Where
they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of piping
plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise.
Potential impacts to seabeach amaranth include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result
of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational
activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 15 and March 31 of any
given year. However, given favorable weather, seabeach amaranth plants may persist until
January. "Therefore, there is still the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in
the Action Area. Indirect impacts to seabeach amaranth include degradation of habitat from
stabilization of the shoreline.
2. The Service has significant concerns for the estimation of costs of the five alternatives. in
Chapters 2 (Purpose and Need), 3 (Alternatives), 5, and 6, and Appendix A, the DEIS discusses
45 dwelling land 238 total parcels which are -threatened by erosion for the next 30 years. The
predicted lass or protection of these 238 parcels factors heavily in.the estimated costs of each
alternative:, For example, on pages 27 and 28, in the discussion of the 30-year cost of Alternative
1 (No Add.ili'onal Action) anti Alternative 2 (Abandon/Retreat), the loss of the 238 parcels is
estimated t*ost $21.39 million. Conversely, the discussion of Alternative 5 (Terminal Groin
with Beach Fill), the applicant's preferred alternative, makes no mention of the number of
parcels that may be lost or protected by the proposed groin,.and does not factor in the costs of
parcel losses.
However, there is no figure showing 238 parcels.and very little description in the text: Page 25
states that there are "238 parcels east of station 15+00 (located just west of Shallotte Boulevard);
45 of which have homes, All of the parcels and homes are. vulnerable to erosion damage over
the next 30 years, should the past erosion trends continue." A quick count of the number of
parcels shown in the DEIS as affected by erosion up to year 2045 (in Figure 3.1) indicates that
(here are approximately 88 parcels total (this estimate is high, as some are already below high
tide, and some are west of station_ 15+00). The DEIS does not indicate where the other 150 or so�
parcels are. A review of the Town's zoning map (accessed at
http://wwtv.oibgov.cotn/userfiles/File/LoriinLLJ
g Map_Current.pdf on March 4, 2015) and 0
information from the Brunswick County Register ol'Deeds (accessed March 4, 2015) inciicatesLU
that most, if not all of the other 150 parcels are likely watetward of the existing shoreline, with
the footprint of the proposed project, or east (downdrift) of the proposed terminal groin location.
Maury of these parcels are already below the high tide line and are currently unbuildable. If this
is the case, then the terminal groin will not protect the majority of these parcels from erosion, as
0

5
some are already lost to erosion, and the parcels to the east of the groin will receive no protection
at all. East of the proposed groin, underwater parcels will remain underwater, and any buildable
parcels will be threatened (and perhaps lost) due to increased erosion from the presence of the
groin.
The DEIS should be revised to accurately reflect the situation of all of the parcels in the project
area and the estimated losses for each alternative. Parcels that are mostly waterward of the
current shoreline, within the footprint of the proposed groin, or east of the proposed groin should
be considered a loss, and the costs of those losses should be added to the annual and 30-year
costs of Alternative 5. The predicted loss of parcels due to Alternatives 3 and 4 should also be
calculated and included in the estimated costs, as it is unlikely that many of the parcels east of
station 0-100 will be protected or recovered from either of these alternatives. We note that
including these costs will significantly increase the overall costs of the three build alternatives.
On Page 4, the Table in Appendix 1) should be revised to provide a consistent comparison of
costs between the five alternatives. Currently, the costs for Alternative 5 are shown as annual
and 5-year costs, while the cost of other alternatives is shown for a 30-year period.
3. Table 3.10 on Page 44 lists Long -Term Erosion Damages and Response Costs for
Alternatives I and 2, but shows these costs as $0 for Alternatives 3 and 5. 1lowever, the Service
does not believe that there will be no erosion damages or response costs over 30 years in the
project area, regardless of alternative chosen. Large winter storms, hurricanes and other named
storms all have the potential to cause significant erosion and response costs. Page 116 in
Chapter 5 states that the future impacts on development on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach
were evaluated based on the continuation of erosion trends determined from surveys obtained
between 1997 and 2010. 7 herc.is no rationale provided for using this timespan as a baseline.
Although there were several named stones that passed in the vicinity of Ocean Isle Beach during
this time, only one passed over the island (with sustained winds of 35 mph), none of them had
winds over 70 mph, and at least half of them had winds of less than 40 mph
(http://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/, accessed March 6, 2016). If a 30-year timespan had been
used (from 1984 to 2014), erosion from a category 4 hurricane (I Iurricane Hugo) could have
been included in the analysis.
The 13-year baseline also does not provide the same potential level of impacts from sea level
rise. The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) Science Panel predicted in
December 2014 that the relative sea level rise by 2045 in Southport, North Carolina would be at
least 1.9 inches, and as high as 8.5 inches (Draft CRC Science Panel Sea Level Report,
December 31, 2014). Considering the historic rates of sea level rise presented on page 132 (8.16
inches per century in Wilmington, and 1.03 feet per century in Charleston), sea level may rise at
a minimum of 2.45 inches to 3.71 inches over the next 30 years. The DEIS states that there will
be no direct or indirect impacts in the project area from such an ind SOLZIVel gardless of
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

the alternative, it is likely that dwellings, particularly those on the oceanfront will be impacted by
increases in sea level rise over the next 30 years. Because sea level rise is not consistent through
time and space, the impacts are often most first noticed when a storm -surge or spring tides occur.
Over the 30-year proposed project life, it is more likely that named storms would cause erosion
despite the precautions taken, and that costs would be incurred for beach bulldozing, additional
emergency nourishment, or other response activities. Further, if the presence of the groin
encourages development of currently undeveloped parcels that are on the oceanfront or
waterward of current dwellings, erosion and response costs (beach bulldozing, emergency sand
placement, infrastructure repair, demolition and solid waste costs) could be expected over the life
of the project for Alternative 5 that would not be expected for the other 4 alternatives. The N"IS
is silent on this issue.
Also in Table 3.10 on Page 44, the Service recommends that the $21.39 million included for loss
of parcels be revised to remove costs for parcels which arc currently under water or within the
footprint or cast of the proposed terminal groin. Since most of these parcels are already
unbuiidable, and the terminal groin will not provide significant improvement in condition, the
loss of them should not be counted for Alternatives I and 2 if they are not counted in the other
alternatives.
4. On page 63 in Chapter 4, the reference to Figure 4.12 is in error. Please revise.
5. On pages 74-76 in Chapter 4, please update the sea turtle nesting data for all species to
include 201&and 2014 data. A green sea turtle nested in Holden Beach in 2013.
LU CM
6. On Page 97, Figure 4.14, the Service recommends that the written description of the pi gT �
plover critical habitat be used, rather than the old shape file. V y
LU ---3
7. Please update Chapter 4 to include red knot records. i
8. The 'DEIS does not adequately address accelerated erosion downdrift of the groin or the
potential impacts from downdrift erosion and regular dredging (every five years to maintain the
groin, every three years for the Corps CSDR project). Chapter 5 (page 175) and Appendix C
change the topic from potential impacts of this groin on sand transport and intertidal habitats in
Shallotte Inlet to a discussion of the impact of the Oregon Inlet jetties on Pea Island. Oregon
Inlet and Shallotte Inlet are very different systems, and the DEIS does not explain how they are
comparable. We note that there is no habitat above MLLW (including no intertidal habitat)
downdrift of the Oregon Inlet jetty, and the stabilization of the shoreline within the sand fillet of
the jetty has resulted in degradation or loss of intertidal habitats. The DEIS (page 176) states that
the model shows the loss of approximately 1.-2 acres of intertidal habitats in Shallotte Inlet due to
the project, but that habitat is expected to persist and recover within 2 years of dredging based on
the rate of infill that currently occurs. However, the rate of hifill that is referenced is not the rate

the alternative; it is likely that dwellings, particularly those on the oceanfront will be impacted by_
increases in sea level rise over the next 30 years. Because sea level rise is not consistent through
time and space, the impacts are often most first noticed when a storm -surge or spring tides occur.
Over the 30-year proposed project life, it is more likely that named storms would cause erosion
despite the precautions taken, and that costs would be incurred for beach bulldozing, additional
emergency nourishment. or other response activities. Further, if the presence of the groin
encourages development of currently undeveloped parcels that are on the oceanfront or
waterward of current dwellings, erosion and response costs (beach bulldozing, emergency sand
placement, infrastructure repair, demolition and solid waste costs) could be expected over the life
of the project for Alternative 5 that would not be expected for the other 4 alternatives. The l)I3IS
is silent on this issue.
Also in 1 able 3..10 on Page 44, the Service recommends that the $21.39 million included for loss
of parcels be revised to remove costs for parcels which are currently under water or within the
footprint or east of the proposed, terminal groin. Since most of these. parcels are already
unbuildable, and the terminal groin will not provide significant improvement in condition, the
loss of them should not be counted for. Alternatives I and 2 if they are not counted in ilie other
alternatives.
4. On page 63 in Chapter 4, the reference to Figure 4.12 is in error. Please revise.
5. On pages=74-76 in Chapter 4, please update the sea turtle nesting data for all species to
include 2013.and 2014 data. A green sea turtle nested in Holden Beach in 2013.
LU
6. On Page 97, Figure 4.1.4, the Service recommends that the written description of the pile
plover critical habitat be used, rather than.the old shape tile.
LU
7. Please update Chapter 4 to include red knot records.
8. The DEIS does not adequately address accelerated erosion downdrift of the groin or the
potential impacts from downdrift erosion and regular dredging (every five years to maintain the
groin, every ttuee years for the Corps CSDR,project). Chapter 5 (page 175) and Appendix C
change the topic from potential impacts of this groin on sand transport and intertidal habitats in
Shallotte Inlet to a discussion of the impact of the Oregon ftrletjetties on Pea Island. Oregon
Inlet and Shallotte Inlet are very different systems, and the DEIS does not explain how they are
comparable. We note that there is no habitat above MLLW (including no intertidal habitat)
downdrift of the Oregon Inletjetly, and the stabilization of the shoreline within the sand fillet of
thejetty has resulted in degradation or toss of intertidal habitats. The DEIS (page 176) states that
the model shows the loss of approximately 1-2 acres of intertidal habitats in Shallotte Inlet due to
the project, but that habitat is.expected to persist and recover within 2 years of dredging based on
the rate of infill that currently occurs. However, the rate of infill that is referenced is not the rate
U
n
0

that will occur after the groin is constructed, since the model shows that the rate of sediment
transport will be reduced. There is no discussion in Chapter 5 or Appendix A of the expected
passage rates of sand across the groin, or the expected infill rate after construction, and based on
the information provided, it is not possible to determine impacts of the groin on the persistence
or formation of intertidal shoals and flats in Shallotte Inlet.
9. On Page 177, please change "nesting habitat for seabeach amaranth..." to "habitat for
seabeach amaranth...."
10. On Page 178, the DEIS should address the indirect impacts of stabilization of a dynamic
system. The DEIS states that the **increase in stable dry beach as a result of the implementation
of Alternative 5 is considered more advantageous to resident and migratory fatma." However.
the resident and migratory fauna, particularly the shorebirds such as piping plover and red knot,
rely on the dynamic coastal processes such as overwash, to provide optimal foraging, roosting,
and nesting habitat. The presence of the groin and other hard structures prevents such processes.
In addition, g -oins accelerate erosion on the downdrift side, thereby causing direct and indirect
impacts to the dry beach and intertidal habitats.
11. In Chapter 5 and Appendix A of the DEIS, the accretion and erosion patterns indicated by
the Delft3D model are shown only for three years post -project. Given that this is a 30-year
project, and the groin is proposed to be on a 5-year maintenance schedule, the DEIS should
clarify why only three years of modeling is shown. In addition, no modeling runs are included to
show the expected accretion or erosion patterns for Alternative 4. Information for Alternative 4
should be added to the DEIS.
12. On Page 62 of Appendix A, the DEIS states that the model results for Alternative I
underestimated the sediment retention rate of the borrow area, and that the modeled rate was
approximately 800/0 of the measured rate. According to page 62 of the DEIS, the modelers
assume that all of the other model runs also underestimated the sediment retention rate in the
borrow area by the same amount, and adjusted the modeled rates for the terminal groin
alternative without further justification. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were not considered in this
exercise on page 2 or in Table 4.15, and only Alternatives I and 5 are used to compare model
volume changes in the Shallotte Inlet complex. The Service recommends that information for
Alternatives 2-4 be included in "fable 4.15 of Appendix A.
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

8
Service Recommendations
As stated above, the Service recommends that the project, as currently proposed not be
authorized, due to potential impacts to piping plovers, red knot, scabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles. We recommend that the Final EIS incorporate our comments listed above. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning these
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone], Ext. 27, or by e-rnail at
<[e-mail]>.
t
Fete
Field
cc:
Fritz Rohde, NOAA Fisheries
Daniel Holliman, USEPA
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington, NC
Doug Haggett, NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
Debra Wilson. NCDCM, Wilmington, NC
Jessi Baker, NCDCF, Morehead City, NC.
Karen Higgins, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC
Y
oGM. M

0
Service Recommendations
As stated above, the Service recommends that the project, as currently proposed not be
authorized, due to potential impacts to piping plovers, red knot, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles. We recommend that the Final EIS incorporate our comments Listed above. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning these
comments, please contact Ktitlly Matthews at [phone], Ext. 27, or by e-mail at
<[e-mail]>.
Sinc 1}-,
Pete Be�'~ iin
Field Supervisor
cc:
Fritz Rohde, NOAA Fisheries
Daniel Holliman, USEPA
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington, NC
Doug Htiggett, NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
Debra Wilson, NCDCM, Wilmington, NC
,lessi Baker, NCDMF, Morehead] City, NC
Karen Higgins, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC

ATTACHMENT 3
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Weaver, Cameron
From: Weaver, Cameron
Sent: Monday, December 19 2011 1211 PM
To: Wilson_Laney@fws gov
Cc: Wilson Debra, Snider, Holley; Huggett. Doug
Subject: REOcean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Scoping
Attachments: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin pdf
Mr Laney.
I hank you, sir, tot your input. With this reply, I have forwarded your comments to the DCM District Manager, the DCM
Field Representative and to Doug Huggett so that they are aware of your concurrence with USFWS' position on this
issue. And I have added you to the distribution list for information an this project should I receive/distribute anything
further if you did not receive the entire email string and attachment that I originally sent to John Ellis, they are attached
here.
Let me know if I may be of assistance.
Cameron
Cameron Weaver
Cameron. WeavertAincdenr goy
Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDENR ( Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach (DEAD)
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington. NC 28405
910-7964303 (F) 910-350-2U04
h tt p://nct:. nvi ronme nt al assist a nce. org/
F mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Wilson_Laney;�hvs.gov [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron
Cc: Pete Ben}aminWws.gov, 3ohn,[e-mail]; Tom_Augspurger0tws.gov
Subject: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Scoping
Cameron:
Reference Pete Benjamin's a -mail message to you datedltime-stamped December 16, 2011, 10:40 am (text
pasted helow in hold for your information].
t see Fish and Wildlife Service participation in this discussion as a very low priority.'rhe issues are clear.
A project of this nature will destroy the ecological functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas.
The science is unequivocal. 1 see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty in need of further
evaluation. We oppose this project. There is nothing more to discuss. FYI, the 11olden Beach side of the
inlet (including the unnamed sandhars and islands in the inlet) is piping plover critical habitat.'Flie
project would destroy critical habitat and as such would require formal consultation. It would also
adversely affect sea turtles under our jurisdiction and sea beach amar:url11, so we will need to consult
regarding them as is when and if the Limo comes. 1 know the regulators ugcncics :rrc fulk familiar with
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

the Section 7 process and the information that will he needed to initiate consultation. I also understand
that as regulatory agencies NCDENR and the Corps must go through the steps of reviewing this request
and preparing the necessary assessments to document the effects of the proposed action. t have full
confidence in dour ahility to do so. Feel free to keep its apprised via email as you move through the
review process, and feel free to contact me or John Ellis if you have any specific questions, but we are
operating on a very limited budget and are short staffed, so we must focus our limited resources where
there are substantial natural resource issues to he resolved. The implications of this project on the area's
natural resources are clear. As such, at this time our resources are needed elsewhere.
i concur with Pete's assessment of the impacts of the proposed Ocean Isle l3each Terminal Gmin. I sere to
provide technical support to him and his staff, with regard to fisheries -related issues which fall trader the
,jurisdiction of the Atlantic Slates Marine Fisheries Commission, and the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council. I serve as the FWS Regional Directors (for ASMFC) or Assistant Regional Director-l"isheries Flier the
SAMFC) representative on these two institutions.
Construction ofthe propos:d groin would likely have a significant impact on the transpon oflarval fish- shrimp,
crabs and other estuarine -dependent species which are under flee itrisdiction of either the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and,for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. One or both of these
management institutions may wish to comment on the proposed project, therclbre I atn requesting that you add
me to your distribution list for the proposed prviect.
Should you have questions regarding the jurisdiction of either of these institutions with regard to fishery
res:tturces which would be impacted by the proposed prgicct, please feel free to contact me.
s Wilson
1Z. Wilson Laney, Ph.D.. Coordinator
South Atlantic Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
I .S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PS). Box 33683
Raleigh. North C Arohna 27636-3083
Voice 919 515-5019
Cell: 252s39-5717
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: Wlson_lancy'a l_u_y,gnr
F vwam,o try JMm EII.-IRatrLVSIJOI un 1211.12 i1 t1244AM ----
r,;,r"r-$VED
i 2016
DCtv,_ MHp CiTY
'Weaver. Cameron'•
Kr.1n1p(f{f,.WBaYa nf..tlenr rn•+
_... __... a..
TG•'BAAar.Iebb,t"K'1£$Ku':i��(���„�`R�V� M16a $CCrle( PKx},Yyhija�rStaa gPv* r*r, QPf tO�SUY
R59^$tp H. NUpp !# ,wryc+r4.Sm' 4a1>
•z�RR2ti1 Or.'W <,yi .ittu;.Fa SN.1ff t�Wb'-l'-nry¢y'kNHo n owu- � ..
� � .� , Np f,vppl?.Cis�Lnri!l�3u "-runpY G, .. „
<Qavid.L tlrnaYtF one jumYmU>. "rltw»ad, W*yM ,nnt>'ttalt
<rhontla,nne ncQpntgo». "titanpnreY. JbKe+n1"i$•4?tY hl+f"P�'. 4 r 'u,aoy> Y.obum
=cnbcw6urro-. ; rv.sor>
ce DaIbY IYkY K9an%agoa2x(am,, )amen JomLtQw� wee carci "LAM�.�:,??c_'&�SCfit+H'R cnm>
`tat»nnrs2txx aRY"KI.QhS!.,.Cfasj M.,'s.4ov>,'WM, t.,na»' on mms, d'fnr#r,r.3m:>gr tt;pe•a
Ktif#Qratpotur7SG9. t.!tp
%Diets Ora"an Isre tteach Fern! Gron stomp meeinp

the Section 7 process and the information that will be needed to initiate consultation. I alsa.uitderstand
that as regulatory agencies NC DENR and:the Corps 'must go 'through the steps of_reviewing this request
and preparing the necessary assessments to doeutnent the effects of the proposed action. I have full
confidence.in your -ability to do so. Feel free to keep -its apprised vto eulail as you move through the
review proem, and feel free to' contact me,or John ill$ if you bave oay.sp cifie questions, but the are
operating on a very limited budget and are`shortstaffed, so we must focus our limited resources where
there aresubstantial natural resource issues to be'resulved. Tht tm - el.ations;uf this project on the area's
natural resources are.cloar. As such, at this time aurresourees.:aire necd6l teI46w,here.
l eoncur'wilh Petc[s a_sse,csmeni of the impacts ofthe piiigosed Ocean isle Bea-ch Tetminai Groin. l serve to
provide technical support. to hint and Iris k.taff, with regard to fisheries -related issues which fall under the
jurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Gotnmissiotr and tite Soulb-Atlantic Fishery 14lanagement
Council. I serve as the FWS Regional Directors (forASILfFC) or Assistant Regional Director -Fisheries (for tiie
SAM C) representative on these two institutions. '
Construction of the proposed groin would likely have a significant impact on the transport of larval fish, sltrirnp,
crabs and other esivarine-dependent species which are under the jurisdiction of either the Atlantic States l'fari%
Fisheries Commission, and/or the South Atlantic Fishery Managcment Council. One or both of these
management institutions may wish to comment on the, proposed project, therelbre I am requesting that you add
me to your distribution list for the proposed project.
Should you have questions regarding the jurisdiction of either• of these institutions with regard to fishery
resources which would be impacted by the pmposc'd project, please reel free to contact are:
is! Wilson
R. Wilson Lancy, Ph.D., Coordinator
South Atlantic Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office
U.S..Fish and Wildlife, Service
t .t7. Box 33633
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3683
Voice: 919-5 t5-5019
Ccl1: 252-339-5717
Fax: 919.5 f 54454
e-mail Li'ilsotl 3attia=rie?i"vas._=,,ati
--- Fenvarged dy,tahn Etlist4an yy5iri0# on 12'.3r2o11 49.40AM —
"Weavar. canmran"
<fameran.W CaYM�11OCdCR.af.Y>
;iee t2n11 02 U PM
021E
IVII ow
rc. "P,akci„�essi c' <1 ��;4pa cr�rf_Wanr.rov>, Ron SeUder
<rt2to�,,e1,4�,ng}„s„cIimrcr• oMr, 'i�n4 4??L17:Rgrtrv0.4>.Y. >, •idi✓134.4,Q�A.9.S2Jig_v"Sn.ldcl. Ha1tuy
IMISun. Dtea- aehr;mjjr;jg2>, `5mPsan, Shaun'
4gotl -Imy.David L$+AW'
<LL-�YiC1.L rimtly��._�rn i+. "SlhWod Malty fit'<maliy;tiwgac!�ncwl-1,ld �tq>, 'tiplt. RhSnCa"
<m�od_n haN h ;C•nr gova, 'Hwrlph[[ry, Jemmy' <irrvmvhuman• •v(e'mctlenr oav>,'Cohuim Chad"
<y_r.,aa.mburm�ncacnr co•»
tC Daiay rvay NaavrwoffmoY ugix>.
SLOJoct Q!h"ilfi ISte a£aSh TERI!iF1uI fTOIn SWpl09 t110Cti11SJ -
t

