The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOKI_Beach Mangement Plan_Scoping Minutes_0831224700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300 ,", Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 781-4626 Fax: (919) 781-4626 m o f f a t t & N c h o l www.moffattnichol.com Oak Island Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes To: Agencies Cc: From: Date 8/31/2022 Subject: Town of Oak Island Beach Management Plan Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes Beach Management Plan Scoping Meeting Town of Oak Island August 31, 2022 1:00 PM- 3:00 PM Attendees: Brandon Grant Moffatt & Nichol Doug Huggett Moffatt & Nichol Sam Morrison Moffatt & Nichol Samantha Marchisin Moffatt & Nichol Dawn York Moffatt & Nichol Mark Pirrello Moffatt & Nichol Mindy Joiner Moffatt & Nichol Nicole Vanderbeke Moffatt & Nichol Johnny Martin Moffatt & Nichol Cameron Weaver DCM Kelsey Beachman DCM Tara MacPherson DCM Heather Coats DCM Patrick Amico DCM Ken Richardson DCM Jonathan Howell DCM Johnathan Watts DCM Maria Dunn WRC Brennan Dooley USACE - Regulatory David Kelly Town of Oak Island Doug Piatkowski BOEM Fritz Rohde NOAA Fisheries Holley Snider DWR Kathy Matthews USFWS Kim Harding DMF Greg Currey USACE- Regulatory Mickey Sugg USACE- Regulatory Meeting began at 1:00 PM Agenda: • Overview of OIBMP • Discussion of Borrow Area Sources • Regulatory Pathway • Agency Discussion Opening Discussion: • Town of Oak Island appreciates the $20M received by the state. • Town stated that they will make themselves available anytime to move the OIBMP forward. • Mickey Sugg (USACE): What is the timeframe on the $20M? o Town's Response: $5M every quarter, two-year plan and hoping to be under contract for 2024/2025. Overview of OIBMP/Borrow Area Sources: • M&N presented on the nourishment history on the Town of Oak Island and the current state of beach vulnerability due to previous storms. • Johnny Martin (M&N) provided an overview of the purpose and need of the OIBMP, a summary of the OIBMP, and recent projects. • Johnny (M&N) presented on the concept design of the dune project to restore dune protection. The first project for the OIBMP is to provide a beach berm and restore every six years. • Johnny (M&N) discussed the historical nourishment places to date. moffctt & nlchol • With the hurricanes that have happened, there has been restoration work in the last couple of years. • The OIBMP is to replace the dune and berm that has been lost and aid the Town with a level of protection against storm events. • Johnny (M&N) discussed the current state of the beach post Isaias. • We want to put the Town in the best position possible against storm protection. • Frying Pan Shoals is proposed as main borrowing source, supplemented by other sources. 29 Mcy in state waters and 58 Mcy in federal waters. • Current Best Estimate: 1.65 Mcy at $40.OM. • Maintenance after that to be 1.3 Mcy, $31.9M, estimated six -year intervals. • 30 Mcy of sand is needed for the next fifty years for background and storms. • State funding for Initial Project — 20M for Town of Oak Island as Direct Grant, 1/1 cost share is required, funds encumbered by June 30, 2023. • 23/24 or 24/24 will be the initial renourishment project. • Study of Lockwoods Folly Inlet — Looking for potentials for inlet management plan to be tied into beach management plan. Cultural resources are a constraint. • Potential terminal groin is to be determined. A terminal groin concept is an option if inlet management is not feasible. • Reviewed OIBMP Contracts • Mark Pirrello (M&N) discussed the development of field programs. Stage one of the BMP consisted of field investigations including geophysical mapping, working with eastern channel and within the Wilmington Harbor Channel, and refining on the exploratory and ODMDS. • We are always looking at opportunities to work with USACE. Questions/Comments: • Fritz Rohde (NOAA): How did you pick six -year nourishment cycle? o Johnny (M&N) responded that it is based on modeling as well as monitoring of beach over last six to seven years. Take cubic yards per year, on average given cost of dredging, looking at long term average multiple by six. May change with storms but is our best estimate to date. • Brennan Dooley (USACE): What template are you building to? Did you do significant modeling to get that number? What degree of protection are you getting with 1.3 Mcy? o Johnny (M&N) stated the design is for a 25-year storm level protection, based on modeling. • Brennan Dooley (USACE) stated Lockwoods Folly beneficial placement is getting ready and the sand for West End is coming to Oak Island during winter 2022/2023. Paperwork will be sent to the Town. • Doug Piatkowski (BOEM) stated the agency is currently working on a geological framework to understand where potential sand sources are located. BOEM coordination has an active offshore sand inventory project. Invested data collection off Brunswick County, which is moffctt & nlchol relevant to this region, and everything communicated today. Heavily surveyed area. The work is at the reconnaissance level. Preliminary results available December/January timeframe to see what, if any, other alternatives are out there. o Dawn York (M&N): Have the locations of the 18 cores already been identified? ■ Doug (BOEM): We have been working through that, but it is still shifting a little. o Question to Doug: All the reconnaissance work is excluding Frying Pan Shoals, correct? Doug (BOEM): That is right. We were leveraging existing geophysics to tell the complete story on geology, which ultimately ties into Frying Pan. Regulatory Pathway: • Dawn (M&N) discussed preliminary review of critical resource issues. • We are looking at a much more comprehensive island -wide effort. • Not only are there critical resources, but there are other neighboring communities that are interested in using nearby sand sources as well. • Dawn (M&N) discussed the proposed consultations, including Section 7 of the ESA and Magnuson -Stevens Act. The extent of the work will potentially result in formal consultations with USFWS, NMFS, and NOAA Fisheries. • We have started drafting NEPA documents. • Dawn (M&N) presented the NEPA document outline and what we will be addressing. Understand what data and information is available to get started. • Using framework that Bogue Banks laid out (seven -to -eight -year process). Resource agencies, USACE, and BOEM worked through. • Note about avoidance and minimization measures, some projects tend to leave towards the end. Dawn does not agree with that method, as it is important to discuss sooner. This comes in the form of how we design borrow areas and where the project can take place, time of year, species that can be affected, etc. o Sam Morrison (M&N) is a key resource for feasibility of dredging and how best to design borrow areas to minimize impact. • ESA -listed species (both threatened and endangered) have been identified that would be evaluated in a Biological Assessment (BA). Look to NMFS, USFWS, and BOEM to ensure it is a complete list. • Frying Pan Shoals is designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). We will continue to use available and exiting data to address noise, water quality, entrainment, vessel collision, habitat disturbance, and prey species (and how those species migrate). • We have communicated with NOAA Fisheries on how to maintain the structure of Shoals while using the sediment. • Primary Nursery Areas are a significant concern that we will address through the project. There are identified critical habitats. moffctt & nlchol • Third Party Agreement — September/October 2022. The Town is aware of providing documentation to initiate need and desire to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. • Field Investigations — November 2022. Mark (M&N) indicated ongoing field investigations in Frying Pan. Surveys needed to clear locations. Anticipate being completed this Fall/ Winter. • Draft Engineering Report — January 2023. Anticipate additional meetings to discuss sediment analysis, etc. • Public Scoping Meeting — February 2023. Integral part of this process. As we move forward, make sure that we involve the public and invite communities and stakeholders to provide comments early in the process. • Draft NEPA Document Submittal — Summer 2023. Questions/Comments: • Kathy Matthews (USFWS) was not sure if we were talking about a 50- or 30-year plan, but realized it was mentioned on earlier slides. Agency