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
July 7, 2016
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Braxton C. Davis
Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Braxton.Davis@,nedenr.gov
Re: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Proposal
Dear Mr. Davis:
Please accept these comments on Ocean Isle Beach's application for a Coastal Area
Management Act ("CAMA") permit to construct a 750-foot terminal groin near Shallotte Inlet.
The Southern Environmental Law Center submits these comments on behalf of the North
Carolina Coastal Federation.
As described below, the Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") cannot lawfully issue
a permit for the proposed groin for two primary reasons. First, the final environmental impact
statement ("FEIS") submitted in support of the proposed terminal groin violates the National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA!), does not meet the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, and cannot satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1I3A-
115.1(e). Second, even if the EIS is accepted, it plainly demonstrates that Alternative 5, the
proposed ternvnal groin, will dramatically increase costs home by Ocean Isle Beach over the 30-
year period. Further, the EIS demonstrates that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is a lower -
cost alternative, meets the purpose and need, and maintains the recreational beach and wildlife
habitat that currently exists east of the proposed groin location.
I. The EIS Included as Part of the Application Violates NEPA. 1 / S, I (e)C I)
As described above and more fully in the attached comments of May 31, 2016, from
SELC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the FEIS violates NEPA and cannot be accepted.
For those same reasons, it violates the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, which similarly
requires a thorough, objective analysis of alternatives and a full explanation of the basis for the •_,
conclusions reached. Rather than restate the multitude of errors in the FEIS, we attach our
comments to the Corps regarding the FEIS and incorporate them by reference. �
H. If the Prroneous FEIS Analysis Is Accepted, the Terminal Groin Cannot Be ,.
Permitted.
If the FEIS is accepted, however, the proposed terminal groin cannot be permitted. As
the FEIS concedes, inlet realignment is not only a practicable alternative that would address
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

erosion on the east end —it is significantly cheaper than building the proposed terminal groin.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are all significantly cheaper that the proposed terminal groin when the
actual cost to Ocean Isle is evaluated.
DCM cannot approve the proposed terminal groin if "considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the
overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 113A-120(a)(9), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115.1(e) (requiring compliance with CAMA). Here, it is
clear that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is feasible from an engineering perspective, is the
cheapest alternative available to Ocean Isle, accomplishes the overall project purpose, and would
have significantly less adverse impact on public resources than the proposed terminal groin.
First, it cannot be disputed that Alternative 4 is feasible "considering engineering
requirements." Alternative 4 differs from alternatives 1-3 in that it requires more focused
dredging to maintain a specific channel orientation.' Such dredging is plainly feasible and would
accomplish the desired effect. The FEIS concludes that as a result of Alternative 4, "the
shoreline on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach should respond in much the same manner as was
observed between 1954 and 1965 during which time the east end of the island accreted."2 _ y"It— tw
.w
Second, the FEIS concedes that Alternative 4 is cheaper than building the proposed PW
terminal groin when only non-federal costs are considered. The FEIS summarizes the cost of
each alternative as follows:3 r"4 ( Co.;(
Table 3.12 Summary of 30-vear implementation costs of alternatives
Total 30-Year Beach
Non -Federal
Alternative
Nourish mentfimplementation
Federal Share
Share
Cost
1- No New Action
$66,440,0000)
$43,190,000
$23,260,000
2—Abandon/Retreat
$66,440,0000)
$43,190,000
$23,250,000
3-Beach Nourishment
$108.768,000
$43,190,000
$65,578,000
4—Channel Relocation
$53,150,000
$30,866,000
$22,264,000
5-750-ftterminal groin
$45,864,000
$23,034,000
$22,830,000
n)Nourblunent of federal storm damage reduction project only, does not include demolition, relocation, or
sandbags.
Clearly, the Channel Relocation alternative is not only feasible, but it is the lowest -cost option
when federal funding is excluded. That this alternative would require a greater federal
contribution is immaterial. The FEIS assumes the federal government will continue to fund
nourishment under each alternative as part of the federal storm damage reduction project.4
Moreover, there is no plausible explanation why the additional federal share of $7,832,000 over
the 30-year span is impracticable. The FEIS does not assert that it is impracticable.
'See FEIS at 33.
a FEIS at 34.
3 FEIS at 47.
Id.; see also FEIS at 28 (Alt. 1), 32 (Alt. 3), 35 (Alt. 4), 44 (Alt. 5).

_ erosion on the east end —it is significantly cheaper than building -the proposed terminal groin.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are all significantly cheaper that the proposed terminal groin when the
actual cost to �00eaff5ja ts, ve luated:
DCM cannot approve the proposed terminal groin if "considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish the
overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 113A-120(a)(9), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115.1(e) (requiring compliance with CAMA). Here, it is
clear that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is feasible from an engineering perspective, is the
cheapest alternative available to Ocean Isle, accomplishes the overall project purpose, and would
have significantly less adverse impact on public resources than the proposed terminal groin.
First, it cannot be disputed that Alternative 4 is feasible "considering engineering
requirements." Alternative 4 differs from alternatives 1-3 in that it requires more focused
dredging to maintain a specific channel orientation.' Such dredging is plainly feasible and would
accomplish the desired effect. The FEIS concludes that as a result of Alternative 4, "the
shoreline on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach should respond in much the same manner as was
observed between 1954 and 1965 during which time the east end of the island accreted."
r„
. PW
--,4,, r Co�-t
1-No-New Action .. iJ 66,440,00oo) ,r�. $43,190,000 $23,250;000
2—AbandonMetreat U8;440,000o) $43,190,000 $23;250,000
3 - l3each Nourishment $108 76a 000 r` $4319d,000.
4—Channel Relocation ; i $53,160,000 41 $30,866,000 r$22 264 OOD'�_
5 —750=ft terminal groin $45,864,000 j $23,0M.1300 $22 830 000
sandbag&
See FEIS at 33.
x FEIS at 34.
' FEIS at 47.
° Id.; see also FEIS at 28 (Alt. 1), 32 (Alt. 3), 35 (Alt. 4), 44 (Alt. 5).
relocation,
Lv�veti

Further, the costs reported in the FEIS do not represent the actual cost to Ocean Isle
Beach. The non-federal portion for alternatives 1-4 would be eligible for state
funding.5 Therefore, Ocean Isle would pay as little as 25% of the eligible costs. As presented in
the table below, for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the cost to Ocean Isle Beach is $5,813,500,
For Alternative 4, the cost is higher at approximately $9,823,633. By comparison, total cost of
building the groin would be approximately $13,531,351, because none of the funding for the
terminal groin is eligible for state cost share. That represents 130% greater cost than maintaining
the status quo and nearly a 40% greater cost than Alternative 4.
Federally
Additional
Authorized
Federal
Eligible
Required
Local Costs
Alternative
Nourishme
Share
State Share
Local Share
for
Total Local Costs
nt Cost
(65%)
(26.25%)
(9.75%)
Alternative
(total)
No Action"
$66,440,000
$43,I90,000
'$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$0
$5,813,500
Abandon
$66,440,000
$43,190,000
$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$0
$5,813,500
Beach
$66,440 000
143,190,000
$17,433 856
$5,813,500
$42,330,644
$48,144,144
Nourishment
Channel
$47,486,154
$30,866,000
$12,460367
$4,155,038
$5,668,595
$9,823,633
Relocation
750-ft Groin
$35,436,923
1 $23,034,000
$9,298,649
$3,100,731
$10,430,620
$13,531;351
Critically, any reduction in beach nourishment costs would be significantly less than th
cost of building the terminal groin. The FEIS rejected the 250-foot groin proposal on that very
basis, finding that because of "the inability of the 250-foot structure to reduce periodic
nourishment requirements that would offset the cost of constructing and maintaining the
structure ... [it is] not considered to be a viable option.s6 Because the 750-foot groin also fails J
that test, it is not a "viable option."
Third, Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need. Critically, Alternative 5 does not, as
discussed in further detail below. The purpose and need described in the FEIS has four parts:
• To reduce or mitigate erosion along 3,500 feet of Ocean Isle Beach oceanfront
shoreline west of Shallotte Inlet;
• To maintain the Town's tax base by providing long-term protection of property
and infrastructure through reduced storm damage and erosion on the oceanfront
shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach between Shallotte Inlet and the western terminus of
the Federal Project;
• Maintain existing recreational resources;
'See N.C. Beach Inlet Management Plan, Final Report at XII-23, https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
s FEIS at 44.

• Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing
natural resources. 7
The FEIS goes on to identify "the development of a shoreline protection project that would
mitigate chronic erosion" as the "particular" purpose and need of the projects The document
concludes that "Alternative 4 would prevent long-term erosion damage to development along the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the area east of baseline station 30+00,s9 thereby satisfying the
"particular" purpose and need identified by the Town. Moreover, as discussed in further detail
below, only the non -groin alternatives meet the "purpose and need" statements with respect to
recreational resources and the existing natural environment.
Finally, as discussed in additional detail below, Alternative 4 has significantly less
adverse impact on public resources. Alternative 4 would maintain the beach east of the proposed
groin location for both recreation and wildlife. As described in the FEIS, after six years under
projections under Alternative 4, "sediment [would continue] to accumulate west of Shallotte
Inlet which is one of the desired results associated with the channel relocation alternative.s10
Therefore, implementation of the cheapest alternative would result in a larger beach on the east
end of Ocean Isle. .F(2) )
IIl. The Application Does Not Adequately Evaluate Indirect Effects.
Ocean Isle Beach is required to submit with its application "[a]n environmental impact
.statement that satisfies the requirements of GS 113A-4." N.C. Gen. Stat § 113A-15.l(e). Here,
that includes an EIS that fully evaluates the indirect effects of the proposed groin. See 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25.0603 (describing contents of EIS).
The indirect effects of this project are not only insufficiently analyzed, but the limited
,!analysis presented is misleading. As discussed in the attached comment letter on the FEIS, the
two- to -five-year analysis of indirect effects of alternatives is indefensible and incomplete. As
detailed in our FEIS comments to the Corps, which are incorporated here by reference, CPE
scaled the erosion rates predicted by the Delft3D model in order to justify building the terminal
groin. For example, when the model predicted erosion between the location of the proposed
groin and station OI 30 to be 24,000 cy/yr—which would be more than compensated for by
nourishment—CPE assumed without explanation that erosion would nonetheless continue at the
previously observed rate of 91,000 cy/yr and that any increased erosion greater than 24,000 cy/yr
would indicate a proportional increase in the previously observed rate.11 CPE proportionally
increased beach nourishment need estimates based on that assumption, dramatically increasing
nourishment requirements, 12
' FEIS at 16
e Id
9 FEIS at 35.
10 FEIS at 129.
� � See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").
" See FEIS at 31 (summarizing determination that Alternative 3 would require fill to offset 140,000 cy/yr erosion
based on NMI) modeling that predicted 37,000 cy/yr erosion).
4

e Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing
natural resources.'
The FEIS goes on to identify "the development of a shoreline protection project that would
mitigate chronic erosion" as the "particular" purpose and need of the projects The document
concludes that "Alternative 4 would prevent long-term erosion damage to development along the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the area east of baseline station 30+00,"9 thereby satisfying the
"particular" purpose and need identified by the Town Moreover, asvdiscussed iri further detail
below, only the non groin alternatives meet the "purpose.and'need" statements_w thxespect to
recreatY ronal�resourees'dn`d'the existing natural environment.
adverse impact--onpublrc resources. Alternative 4 would maintain the beach east<of the proposed
g m* ation for both recreation and wildlife. As described in the FEIS, after six years under
projections under Alternative 4, "sediment [would continue] to accumulate west of Shallotte
Inlet which is one of the desired results associated with the channel relocation alternative." 10
Therefore, implementation of the cheapest alternative would result in a larger beach on the east
end of Ocean Isle. ��?a
III. The Application Does Not tlegpately Evaluate;7ud�rect Effects...> '
Ocean Isle Beach is required to submit with its application "[a]n environmental impact
Est statement that satisfies the requirements of GS 113A-4." N.C. Gen. Stat § 113A-15.1(e). Here,
that includes an EIS that fully evaluates the indirect effects of the proposed groin. See 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25.0603 (describing contents of EIS).
The indirect effects of this project are not only insufficiently analyzed, but the limited
analysis presented is misleading. As discussed in the attached comment letter on the FEIS, the
two- to -five-year analysis of indirect effects of alternatives is indefensible and incomplete. As
detailed in our FEIS comments to the Corps, which are incorporated here by reference, CPE
scaled the erosion rates predicted by the Delft3D model in order to justify building the terminal
groin. For example, when the model predicted erosion between the location of the proposed
groin and station OI 30 to be 24,000 cy/yr—which would be more than compensated for by
nourishment—CPE assumed without explanation that erosion would nonetheless continue at the
previously observed rate of 91,000 cy/yr and that any increased erosion greater than 24,000 cy/yr
would indicate a proportional increase in the previously observed rate." CPE proportionally
increased beach nourishment need estimates based on that assumption, ,dramatically increasing
nourishment requirements. 12
7 FEIS at 16
6 Id
s FEIS at 35.
10 FEIS at 129.
� � See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").
" See FEIS at 31 (summarizing determination that Alternative 3 would require fill to offset 140,000 cy/yr erosion
based on Delft3D modeling that predicted 37,000 cy/yr erosion).

East of the groin, however, CPE did not proportionally increase the modeled erosion rates
and has therefore dramatically underestimated the effect of the proposed groin on the existing
beach. If the Delft3D model under -estimates erosion west of the groin,13 it must also be
considered to under -estimate erosion east of the groin, or CPE must provide a credible scientific
explanation for the discrepancy. As predicted by the Delft3D model, the proposed groin will
increase erosion rates east of the groin by 4.5 times the rates predicted under Alternative 1.14
Given CPE's assumption that the modeled rate for Alternative 1 of 24,000 cy/year is equivalent
to 91,000 cy/year, the proposed terminal groin will cause Ocean Isle Beach east of the groin to
erode by hundreds of thousands of cubic yards per year --eliminating the recreational beach and
available wildlife habitat.15
IV. Elimination of the Recreational Beach and Wildlife Habitat East of the Proposed
Groin Cannot Be Permitted.
The substantially increased erosion predicted east of the proposed groin both fails to meet
the project's purpose and need and violates applicable law. First, the purpose and need as
described in the FEIS includes both maintaining the existing recreational beach and reaching a
balance between protecting property and natural resources. Alternative 5 fails to satisfy either of
those stated purposes and needs. As described in the FEIS, the beach east of the proposed
terminal groin will be eliminated. CPE failed to evaluate adequately the indirect effects of the
project by arbitrarily limiting its analysis to five years of a 30-year project, thereby intentionally
understating its effects, but even that limited analysis demonstrates that the existing recreational
beach will be lost. In addition, the elimination of that beach will have a significant adverse
effect on wildlife that could be avoided with Alternative 4, thereby failing to strike an
appropriate balance.
Beyond failing to meet the purpose and need, Alternative 5 violates applicable law.
Under CAMA, DCM cannot issue a permit for a terminal groin project unless it finds that:
[c]onstruction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in significant
adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach. In
making this finding, the Commission shall take into account the potential benefits
of the project, including the protection of the terminus of the island from shoreline
erosion and inlet migration, beaches, protective dunes, wildlife habitats, roads,
homes, and infrastructure, and mitigation measures, including the accompanying
beach fill project that will be incorporated into the project design and construction
and the inlet management plan.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-115.1(f)(4) (emphasis added).
" To be clear, the Corps' decision to inflate erosion rates without providing any rationale is arbitrary and capricious.
That said, if it inflates erosion rates as described in an attempt to justify building the groin, it must do so east of the
proposed groin as well.
° See FEIS at 41 (showing that a 750-ft terminal groin will increase. erosion between station -5 and station -20 from
11,000 cy/yr to 49,900 cy/yr).
10 See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").