Discussion: • Doug (BOEM) stated that BOEM is investing $2M for an ecosystem dynamic procedure for Frying Pan Shoals and currently reviewing proposals. The study will review physical dynamics, sediment transport, and larval transport. The study is 3 to 4 years out. • Doug (BOEM) stated they are collaborating with partners and conducting workshops to gauge what paths should be taken at Frying Pan. BOEM has been able to proactively see challenge ahead. Expecting an award in the next month or so. There might be a need to involve other party input. • Doug (BOEM) added that they are coming up with regional sand management concept strategies. • Brennan (USACE) will follow up with Bob Kiestler to coordinate and schedule a regional sand management meeting between the communities of Brunswick County. • Kathy (USFWS) expressed concern over terminal groin, sound side flooding with rising sea level. The Town should consider purchasing the remaining lots on the west end and take preliminary actions in areas where sand management will not be able to address. • Kathy (USFWS) stated that fifty years is a long time, with a lot of predictions (including SLR). NOAA is coming out with updated viewers and models. Honest look at risk for certain areas. Sand management is good for certain situations, but over fifty years coming, it may not keep up with or not address certain issues. • Fritz (NOAA) is not as familiar with recent NOAA Fisheries comments. Wants to echo what Kathy mentioned. It is a fifty-year plan, and over these years the mean high water will move landward and has that been incorporated? Hopes that we look at what other terminal groins have accomplished in the state. Have they worked? NOAA Fisheries has opposed sanding mining from Frying Pan Shoals. There are other entities that want sand from Frying moffctt & nlchof Pan. Will that be discussed in document? They also comment under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, that encompasses other species. Not just focused on EFH species only. o Mickey Sugg (USACE) to Fritz (NOAA): Has there been a position paper of any sort regarding Frying Pan Shoals in general? ■ Fritz (NOAA) does not think they have. Response letters to Bald Head, anytime Bald Head comes up they put a position out there opposing and request they seek alternative sites. o Johnny (M&N) stated that we understand your concerns and notes that we are trying to address them and use small cuts and placing pipes outside of the Shoals. ■ Fritz (NOAA) stated that they recommend spaced out shallow cuts. • Kim Harding (DMF) to Dawn (M&N): You mentioned that you are going to use current and available data. The DMF has come out with Bald Head Island Application and stated that they are not going to be able to evaluate impacts to Frying Pan Shoals until a comprehensive monitoring program has been created and data has been collected. They would need a monitoring program that would collect more data. Current data is not enough to understand impacts long term of mining Frying Pan Shoals. BOEM will be conducting their research in federal waters, whereas the borrow is in state waters. o Doug (BOEM) stated there is no line between state and federal in understanding the system. The data collected is going to be relevant to the system. ■ Question to Doug (BOEM): Is there any way you can include one of these borrow sites in the study area? Doug (BOEM) responded that there is full transparency in the way the scope was written in terms of recognizing what has been discussed to date. There is an option in the event there is a defined borrow area that it would be considered in the context of the methods. That can all be considered in how they lay out the methods. One thing they did scope is a monitoring framework, as they learn complexities of system, one product would be what would be a good framework. • Maria Dunn (NCWRC) via chat: "Unfortunately, I have to leave the meeting. NCWRC shares concerns with use of FPS (especially if it compromises the BOEM study), the construction of a terminal groin with its impacts on habitats, and overall beach profile and management. There are several details that need to be addressed and NCWRC looks forward to additional information and conversation." • Heather Coats (DCM) referring to template for beach berm: This is being designed as structural protection and engineering dune, and the beach berm is seen as sacrificial? The blue is intended protection. o Johnny (M&N) responded that is correct. The orange is what is out there on day-to- day basis and replaced every six years to protect. There is some recreational beach provided with the blue but there is more with the orange. o Heather (DCM): And will you have triggers for this? You are looking at a 5- or 6- year cycle. No set schedule due to storm loss? ■ Johnny (M&N): That is correct. We are saying total including storm loss might be 30M over 50 years. As the Town moves forward with beach moffctt & nlchol management plan, the thought process is there would be FEMA funding for main storm losses. • Jonathan Howell (DCM): The best thing for us to do is provide you with comments from DMF, because there is a range of requests from monitoring to sampling different locations, research needs prior to use of Frying Pan Shoals. Will get that to you ASAP. o Johnny (M&N) stated that we want to make sure material placed on beach is compatible with the native. Making sure it is going to be a quality project. That is why we are doing level of testing that we are. o Jonathan (DCM): FYI, DMF asked for research on why recharge rate and type of sediment that was expected to infill did not. o Dawn (M&N) stated that the Town is currently evaluating Jay Bird Shoals. Three more annual events to evaluate infilling rates. ■ Kim (DMF) to Dawn (M&N): What project is that associated with? • Dawn & Johnny (M&N) responded with Oak Island. • Holley Snider (DWR) indicated that DWR will provide comments once the details are provided. Holley stated having multiple municipalities request dredging of Frying Pan Shoals can have an impact on the Shoals. • Mickey (USACE): For Caswell Beach, has there been coordination regarding the 50-year Management Plan? o David Kelly (Town) responded they are in communication with the Town on recently completed projects. We have been talking to them and giving them reports over the last two years. As far as working with them, have to refer to Johnny (M&N). o Mickey (USACE) added that even though Caswell Beach receives material through the Wilmington Harbor Project every six years, they may be interested in being a co - applicant. ■ Johnny (M&N) stated that they have not mentioned anything like that. It appears the material they get out of the Wilmington Harbor Project is enough to keep them whole. ■ Dawn (M&N) stated that there has been communication with CPE, consultant with Caswell Beach, regarding the results of shoreline monitoring and results of shoreline change analysis. Ongoing analysis needs to be done. • Heather (DCM): The Town probably wants to consider the rule change for beach management plans, and how it is applied to setbacks and requirements. Also, rule change for technical standards for beach fill projects. It allows for flexibility but puts more responsibility on engineers. o Johnny (M&N) stated we are doing more testing than required. No one wants to see unsuitable material on the beach. • Dawn (M&N) stated that the title name of this project can be confused with the beach management plan that is being developed as part of DCM's new setback guidance. We will work on making this clearer. Meeting adjured: 3:00 pm moffctt & nlchol TOWN OF OAK ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA �141 1. 11 I Ld Agenda • Overview of Oak Island Beach Management Plan (OIBMP) • Discussion of Borrow Area Sources • Regulatory Pathway • Agency Discussion — To Establish and Implement a Comprehensive, Long -Term, Non - Federal Beach and Inlet Management Program that will Restore and Maintain the Oceanfront Shoreline Of Oak Island. — Provide Shore Protection for Residential Structures, Infrastructure, and Recreational Assets; and Preserve the Local Tourism -Based Economy. — Consolidate the Shore Protection Planning and Management Activities of the Town Under a Unified, Regional Beach and Inlet Management Program. Historical Nourishment Placements to Date as 3 + + + + 227,31 ��Z1, p12130 3,+ c 1.27p 00I iY� � 1 I� cY 4,057 cY 7 vy �,,930 cY 12,803 cY _ 03 c Y Legend �► 20C1 Initial