In addition, CAMA's other provisions still apply. For example, DCM cannot
issue a permit that would "jeopardize the public rights or interests" in public trust waters,
id. 113A-120(a)(5), such as the ocean beaches east of the proposed groin. Rules make
clear that "[t]he public has rights in these areas including ... recreation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 07H .0207(b). The objective in identifying public trust areas such as the
beaches east of the proposed groin is "[t]o protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and
perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value." Id. 07H .0207(c). Crucially,
"[p]rojects which would ... increase shoreline erosion ... are considered incompatible
with the management policies of public trust areas." Id. 07H.0207(d) (emphasis added),
see id 07H .0306(g) ("Development shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of,
public resources, nor shall such development increase the risk of damage to public trust
areas.").
The CRC's policy statements with respect to erosion control measures are
unequivocal: "protection of the recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the
public interest." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 07M .0201. Those policies continue, stating:
The public right to use and enjoy the ocean beaches must be protected. The
protected uses include traditional recreational uses (such as walking, swimming,
surf -fishing, and sunbathing) as well as commercial fishing and emergency access
for beach rescue services. Private property rights to oceanfront properties
including the right to protect property in ways that are consistent with public
rights should be protected.
Id. 07M.0202(a) (emphasis added). "Erosion response measures designed to minimize the loss
of private and public resources to erosion should be economically, socially, and environmentally
justified." Id 07M .0202(b).
The dredge and fill law similarly directs DCM to "deny an application for a dredge or fill
permit upon finding: (1) that there will be significant adverse effect of the proposed dredging and
filling on the use of the water by the public; ... or (3) that there will be significant adverse effect
on public health, safety, and welfare; ... or (5) that there will be significant adverse effect on
wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-229(e); see N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A-120(a)(2).
The effect of the proposed groin on both human recreational and wildlife use of the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach are intertwined. Because the proposed groin will cause significantly
increased erosion, the recreational beach and the available wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
The significant, adverse effect of the proposed groin on wildlife is clear. Here, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
1.1

In addition, CAMA's other provisions still apply. For -example, DCM cannot -
issue a permit that would€"jeopardize thep rigjjjo- sinferests''in public trust waters,
id. 113A-120(a)(5), such as the ocean beaches east of the proposed groin. Rules make
clear that "[t]he public has rights in these areas including ... recreation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 07H .0207(b). The objective in identifying public trust areas such as the
beaches east of the proposed groin is "[t]o protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and.
perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value." Id. 07H .0207(c). Crucially,
c[p]roje tsc which would : increase -shoreline ;erosion ... are considered incompatible
with the g ent-policres-of public trust areas." Id. 07H.0207(d) (emphasis added),
see id. 07H .0306(g) ("Development shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of,
public resources, nor shall such development increase the risk of damage to public trust
areas.").
The CRC's policy statements with respect to erosion control measures are
unequivocal: "protection of the recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the
public interest." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 07M .0201. Those policies continue, stating:
The public right to use and enjoy the ocean beaches must be protected. The
protected uses include traditional recreational uses (such as walking, swimming,
surf -fishing, and sunbathing) as well as commercial fishing and emergency access
for beach rescue services. Private property rights to oceanfront properties
including the right to protect property in ways that are consistent with public
rights should be protected.
11
PV
Id. 07M.0202(a) (emphasis added). "Erosion response measures designed to minimize the loss
of private and public resources to erosion should be economically, socially, and environmentally
justified." Id. 07M .0202(b).
The dredge and fill law similarly directs DCM to "deny an application for a dredge or fill
permit upon finding: (1) that there will be significant adverse effect of the proposed dredging and
filling on the use of the water by the public; ... or (3) that there will be significant adverse effect
on public health, safety, and welfare; ... or (5) that there will be significant adverse effect on
wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or,,marine fisheries." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-229(e); see N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A-120(a)(2).i
The effect of the proposed groin on both human recreational and wildlife use of the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach are intertwined. Because the proposed groin will cause significantly
increased erosion, the recreational beach and the available wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
of the
v ldhte_Service gh Ls pepeatedlyoblected that the=proposed proleet"has the -potential to
affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
J

knots, and seabeach amaranth within the project area" and recommended that the project not be
authorized.16 As early as its 2011 scoping comments on the project, FWS wrote:
The issues are clear. A project of this nature will destroy the ecological
functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas. The science is unequivocal.
I see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty. We oppose this project.
There is nothing more to discuss.17
And in its most recent letter, FWS stated that the agency's "comments and concerns about
impacts to our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a
30-year project were not" adequately addressed.ls The agency goes on to say that "it is unlikely
that the applicant could address these continents adequately without significantly revising the
project or changing their preferred alternative, and as far as we can tell, there have not been any
significant revisions to the preferred project."19
The Service is clear in its Biological Opinion about the negative impacts of the project to
loggerhead sea turtles:
The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects
to sea turtles, including the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle.
Due to downdrift erosion, there may be loss or degradation of loggerhead
terrestrial Critical Habitat Unity LOGG-T-NC-08. The Service expects there may
be morphological changes to adjacent nesting habitat. Activities that affect or
alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species may decrease
the survival and recovery potential of the loggerhead and other sea turtles. 20
These broad statements about likely harm are further supported by specific statements about the
impacts to the habitat's primary constituent elements ("PCEs"), the "physical or biological
feature[s] essential to the conservation of a species for which its designated or proposed critical
habitat is based on." Zl These can include "space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; ... nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; ... and habitats that are protected from disturbance
or are representative of the species' historic geographic and ecological distribution."22 Agencies
must use the "best scientific data" when conducting and relying on these Biological Opinions in
order to evaluate whether proposed actions result in adverse modification of critical habitat.
Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEGS 84943, 36 (D. Cal. 2012).
r6 See letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (May 20, 2016) (Attachment 1 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto); letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (March 12, 2015) (Attachment 2
SELC comments to Corps, attached hereto).
17 Email from W. Laney, FWS, to C. Weaver, NCDENR (Dec. 19, 2011) (Attachment 3 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto).
18 See May 20, 2016 letter at 5.
19Id
20 Biological Opinion at 63.
21 FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, www fws.gov/nc-es/es/ lg ossarv.v
22 id

For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes.s23 Indeed, PCEs for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings," and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions...."24
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and
foraging habitat in several ways. 25
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers....
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline. These combined actions affect the availability of piping plover
habitat 21
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat.
V. Conclusion
In sum, the lowest -cost alternative as described in the FEIS not only meets the stated
purpose and need —it preserves the recreational beach and wildlife habitat formed by the natural
inlet processes. Therefore, Channel Relocation as described in Alternative 4 is the only
alternative that can be permitted. The proposed terminal groin simply does not meet the legal
requirements outlined above and cannot be permitted.
z3 Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
24Id. at 30-31.
ss Id. at 98.
'6 Biological Opinion at 99.

For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes. i23 Indeed, PCEs for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings," and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions....s24
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and
foraging habitat in several ways. 25
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers....
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline, These combined actions affect the availability of.piping plover
habitat z6
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that.
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat.
V. Conclusion
In sum, the
i rrocesses. Therefore, Channel Relocation as described in Alternative 4 is the only
alternative that can be permitted. The proposed terminal groin simply does not meet the legal
requirements outlined above and cannot be permitted.
" Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
24Id. at 30-31.
zs Id. at 98.
z6 Biological Opinion at 99.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and request to be notified if any
action is taken with respect to Ocean Isle Beach's application.
GRG/rgd
Enclosures
Cc:
Sincerely,
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
0

S OUTH'ERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
July 7, 2016
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Braxton C. Davis .
Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
[e-mail]
Re: Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Proposal
Dear Mr. Davis:
Please accept these comments on Ocean Isle Beach's application for a Coastal Area
Management Act ("CAMA") permit to construct a 750-foot terminal groin near Shallotte Inlet.
The Southern Environmental Law Center submits these comments on behalf of the North
Carolina Coastal Federation.
As described below, the Division of Coastal Management ("DCM") cannot lawfully issue
a permit for the proposed groin for two primary reasons. First, the final environmental impact
statement ("FEIS") submitted in support of the proposed terminal groin violates the National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), does not meet the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, and cannot satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-
115.1(e). Second, even if the EIS is accepted, it plainly demonstrates that Alternative 5, the
proposed terminal groin, will dramatically increase costs borne by Ocean Isle Beach over the 30-
year period. Further, the EIS demonstrates that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is a lower -
cost alternative, meets the purpose and need, and maintains the recreational beach and wildlife
habitat that currently exists east of the proposed groin location.
I. The EIS Included as Part of the Application Violates NEPA.
As described above and more fully in the attached comments of May 31, 2016, from
SELC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the FEIS violates NEPA and cannot be accepted.
For those same reasons, it violates the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, which similarly
requires a thorough, objective analysis of alternatives and a full explanation of the basis for the
conclusions reached. Rather than restate the multitude of errors in the FEIS, we attach our
comments to the Corps regarding the FEIS and incorporate them by reference.
H. If the Erroneous FEIS Analysis Is Accepted, the Terminal Groin Cannot Be
Permitted.
If the FEIS is accepted, however, the proposed terminal groin cannot be permitted. As
the FEIS concedes, inlet realignment is not only a practicable altemative that would address
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston - Nashville • Richmond • Washington,
100%recycled paper

erosion on the east end —it is significantly cheaper than building the proposed terminal groin.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are all significantly cheaper that the proposed terminal groin when the
actual cost to Ocean Isle is evaluated.
DCM cannot approve the proposed terminal groin if "considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is, a practicable alternative that would accomplish the
overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 113A-120(a)(9), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115.1(e) (requiring compliance with CAMA). Here, it is
clear that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is feasible from an engineering perspective, is the
cheapest alternative available to Ocean Isle, accomplishes the overall project purpose, and would
have significantly less adverse impact on public resources than the proposed terminal groin.
First, it cannot be disputed that Alternative 4 is feasible "considering engineering
requirements." Alternative 4 differs from alternatives 1-3 in that it requires more focused
dredging to maintain a specific channel orientation.' Such dredging is plainly feasible and would
accomplish the desired effect. The FEIS concludes that as a result of Alternative 4, "the
shoreline on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach should respond in much the same manner as was
observed between 1954 and 1965 during which time the east end of the island accreted. ,2
Second, the FEIS concedes that Alternative 4 is cheaper than building the proposed
terminal groin when only non-federal costs are considered. The FEIS summarizes the cost of
each alternative as follows:
Table 3.12 Summary of 30-year implementation costs of alternatives
Tptal 3Q Xear Beach
Alt rntive
�IOuhghmelttllhtlergenfghqn
FderalShar
Non; Federal
SharQ
tRbSt
,
1 No -New Action
$66,440;0000)
$43,190,009
$23,250;000
2—AbandonlRetreat
$6t,440,00010
$43,199.,000
$23,250,000
3—Beach Nourishment
$1Q$,76e,000
$43;190,000.
$65',5781000
4--Channel Relocation
$53,150;000
$30,866,000
$22,264,000
5-760=ftterminal groin
$45,864,000.
$23,034,000
$22,830,000
(')Nourishment of federalstorm damage reduction 'projectonly, does not include demolition; relocation, or
sandbags.
Clearly, the Channel Relocation alternative is not only feasible, but it is the lowest -cost option
when federal funding is excluded. That this alternative would require a greater federal
contribution is immaterial. The FEIS assumes the federal government will continue to fund
nourishment under each alternative as part of the federal storm damage reduction project 4
Moreover, there is no plausible explanation why the additional federal share of $1,832,000 over
the 30-year span is impracticable. The FEIS does not assert that it is impracticable.
See FEIS at 33.
2 FEIS at 34.
a FEIS at 47.
4 Id.; see also FEIS at 28 (Alt. 1), 32 (Alt. 3), 35 (Alt. 4), 44 (Alt. 5).
2

erosion on the east end —it is significantly cheaper than building the proposed terminal groin.
Altematives 1, 2, and 4 are all significantly cheaper that the proposed terminal groin when the
actual cost to Ocean Isle is evaluated.
DCM cannot approve the proposed terminal groin if "considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is. a practicable alternative that would accomplish the
overall prof ect purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 113A-120(a)(9), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115.1(e) (requiring compliance with CAMA). Here, it is
clear that Alternative 4, Channel Relocation, is feasible from an engineering perspective, is the.
cheapest alternative available to Ocean Isle, accomplishes the overall proj ect purpose, and would
have significantly less adverse impact on public resources than the proposed terminal groin.
First, it cannot be disputed that Alternative 4 is feasible "considering engineering
requirements." Alternative 4 differs from alternatives 1-3 in that it requires more focused
dredging to maintain a specific channel orientation.' Such dredging is plainly feasible and would
accomplish the desired effect. The FEIS concludes that as a result of Alternative 4, "the
shoreline on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach should respond in much the same manner as was
observed between 1954 and 1965 during which time the;east end of the island acczeted. ,2
Second, the FEIS concedes that Alternative 4 is cheaper than building the proposed
terminal groin when only non-federal costs are considered. The FEIS summarizes the cost of
each alternative as follows:3
Table 3.12 Summary of'30-year imul'eme4n'Nnn custs'hf auarnArwa.
r Tetal3dYr$esH
l7ort-Fe�eiall
AlferntivE
�iartnShAtleltOiPlehlenf�tlon
Fetal S(i�jr
N M
iiSt
$ ! SJ 4t
4•i.1,.Ji 0.i .\1
v
)�.I 4 I .•
1 No -New Action
$66,4401;O660)
$43,190,000
$23,250,000
2=AbandoNl3etre.at
$66;440;000(1) _
$43;19Q,00a
$23,250,000 '
,3—Beach Nourishment
$108;76$ 000
$43,190,000.
$65.,578;000
4—Chain0l Relocation
$53,150,000,
$30866,000
$22,264;000
5-750=ftterm inalgroin
$45,864,000.
$23,034,000
$22,830,000
i.uo m,.wcu} ul wuemiawrm damage reaucuan,pro3ect My, does not Include demolition; Yelotation, or
sandbags
Clearly, the Channel Relocation alternative is not only feasible, but it is the lowest -cost option
when Tedeial funding is excluded. That this alternative would require a greater federal
contribution is immaterial. The FEIS assumes the federal government will continue to fund
nourishment under each alternative as part of the federal storm damage reduction project 4
Moreover, there is no plausible explanation why the additional federal share of $7,832,000 over
the 30-year span is impracticable. The FEIS. does not assert that it is impracticable.
' See FEIS at 33.
2 FEIS at 34.
' FEIS at 47.
4Id.; see also FEIS at 28 (Alt. 1), 32 (Alt. 3), 35 (Alt. 4), 44 (Alt. 5)
2

Further, the costs reported in the FEIS do not represent the actual cost to Ocean Isle
Beach. The non-federal portion for alternatives 1-4 would be eligible for state
funding.5 Therefore, Ocean Isle would pay as little as 25% of the eligible costs. As presented in
the table below, for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the cost to Ocean Isle Beach is $5,813,500.
For Alternative 4, the cost is higher at approximately $9,823,633. By comparison, total cost of
building the groin would be approximately $13,531,351, because none of the funding for the
terminal groin is eligible for state cost share. That represents 130% greater cost than maintaining
the status quo and nearly a 40% greater cost than Alternative 4.
Federally
Additional
Authorized
Federal
Eligible
Required
Local Costs
Alternative
Nourishme
Share
State Share
Local Share
for
Total Local Costs
at Cost
(65%)
(26.25%)
(8.75%)
Alternative
(total)
u
$}QO,OQ9
)$43(OOQ
1743$56
<$5,8B;SQo{k5,$13,d00
,oli t
Abandon
$66,440,000
$43,190,000
$17,433,856
$5,813,500
$0
$5,813,500
$each
$66�40t
$r j 01S
$4 4y s§
51kS� 'g
$d$ 4 �44 '
y0°$1Is9$
...;'1,i.
i, R.:
�tl y .rm,M�'l.'ih>
Channel
$47,486,154
$30,866,000
$12,460,367
$4,155,038
$5,668,595
$9,823,633
Relocation
75Ui Grain'',,,$5
46 92321d34
q
$2298¢549'
`�3,1'Ur
r
"A
Critically, any reduction in beach nourishment costs would be significantly less than the
cost of building the terminal groin. The FEIS rejected the 250-foot groin proposal on that very
basis, finding that because of "the inability of the 250-foot structure to reduce periodic
nourishment requirements that would offset the cost of constructing and maintaining the
structure ... [it is] not considered to be a viable option.i6 Because the 750-foot groin also fails
that test, it is not a "viable option."
Third, Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need. Critically, Alternative 5-does not, as
discussed in further detail below. The purpose and need described in the FEIS has four parts:
a To reduce or mitigate erosion along 3,500 feet of Ocean Isle Beach oceanfront
shoreline west of Shallotte Inlet;
To maintain the Town's tax base by providing long-term protection of property
and infrastructure through reduced storm damage and erosion on the oceanfront
shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach between Shallotte Inlet and the western terminus of
the Federal Project;
O Maintain existing recreational resources;
s See N.C. Beach Inlet Management Plan, Final Report at XII-23, https://ncdchr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Coastal%20Management/documents/PDF/BIMPBIMP%20Section%20XII%20-
20Funding°/o20Prioritization%20Formatted.pdf.
s FEIS at 44.

o Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing
natural resources. 7
The FEIS goes on to identify "the development of a shoreline protection project that would
mitigate chronic erosion" as the "particular" purpose and need of the projects The document
concludes that "Alternative 4 would prevent long-term erosion damage to development along the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the area east of baseline station 30+00,"9 thereby satisfying the
"particular" purpose and need identified by the Town. Moreover, as discussed in further detail
below, only the non -groin alternatives meet the "purpose and need" statements with respect to
recreational resources and the existing natural environment.
Finally, as discussed in additional detail below, Alternative 4 has significantly less
adverse impact on public resources. Alternative 4 would maintain the beach east of the proposed
groin location for both recreation and wildlife. As described in the FEIS, after six years under
projections under Alternative 4, "sediment [would continue] to accumulate west of Shallotte
Inlet which is one of the desired results associated with the channel relocation alternative.i10
Therefore, implementation of the cheapest alternative would result in a larger beach on the east
end of Ocean Isle.
III. The Application Does Not Adequately Evaluate. Indirect Effects.
Ocean Isle Beach is required to submit with its application "[a]n environmental impact
statement that satisfies the requirements of GS 113A-4." N.C. Gen. Stat § 11 3A- 15. 1 (e). Here,
that includes an EIS that fully evaluates the indirect effects of the proposed groin. See 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25.0603 (describing contents of EIS).
The indirect effects of this project are not only insufficiently analyzed, but the limited
analysis presented is misleading. As discussed in the attached continent letter on the FEIS, the
two- to -five-year analysis of indirect effects of alternatives is indefensible and incomplete. As
detailed in our FEIS comments to the Corps, which are incorporated here by reference, CPE
scaled the erosion rates predicted by the Delft3D model in order to justify building the terminal
groin. For example, when the model predicted erosion between the location of the proposed
groin and station OI 30 to be 24,000 cy/yr—which would be more than compensated for by
nourishment---CPE assumed without explanation that erosion would nonetheless continue at the
previously observed rate of 91,000 cy/yr and that any increased erosion greater than 24,000 cy/yr
would indicate a proportional increase in the previously observed rate. 11 CPE proportionally
increased beach nourishment need estimates based on that assumption, dramatically increasing
nourishment requirements. 12
FEIS at 16
8 Id
'FEIS at 35.
0 FEIS at 129.
u See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").
"See FEIS at 31 (summarizing determination that Alternative 3 would require Fill to offset 140,000 cy/yr erosion
based on Delft3D modeling that predicted 37,000 cy/yr erosion).

o Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing
natural resources. 7 ..
The FEIS goes onto identify "the development of a shoreline protection project that would
mitigate• chronic erosion" as the `articular" purpose and need of the projects The document
concludes that "Alternative 4 would prevent long-term erosion damage to development along the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach in the area east of baseline station 30+00,i9 thereby satisfying the
"particular" purpose and need identified by the Town. Moreover, as discussed in further detail
below, only the non -groin alternatives meet the "purpose and need" statements with respect to
recreational resources and the.existing natural environment.
Finally, as discussed in additional detail below, Alternative 4 has significantly less
adverse impact on public resources. Alternative 4 would maintain the beach east of the proposed
groin location for both recreation and wildlife. As described in the FEIS, after six years under
projections under Alternative 4, " gediment [would continue] to accumulate west of Shallotte
Inlet which is one of the desired results associated with the channel relocation alternative."lo
Therefore, implementation of the cheapest alternative would result in a larger beach on the east
end of Ocean Isle.
III. The Application Does Not Adequately, Evaluate.Indirect Effects.
Ocean Isle Beach is required to submit with its application "[a]n environmental impact
statement that satisfies the requirements of GS I I3A-4. N.C. Gen. Stat § I I3A-15.1(e). Here,
that includes anEIS that fully evaluates the indirect effects of the proposed groin. See 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25.0603, (describing contents of EIS).
The indirect effects of this project are not only insufficiently analyzed, but the limited
analysis presented is misleading. As discussed in the attached comment letter on the FEIS, the
two- to -five-year analysis of indirect effects of alternatives is indefensible and incomplete. As
detailed in our FEIS comments to the Corps, which are incorporated here by reference, CPE
scaled the erosion rates predicted by the Delft3D model in order to justify building the terminal
groin. For example, when the model predicted erosion between the location of the proposed
groin and station OI 30 to be 24,000 cy/yr—which would be more than compensated for by
nourishment—CPE assumed without explanation that erosion would nonetheless continue at the
previously observed rate of 91,000 cy/yr and that any increased erosion greater than 24,000 cy/yr
would indicate a proportional increase in the previously observed rate.l 1 CPE proportionally
increased beach nourishment need estimates based on that assumption, dramatically increasing
nourishment requirements. 12
FEIS at 16
s Id
' FEIS at 35.
10 FEIS at 129.
See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment.184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").
12 See FEIS at 31 (summarizing determination that Alternative 3 would require fi11 to offset 140,000 cy/yr erosion
based on Delft3D modeling that predicted 37,000 cylyr erosion).
0