Construction New 44' Channel 2001 Sea Turtle Habitat restoration -0--0-2009 Lockwoods Folly River Crossing 2009 Wilmington Harbor Maintenance Dredging 2015 Lockwood Folly Habitat Restoration 2017118 Hurricane Matthew FEMA Emergency Dune 2018 Wilmington Harbor Maintenance Dredging ►2019AIWW Crossing 2021 AIWW Crossing and Widener ►2020121 Renourishment *--►2021122 Renourishment Aerial Imagery, NAIP 2016 0 6,000 12,000 Feet u. S ✓✓✓ 23,170 Cy 728 " 1 J / I y 5�0�000 l 1 f c 605,000 c 511,300 cy f • Background erosion and the increase in storm events has made most of the oceanfront vulnerable to damage Important to maintain a dune and berm to protect upland infrastructure A plan to maintain a Design LoP (10-yr or 25-yr Design Storm Event) meets engineered beach requirement by FEMA for a full reimbursement of storm volume losses I Level of Protection (LoP) and Advance Fill Placement • 300 ft of berm loss since the 2001 Turtle Project • OIBMP LoP and Advance Fill less than the 2001 Turtle Project 15 la 12 10 8 g w y 0 z 2 o 0 U. .q _10 .0 .24 Design LoP ZQOZ Turtle ., Pra ect Fill 300'�� 0 50 100 150 M 250 300 350 400 450 Soo wonce Gam easeune 00 -Existing Profile -----Design LoP {base fill} - - - Advance Fill ss0 (ICU bY] IOO 750 $W ------- 2001 Turtle Project A • Island Wide Reaches Current State of the Beach — oR Isaias Current State of the Beach — Post Isaias Current State of the Beach — Post Isaias PIT Post-isaias beach Protife Post -Current Projects Profile 4DMd(Nt kl6d C3�1� pr�Qo � o o Dune ■ 10' w (crest) x 601 W (base) x T" H Dune [grass a &�Ka aaq][� Ma)gw Ian: (90' seaward of Post -Isaias) Dune ■ 100 w (crest) x 501 W (bass) x 7' H Dune Beach Berlin = 50' W Grass M&W M)QgB aag]ab Wtq�P yang (140' seaward of Post -Isaias) Future Nourishment Project Profile • 6-yr Nourishment Interval Volume Need -1.3 Mcy (~217 kcy/yr) • 6-yr Nourishment Interval Volume Need -1.3 Mcy (~217 kcy/yr) Volume Change above -12 ft NAVD88 Less Nourishment Reach Length 2014 vs. 2015 2015 vs. 2016 2016 vs. 2017 2017 vs. 2018 2018 vs. 2019 2019 vs. 2020 2020 vs. 2021 Average Average Sub -Reach ft cy cy cy cy cy cy cy cy cy/ft Oak Island -East End 8,498 -6,684 13,950 -59,893 -61,371 -105,292 -14,171 -88,359 -45,975 -5.4 210+00-290+00 Oak Island -East 11,986 -53,084 42,905 -75,9D1 -35,216 -143,346 24,805 -55,980 -42,260 -3.5 304+00 - 41 D+QQ Oak Island -Central 9,109 -19,753 77,660 -78,960 41,771 -116,275 6,642 -25,094 -16,287 -1.8 424+00 - 5DD+QQ Oak Island -West 8,931 7,977 40,152 -96,586 1D,464 -92,487 -279 -5,771 -19,504 -2.2 51 Q+00 - 59D+QQ Oak Island -West End 8,481 -157,184 18,195 -125,628 -37,211 -172,155 -113,474 -64,800 -93,180 -11.0 600+00 - 68D+QQ Oak Island-Lockwoods Folly 2,152 NIA NIA -123,7D3 -54,633 87,674 2,D33 -66,672 -31,D6D -14.4 Inlet 685+00 - 700+QD Reach Length total total total total total total total Oak Island-Oceanfront47,005 -228,729 192,86D -436,968 -81,564 -629,554 -96,477 -24D,DD4 -217,2D5 -4_6 21 Q+QQ - 68068Q+GQ* Volume Change above -20 ft NAVD88 Less Nourishment Reach Length 2014 vs. 2015 2015 vs. 2016 2016 vs. 2017 2017 vs. 2018 2018 vs. 2019 2019 vs. 2020 2020 vs. 2021 Average Average Sub -Reach ft cy cy cy cy cy cy cy c c Ift Oak Island -East End 8,498 -43,200 46,650 -60,853 -8,D21 -90,Q24 -4D,767 -97,739 -41,994 -4.9 210+00-290+DD Oak Island -East 11,986 -92,332 73,301 -27,460 -2,215 -37,163 -31,332 -41,018 -22,6D3 -1.9 3DD+DD-41D+DD Oak Island -Central 9,109 -38,678 81,631 -37,607 2.1,551 -11,238 -13,6D6 -38,647 -5,227 -D_6 424+00 - 5DD+00 Oak Island -West 8,931 -16,500 14,094 -62,663 -8,740 30,465 15,823 -27,1 D8 -7,8D4 -D_9 51 Q+00 - 59D+00 Oak Island -West End 8,481 -21 D,469 54,1 D3 -116,371 -1 DD,529 -114,518 -54,D78 -115,820 -93,955 -11.1 604+00 - 68D+00 Oak Island-Lockwoods Folly 2,152 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Inlet 685+00 - 700+QD Reach Length total total total total total total total Toral Total Oak Island -Oceanfront 47,005 -4D1,179 269,778 -304,954 -97,954 -222,478 -123,959 -32D,333 -171,583 -3.7 21 D+DQ - 680+DD* • Current Estimated Sand Need for 50-yr = 30 Mcy (Background and Storms • Frying Pan Shoals Is Proposed As Main Source — Supplemented By Other Sources is Current Estimates of Available Sand In Frying Pan Shoals _ #W29 Mcy in State Waters and ow58 Mcy Federal Waters in Areas Studied to Date • Additional Field Investigations Ongoing • 20/21 and 21/22 Projects (25-yr Design LoP) — Sand Sources: Jay Bird Shoals and Central Reach — Volumes: 20/21 (729 Kcy), 21/22 (768 Kcy) = Total —1.5 Mcy • OIBMP First Nourishment Project and Maintenance (Advance Fill) — Sand Sources: Frying Pan Shoals/Jay Bird Shoals/ODMDS/Yellow Banks/Etc. — Initial Project Volume and Cost Estimate depends on timing after 21/22 project • Current Best Estimate: 1.65 Mcy @ $40.OM • FEMA Engineered Beach obtained after construction of the Initial Project — Maintenance Event Volume and Cost Estimate • 1.3 Mcy $31.9M (Estimated 6-yr Interval) • Annual Shoreline Mapping/Monitoring Program Cost of $100,000/year Engineering Cost Mob/Demob Volume (cy) Unit Rate ($/cy) Total Cost Initial Project 2/500/000 $6,500,000 1,650,000 $18.75 $39,950,000 Maintenance Events (6-yr Interval) 1,000,000 $6,500,000 1,3001000 $18.75 $31,900,000 *All Cost Estimates Above are in 2021 Dollars Session Law — 2021-180, Section 5.9.(a)(6) — $20 M Set Aside for Town of Oak Island —Direct Grant — 1/1 Cost Share Is Required —Funds Encumbered by June 30, 2023 • Analytical Anal — Digitize inlet throat and shoreline locations — Look for patterns to determine "safe corridor" — Cultural resources are a major constraint • Modeling — Field velocity studies of Lockwoods Folly Inlet for models — Test options to verify analytical results - Ongoing Potential Terminal Groin Options - If Needed t;ak Island 2 ON.. 1 Legend Static 680+00 600R Station 580+00 C 750ft -• Station 680+00 1000Ft Station 685+00 @ 500f1 Station 685+00 @ 750ft - Station 685+00 1000ft -- Station 700+00 cQ 1200ft D 2D0 400 S00 Fee[ 1 inch = 400 feet ctas: bnal Igor, NCC.PAsp 2027 Ccctiina4 System: SW. Ple— NA13K i2C 11: ur-y Performed bg TI CcQ ml Nslch 2321 Oak Isalnd Terminal Groin Options ❑rrnvn By: Brandon Grent Review BY: Da W: 5l1512D22 WMa Sce le: 1ADD Pa a of IhAq rnaffatt & nicho rn rr. u a N: ,.,f 4760 FeAl-of i-iame no. aulfe joo F.a' ,p MC 2760 549-7Bf-RE26 .mr.c�uR ifn.fiu'.�xvri Stage 1 Contract- $1.9M • Stage 2 Contract = $1.8M Total Allotted for Field Investigations to Date = $2.5M Stage 3 — TBD — Finalize Permitting — First Project Design, Bidding and Construction — FEMA Engineered Beach Documentation • Annual Monitoring Survey Contract = $100k • Field Investigations — Geophysical mapping and magnetometer • Available Data being utilized where available — Geotechnical vibracoring for sediment compatibility • November 2018 Eastern Channel, LFI, AIWW Bend widener • January -March 2019 OKI Borrow Area/Jay Bird Shoals/Frying Pan Shoals • Fall 2022 — Frying Pan Shoals Extension — Refining State and Federal Frying Pan Shoals with Additional Vibracores — Refining Old and New ODMDS with Additional Vibracores — Exploration of Wilmington Harbor Channel • Historical Sand Searches to Date RL ., :.�, .� � I .o '� • � „�qd r. w`.k� Jam•' �"��-f :-'�� . NO .• PARTIAL YES ' �' v " oF' �'::q`•r b'°N1L[ CM1POV R ;1 ` � Nr ••Y ... - "_ -1 .. •. L � mow! A S o .� v Y �� .. • � • „ PARTI, oYES cooA „ M f 000 y. „ + � I1 � Y 0.000 « w i = i' .. r r • i „ *Ew I n _ jj .. `�M N Y J I 1i j! r �_ Y �y 'r 1 '—'„ �'n �' i,~ •� u r 5' a • �rru aO,f•`rP � 1 " rr rv� , � • �! A,+. � i�•� r ` �� .. 8 ' . '16 7 22 S Sh � f 22 5 11 28 R 1 12_ 15 ■ ■ 22 ■ S 8 8 11 J12 -1 o Mcy .... 21 L f a ,� ■ ■ ■ ■ �$ 12,: 1 , 35 ■ ■ 20 1;1 7 1 7 22 ■ ■ ■ B l sa 15 1 23 'M -D C ARGE ZONE j, 13 q� 25 �s ote Z} 7 + 1 5 AT _! 7 37 7 ■ 5 35 2 ■ ■ ■ 8 38 r 32�-- .� our Mile Slue such -3.1 Mc7 9 36 7m 40 _ 13 F Legend ■ Existing Vibracores 39 16 ■ FPS_ Add_3fibracores_State 13 13 ■ ■ ■ FPS_ State_ Expand_ Survey _ ■ FPS_Add_;lbracares_Fed 34 FPS_Fed_Expand_Survey ti15 vw msr,cw mvrlaw rrsrvw msevaw �r��o-v. -0.7 Mcy 41 r� far J_ 46 ,l r Legend • ODMDS_vibracores_add � • Existing Vibracores Dump Site dal) to 041 jo -1.0 Mcy Legend • ODMDS vibracores ]add • Existing Vibraccres R a I 21a5.P00 2,252,000 2,259,000 Z.m.000 Yellow Banks 1: 5 Vibracores, 79U' Spacing L`h Yellow Banks 2: 5 Vibracores. 