East of the groin, however, CPE did not proportionally increase the modeled erosion rates
and has therefore dramatically underestimated the effect of the proposed groin on the existing
beach. If the Delft3D model under -estimates erosion west of the groin,13 it must also be
considered to under -estimate erosion east of the groin, or CPE must provide a credible scientific
explanation for the discrepancy. As predicted by the De1ft3D model, the proposed groin will
increase erosion rates east of the groin by 4.5 times the rates predicted under Alternative 1.14
Given. CPE's assumption that the modeled rate for Alternative 1 of 24,000 cy/year is equivalent
to 91,000 cy/year, the proposed terminal groin will cause Ocean Isle Beach east of the groin to
erode by hundreds of thousands of cubic yards per year —eliminating the recreational beach and
available wildlife habitat. is
IV. Elimination of the Recreational Beach and Wildlife Habitat East of the Proposed
Groin Cannot Be Permitted.
The substantially increased erosion predicted east of the proposed groin both fails to meet
the project's purpose and need and violates applicable law. First, the purpose and need as
described in the FEIS includes both maintaining the existing recreational beach and reaching a
balance between protecting property and natural resources. Alternative 5 fails to satisfy either of
those stated purposes and needs. As described in the FEIS, the beach east of the proposed
terminal groin will be eliminated. CPE failed to evaluate adequately the indirect effects of the
project by arbitrarily limiting its analysis to five years of a 30-year project, thereby intentionally
understating its effects, but even that limited analysis demonstrates that the existing recreational
beach will be lost. In addition, the elimination of that beach will have a significant adverse
effect on wildlife that could be avoided with Alternative 4, thereby failing to strike an
appropriate balance.
Beyond failing to meet the purpose and need, Alternative 5 violates applicable law.
Under LAMA, DCM cannot issue a permit for a terminal groin project unless it finds that:
[c]onstruction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in significant
adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach. In
making this finding, the Commission shall take into account the potential benefits
of the project, including the protection of the terminus of the island from shoreline
erosion and inlet migration, beaches, protective dunes, wildlife habitats, roads,
homes, and infrastructure, and mitigation measures, including the accompanying
beach fill project that will be incorporated into the project design and construction
and the inlet management plan.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-115.1(f)(4) (emphasis added).
13 To be clear, the Corps' decision to inflate erosion rates without providing any rationale is arbitrary and capricious.
That said, if it inflates erosion rates as described in an attempt to justify building the groin, it must do so east of the
proposed groin as well.
4 See FEIS at 41 (showing that a 750-ft terminal groin will increase erosion between station -5 and station -20 from
11,000 cy/yr to 49,900 cy/yr).
rs See FEIS, Appendix G at 22, response to comment 184 (stating that "an assumption was made, based on
engineering judgment, that corresponding changes in the `real world' would be proportionally the same as indicated
by the model").

In addition, CAMA's other provisions still apply. For example, DCM cannot
issue a permit that would "jeopardize the public rights or interests" in public trust waters,
id. 113A-120(a)(5), such as the ocean beaches east of the proposed groin. Rules make
clear that "[t]he public has rights in these areas including ... recreation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 07H .0207(b). The objective in identifying public trust areas such as the
beaches east of the proposed groin is "[t]o protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and.
perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value." Id. 07H .0207(c). Crucially,
"[p]rojects which would ... increase shoreline erosion ... are considered incompatible
with the management policies of public trust areas." Id. 07H.0207(d) (emphasis added),
see id 07H .0306(g) ("Development shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of,
public resources, nor shall such development increase the risk of damage to public trust
areas.").
The CRC's policy statements with respect to erosion control measures are
unequivocal: "protection of the recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the
public interest" 15A N.C. Admin. Code 07M .0201. Those policies continue, stating:
The public right to use and enjoy the ocean beaches must be protected. The
protected uses include traditional recreational uses (such as walking, swimming,
surf -fishing, and sunbathing) -as well as commercial fishing and.emergency access
for beach rescue services. Private property rights to oceanfront properties
including the right to protect property in ways that are consistent with public
rights should be protected.
Id. 07M.0202(a) (emphasis added). "Erosion response measures designed to minimize the loss
of private and public resources to erosion should be economically, socially, and environmentally
justified." Id 07M .0202(b).
The dredge and fill law similarly directs DCM to "deny an application for a dredge or fill
permit upon finding: (1) that there will be significant adverse effect of the proposed dredging and
filling on the use of the water by the public; ... or (3) that there will be significant adverse effect
on public health, safety, and welfare; ... or (5) that there will be significant adverse effect on
wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-229(e); see N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A-120(a)(2).
The effect of the proposed groin on both human recreational and wildlife use of the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach are intertwined. Because the proposed groin will cause significantly
increased erosion, the recreational beach and the available wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
The significant, adverse effect of the proposed groin on wildlife is clear. Here, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red

In addition, CAMA's other provisions still apply: For example, DCM cannot
issue a permit that would `Jeopardize the public rights or interests" in public trust waters,
id. 113A-120(a)(5), such as the ocean beaches east of the proposed groin.Rules make
clear that "[t]hepublic has rights in these areas including . , . recreation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 07H .0207(b). The. objective in identifying public trust areas such as the
beaches east of the proposed groin is "[t]o protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to conserve and manage the public'trust areas so as to safeguard and.
perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic value." Id. 07H .0207(c). Crucially,
"[p]rojects which would ... increase shoreline erosion ... are considered incompatible
with the management policies of public trust areas.'.' Id. 07H.0207(d) (emphasis added),
see id. 07H .0306(g) ("Development shall not interfere with legal access to, or use of,
public resources, nor shall such development increase the risk of damage to public trust
areas.").
. The CRC's policy statements with respect to erosion control measures are
unequivocal: "protection of the recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the
public interest." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 07M :0201. Those policies continue, stating:
The public right to use and enjoy the ocean beaches must be protected. The
protected uses include traditional recreational uses (such as walking, swimming,
surf -fishing, and sunbathing)' as well as commercial fishing and,emergency access
for beach rescue services. Private property rights to oceanfront properties
including the right to protect property in ways that are consistent with public
rights should be protected.
Id. 07M.0202(a) (emphasis added). "Erosion response measures designed to minimize the loss
of private and public resources to erosion should be economically, socially, and environmentally
justified." Id. 07M .0202(b).
The dredge and fill law similarly directs DCM to "deny an application for a dredge or fill
permit upon finding: (1) that there will be significant adverse effect of the proposed dredging and
filling on the use of the water by the public; :. or (3) that there will be significant adverse effect
on public health, safety, and welfare; ... or (5) that there will be significant adverse effect on
wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries." N.C. Gen: Stat. § 113-229(e); see N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A-120(a)(2).
The effect of the proposed groin on both human recreational and wildlife use of the east
end of Ocean Isle Beach are intertwined. Because the proposed groin will cause significantly
increased erosion, the recreational beach and the available wildlife habitat will be eliminated.
The significant, adverse effect of the proposed groin on wildlife is clear. Here, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly objected that the proposed project "has the potential to
adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red
Fi

knots, and seabeach amaranth within the project area" and recommended that the project not be
authorized.16 As early as its 2011 scoping comments on the project, FWS wrote:
The issues are clear. A project of this nature will destroy the ecological
functioning of this inlet and the surrounding areas. The science is unequivocal.
I see no unique issues or areas of significant uncertainty. We oppose this project.
There is nothing more to discuss. 17
And in its most recent letter, FWS stated that the agency's "comments and concerns about
impacts to our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a
30-year project were not" adequately addressed.18 The agency goes on to say that "it is unlikely
that the applicant could address these comments adequately without significantly revising the
project or changing their preferred alternative, and as far as we can tell, there have not been any
significant revisions to the preferred project."19
The Service is clear in its Biological Opinion about the negative impacts of the project to
loggerhead sea turtles:
The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects
to sea turtles, including the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle.
Due to downdrift erosion, there may be loss or degradation of loggerhead
terrestrial Critical Habitat Unity LOGG-T-NC-08. The Service expects there may
be morphological changes to adjacent nesting habitat. Activities that affect or
alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species may decrease
the survival and recovery potential of the loggerhead and other sea turtles.20
These broad statements about likely harm are further supported by specific statements about the
impacts to the habitat"s primary constituent elements ("PCEs"), the "physical or biological
feature[s] essential to the conservation of a species for which its designated or proposed critical
habitat is based on.s21 These can include "space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; ... nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; ... and habitats that are protected from disturbance
or are representative of the species' historic geographic and ecological distribution."22 Agencies
must use the "best scientific data" when conducting and relying on these Biological Opinions in
order to evaluate whether proposed actions result in adverse modification of critical habitat.
Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84943, 36 (D. Cal. 2012).
"See letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (May 20, 2016) (Attachment 1 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto); letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to T. Crumbley, USCOE (March 12, 2015) (Attachment 2
SELC comments to Corps, attached hereto).
17 Email from W. Laney, FWS, to C. Weaver, NCDENR (Dec. 19, 2011) (Attachment 3 to SELC comments to
Corps, attached hereto).
" See May 20, 2016 letter at 5.
19 Id
2° Biological Opinion at 63.
2' FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, www.fws.a6v/nc-es/es/glossary.pdf
22 Id.

For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes."23 Indeed, PCEs'for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings, ' and "[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions, , .."24
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and
foraging habitat in several ways. 25
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers....
Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline. These combined actions, affect the availability of.piping plover
habitat 26
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat.
V. Conclusion
In sum, the lowest -cost alternative as described in the FEIS not only meets the stated
purpose and need —it preserves the recreational beach and wildlife habitat formed by the natural
inlet processes. Therefore, Channel Relocation as described in Alternative 4 is the only
alternative that can be permitted. The proposed terminal groin simply does not meet the legal
requirements outlined above and cannot be permitted.
" Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
24 Id. at 30-31.
u Id. at 98.
ze Biological Opinion at 99.

e
For loggerhead critical habitat, the Biological Opinion states directly, "It is important
that loggerhead nesting beaches be allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic
processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes.s23 Indeed, PCEs'for the species'
critical habitat include "[s]uitable nesting beach habitat that has relatively unimpeded nearshore
access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both
post -nesting females and hatchlings;' and"[n]atural coastal processes or artificially created or
maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that
mimic the natural conditions ...... 24
The Biological Opinion is similarly stark about likely impacts to piping plover from
projects like the one proposed:
Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic
coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats,
including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon....
[S]tabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and.
foraging habitat in several ways.25
Furthermore,
Once the island becomes stabilized, vegetation encroaches on the bayside habitat,
thereby diminishing and eventually destroying its value to piping plovers....
UnstabiIized inlets naturally migrate, re-forming important habitat components,
whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift
shoreline. These combined actionsaffect the availability of.piping plover
habitat 21
Both the Biological Opinion and the FEIS are clear that hardened structures that
permanently stabilize and alter natural coastal dynamics are most harmful for each of these
species and their habitats, including federally designated critical habitat.
V. Conclusion
In sum;,the lowest -cost alternative as described in the FEIS not only meets the stated
purpose and need —it preserves the recreational.beach and wildlife habitat formed by the natural
inlet processes. Therefore, Channel -Relocation as described in Alternative 4 is the only
alternative that can be permitted. The proposed terminal groin simply does not meet the legal
requirements outlined above and cannot be permitted.
" Biological Opinion at 30 (emphasis added).
24Id. at30-31.
zs Id at 98.
"Biological Opinion at 99.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and request to be notified if any
action is taken with respect to Ocean Isle BeacTs application.
GRCT/rgd
Enclosures
cc:
Sincerely,
GeoffTeyR. Gisler
:Senior Attorney
�!M
I

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 20, 2016
Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Subject: Town of Ocean Isle Beach: Terminal Groin
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action ID. No. SAW-2011-01241
Dear Mr. Crumbley:
This is in response to the April 29, 2016 public notice for the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach plans to
construct a 750 linear foot (if) terminal groin, with a 3001f shore anchorage system and
associated beach nourishment on Ocean Isle Beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has reviewed the public notice and the April 2016 FEIS, and other information
concerning the project. This letter is provided in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Star. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Project Description
The project is on the oceanfront of the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach, adjacent to Shallotte
Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. According to the FEIS, the
purpose of the proposed project is to mitigate chronic erosion on the eastern portion of the
Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its infrastructure, provide
protection to existing development, and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront beach along
this area.
The applicant's preferred alternative includes construction of a 7501f terminal groin with a 300
If anchorage system. The applicant also proposes to dredge portions of Shallotte Inlet every five
years and place 264,000 cubic yards (cy) of beach fill along approximately 3,214 if c EGEEIV E D
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

west of the terminal groin. Beach fill, groin construction, and sand fillet maintenance activities
are proposed to be conducted between November 16 and April 30. The preferred alternative also
includes the continuation of the Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR)
project on Ocean Isle Beach.
Federally -listed species
The following Federally- listed species are found within the project area: West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa),
seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Whales, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevisrostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and sea turtles in the water are under
the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries' Protected Species Division.
All five sea turtle species may nest in the project area. On July 10, 2014, the Service designated
Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment of the loggerhead
sea turtle. Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-08 is just east of the project area on Holden Beach.
Piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17 is located in Shallotte Inlet and on Holden Beach, east
of the proposed project. The entire unit is privately owned. This unit begins just west of
Skimmer Court on the western end of Holden Beach. It includes land south of SR 1116, to
where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent
elements no longer occur to the MLLW along the Atlantic Ocean. It includes the contiguous
shoreline from MLLW to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins
and where the constituent elements no longer occur along the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, and
Intracoastal Waterway stopping north of Skimmer Court Road. The unnamed island and
emergent sandbars to MLLW within Shallotte Inlet are also included.
Potential affects to the piping plover, red knot, West Indian manatee, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles were addressed through formal consultation and issuance of a biological opinion on
August 6, 2015. Therefore, this letter primarily addresses comments concerning the project itself
and the FEIS.
Service Comments
1. The Service continues to recommend that the proposed project not be authorized. The
proposed project has the potential to adversely affect nesting female sea turtles, nests, and
hatchlings on the beach, piping plovers, red knots, and seabeach amaranth within the proposed
project area. R E C E I v E G
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MHD CiT`v

Potential effects to sea turtles include disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to
the construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of lighting
or presence of the groin, and behavior modification of nesting females during the nesting season
resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to
deposit eggs due to escarpment formation or presence of the groin within the action area. The
presence of the groin could affect the movement of sand by altering the natural coastal processes
and could affect the ability of female turtles to nest, the suitability of the nest incubation
environment, and the ability of hatchlings to emerge from the nest and crawl to the ocean. The
presence of the groin may create a physical obstacle to nesting sea turtles, and the proposed groin
is anticipated to result in decreased nesting and loss of nests that do get laid within the project
area for all subsequent nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed project.
Potential effects to piping plover and red knots include degradation and loss of habitat,
particularly down -drift of the structure. Groins can act as barriers to longshore sand transport
and cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008), which prevents optimal habitat creation
by limiting sediment deposition and accretion. The proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots, wintering and migrating piping plovers and
their habitat from all breeding populations, and breeding piping plovers from the Atlantic Coast
breeding population that may use the project area. Potential effects to piping plover and red knot
include direct loss of foraging and roosting habitat in the Action Area and in the updrift and
downdrift portions of the project area, degradation of foraging habitat and destruction of the prey
base from sand disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste from the construction
crew. Plovers and red knots face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are present
year-round on the wintering and nesting grounds. Although the piping plover is not currently
known to nest in the Action Area, the stabilization of the shoreline may also result in less
suitable nesting habitat for all shorebirds, including the piping plover.
Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally
dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991).
As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota,
especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced habitat area
for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan
and Hubbard 2006). Shorebird habitat has been, and may continue to be, lost where hard
structures have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to directly eliminating
red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird habitats by
interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is
installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice
2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact piping plover and red knots. Where
they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of piping
plover and red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise. RECEIVED
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

Potential impacts to seabeach amaranth include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result
of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that
would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal
activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational
activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 15 and March 31 of any
given year. However, given favorable weather, seabeach amaranth plants may persist until
January. Therefore, there is still the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in
the Action Area. Indirect impacts to seabeach amaranth include degradation of habitat from
stabilization of the shoreline.
2. Responses to Comments 106, 107, and 108 (Appendix G, Pages 11 and 12) do not adequately
address the Service's concerns for potential down -drift erosion within Shallotte Inlet.
3. Responses to Comments 109, 110, and 115 do not adequately address the Service's concerns
with the estimation of costs of the five alternatives. The FEIS discusses 45 dwellings and 155
total parcels east of station 15+00 which are threatened by erosion over the next 30 years. The
Draft EIS listed 238 total parcels, but concerns expressed by our agency and others led to
revision of the total lot number. However, the location of the 155 parcels is still not clearly
demarcated on any figures, nor are their locations adequately described in the text. There is no
discussion in the FEIS about why these empty parcels are threatened by erosion over the next 30
years, and so the level of threat to those parcels is not clear. Figure 3.1 on page 27, which shows
future scarp line positions under Alternative 1 does not appear to be revised since the DEIS and
does not show 155 parcels within the erosive area. As stated in our comments to the DEIS,
there are approximately 80-90 parcels shown on this figure. Please clearly explain where the
other 65-75 parcels are located with respect to the proposed project, and why they are threatened
by erosion over the next 30 years.
On Page i of the Executive Summary, and pages 155 and 160, the text still refers to 238 parcels
that are vulnerable to erosion.
The predicted loss or protection of the 155 parcels factors heavily in the estimated costs of each
alternative. For example, on pages 27 and 28, in the discussion of the 30-year cost of Alternative
1 (No Additional Action) and Alternative 2 (Abandon/Retreat), the loss of the 155 parcels is
estimated to cost $21.36 million. This is only $30,000 less than the cost when 238 parcels were
considered to be threatened. The Service recommends that the precise area that the FEIS claims
will be impacted by Alternative 1 and protected from long-term erosion by Alternative 5 should
be clearly demarcated on a figure, including clear demarcation of all 155 parcels. If a figure
cannot be provided, then a list of all 155 parcels (including street addresses) and their current tax
values should be provided in the Appendix.
RECEIVED
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MHD CITY

3. Table 5.5 on Page 82 of the Engineering Report indicates that over 30 years, the costs for the
non-federal share of the five alternatives are so similar that the differences appear to be
insignificant. In fact, the costs for Alternative 1 (No New Action) and Alternative 2
(Abandon/Retreat) are only $420,000 more than the preferred alternative, a difference of less
than 2%. We recognize that the federal share (and the total cost) is higher for Alternatives 1 and
2 than for Alternative 5.
As for the remainder of our comments, the Service believes that our mostly editorial comments
were adequately addressed in the FEIS. The Service's comments and concerns about impacts to
our trust resources, downdrift erosion, and the inability to model past three years for a 30-year
project were not. However, it is unlikely that the applicant could address these comments
adequately without significantly revising the project or changing their preferred alternative, and
as far as we can tell, there have not been any significant revisions to the preferred project.
Service Recommendations
As stated above, the Service recommends that the project, as currently proposed not be
authorized, due to potential impacts to piping plovers, red knot, seabeach amaranth, and sea
turtles. We recommend that the Final EIS incorporate our comments listed above. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning these
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone], Ext. 27, or by e-mail at
<[e-mail]>.
cc:
Fritz Rohde, NOAA Fisheries
Daniel Holliman, USEPA
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington, NC
Doug Huggett, NCDCM, Morehead City, NC
Debra Wilson, NCDCM, Wilmington, NC
Jessi Baker, NCDMF, Morehead City, NC
Karen Higgins, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC
RECEIVED
MAY 31 2016
DCM- MH['