375' Spacing Yellow Banks 4: 5 Vibracores, 500' Spacing Yellow Banks 5: 5 Vibracores, 400' Spacing • Proposed Vjbracores - Zone 1 Yellow Banks 3 0 Yellow Banks 1 i_i Yellow Banks 4 Yellow Banks 2 Q Yellow Banks 5 ll 0 1,000 2,000 4,1306 a Feet n uoo 2a30,0o 2,232,000 z.zs-,00c 2.23s,000 2�2HMO 1 � r r 6 ° ° O 6 �� e r '^ a ALR ADY� ' OLLE i Breakers o . .............. . ........._ ... . :+ . ,Breakers OLREGS 192 ICJ W1 - 0 WHIS 31 222a-WO 2 230 0o 0 2 232 000 Z231➢oe 2 23-9 000 22m coo rme °ems _. 's,,.,* • Sheep Island: 5 Vibracores, 350' Spacing V d`hm AIWW Crossing: 9 Vibracores, 500' Spacing V « c Lockwoods Folly Inlet: 9 Vibracores, 1000' Spacing Eastern Channel: 10 Vibracores, 500' Spacing Proposed Vibracores - Zone I Lo k—ds Folly Inlet Sheep Island Q Eastern Channel ZI AJWW Crossing & Bend Widener 1: 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet • Additional "Delta" Projects/SMP/Outer Reaches [Wilmington Harbor Snow'S MOTSU Marsh Boundary � Brunswick County- Upper Harbor Re ewer Fourth Horsoslide 1 f� Brunswlck - hoal 'Regsyes Mid R Wier-F190Ches pper Lawei intPPe U r 9 Brunswick Midnight IJ g Upper Midnight Lovrer Upper Keg Island LiM ul Lilfipu� [eland Lower Big d Island MOTSU Buffer Pans New Hanovier County Carviina�B�acli `�"` : Map Map Dme $Wemter 7, 207 Map g�aoo7-a>3. .5a figure 2. Wilmington Harbor Navigation Location 0 � � 4 Project- Channel nomenclature provided - NEas n6or Mrles Island Old ODIVIDS (No longer used Outer Bar Oak Island Channel Inner Bar New eol~noS Channel �5711 sla (Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site}FlAnge 3 Range 2 ----------—---.... Southport Boldhead Bhoal Ranges 1,2, 3 3 Range 1 Smith Baidh) Island Caswell ri Bald Head rsrand Map DSIC Septefter 7. 2007 reap R sawgis•2o97.094 -- o1 2 NirlgS 10 A TLANTIC OCEAN �owur Brunswick County V MOTSU Btruiidary Marsh Mid River Reaches Hor s esti oc ShOdl RBdv�S ' Paint owcr Upi,,,_ Midnight ;Siidnight t{ _. USACE "Delta" Project L • t rG� '._ _If BEACH ETS ARCHAEOLOGICAL 4 RESTRICTED AREA eft SEE NOTE 2 _ (� SMI H ISLAND CHANNEL pq 11 E SEE SHEET CB1D1 APPROX. LpCATION pF �ti UNDERWATER ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION CABLES AND t WATER SUPPLY LINE, SEE NOTE 1 } !�u x• SMITH ISLAND CHANNEL OPTION SEE SHEET CB101 del SHOAL CHANNEL 3E}SEE SHEET CB102 Sl I, ti �D i • Wilmington Harbor Channels rr AN x ■y� - r IL -- s J Y• II f a1 1 1 •Im ", " L• rl MI Y1'rY•LJ fi 1 i! t �fJ�r '- -N.. FAlr i A4 .Y 54 �r N a � � r r' Jq +f V� Y x4 44 �1■ - ++�� uY+ 4 i R.. d •i Rift y Ev Id ,u +4� + yy JT 1 •YII r � qp Not, {' VA ir � rnlf � Ii I r"nurLA-4 r,i awcwr r I a ----- -IZ31 H it 1. 6 w i w 11 61 9 0Q G "ry AT L A N TIC 0 C E A N"O° r�'Po '�•ov �ay.vv y y.'. No�p■ r�•� -.. WR.MINUTpN tUW80H NAVIGATION PROJECT h..oa BW�HEAD 3HCAL CHANNEL • [NEW ALIGNMENTI a,o vo ❑DEAN CRECGEO 'rsve MATERIAL DISPLQ9AL y� SITE SGVM0.5'• l)O�Cp rb.Po mrr"I. 'MLMINGTON OFFSHORE Fl:,HEFI "t°■-°� ENHANCEMSNf STRICTURE (WpFES] arv, Po J60-ov 1 w 0 1 MU • Lockwoods Folly Inlet and AIWW Crossing Twomt I? Goy Yanilent 77 ��r-ter--- .--• -. • �: i wrr x°.a Haldan beach Uak fend Look -pods Foky In1@e I min eMe.r.. • ODMDS Management — Better Partitioning for Beach Compatible Material If Placed r �_r� � y �wnM� u 'fig Far s' k•': i � � �+ Y' ., ' �� i — _ . „�•' fiat ,� , � awr 're. _ � " ,. " CAPE!F'EAR --" b r iu Lat 33° 4[i.010' N Lat 33° 46.010' N y " Long. 78° 0.98S W �� • , " "' Long. 78° 2A83. W=, r ` Lat 33° 41.011' N a Long. 78° 0.983' W ' ODMDS �a• New Wil minlge Lat 33' 41.011' N VICInITy. glon OQMQS Long. 78° 3.983' W ' C°eremalaa are iaoaac rlm NAQai w F ^' c°eMlnatea. Con. Ir NAo 2] •• perms crN 2za.7s IFpA oeelgnauonl. " saceW..—NO—t_. less Nap Date! ma" 'f, 2p12 41 -' ¢ ` I • I' Nap / 5aln,evgle-2�12-012-05 Ilr, ❑ 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles rL III P-A .. 1 �40o. x 4} g r. C. Y�lr Mel'+^' a w 111j.4.I • ,.,- p 1 tti w, ,1 'y�jj'riv r Ilf , �! in .1 urh a dp r .. J,�7M' •a 1 R A Y � 4e r} I ' 411 i ryr .