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 29, 2015.
Ms. Daisy Ivey
Town Administrator/Finance Officer
3 W. Third Street
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina 28469
Re: Terminal Groin Project
Town of Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Proof of Financial Assurance
Dear Ms. Ivey,
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-115.1(e)(6), the Secretary must verify that the proof of financial
assurance submitted on behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach is adequate to cover the cost of
implementing the following components of the inlet management plan:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
b. Implementation of mitigation measures.
c. Modification or removal of the terminal groin.
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, with assistance from the N.C.
Departinent of State Treasurer's State and Local Government Finance Division, has reviewed the
additional materials that you sent July 16, 2015, relating to the proof of financial assurance for the
Town of Ocean Isle Beach's proposed terminal groin project. The information that you provided
indicates that the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has the financial ability to support the estimated costs
of the terminal groin project, assuming that the projected costs are reasonable estimates and that the
accommodation tax continues to generate funds at current levels. Based on our review, the Town of
Ocean Isle Beach has satisfied the proof of financial assurance requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat.
§113A-115.1(e)(6).
for the Environment
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity \Alfirmatva Action Employer- Made in part by recycled paper

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAx
October 16, 2015
Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Subject: Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project Request for Additional Information
Dear Mrs. Snider:
In response to your Request for Additional Information sent via email on July 29, 2015 and our
subsequent meeting on September 11, 2015, please find enclosed a revised complete application for a
Major Development Permit for the subject project.
Please contact me anytime should you have any questions or need anything in addition.
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Greg Finch, Agent
Enclosures: Revised Application for Major Development Permit
cc: Debbie Smith, Town of Ocean Isle Beach
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2016
DC"A- MHD CITY
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2015

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4088 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAx
May 14, 2015
Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Subject: Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Dear Mrs. Snider:
Please find enclosed a complete application for a Major Development Permit for the subject project.
Also enclosed is the $475 fee check. Adjacent riparian landowner notifications have been sent by
certified mail and the return receipts will be forward to you once they are received.
Please contact me anytime should you have any questions or need anything in addition.
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
A���
Greg Finch, Agent
Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit and Fee Check
cc: Debbie Smith, Town of Ocean Isle Beach
RECEIVED
MAY 14 2015
tiECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
MAY 1 4 2015

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON. NC 28409 910-791-9494 PRONE 910-7914129 Fax
May 14, 2015
Re: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notification
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
(CPE-NC), Inc. is submitting a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit application to the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) for work occurring within an Area of
Environmental Concern.
As more completely described in the attached application, the Town intends to submit a CAMA Major
Permit application to allow for the construction of a terminal groin and associated sand placement on the
eastern end of the Town's oceanfront shoreline.
Attached to this notice, please find a copy of the application as submitted to the NC DCM office. Within
30 days from receipt of this notice, you may submit comments regarding the referenced project to the
following address:
Attn: Holley Snider
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Greg Finch, Agent, CPE-NC
Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit
RECE;UED
JUN 14 2016
M-1- WHD Cif Y
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
PAY 14 2615

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
'RSs1
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
LYTO
April 25, 2016
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2011-01241-FEIS
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
Attn: Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Please find enclosed one (1) copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and one
electronic copy on CD, which have been filed with the a-NEPA electronic filing system for National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, for the review of the Town of Ocean Isle's proposed
Terminal Groin. The project involves the installation of a terminal groin and supplemental beach
nourishment project at the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach, in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
The Department of the Army Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing release and availability of
the FEIS will be filed in the Federal Register on April 29, 2016. Our local Public Notice announcing the
project and FEIS will be distributed on April 29, 2016. The 30-day commenting deadline will be set for
May 31, 2016. The FEIS can be accessed at:
http://www saw usace army.miI/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/MaiorProiects
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me at 910-251-4170.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED Tyler Crumbley
Project Manager
2016 Wilmington Regulatory Division
Enclosures
DCM- MHD CITY
CESAW-RG/Beter
CESAW-RG/McLendon
CESAW-RG/Crumbley
CESAW-OC/Pruitt
MAIL
CESAW-RG FILES

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2013
SESSION LAW 2013-384
SENATE BILL 151
AN ACT TO AMEND MARINE FISHERIES LAWS; AMEND THE LAWS GOVERNING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TERMINAL GROINS; AND CLARIFY THAT CITIES
MAY ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN THE STATE'S PUBLIC TRUST AREAS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. AMEND MARINE FISHERIES LAW
SECTION 1. G.S. 113-172 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113-172. License agents.
(a) The Secretary shall designate license agents for the Department.
. The Division and license
agents designated by the Secretary under this section shall issue licenses authorized under this
Article in accordance with this Article and the rules of the Commission. The Secretary may
require license agents to enter into a contract that provides for their duties and compensation,
post a bond, and submit to reasonable inspections and audits. If a license agent violates any
provision of this Article, the rules of the Commission, or the terms of the contract, the
Secretary may initiate proceedings for the forfeiture of the license agent's bond and may
summarily suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a designation as a license agent and may
impound or require the return of all licenses, moneys, record books, reports, license forms and
other documents, ledgers, and materials pertinent or apparently pertinent to the license agency.
The Secretary shall report evidence or misuse of State property, including license fees, by a
license agent to the State Bureau of Investigation as provided by G.S. 114-15.1.
(b) License agents shall be compensated by adding a surcharge of one dollar ($1.00) to
each license sold and retaining the surcharge. If more than one license is listed on a
consolidated license form, the license agent shall be compensated as if a single license were
sold. It is unlawful for a license agent to add more than the surcharge authorized by this section
to the fee for each license sold."
SECTION 2.(a) G.S. 113-168.5 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113-168.5. License endorsements for Standard Commercial Fishing License.
(a), (b) Repealed by Session Laws 1998-225, s. 4.14.
Mephaden Fsad..-..eme.,«., Emee_t a previde-d-
in G.S. 113 169 it i ..,lawful to
(d) Shellfish Endorsement for North Carolina Residents. — The Division shall issue a
shellfish endorsement of a SCFL to a North Carolina resident at no charge. The holder of a
SCFL with a shellfish endorsement is authorized to take and sell shellfish."
SECTION 2.(b) G.S. 113-169 is repealed.
SECTION 2.(c) G.S. 113-168.2(al) reads as rewritten:
Allllllllll

"(al) Use of Vessels. — The holder of a SCFL is authorized to use only one vessel in a
commercial fishing operation at any given time. The Commission may adopt a rule to exempt
from this requirement a person in command of a vessel that is auxiliary to a vessel engaged in a
pound net operation, long -haul operation, or beach seine epemtien, or menliaden peration."
PART H. AMEND TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION LAW
SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
(la) "Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
border estuarine waters as defined in G.S.113A-113(b)(2).
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
(4) "TeffrAaal grain" faeans a stmettwe that is eenstrue4ed on the side ef an inlet
(b) No person shall construct a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean
shoreline. The Commission shall not permit the construction of a temporary erosion control
structure that consists of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This seetien
subsection shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Any permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to July 1, 2003.
(2) Any permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to July 1, 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to protect an
inlet that is maintained for navigation.
(3) Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section.
(bl) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govern the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995. The Commission may
authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by the
Commission pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995, if the
Commission finds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions set out in
the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that will
provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with all
applicable laws and with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Commission granted the variance, that are in effect at the time the structure is replaced.
(d) Any rule that prohibits permanent erosion control structures shall not apply to
terminal groins permitted pursuant to this section.
(e) In addition to the requirements of Part 4 of Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General
Statutes, an applicant for a permit for the construction of a terminal groin shall submit all of the
following to the Commission:
(1) Information to demonstrate that structures or infrastructure are iextly
Page 2 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

"(al) Use of Vessels. — The holder of a SCFL is authorized to use only one vessel in a
commercial fishing operation at any given time. The Commission may adopt a rule to exempt
from this requirement a person in command of a vessefthaf is auxiliary to a vessel engaged in a •-
pound net operation, long -haul operation, or beach seinemenhaden-operation."
PART H. AMEND TERMINAL GROIN CONSTRUCTION LAW
SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) . "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead; groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
(la) "Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
border estuarine waters as defined in G.S. 113A-1 13(b)(2).
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the. Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
0
at the tefmin s 1. •+
u "Terminal groin" means one or more structures constructed at the ter
(b) No person shall construct a permanent erosion control structure,-in.an ocean
shoreline. The Commission shall not permit the construction of a temporary erosion control
structure that consists .of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This seetien
subsection shall not apply to any of the following:
(1). --.Any permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to July 1, 2003.
(2) Any permanent erosion. control structure that was originally constructed
prior to July 1, 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to protect an
inlet that is maintained for navigation.
(3) Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section.
(bl) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govem the use of sandbags, or
,to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
,(c) The ,Commission 'may renew 'a permit for an erosion .control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted• by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995. The Commission may
authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by the
Commission putsuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to July 1, 1995, if the
Commission funds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions set out in
the original permit;. (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that will
provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with all
applicable laws and with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Commission granted the variance, that are in effect at the time the structure is replaced.
(d) Any rule that prohibits permanent erosion control structures shall not apply to
terminal groins permitted pursuant to this section.
(e) In addition to the requirements of Part 4 of Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General
Statutes, an applicant for ape i for the construction of a terminal groin shall submit all of the
following to the Commission: -7
(1) Information to demonstratg:that structures or infrastructure are �fu
Page 2 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

.threatened by
erosion.
(2) An environmental impact statement that satisfies the requirements of
G.S. 113A-4. An environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the
(3) A list of property owners and local governments that may be affected by the
construction of the proposed terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill
project and proof that the property owners and local governments have been
notified of the application for construction of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project.
(4) A plan for the construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project prepared by a professional engineer
licensed to practice pursuant to Chapter 89C of the General Statutes.
(5) A plan for the management of the inlet and the estuarine and ocean
shorelines immediately adjacent to and under the influence of the inlet. The
management plan shall do all of the following relative to the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project:
a. Describe the post -construction activities that the applicant will
undertake to monitor the impacts on coastal resources.
b. Define the baseline for assessing any adverse impacts and the
thresholds for when the adverse impacts must be mitigated.
C. Provide for mitigation measures to be implemented if adverse
impacts reach the thresholds defined in the plan.
d. Provide for modification or removal of the terminal groin if the
adverse impacts cannot be mitigated.
(6) Proof of financial assurance verified by the Commission or the Secretary of
escrow
a property owner associations approvea assessment, or omer tinancrar
instrument or combination of financial instruments that is adequate to cover
the cost efof implementing all of the following components of the inlet
management plan:
a. Long-term maintenance and monitoring of the terminal groin.
b. Implementation of mitigation led in the inia
raanegement plertmeasures.
C. Modification or removal of the terminal
d:
(f) The Commission shall issue a permit for the construction of a terminal groin if the
Commission finds no grounds for denying the permit under G.S.113A-120 and the
Commission finds all of the following:
(1) The applicant has complied with all of the requirements of subsection (e) of
this section.
/y��
(2) The -appliee A hasdefaeastrated that stfeetures or infiastfuetmare ame
(3) The terminal groin will be accompanied by a concurrent beach fill project to
prefill the groin.
(4) Construction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in
significant adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational
beach. In making this finding, the Commission shall take into account the
potential benefits of the vroiect, including protection of the terminus of the
Senate Bill 151-Ratified Session Law 2013-384 Page 3

wiiuuie naunats, roaas. nines, ana mtrastructure ana mitigation measures,
including the accompanying beach fill project, that will be incorporated into
the project design and construction and the inlet management plan.
(5) The inlet management plan is adequate for purposes of monitoring the
impacts of the proposed terminal groin and mitigating any adverse impacts
identified as a result of the monitoring.
(6) Except to the extent expressly modified by this section, the project complies
with State guidelines for coastal development adopted by the Commission
pursuant to G.S. 113A-107.
(g) The Commission may issue no more than four permits for the construction of a
terminal groin pursuant to this section.
(h) A local eovernment may not use funds
generated from any of the following financing mechanisms for any activity
related to the terminal groin or its accompanying beach fill project:
(1) Special obligation bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 159I of the General
Statutes.
(2) Nonvoted general obligation bonds issued pursuant to G.S. 159-48(b)(4).
(3) Financing contracts entered into under G.S. 160A-20 or G.S. 159-148.
(i) No later than September 1 of each year, the Coastal Resources Commission shall
report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of this section. The
report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be submitted pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section. For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach
fill project, the report shall also provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (f) of this
section.
(2) The status of construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impacts."
SECTION 3.(b) Section 3 of S.L. 2011-387 is repealed.
PART M. CITIES ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
SECTION 4.(a) Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by
Page 4 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

including the accompanying beach fill project that will be incorporated into
the project design and construction and the inlet management plan.
(5) The inlet management plan is adequate for purposes of monitoring the
impacts of the proposed terminal groin and mitigating any adverse impacts
identified as a result of the monitoring.
(6) Except to the extent expressly modified by this section, the project complies
with, State guidelines for coastal development adopted by .the Commission
pursuadtto G.S.113A-107.
(g) The Commission may issue no more than four permits for the construction of a
terminal groin pursuant to this section.
'T Y" it may ' '�A local Rovemment may not use funds
generated from any of the following financing mechanisms for any activity
related to the terminal groin or its accompanying beach fill project:
(1) Special obligation bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 159I of the General
Statutes.
(2) Nonvoted general obligation bonds issued pursuant to G.S. 159-48(b)(4).
(3) Financing contracts entered into under G.S. 160A-20 or G.S. 159-148.
(i) No later than; September 1 of each year, the .Coastal Resources Commission shall
report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of this section. The
report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be submitted pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section. For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach
fill project; the report. shall also provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (1) of this
section.
.(2) The status of construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
(3) A. description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its -accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impacts."
SECTION 3.(b) Section 3 of S.L. 2011-387 is repealed.
PART M. CITIES ENFORCE ORDINANCES WITHIN PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
SECTION Val Article R of Chanter 1 rOA �f tbP (I.- .,i c« .« :-
Page 4 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

"§ 113-131. Resources I
to public; stewardship of conservation agencies; grant and
delegation of powers; injunctive relief.
(a) The marine and estuarine and wildlife resources of the State belong to the people of
the State as a whole. The Department and the Wildlife Resources Commission are charged with
stewardship of these resources.
(b) The following powers are hereby granted to the Department and the Wildlife
Resources Commission and may be delegated to the Fisheries Director and the Executive
Director:
(1) Comment on and object to permit applications submitted to State agencies
which may affect the public trust resources in. the land and water areas
subject to their respective management duties.so as to conserve and protect
the public trust rights in such land and water areas;
(2) Investigate alleged encroachments upon, usurpations of, or other actions in
violation of the public trust rights of the people of the State; and
(3) Initiate contested case proceedings under Chapter 150B for review of permit
decisions by State agencies which will adversely affect the public trust rights
of the people of the State or initiate civil actions to remove or restrain any
unlawful or unauthorized encroachment upon, usurpation of, or any other
violation of the public trust rights of the people of the State or legal rights of
access to such public trust areas.
(c) Whenever there exists reasonable cause to believe that any person or other legal
entity has unlawfully encroached upon, usurped, or otherwise violated the public trust rights of
the people of the State or legal rights of access to such public trust areas, a civil action may be
instituted by the responsible agency for injunctive relief to restrain the violation and for a
mandatory preliminary injunction to restore the resources to an undisturbed condition. The
action shall be brought in the superior court of the county in which the violation occurred. The
institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such
proceeding from any civil or criminal penalty otherwise prescribed for the violation.
(d) The Attorney General shall act as the attorney for the agencies and shall initiate
actions in the name of and at the request of the Department or the Wildlife Resources
Commission.
(e) In this section, the term "public trust resources" means land and water areas, both
public and private, subject to public trust rights as that term is defined in G.S. 1-45.1.
PART IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
Senate Bill 151-Ratified Session Law 2013-384 Page 5

SECTION 5. Section 3 of this act is effective when the act becomes law and
applies to permit applications submitted on or after that date. The remainder of this act is
effective when it becomes law.
2013. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 22"d day of July,
s/ Tom Apodaca
Presiding Officer of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ Pat McCrory
Governor
Approved 10:45 a.m. this 23`d day of August, 2013
Page 6 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

SECTION 5. Section 3 of this act is effective when the act becomes law and
applies to permit applications submitted on or after that date. The remainder of. this act is
effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 22"d 2013. day. July,
s/ Tom Apodaca
Presiding Officer of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/. Pat McCrory
Governor
Approved 10:45 a.m. this 23`d day ofAugust, 2013
Page 6 Session Law 2013-384 Senate Bill 151-Ratified

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2011
SESSION LAW 2011-387
SENATE BILL 110
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO FOUR
TERMINAL GROINS AT INLETS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Whereas, it has been the policy of the State of North Carolina since 1985, as stated
in the Coastal Area Management Act and rules adopted pursuant to the act, to give preference
to nonstructural responses to erosion, including relocation of threatened structures, beach
nourishment, inlet relocation, and the temporary use of sandbags for short-term stabilization;
and
Whereas, a terminal groin is a permanent erosion control structure that is
constructed on the side of an inlet at the terminus of an island generally perpendicular to the
shoreline to limit or control sediment passage into the inlet channel; and
Whereas, a terminal groin may reduce beach erosion, reduce the frequency of beach
nourishment projects, and slow the migration of inlets; and
Whereas, the use of terminal groins on inlet beaches may adversely impact the value
and enjoyment of adjacent properties, damage the public beach, obstruct public access to the
beach and to navigable waters, and result in increased erosion to adjacent and downdrift
properties; and
Whereas, due to the uncertainties associated with the costs and benefits of terminal
groins, it is reasonable to authorize the Coastal Resources Commission to establish a terminal
groin pilot program under which the Commission may permit the construction of up to four
terminal groins under certain conditions; and
- Whereas, it is reasonable to authorize the Coastal Resources Commission to permit
the construction of a terminal groin under the pilot program if the Commission finds that (i)
structures or infrastructure are imminently threatened by erosion and that nonstructural
approaches to erosion control are impractical; (ii) the terminal groin will be accompanied by a
concurrent beach fill project; (iii) construction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not
result in significant adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach; (iv)
the terminal groin will be managed pursuant to an inlet management plan; and (v) there are
sufficient financial resources to cover the costs associated with the terminal groin; Now,
therefore,
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 113A-115.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113A-115.1. Limitations on erosion control structures.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Erosion control structure" means a breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty,
revetment, seawall, or any similar structure.
"Estuarine shoreline" means all shorelines that are not ocean shorelines that
(2) "Ocean shoreline" means the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanfront beaches, and
frontal dunes. The term "ocean shoreline" includes an ocean inlet and lands
adjacent to an ocean inlet but does not include that portion of any inlet and
lands adjacent to the inlet that exhibits characteristics of estuarine shorelines.
"Terminal groin" means a structure that is constructed on the side of an inlet
(b) No person shall construct a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean
shoreline. The Commission shall not permit the construction of a temporary erosion control
0191I I �I �� II III I I UIIII 0�
. s 1 1 0- v- 3

structure that consists of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This section shall
not apply to (,� yanv of the followine:
(1 AW permanent erosion control structure that is approved pursuant to an
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to 1 July 003
o"': July 1, 2003.
Q AU permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to 1 Tz My 1974July 1. 1974, and that has since been in continuous use to
protect an inlet that is maintained for navigation.
f� Any terminal rgoin permitted pursuant to this section.
bbl This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govern the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to 4-JuIyJuIY 1. 1995. The Commission
may authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control structure that was permitted by
the Commission pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to 1 my 49°TJuly 1 •
1995 if the Commission finds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions
set out in the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the structure that
will provide the same or similar benefits; and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with
all applicable laws and with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Commission granted the variance, that are in effect at the time the structure is replaced.
0
M
Page 2 Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

structure that consists of anything other than sandbags in an ocean shoreline. This section shall
not apply to (-anyany of the following:
Au —permanent erosion control _structure that is approved, pursuant.to'an'.-..
exception set out in a rule adopted by the Commission prior to ' T'•ly 2003
E)r- @9 any -July 1, 2003.
u Any permanent erosion control structure that was originally constructed
prior to 1 Ally 1974July 1,1974, and that has since been in continuous use to
protect an inlet that is maintained for navigation.
u Any terminal groin permitted pursuant to this section
b(bl) This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to adopt
rules to designate or protect areas of environmental concern, to govern the use of sandbags, or
to govern the use of erosion control structures in estuarine shorelines.
(c) The Commission may renew a permit for an erosion control structure issued
pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to 4.4ulyJuly 1. 1995. The Commission
may authorize the replacement of a permanent erosion control-
ontrol structure that was permitted by
the Commission pursuant to a variance granted by the Commission prior to ' T�a'TJuly 1,
1995, if the Commission fmds that: (i) the structure will not be enlarged beyond the dimensions
set out in the original permit; (ii) there is no practical alternative to replacing the dimensions
that
will provide the same or similar be
and (iii) the replacement structure will comply with
all applicable laws and.with all rules, other than the rule or rules with respect to which the
Page 2 Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

the management program it adopted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16
U.S.C. § 1451, et seq., to ensure the management program is consistent with G.S. 113A-115.1,
as amended by Section 1 of this act, and shall seek approval of the proposed amended
management plan by the United States Secretaiy of Commerce or the Secretary's authorized
designee no later than six months after the effective date of this act.
SECTION 3. The Department shall adopt any rules necessary to implement this
act.
SECTION 4. No State funds may be spent for any activities related to a terminal
groin and its accompanying beach fill project permitted pursuant to G.S. 113A-115.1, as
amended by Section 1 of this act, unless the General Assembly enacts legislation appropriating
funds explicitly for such -purpose. This section shall not apply to any beach fill or beach
nourishment project initiated prior to the effective date of this act.
SECTION 5. No later than September 1 of each year, the Coastal Resources
Commission shall report to the Environmental Review Commission on the implementation of
this act. The report shall provide a detailed description of each proposed and permitted
terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill project, including the information required to be
submitted pursuant to subsection (e) of G.S. 113A-115.1, as amended by Section 1 of this act.
For each permitted terminal groin and its accompanying beach fill project, the report shall also
provide all of the following:
(1) The findings of the Commission required pursuant to subsection (f) of
G.S. 113A-115.1, as amended by Section 1 of this act.
(2) The status of construction and maintenance of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, including the status of the implementation
of the plan for construction and maintenance and the inlet management plan.
SL2011-0387 Session Law 2011-387 Page 3

(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
impacts. `
SECTION 6. This act is effective when it becomes law.
2011. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 16'h day of June,
s/ Walter H. Dalton
President of the Senate
s7 Thom Tillis .
Speaker of the House of Representatives
This bill having been presented to the Governor for signature on the 17`h day of
June, 2011 and the Governor having failed to approve it within the time prescribed by law, the
same is hereby declared to have become a law. This 28`h day of June, 2011.
s/ Karen Jenkins
Enrolling Clerk
Page 4 Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

(3) A description and assessment of the benefits of the terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project, if any.
(4) _ .A description and assessment of the adverse impacts of the terminal groin
and its accompanying beach fill project, if any, including a description.and
assessment of any mitigation measures implemented to address adverse
'impacts:
SECTION 6. This act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 16s day of June,
2011.
s/ Walter H. Dalton
President of the Senate
s% Thom Tillis .,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
This bill having been presented to the Governor for signature on the 17a' day of
June, 2011 and the Governor having failed to approve it within the time prescribed by law, the
same is hereby declared to have become a law. This 2& day of June, 2011.
s/ Karen Jenkins
Enrolling Clerk .
M
Page 4 Session Law 2011-387 SL2011-0387

NC DFtision of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application Computer Sheet
AEC: Atlantic Ocean
Fee: $475 #6J3435
CDAITS ✓ SIPS ✓
mill
Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach
AgenUContractor: Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc c% Brad Rosov,
Project Site County: Brunswick
Staff: Holley Snider
District: Wilmington
Lf
Project Name: OIB Terminal Groin Project
Rover File: �/ r Basin:
Initial date of application submittal: 5-14-15
Date application 'received as complete' in the Field office:
SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION
ORW: Yes &4No I PNA: ❑Yes fl&lo
Photos Taken: Ye o❑
Setback Required (riparian): OYes No
Critical Habitat: ❑Yes d2ffNo ❑Not Sure
15 foot waiver obtained: []Yes KNo
Hazard Notification Returned:
,(es ❑No
SAV: ❑Yes FNo ONot Sure
Shell Bottom: ❑Yes o ❑Not
Temporary Impacts: eOYes []No
Sure
Sandbags: Yes ❑No ElNot Sure
Did the land use classification come
Mitigation Required (optional):
from county LUP: []Yes []No
❑Yes ❑No
Moratorium Conditions:
E vironmental Assessment Done:
Length of Shoreline:
❑Yes []No ❑NA
Yes ❑No❑NA
32/y FT.
Shellfish Area Designation:
Project Description: (code)
Development Area: (code)
Open -or- C osed
0//
SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4)
❑ Future Water Supply (FWS)
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
❑ Swamp Waters (SW)
High Quality Waters (HQW)
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
WETLANDSIMPACTED
❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional
❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.)
(SS) Glasswort (Salioomia sp.)
wetlands)
❑ (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense)
El (SA) Salt marsh oordgrass (Spartina
El (SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina
alternifiora)
cynosuroides)
(DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis
❑ (SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus
C1 (TY) Cattail (Typha sp.)
spicata)
sp.)
(JR) Black needlerush (Juncos
❑ (SP) SalVmeadow, grass (Spartina
roemedanus)
patens)
APPLICATION FEE
No fee required - $0.00
III(A) Private wi D&F up to 1 acre; 3490
❑ III(D) Priv. public or comm w/ D&F to 1
can be applied - $250
acre; 3490 can't be applied - $400
El Minor Modification to a CAMA Major
El Major Modification to a CAMA Major
IV Any development involving D&F of
permit - $100
permit - $250
m re than 1 acre - $475
Permit Transfer - $100
C1 111(8) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1
❑ Express Permit - $2000
acre; 3490 can be applied - $400
Major development extension request -
❑ II. Public or commercial/no dredge
$100
1 and/or fill - $400
El I. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250
El III(C) Priv. public or comm w /D&F to 1
acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs
DWQ agreement - $400

01B Terminal Groin
Date: 5-14-15
Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of
measurement found in your Activities code sheet.
TYPE
REPLACE
Activity Name
Number
Choose
Choose
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
One
One
New Work
Replace
.�
�� �
/
7
jr*Ar'1
Maint ❑
Y N
[I❑
/
/,�
NewWork2F
Replace
Maint ❑
1 ❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
FINAL Sq. Ft
TOTAL Feet
FINAL Feet
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
DISTURB TYPE
Disturbance total
disturbance.
Disturbance
disturbance.
Habitat Name
Choose One
includes any
Excludes any
total includes
Excludes any
anticipated
restoration
any anticipated
restoration and/or
restoration or
and/or temp
restoration or
temp impact
temp impacts)
impact amount)
temp impacts)
amount
?/2 9 0
C
Dredge ❑ RIA Both ❑ Other ❑
3�� 0
Dredge ❑ Fill BoN ❑ Other ❑
23
30
S
Dredge F' Both ❑ Other El
y
/
3
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
919-733-2293 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmannaement.ne! revised: 10112/06

OIB eerr inal Groin
t Date: 5-14-15
6
Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of
measurement found in your Activities code sheet.
Activity Name
�
Number
TYPE
Choose
REPLACE
Choose
_-
One
One
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
,New Work f�
Maint
Replace
j C
0J`a
ry_
❑
❑ Y ❑ N
/
/
Naw Work$,
Replace
-
Maint ❑
❑ Y❑ N
SS
New Work
Replace
i- -
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
Naw Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N .
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
-
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
I „
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint❑
❑ Y ❑ N
D_.escribe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet.
y..
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
FINAL Sq. Ft.
TOTAL Feet
FINAL Feet
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
Habitat Name
DISTURB TYPE
Disturbance total
disturbance.
Disturbane
disturbance.
Choose One
includes any
Excludes any
total includes
Excludes any
anticipated
restoration
any anticipated
restoration and/or
-
restoration or
and/or temp
restoration or
temp impact
tem im` acts
impact amount)
temp impacts)
amount
49
Dredge ❑ Fill Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge Fill Bath ❑ Other ❑
SG/3/23o
._-: S� �
Dredge F' Both ❑ Other ❑
3 God
_ -
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
-
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
919433-2293 :: 1-8884RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmana-gement.net
revised: 10112106

ocnc11ie—r,
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMBAPPROVABRUAR 2010 3
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 201� CT 2 5 2016
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for rev!e�Qg�p�trydi i9g,
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of informatldrat lSeidlko'R.f i9aaF4T
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if 4 does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO,
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE RLLED BYAPPUCAN7)
5. APPLICANTS NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First -Debbie Middle- Last - Smith
First - Brad Middle -A. Last -Rosov
Company - Town of Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Company - Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
E-mail Address [e-mail]
E-mail [e-mail]
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS:
9. AGENTS ADDRESS:
Address- Three West Third Street
Address- 4038 Masonboro Loop Rd.
City - Ocean Isle Beach State - NC Z!p-28469 Country -US
City -Wilmington State - NC Zip-28409 Country -US
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
910 579-2166 910 579-8804
910 791-9494 9107914129
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Brad Rosov to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Ocean Isle Beach Island Wide Shoreline Management Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Atlantic Ocean and Shallotte Inlet
Address
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 33 53' 55.58" Longitude: •W 78 23' 25.91"
City - Ocean Isle Beach State- NC Zip- 28469
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Section - Township - Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Hwy. 17S, turn left onto Ocean Isle Beach Rd. SW for 3.6 miles. Proceed onto Causeway Drive and continue for 1.1 miles. Turn left
onto East 2nd street and continue for 2.6 miles. Turn right onto East 3rd Street and continue to the end.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See Attached.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See Attached.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed discharge is unconfined disposal, not direct open water disposal. Approximately 645,000 cubic yards of material originating
from Shallotte Inlet will be placed along a 5.0 mile span of oceanfront shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach. The delivery of this material will be
performed through a pipeline carrying dredged material mixed with seawater (forming a slurry) extending from the dredge site to the fill
location where the material will be discharged. A sand dike will be constructed on beach within the fill area. This dike will serve to
contain the slurry allowing the material to settle out and the excess water to be released around the end of the dike. Finally, bulldozers will
be used to construct the berm system and grade the sand across the new beach profile. Some dredged material will be expected to run off
into the ocean surf zone during discharge operations.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
See Attached.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0
or
Linear Feel
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See Attached.
ENG FORM 4344 OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes QX No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Walerbody (n more than can be entered hare, please attach a supplemental iisq.
a. Address- See attached
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or ApprovalslDenials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, ficfitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

18. Nature of Activity
The proposed action will include the placement of beach quality sand along approximately 5.0
miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. This encompasses the 3.25-mile extent already
included within the entirety of the USACE federal CSDRP and an additional 1.75 miles of
shoreline that extends from the western terminus of the CSDRP to Tubbs Inlet. Following initial
construction, maintenance events would be anticipated to occur every five years. The only
portion of the Town's oceanfront shoreline not included within this proposed action is the area to
the east of the CSDRP, which is currently under consideration for a terminal groin and associated
small beach fill project.
Beach quality sand would be dredged from the borrow area previously used by the USACE
within Shallotte Inlet using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Placement of beach quality sand onto the
beach would be accomplished via pipeline with direct pump -out. Once discharged, the sand will
be shaped and graded according to the design template using earth -moving equipment such as
bulldozers and excavators. Construction of the project and subsequent maintenance events would
occur within the environmental dredge window between November 15 and April 30.
The proposed 30-Year Management Plan would involve initial construction of the west end of
the island when needed and continued periodic nourishment of the reach that includes the federal
CSDRP should federal funding become unavailable. It is important to clarify that the
construction of the proposed terminal groin and the associated beach fill is not part of the 30-
Year Management Plan. The following sections provide a description of each component of the
island -wide plan.
Federal Coastal Storm Damaae Reduction Proiect
Periodic maintenance nourishment of the federal CSDRP will continue as it has since initial
construction in 2001. Beach quality sand will be obtained from the permitted borrow area located
within Shallotte Inlet and placed according to the template previously described above.
West End
The west end portion of the project refers to the shoreline extending from the western extent of
the federal CSDRP located at station 181+00 to Tubbs Inlet. The portion of the federal CSDRP
extending from station 70+00 to 180+00 has performed extremely well since initial construction
and has not required any periodic nourishment since initial construction. This section of the
federal CSDRP was therefore used as a proxy in developing the design template for the
placement of material along the west end of Ocean Isle Beach that is not included in the federal
CSDRP. The goal of the design is to increase the level of storm protection along the west end of
the island to a level comparable to that provided by the federal CSDRP.
Using data from June 2013 survey performed by engineering firm McKim & Creed, a
comparison was made of the volume material on the existing profiles within the federal CSDRP
limits to the volume of material on the profiles located west of the federal CSDRP. Based on this
comparison, a design template was developed that would provide the volume of material on each
west end profile comparable to the volume of material residing on the profiles within the federal

CSDRP between baseline stations 70+00 and 180+00. The design profile consists of a 10-foot
wide dune at elevation +12.5 feet NAVD88 fronted by a 40-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet
NAVD88. The back or landward slope of the dune would be 1V:5H (1 Vertical to 5 Horizontal)
and the front or seaward slope IV: I OR
The beach fill for the west end of Ocean Isle Beach would begin at the west end of the federal
project, located at station 181+00. A 400-foot transition would be constructed between station
181+00 and 185+00 with the full design template extending between station 185+00 and
245+00. A 500-foot transition would be constructed on the west end between station 245+00 and
250+00 in order to merge the project shoreline with the existing shoreline. A plan view showing
the limits of the proposed placement limits is provided in Appendix A. While the use of beach
fill along this reach may prove problematic given the dynamic influence of Tubbs Inlet, the
shoreline between 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet (approximately station 275+00) is included in the
proposed activities should future conditions warrant remedial measures.
Based on existing shoreline conditions, the section of shoreline between baseline station 250+00
and Tubbs Inlet would not be included in the initial construction of the beach fill project along
the west end of Ocean Isle Beach. Nevertheless, the condition of the shoreline along this extreme
west end of Ocean Isle Beach is highly dependent on the behavior of the ocean bar channel of
Tubbs Inlet and the influence of the bar channel on the configuration of the inlet's ebb tide delta.
Given the level of uncertainty of possible future shoreline conditions on the extreme west end of
Ocean Isle Beach, the proposed action includes possible future periodic nourishment of the
shoreline between baseline station 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet (approximately station 275+00).
The volume of material needed to construct the design template, including the two taper sections,
totals approximately 262,000 cubic yards, based on a June 2013 survey. In addition to this
volume, an additional 185,000 cy of material designated as advanced nourishment would be
placed seaward of the design template to account for anticipated volume losses during the time
interval between completion of initial construction and the first scheduled periodic nourishment
operation. In total, 447,000 cy of material would be placed during initial construction of the west
end.
Island -wide Periodic Nour
Periodic nourishment of the shoreline between station 0+00 to station 120+00 within the federal
CSDRP limits would require 80,000 cubic yards/year, or 400,000 cubic yards every 5 years.
The western portion of the federal CSDRP (120+00 to 181+00) has not required any periodic
nourishment since construction and periodic nourishment of this section of the federal CSDRP is
not anticipated in the near future. However, given the possibility the area could be impacted by a
severe coastal storm, a nominal nourishment requirement of 2 cy/ft/yr for this section of the
federal CSDRP is recommended for planning purposes. Therefore, periodic nourishment of this
portion of the federal CSDRP could require an average of about 12,000 cy/yr, or 60,000 cy every
five years.
A five-year periodic nourishment interval would be implemented for the entire stretch of
shoreline extending from the proposed terminal groin (approximately station 00+00) to station

270+00. Although the proposed terminal groin project and this proposed Island -Wide project are
completely separate actions, the two projects contain a fill template that overlap by
approximately 2,000 ft. on the east end of the island between stations 10+00 and 30+00. In order
to avoid cumulative impacts within this area, the Island -Wide project will limit the footprint of
its fill template on the east to station 30+00 should the terminal groin project be permitted.
Using the annual rates provided above, the total five-year periodic nourishment requirements for
the Town of Ocean Isle Beach are estimated as follows:
Table 1. FIve-year periodic nourishment requirements for the Island -Wide Management plan.
Periodic Nourishment Requirements for a 5-Year Interval
Shoreline Reach Volume per 5 years
Proposed Terminal Groin to Station 120+00 400,000 cy
Contingency Volume Station 120+00 to 181+00 60,000 cy
West End from Station 181+00 to 250+00 185,000 cy
West End from Station 250+00 to Tubbs Inlet 0 cy
Total Island Wide 5-Year Requirement 645,000 cy
Borrow Sourc
The proposed 30-Year Management Plan will utilize the existing federally approved borrow area
within Shallotte Inlet as the primary sand source for initial construction of the Town's west end
and for periodic nourishment of the federal CSDRP portion of the shoreline (Appendix A). This
borrow area extends from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW W) through the throat of the
channel and turns south over the ocean bar. Shallotte Inlet is an ebb -dominated system, with a
small flood delta and a much larger ebb tide delta. The original USACE borrow area was
designed to have a maximum dredging depth of 15 ft. below MLW (-17.9 ft. NAVD), creating a
channel with 3H:1 V sides slopes measuring approximately 950 ft. wide at the AIWW and 1,400
ft. wide at the bar channel. The footprint of the borrow area covers approximately 4.8 million sq.
ft. (110 ac).
Preliminary engineering and design work for the 2014 maintenance event used bathymetric data
collected by the USACE in July and August 2013 to determine volumes within the borrow area.
At the time of the survey, approximately 1,312,000 cy of sand were available within the borrow
area. Based on project estimates provided by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, approximately
800,000 cy were removed from the borrow area for the 2014 maintenance nourishment. Based on
past performance of the project, the borrow area is expected to re -charge due to shoaling of the
inlet complex.
Section (3)a of rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 states that sediment completely confined to the
permitted dredge depth of a maintained sediment deposition basin within an inlet shoal system is
considered compatible if the average percentage by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625
millimeters) sediment is less than 10%. A geotechnical evaluation of the Shallotte Inlet borrow
area was presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ocean Isle Beach
terminal groin project. As indicated the EIS, an evaluation of vibracore data collected in 1998,
2005 and 2009 all show the sediment in the proposed borrow area meet these criteria. Composite
data for vibracores collected within the proposed borrow area in 1998 indicate the percent by

weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) material is 1.3%. Composite data for those
vibracores within the proposed borrow area collected in 2005 and 2009 indicate the percent by
weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) is 1.95%. The composite percent fine-
grained material for the existing beach sampled along the east end of Ocean Isle beach is 1.34%.
Analyses of the samples collected from the existing beach by CPE-NC and the USACE indicate
that sediment along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach has a mean grain size of 0.23mm. The
composite median grain size for the area analyzed using the 1998 vibracores is 0.16mm. The
composite mean grain size for the area analyzed using the 2005 and 2009 vibracores is 0.36mm.
Sediments recovered within the vertical boundaries of the proposed borrow area were described
by the USACE as having a tan and or gray color (USACE, 1997; Catlin, 2009). The wet
Munsell Color value ranges from 4 to 7, with a typical value of 5. The dry Munsell Color value
ranges from 6 to 8 with a typical value of 7. These characteristics represent the existing beach,
which is a composite of the characteristics of material that has been placed on the beach during
past nourishment projects and native beach sediment.
Although incompatible material has not been encountered within the Shallotte Inlet borrow area,
the applicant proposed to use USACE DA-300 as a contingency disposal location. It should be
noted that if incompatible material is encountered, contract language would direct the contractor
to move the dredge location. Should the Town pursue removal of any incompatible material, a
Consent Agreement would be obtained from the USACE prior to commencing any placement
within DA-300.
19. Project Purpose
The Town is focused on a long-term shoreline management program. The Town's stated purpose
for implementing a beach nourishment project is to reduce the vulnerability of structures and
infrastructure, including roads and utilities, along the Town's oceanfront shoreline that could
become vulnerable through shoreline erosion over time. In addition, the proposed project would
serve to reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm -induced erosion. In order to
accomplish these goals, the Town is taking steps to maintain its oceanfront beach and dune to a
configuration that provides a reasonable level of storm damage reduction, flood reduction and
that mitigates long-term erosion that could threaten public and private development, recreational
opportunities and biological resources.
With implementation of the separately proposed terminal groin project (assuming it will be
permitted and constructed) and the existence of the federal CSDRP covering 3.25 miles of the
Town's shoreline, a large portion of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach will be considered managed.
Nevertheless, the Town has the following two concerns.
1) The portion of shoreline that encompasses the area between the western terminus of the
federal CSDRP and Tubbs Inlet remains unmanaged. Therefore, the Town is seeking
permits that would allow them to construct a non -federally funded beach nourishment
project along the unmanaged western shoreline. The nourishment project along the west

end of the island would include periodic maintenance events to preserve the design
template.
2) Obtaining federal funds for periodic nourishment of the CSDRP has become increasingly
difficult. This potential for federal -funding shortfalls has prompted the Town to seek
permits to use non-federal funds to provide periodic nourishment of the entire length of
the CSDRP.
The proposed action will allow the Town to construct the federal CSDRP should shortfalls in
federal funding occur and allow the Town to manage the currently un-managed shoreline to the
west of the federal CSDRP. Essentially, the goal is to allow the Town to manage its own
oceanfront shoreline, from the terminal groin to Tubbs Inlet, under one set of state and federal
permits.
21. Type of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Approximately 645,000 cubic yards of sandy material will be placed along the east end of Ocean
Isle Beach's oceanfront shoreline. This material will adhere to the North Carolina State
Sediment Criteria Rule Language (15A NCAC 07H .0312) for borrow material aimed at
preventing the disposal of an inordinate amount of coarse material (primarily shell and shell
hash) on the beach (NCDCM, 2007). Adhering to these criteria will serve to reduce the potential
for environmental impacts. Given the proposed borrow area is completely confined to the
authorized dredge depth of a maintained sediment deposition basin within the inlet shoal system,
compatibility as defined by (I5A NCAC 07H.0312) is primarily defined in Section (2) (e) and
(3) (a). Section (2) (e) allows an applicant to use previously collected data to establish sediment
characteristics where both a pre -dredge and a post -dredge data set exist. Section (3) (a) states that
compatibility for sediment completely confined to the permitted dredge depth of a sediment
deposition basins within the inlet shoal system is defined as having an average percentage by
weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) sediment less than 10%. The composite
fine-grained sediment within the footprint of the area dredged within Shallotte Inlet in 2001
based on the data from six (6) vibracores collected in 1998 is 1.3%. The composite fine-grained
sediment within the same footprint of the area dredged in 2001 based on data collected after the
dredging event is 1.95%. The composite percent fine grained material for the existing beach
sampled along the east end of Ocean Isle Beach is 1.34%. Therefore, sediment confined to the
footprint of the area dredged in 2001 in Shallotte Inlet is compatible in accordance with 15A
NCAC 07H.0312.
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation
The following describes actions and measures incorporated into the design of the Applicant's
Preferred Alternative to avoid and/or minimize direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the
resources found within the Permit Area and the species that utilize it.
Construction Practices
Dredging of Shallotte Inlet along with the nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle
Beach is scheduled to occur between November 16 and April 30. The timing of beach
nourishment construction activities was specifically scheduled to occur outside of the sea turtle

nesting season, the West Indian manatee summer occurrence in North Carolina, the piping plover
(and other shorebirds) migratory and breeding seasons, and the seabeach amaranth flowering
period. Also, sand placement and dredge operation conducted outside of primary invertebrate
production and recruitment periods (spring and fall) limit impacts to amphipods, polychaetes,
crabs and clams.
Dredge Type
A hydraulic cutterhead is proposed for dredging the proposed borrow area within Shallotte Inlet.
A cutterhead dredge uses a rotating cutter assembly at the end of a ladder arm to excavate bottom
material, which is then drawn into the suction arm and pumped to the shoreline. On the beach,
pipelines will transport the sediment to the designated beach fill area. Bulldozers will be used to
construct seaward shore parallel dikes to contain the material on the beach, and to shape the
beach to the appropriate construction cross-section template. During construction, the contractor
will utilize surveying techniques for compliance with the designed berm width, height, and slope.
Compared to similar types of dredging methodologies, a cutterhead dredge creates minimal
disturbance to the seafloor resulting in lower sedimentation and turbidity levels. Anchor
Environmental (2003) conducted a literature review of suspended sediments from dredging
activities, and concluded that the use of a hydraulic dredge (i.e., cutter suction) limits the
possibilities for re -suspension of sediment to the point of extraction. Also, since the sediment is
suctioned into the dredge head, the sediment cannot directly enter into the middle or upper water
column.
Dredge Positioning
DREDGEPAKO or similar navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to
accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time dredge positioning and
digging functions to allow color display of dredge shape, physical feature data as found in
background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from
hydrographic data collection software described above on a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display.
The software shall also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual
dredging operations.
Dredge anchors shall not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be
dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with real
time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated.
Pipeline Positioning
On the beach, pipelines will transport the sediment to the designated beach placement area. The
pipeline alignment will be placed to avoid sea turtle nests. The alignment will be coordinated
with, and approved by, the USACE. As -built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using
GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report.
Construction Observations
Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or a duly
authorized representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation will be
periodically performed during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during
daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town of Ocean

Isle Beach, the Engineer, or a duly authorized representative will provide onsite observation by
an individual with training or experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and
testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project
manager will coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump -out
location will be made by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or his duly authorized
representative for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. If incompatible material is
placed on the beach, the USACE and appropriate resource agencies will be contacted
immediately to determine appropriate actions.
Sediment Compatibility
Many environmental resources can be strongly influenced by the compaction and compatibility
of material used for nourishment with a natural beach. Compaction of fill could impact the
ability of sea turtles to dig and nest along the nourished beach, resulting in an increase in false
crawls. Also, macroinfauna, indicative of a healthy benthic community, depend upon variable
particle sizes and available interstitial pore space in the substrate for aeration properties.
Compaction of the fill material could impact resident macroinfaunal populations thereby
affecting the migratory and resident shorebirds, waterbirds, as well as the commercially and
recreationally important fish that depend upon them.
Section (3) (a) of rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 states that sediment completely confined to the
permitted dredge depth of a maintained sediment deposition basin within an inlet shoal system is
considered compatible if the average percentage by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625
millimeters) sediment is less than 10%. Details of sediment composition of the recipient beach
and fill material are provided in section 3.4 of this document. As a result of sediment
compliance efforts, compaction of fill material on the beach is less likely to occur due to the
lower silt content or hardening of the beach due to high shell and/or carbonates.
The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or their duly authorized representative, will collect
a representative sub -surface (6 in below grade) grab sediment sample from each 100-ft long
(along the shoreline) section of the constructed beach to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell
color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample will be archived with the date, time, and
location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be
visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria. If determined necessary by the Engineer, or
his duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for
grain size, wet Munsell color, and content of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand
evaluations will be provided within the Engineer's daily inspection reports.
Escarpments
Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after
completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for
a distance greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of
any escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May I through November 15) shall be
coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), USFWS and
the USACE. The likelihood of escarpment formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach
design that closely resembles the native beach in terms of berm elevation, sediment size, and
sediment sorting characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of
+6 ft. NAVD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the ranges required by the North

1 `I
i'.Ap�.

Carolina State Sediment Criteria.
Water Quality
The inlet, nearshore and offshore water columns are classified as SA and High Quality Water
(HQW) under the North Carolina state water quality standards. This classification requires that
work within the water column shall not cause turbidity levels to exceed 25 NTU or background
(ambient) conditions that are above 25 NTU.
Dredge and fill operations are expected to temporarily elevate turbidity levels in the water
column at the borrow area and fill sites. Higher turbidity levels are likely to be found in the
discharge zone (nearshore swash zone) during periods of active construction. The use of a
cutterhead suction dredge will minimize the area of disturbance since this type of dredge
involves suction for the extraction of sediment.
Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor, and will adhere to
those conditions set forth in the 401 Water Quality Certification Approval. The contractor will be
responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the
State water quality standards.
Pipeline Observations
In order to minimize adverse impact on wintering piping plover, the pipeline alignment will be
designed to avoid potential piping plover wintering habitat. The alignment will be coordinated
with, and approved by the USACE. As -built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using
GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report.
In order to avoid adverse impacts associated with the transport of fill material to the disposal
sites, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach will negotiate with the dredging contractor to monitor and
assess the pipeline during construction. This will serve to avoid leaking of sediment material
from the pipeline couplings, other equipment, or other pipeline leaks that may result in sediment
plumes, siltation and/or elevated turbidity levels. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, along with
their Engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a mechanism to cease dredge
and fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected (leaks resulting in turbidity that
exceed state water quality standards or sedimentation). Operations may resume upon appropriate
repair of affected couplings or other equipment.
Aerial Photographv
Cartographic aerial photography will include the acquisition of ortho-rectified color digital
imagery of the mapping area within the Tubbs Inlet complex. Resolution of the imagery will be
sufficient to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental significance
within the survey area. The aerial platform from which the imagery is acquired will have an
onboard GPS that will provide an accurate basis for product correction. NMFS will be consulted
regarding the performance specifications on the imagery prior to finalizing the plan by the Town
of Ocean Isle Beach and authorizing a contract.
In compliance with State and Federal agency requests, digital image acquisition will be
scheduled, to the greatest extent possible, to coincide with good weather conditions and an ebb
tide that may provide for increased accuracy of habitat interpretation. Considering the weather-

dependent nature of this activity, every effort will be made to accomplish this task under
optimum conditions.
Aerial imagery will be collected in accordance with NOAA's Coastal Services Center 2001
Guidance for Benthic Habitat Mapping —An Aerial Photographic Approach (U.S. NOAA
Coastal Services Center, 2001). Aerial photographs include the acquisition of ortho-rectified
color digital imagery of the mapping area. Resolution of the acquired imagery will be sufficient
(<0.6 in [2 ft]) to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental
significance within the survey area. An emphasis will be placed on those marine and estuarine
habitats located immediately within and adjacent to the mapping area. The aerial platform from
which the imagery is acquired will include an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) that
will provide an accurate basis for product correction.
Visual interpretations of biotic community types will be digitally mapped using ArcView 9.3
software over high -resolution georeferenced digital multispectral aerial photographs as part of
the initial pre -construction assessment of biotic communities. The methods employed for
interpretation of aerial photography will include visual analysis of color variations in the
photographs to delineate habitats (dark areas = submerged land; white areas = sediment exposed
above high tide line). Resolution of this imagery (< 2 feet) will allow for adequate delineation of
the habitats and features within the Action Area. Following the development of the preliminary
biotic community mapping within the action area via visual interpretation, field investigations
will be conducted to groundtruth the initial delineations. Sites selected for ground-truthing will
be determined by identifying any areas that were difficult to classify from the aerial
photography. These locations will be visited and the biotic community type (as identified
through aerial photographic interpretation) will then be verified. Based on the results of the field
investigations, the preliminary habitat map will be revised as necessary and acreages were
determined.
Reporting
The final product from the post -construction assessment will include a report describing the
biotic community map derived from the methods explained above. This report will summarize
the acreage of each habitat identified and will compare the acreages to previous investigations
(pre -construction and any post construction efforts that may have occurred). Results of these
mapping efforts will be incorporated into the Global Information Systems (GIS) database
developed for the project. Acreages of each habitat type present within the action area will be
provided in a report to the USACE Wilmington District.
Species Monitoring and Impact Minimization
West Indian Manatee, Humpback and North Atlantic Right Whales Monitoring
During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the "Guidelines for
Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee" created by the USFWS. In the event a whale or
manatee is spotted, the ship's captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or injury to
the marine mammals. Vessel operators will abide by the 10 kt (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions in
any Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) that may be established while underway. Operators
will abide by NMFS Southeast Region marine mammal viewing guidelines and maintain 50 yds.

from sea turtles and dolphins and 100 yds. from whales. Vessel operators will also follow the
restricted vessel approach of 500 yds. established for North Atlantic right whales.
Sea Turtle Monitoring
Several aspects of the project will reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to sea turtles, should
any occur within the action area during construction. Dredging of Shallotte Inlet and
nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline is scheduled to occur between November 16 and April
30, which will avoid times of peak sea turtle activity that occurs during the warmer months. A
cutterhead dredge will be used to obtain material from the inlet, which substantially reduces the
risk of entrainment of sea turtles usually associated with hopper dredging. Additionally, only
beach quality sand that is comparable to the existing material at Ocean Isle Beach will be placed,
which will minimize adverse impacts to future nesting females and hatchlings. The Ocean Isle
Beach Sea Turtle Patrol has been actively monitoring sea turtle nests on their beach since 1984.
Currently, the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization provides monitoring along
the island. This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.
Bird Monitoring
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission and partners have performed breeding
surveys for colonial nesting waterbirds within proximity to the Permit Area on a regular basis
since 1977. Specifically, surveys have been conducted along the eastern and western portion of
the island in proximity to Tubbs Inlet and Shallotte Inlet. Surveys for breeding piping plovers
have been conducted since 1989 at the same locations. Surveys for non -breeding piping plovers
have been conducted in more recent years. These surveys include data from breeding and non -
breeding seasons for several listed bird species as well as other shorebirds and waterbirds. This
monitoring is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc. Whose Property Adjoins the
Waterbody
Property Owner
Property Address
LW Legacy Assets LLC and DW Legacy Assets LLC
11 Causeway Dr., Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Williamson, 0. and Bullington, L.
2 Causeway Dr., Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403.1343
REPLY TO June 11, 2012
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
RECEIVED
Action ID No. 2011-01241
JUN 13 2012
DCM-MHD C17Y
Ms. Debbie Smith, Mayor
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
3 West Street
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina 28469
Dear Ms. Smith:
Reference is made to your May 16, 2012 letter in which you provided information
on the environmental consulting firm that you feel is qualified to prepare the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Town's proposal to install a terminal groin
structure and to conduct supplemental beach nourishment at the eastern end of Ocean Isle
Beach, at Shallotte Inlet, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Your letter, with attached
qualifications, identified Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (CPE) as the Town's
preferred choice as the third party contractor to prepare the EIS.
Based on the information contained in the letter, we agree CPE is qualified to
prepare the EIS for the proposed project, provided the firm properly executes and returns
to us the enclosed disclosure statement mandated by 40 CFR § 1506.5(c). The Town of
Ocean Isle Beach will, at its expense, retain CPE to prepare the EIS. Notwithstanding
payment by the Town, the Wilmington District will supervise and direct the preparation
of the EIS document. The details of this relationship between the USACE, the Applicant,
and the Contractor, as well as detailed procedures for processing of the EIS, are described
in the attached Processing Agreement. This is the same agreement that we discussed
during the July 11, 2011 meeting in our District Office. Before USACE will formally
engage in the EIS process, you will be required to sign this agreement.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUEST--

-2-
If you have any questions, problems, or changes in language that you might have
concerning the processing agreement, please do not hesitate to contact me in the
Wilmington Regulatory Division Office at 910-251-4635.
Sincerely,
Emily Hugh
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies furnished w/enclosures:
Mr. Tom Jarrett
Coastal Planning and Engineering
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28409
Mr. Doug Huggett
DCM, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Copies furnished (w/o enclosures):
Ms. Debra Wilson
DCM, North Carolina Department Of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Electronic Copies Furnished:
CESAW-OC/McCorcle
CESAW-TS-PE/Payonk
CESAW-PM-C/Casten
CESAW-RG-LBeter

PROCESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINRSRECEVED
AND JUN 13 2012
THE TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH DCM-MxncrTY
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. This Processing Agreement ("Agreement') provides a framework in which the United States
Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS")
for the installation of a terminal groin structure and supplemental beach renourishment activities
into Section 404 Waters and Section 10 Navigable Waters at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County, North Carolina. Reference Action ID: SAW-2011-01241. The Agreement
describes the relationship of the above named parties in preparing the EIS. Subject to completion
of the EIS, the USACE will determine whether to authorize the proposed project. This
determination will be set forth in a Record of Decision.
B. The USACE will approve the selection of an independent contractor ("Contractor") to
prepare the EIS. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach ("Applicant') shall be the party responsible for
engaging and retaining a contractor with funds provided by the Applicant.
C. The EIS and any related documents shall comply with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") and appropriate Council on Environmental Quality
("CEQ") and USACE environmental regulations and guidance, as well as all applicable local,
state and Federal laws, as appropriate.
D. It is the purpose of this Agreement to establish an understanding between the Applicant and
the USACE regarding the responsibilities of the parties and the conditions and procedures to be
followed in the development and preparation of the EIS.
E. The parties hereto intend that development and preparation of the EIS as provided in this
Agreement will satisfy the pertinent environmental requirements of the USACE.
A. The USACE will be responsible for assuring compliance with all the requirements of NEPA
(42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), CEQ Regulations (40 C.F.R. §§ 1500- 1508), and appropriate USACE
environmental orders. The USACE shall assure that all pertinent environmental issues and
-1-

impacts, and reasonable alternatives and their impacts are treated in the EIS, and shall be
responsible for the scope and content of the EIS.
B. The Applicant will engage and retain a Contractor; approved by the USACE, for the
preparation of the EIS. The Contractor, with the approval of the USACE and Applicant, may
employ such other contractors and experts (collectively referred to as "Subcontractors"), as are
required for the adequate development and preparation of the EIS.
C. The Contractor will provide, through its staff or by Subcontractor, the expertise, staffing, and
technical capabilities required for the preparation of the EIS. The USACE will determine the
scope of the EIS and will independently evaluate all information, environmental data and
analyses submitted by the Contractor, or others, and revise or cause additional study and analyses
to be performed as necessary.
D. The Contracts between the Applicant and Contractor and between the Contractor and
Subcontractors (collectively the "Contract") shall be consistent with the provisions of this
Agreement and shall specifically incorporate those provisions herein which address the conduct
of the Contractor. The Contract shall provide, and the Applicant hereby represents, consistent
with 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c), that the Contractor and any Subcontractors have not entered into and,
during the lifetime of the EIS preparation, will not enter into any agreement affording the
Contractor and any Subcontractors with any direct or indirect financial interest in the planning,
design, construction or operation of the Project except with regard to the preparation of the EIS.
Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the Contract shall specifically limit any remedies
available to the Contractor and any Subcontractors, so as to affirmatively relieve the United
States of America, the USACE, and any officer, agent or employee of same, from any liability
arising out of the performance or termination of the contract for preparation of the EIS, or out of
this Agreement.
(1) Prior to beginning work on the EIS, the Contractor and any Subcontractors shall sign
a "Disclosure Statement" provided by the USACE per the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §
1506.5(c), specifying they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the
project.
(2) The USACE shall evaluate the Disclosure Statement prior to its approval.
E. The Applicant shall facilitate the coordination of effort and the exchange of information
related to the planning, design, and construction of the Project, as these activities relate to the
preparation of the EIS among and between the Contractor and its Subcontractors and the
USACE. The Applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to assure the satisfactory and timely
performance of the duties of the Contractor as specified in this Agreement.
F. The Applicant and USACE shall:
(1) Appoint such representatives as necessary to accomplish the coordination necessary
for the satisfactory preparation of the EIS. Notice to any such representative shall
-2-

RECEIVED
t
JUN 13 2012
constitute notice to that party. Failure of a party to respond to such notice shall not be
construed to represent approval of a proposal or action. DCM-MHD CrrY
(2) Review substantive phases of preparation of the EIS as the USACE deems necessary.
(3) Have their respective representatives attend meetings with other Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies for the purpose of increasing communications and receiving
comments, as the same may be necessary, desirable, or required by law in preparation of
the EIS.
G. All costs incurred in connection with the employment of the Contractor and any and all
Subcontractors, or other persons retained or employed by the Applicant, shall be the sole
responsibility of the Applicant and the Applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the
USACE, its officers, agents, and employees, with respect to any and all judgments or settlements
arising from claims, demands, causes of action, and the like, in connection with the Applicant's
employment of the Contractor and any and all Subcontractors which may arise from the
termination or performance of the Contract or any other services, or purchase of materials
utilized for the development and preparation of the EIS, or from termination of this Agreement.
This indemnification by the Applicant does not extend to administrative or legal costs of the
USACE, including suits by third parties (other than the Contractor or its Subcontractors) against
the USACE, involving the legality or adequacy of the USACE's compliance with NEPA and
other laws and regulations, to the extent of the USACE's liabilities on those issues. The
Applicant shall cooperate and shall ensure that the Contractor cooperates in defense of any such
suit.
111M9Ci114D)1111.iV
A. Under the direction of the USACE, the Contractor shall develop and submit a Plan of Study
to the USACE for approval. The Plan of Study shall include detailed descriptions of all work to
be performed, the methodologies proposed to perform the work, the name and qualifications of
the person performing each aspect of the work, estimated man-hours required for completion of
each aspect, the schedule for performing each aspect and a description of the internal and
external review procedures to assure quality control. Also, the Plan of Study shall include a
provision for a thorough literature search and bibliography of references and methodologies to be
used in the acquisition of the environmental data and analyses and the development and
preparation of the EIS.
B. The USACE will forward the Plan of Study to the Applicant for review and comment. After
receiving comments from the Applicant, and after the scoping process conducted pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 1501.7, the USACE will finalize and approve the Plan of Study. The Plan of Study and
this Agreement shall establish the scope of work required of the Contractor in the development
and preparation of the EIS.
C. The Plan of Study may be amended by the USACE from time to time as the work of the
Contractor or its Subcontractors proceeds, but any amendments or changes which require the
-3-

expenditure of additional funds by the Applicant must be agreed to by the Applicant. The
Applicant will be notified and consulted prior to any significant amendments or modifications to
the Plan of Study.
D. Unless otherwise directed by the USACE, any and all work performed by the Contractor and
its Subcontractors in preparation of the EIS shall be submitted directly to the USACE and to the
Applicant. The Applicant may communicate with the Contractor and its Subcontractors during
the development of the EIS, but no prior review or discussion of data or analyses developed by
the Contractor or Subcontractor as related to the EIS shall be afforded the Applicant. In no case
will the Applicant discuss, review, modify, or edit the Contractor's work or the work of its
Subcontractors prior to submission to the USACE, or be provided the opportunity to do so. All
suggestions for modifications or changes to such sections recommended by the Applicant shall
only be made to the USACE.
E. The USACE reserves the right to review periodically and modify the work of the Contractor
to ensure requirements under NEPA and other applicable laws and regulations are satisfied. The
Contractor shall submit monthly written reports on the progress of its work to the USACE, with a
concurrent copy to the Applicant. This report shall describe the present status of each aspect of
the work, any problems encountered, and recommendations for modifications to the Plan of
Study and any changes in personnel, methodology or schedules for completion.
F. As each portion of any draft or final document is completed, the USACE shall review each
portion and those tasks completed there under and, after consultation with the Applicant, shall
approve, modify, comment thereon and/or direct further work with regard to such portion or tasks
as necessary. Said directions and/or comments shall be made by the USACE in a timely manner,
and the Contractor shall ensure incorporation of such comments into any editorial changes to the
satisfaction of the USACE. Final drafts of any documents will require USACE approval. Prior
to approval, the USACE will forward final drafts to the Applicant for review and comment.
Comments from the Applicant shall be sent to the USACE. The Contractor will only make
modifications as the USACE directs regarding these comments.
G. If requested, the Contractor will provide the USACE access to, copies of, and review of all
procedures and underlying data used by the Contractor in developing submitted sections of the
EIS, including, but not limited to, field reports, Subcontractor reports, and interviews with
concerned private and public parties, whether or not such information may be contained in a draft
or final EIS. The Applicant will also have access to such procedures and underlying data. Such
access by the USACE and Applicant shall be governed by paragraph III. There under.
H. To facilitate the development and preparation of the EIS, joint meetings among the USACE,
Applicant, and Contractor may be held. However, the USACE reserves the right to work directly
with the Contractor for purposes of assuring objectivity in preparing reports and/or for assuring
expeditious communications. The Contractor will notify the USACE and Applicant of any
substantive meetings that are scheduled and of their purpose and will provide an opportunity for
the parties to attend if desired. No meeting will be held between the Contractor and Applicant
without prior notification to and approval of the USACE. A summary of all matters relating to
-4-

RFCETM 1
JUN 13 S012
EIS discussions in any meetings or communications between the Contractor an a partyhereto
will be included in each formal monthly report submitted by the Contractor to the USACE and
Applicant. The USACE reserves the right to consult directly with othePWa$VIate, and local
officials and agencies during the preparation of the EIS to assure compliance with NEPA and
other applicable laws and regulations.
I. The Applicant shall assure the full cooperation of the Contractor and its Subcontractors with
respect to participating in any public workshops, hearings, or meetings as required by the
USACE to foster public familiarity and participation with respect to the assessment of impacts
related to the Project.
J. The Contractor shall be responsible for the costs associated with the printing, publication, and
mailing of the draft and final copies of the EIS, as well as any preliminary drafts or reports
required by USACE. The Contractor shall be responsible for the costs associated with the
compilation of any and all mailing lists necessary for the distribution of preliminary, draft, and
final copies of the EIS. The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
publication of notices announcing public workshops, meetings, hearings, and the like. The
Contractor shall also be responsible for costs of stenographic and clerical services, preparation of
graphics and visual aids associated with any public workshops, meetings, and hearings.
K. At such time as the USACE, after consultation with the Applicant, has approved the Draft
EIS developed and prepared by the Contractor and its Subcontractors, the Contractor shall print
the contracted quantity of Draft EIS and submit same to the USACE. The USACE shall submit
an appropriate number of copies of the Draft EIS to the Applicant. The USACE shall proceed
expeditiously to comply with the provisions of NEPA.
L. In all instances involving questions as to the content or relevance of the environmental data
and analyses, and evaluations and wording prepared by the Contractor, the USACE, with
appropriate advice and consultation where deemed necessary by the USACE, will make the final
determination on the inclusion, deletion or modification of the same in the Draft or Final EIS.
Except where otherwise prohibited by NEPA regulation governing the preparation of an EIS, the
Applicant or the Contractor may supplement by addendum any material excluded or modified by
direction of the USACE in the text of any given report.
M. Upon determination by the USACE that a public hearing is required, the Contractor shall
organize the public hearing in accordance with 33 C.F.R. §327, and provide a facility, necessary
equipment, and a court reporter therefore. The presiding officer shall be the Wilmington District
Engineer or his designee.
N. The USACE will receive all comments during the Draft EIS review and comment period.
This period (at least 45 days) will be initiated when the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") publishes the 'Draft EIS Notice of Availability" in the Federal Register.
O. At the close of the Draft EIS review and comment period, the USACE shall identify the
issues and comments submitted which will require response in the Final EIS. The USACE will
-5-

direct those comments to the Contractor for preparation of proposed responses, and shall furnish
the Applicant with copies of all comments received. The Contractor will furnish proposed
responses to the USACE and Applicant for review. The USACE shall modify the proposed
responses as it deems necessary. The Contractor and Applicant shall have the right to include, by
way of addendum or comment, such responses as either one deems necessary in the Final EIS.
P. After receipt of comments and preparation of responses, the USACE, after appropriate advice
and consultation, may direct the Contractor to make changes to the text of the Draft EIS as
necessary.
Q. At such time as the USACE has approved the Final EIS, the Contractor shall print the
contracted quantity of Final EIS. The USACE shall submit an appropriate number of copies of
the Final EIS to the Applicant. The USACE shall proceed expeditiously to comply with the
provisions ofNEPA.
R. The USACE will receive all comments on the Final EIS during the mandatory "hold period".
This period (at least 30 days) will be initiated when the EPA publishes the "Final EIS Notice of
Availability" in the Federal Register.
S. The USACE, with assistance from the Contractor as needed by the USACE, will prepare and
issue the USACE Record of Decision.
T. The USACE will maintain the confidentiality of, and will not release or allow access to, any
information, documents or materials which in its opinion are validly designated as confidential
by the Applicant or Contractor and which contain trade secrets, proprietary data, or commercial
or financial information. Information developed under this Agreement is disclosable to the
public to the extent required by law. In any instance where the USACE proposes to release to the
public or allow access to any information, documents or materials which the Applicant or
Contractor has designated as confidential, it shall notify the Applicant or Contractor of its
intention to do so and provide the Applicant or Contractor the opportunity to appeal the decision
in accordance with applicable regulations on such release or access prior to any such release or
access.
IV. CESSATION AND TERMINATION
A. Any of the parties to this Agreement may withdraw from the terms of this Agreement for
good cause upon 30 days written notice to the other party. During this period, the parties will
actively attempt to resolve any disagreement.
B. In the event of a termination of this Agreement, and if the USACE determines, in its sole
discretion, that preparation of an EIS by the USACE is still required by law or desired by the
USACE, it is agreed as follows:
(1) The USACE shall have access to all documentation, reports, analyses and data by the
Contractor and Subcontractors with confidentiality governed by paragraph IH.T.

(2) The USACE shall complete the EIS. The Applicant shall no longer be responsible
for the payment of costs associated with preparation of the EIS under the terminated
Agreement, apart from costs already incurred under the Applicant's contract with the
Contractor.
(3) Liability for termination shall be in accordance with paragraph H.G. hereof.
V. NO RIGHTS FOR NON-PARTIES No rights or privileges are created or intended to be
created by this Agreement in anyone not a signatory of this Agreement.
RECEIVED
i.
JUN 13 Z012
DCM•MHD CITY
VI. MODIFICATION This Agreement represents the entire agreement and may be modified
by the parties hereto only by written agreement by all the parties.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Steven A. Baker
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Date
TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH (Applicant)
1WR
Date

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
40 CFR § 1506.5(c)
We, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (3`d parry contractor), do hereby certify that we
have not entered into and, during the lifetime of the EIS preparation, will not enter into any
agreement affording us or any Subcontractors that we may hire with any direct or indirect
financial interest in the planning, design, construction or operation of the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach's shoreline protection proposal, which includes a terminal groin structure and
supplemental beach renourishment, Action ID. 2011-01241 located in Ocean Isle Beach,
Brunswick County, North Carolina, except with regard to the preparation of the EIS. In making
this certification, we acknowledge that we have read, considered, and are incompliance with the
provisions of 40 CFR § 1506.5(c), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Forty
Questions, Questions 16 & 17 (copies attached). We further certify that we will, in the Draft
EIS, make a full disclosure of the scope and extent of the firm's prior involvement in the Town's
shoreline protection proposal (Project).
[Contractor]
By:
Title:
Date:
M

CEQ Forty Questions, Questions 16 & 17 RECMM
All 40 questions can be found at: http://ceg.eh.doe.gov/nepa/re s/g 40/4Oy3.himN 1 3 2012
Question 16. Third Party Contracts. What is meant by the term "third party contracts" in
connection with the preparation of an EIS? See Section 1506.5(c). When can "third party
contracts" be used?
A. As used by EPA and other agencies, the term "third party contract" refers to the preparation
of EISs by contractors paid by the applicant. In the case of an EIS for a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the applicant, aware in the early planning stages
of the proposed project of the need for an EIS, contracts directly with a consulting firm for its
preparation. See 40 C.F.R. 6.604(g). The "third party" is EPA which, under Section 1506.5(c),
must select the consulting firm, even though the applicant pays for the cost of preparing the EIS.
The consulting firm is responsible to EPA for preparing an EIS that meets the requirements of
the NEPA regulations and EPA's NEPA procedures. It is in the applicant's interest that the EIS
comply with the law so that EPA can take prompt action on the NPDES permit application. The
"third party contract" method under EPA's NEPA procedures is purely voluntary, though most
applicants have found it helpful in expediting compliance with NEPA.
If a federal agency uses "third party contracting," the applicant may undertake the necessary
paperwork for the solicitation of a field of candidates under the agency's direction, so long as the
agency complies with Section 1506.5(c). Federal procurement requirements do not apply to the
agency because it incurs no obligations or costs under the contract, nor does the agency procure
anything under the contract.
Question 17a. Disclosure Statement to Avoid Conflict of Interest. If an EIS is prepared with
the assistance of a consulting firm, the firm must execute a disclosure statement. What criteria
must the firm follow in determining whether it has any "financial or other interest in the outcome
of the project" which would cause a conflict of interest?
A. Section 1506.5(c), which specifies that a consulting firm preparing an EIS must execute a
disclosure statement, does not define "financial or other interest in the outcome of the project."
The Council interprets this term broadly to cover any known benefits other than general
enhancement of professional reputation. This includes any financial benefit such as a promise of
future construction or design work on the project, as well as indirect benefits the consultant is
aware of (e.g., if the project would aid proposals sponsored by the firm's other clients). For
example, completion of a highway project may encourage construction of a shopping center or
industrial park from which the consultant stands to benefit. If a consulting firm is aware that it
has such an interest in the decision on the proposal, it should be disqualified from preparing the
EIS, to preserve the objectivity and integrity of the NEPA process.

When a consulting firm has been involved in developing initial data and plans for the project, but
does not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the decision, it need not be
disqualified from preparing the EIS. However, a disclosure statement in the draft EIS should
clearly state the scope and extent of the firm's prior involvement to expose any potential conflicts
of interest that may exist.
17b. If the firm in fact has no promise of future work or other interest in the outcome of the
proposal, may the firm later bid in competition with others for future work on the project if the
proposed action is approved?
/:AYM
-10-

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
November 4, 2015
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Doug Huggett
Manager
Major Permits and Federal Consistency Section
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Re: Ocean Isle Terminal Groin CAMA Major Permit Application
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Thank you for your email response to our October 26, 2015 letter regarding Ocean Isle's
terminal groin proposal. We respectfully disagree with your determination that a draft
environmental impact statement satisfies the requirements of N.C. Gen. Star. § I I3A-115.1. It is
clear that a draft environmental impact statement satisfies neither state law nor the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Your email cites 1 N.C. Admin. Code 25 .0402 to support the determination that
"completion of review through the Clearinghouse process, which included submittal of all state
agency comments on the draft EIS to the Corps of Engineers in March of this year, satisfied" the
terminal groin statute. That determination mistakenly assumes the Clearinghouse process is
complete. That is not so. As made clear in Department of Administration regulations, the
Clearinghouse process is not "complete" until the final environmental impact statement is
circulated. The rules plainly require that "[t]he State Project Agency shall submit 16 copies of
the final EIS and any additional copies as may be requested to the Clearinghouse." 1 N.C.
Admin. Code 25 .0605(c) (emphasis added). "These documents shall be circulated to the
original reviewers for a final review." Id. It is clear that the Clearinghouse review process has
not been completed and cannot be completed before the final EIS is prepared.
Moreover, it is plain that a draft EIS does not satisfy NEPA. The Corps would not
purport to issue a permit based on the draft EIS for the Ocean Isle terminal groin project because
it is exactly that —a draft. NEPA requires the preparation of a final EIS because it is essential to
the law's underlying purpose, disclosure of environmental impacts. A necessary part of that
disclosure is response to comments, which must be included in a final EIS in order to comply
with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a).
RECEIVED RECIF"
NOV 06 2015 NOV 0
Charlottesville - Chapel Hill - Atlanta - Asheville - Birmingham - Charleston - Nashville - Richmond - Washington, DC
100% recycled paperDCM- MHD Cl- CM-

Doug Huggett
November 4, 2015
Page 2
DCM's interpretation of the statute at issue is perplexing. A final EIS will be prepared
for this project. The question is whether DCM will move forward with complete information
and allow the public to comment on a project with the benefit of the forthcoming analysis.
Returning this application as incomplete would not require the preparation of any information
that is not already required. DCM cannot lawfully evaluate a permit based on an incomplete
application. Doing so exceeds the agency's authority. Moreover, any analysis based on a draft
EIS —particularly this draft EIS —would be arbitrary and capricious.
This is a proposal for a terminal groin that would permanently change Ocean Isle and
Shallotte Inlet. The Town can certainly wait for the final EIS that is already being prepared. The
law requires it.
I respectfully request that the Division determine that the Ocean Isle application is
incomplete and inconsistent with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-115.1.
Sincerely,
/),�
Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney
GRG/rgd
Cc:
Braxton Davis, DCM (via email)
Holley Snider, DCM (via email)
Michele Walker, DCM (via email)
Todd Miller, NCCF (via email)
Mike Giles, NCCF (via email)
Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic, NCCF (via email)
Walker Golder, Audubon NC (via email)
RECEIVED
NOV 06 2015
DCM- MHD CITY

Huggett, Doug
From: Rosov, Brad <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 3:27 PM
To: Huggett, Doug
Subject: Ocean Isle Beach CAMA permit
Hi Doug,
I've gone through the Major CAMA permit you issued on November 71b and wanted to get some clarification on two
items from you:
• Condition #14: "Excavation shall not exceed -15' MLW (-13' MLW with a maximum of 2' over dredge
allowance).
The Shallotte Inlet borrow area is defined as "-15' MLW" by the USACE and we are requesting the
same. Just to prevent any confusion in the future, would it be possible to keep it simple and remove the
-13' MLW and 2' over dredge allowance language?
• Condition #21- "Standardized surveys for piping plovers, red knot, and other beach -dependent birds shall be
conducted by a contractor trained in bird identification and surveys before, during, and after construction and
pipeline placement and removal"
Will you please provide more detail as to what is expected for this condition in terms of the temporal
duration of monitoring, spatial extent, and any other details?
Thanks) I
Brad Rosov, M.S.
Scientist IV
Coastal & Maritime Services
Environmental & Sustainabilily
Tel: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
brad.rosovidcbi.com
CB&I
4038 Masonboro Loop Rd..
Wilmington, NC 28409
United States
v .CBI.com
�•201S WIDALsmcwtera
This e-mail and any attached files may contain CB&I (or its affiliates) confidential and privileged information.
This information is protected by law and/or agreements between CB&I (or its affiliates) and either you, your
employer or any contract provider with which you or your employer are associated. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this e-mail; further, you are notified