+Arks Y� dilla ' a •j. I. N nyyf,eyyF y I n s.,w FAa .l.nr. rf 4,11 W'r'LC�f , { }!j N !YP 4 f • 9 su 1'' +fie wrny l6JdT r iT +- Id IN { j° , a I + F � rt I • r . r i' __+' 1 • Wintering piping plover critical habitat • Reproductive critical habitat and nesting habitat for sea turtles is Spawning and migratory transport routes and habitats within FPS and the Cape Fear Inlet 0 Sediment compatibility • Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 — Federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat. • Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 — Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS to ensure that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize incorporate Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) conservation into the planning process. • Introduction- includes information about the process — Purpose of NEPA — Roles and Responsibilities of agencies — NEPA process overview — Public Scoping — Federal and State Laws and Regulations Overview • Purpose and Need of proposed action — Past Management Actions — Town's Capabilities and Capacities in Implementing a Long -Term Maintenance Plan • Project Alternatives — No Action — Relocation and Abandonment — Nourishment Only — Nourishment and Non -Structural Management — Nourishment and Structural Management • Affected Environment — Environmental Setting • Physical- oceanographic processes, seafloor geomorphology, etc. • Biological- marine habitats (hard bottom and reef, water column habitat, beach and dune, etc.), protected species, etc. • Socioeconomic- cultural resources, fisheries, land use, scenic resources, etc. • Environmental Consequences • Minimization Measures M � Marine Mammals North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis NMFS Endangered Occurs in Area Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus NMFS Endangered None designated Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis NMFS Endangered None designated Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus NMFS Endangered None designated Sperm Whale Physetermacrocephalus NMFS Endangered None designated West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus USFWS Endangered Not present Sea turtles Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea NMFS, USFWS Endangered Not present Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta NMFS, USFWS Threatened Occurs in area Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas NMFS, USFWS Threatened Not present Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata NMFS, USFWS Endangered Not present Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii NMFS, USFWS Endangered Not present Fish and Elasmobranchs Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus NMFS Endangered Occurs in area Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brewrostrum NMFS Endangered None designated Oceanic white tip Carcharhinus longimanus NMFS Threatened None designated Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini NMFS Threatened None designated Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata NMFS Endangered Not present Giant Manta Ray Manta birostris NMFS Threatened None designated Birds Piping plover Charadrius melodus USFWS Threatened Occurs in area Red knot Calidris canutus rufa USFWS Threatened Not present Wood stork Mycteria americana USFWS Threatened None designated Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii USFWS Endangered None designated Plants Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus USFWS Threatened None designated — Frying Pan Shoals is designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). — Designated as a HAPC for shrimp, snapper -grouper complex, and coastal migratory pelagic species by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Prey Species Noise Water Quality Habitat Vessel Disturbance Collision Entrainment Map 16. Strategic Habitat Area (SHA) nominations #10—Frying Pan Shoal and parts of #11— Bald Head Island. ��F� Pfl k / a 5 -B ghQal 11� QG I ''Mv M '35 29 2. �� I 2x 2TL- 58_�p ❑R12r'2'P i23 Bad'\ d B Head 39 2G.� ag 5 /s�ana. ., y 69,86 -_ 9fl%aK I a� � V1, 27-z n xs / 25 1 � � r•B, � -i / N, PN r 90 � ssr �\ l' xe(' sn•q� zl zo • CAPEsFEA�i 39 99 - G -1 35 F,G2. t iIB MI5 )S' _ 42 3 qB 333333�222222,111111� al z4 n�i ire 1Va 6136 CsP pebliA�r zz �\ / i as SFn a ! e 36138�"♦sh • � `y B a 11 ?_� / I 91 � c3 r+G% i i1,S nmr E5 r7 'L 5 I[ t9 618fi f ssn oa �� dv ez,i e r T u 618742 �' +s 61$8 I za:cnarter�on•e _�s 2, 6] Cf• b I99 - - 4 -- -� I 15 ffN, �Nd I'ilW tloarain9Ale9 WN^� 1 . 61i - � '. u t Four M�la slue � W Si 51a 9n 9 t 9e 9M M rc<e 6j al 9e 1 l sr � I an E a 6236 g�,3 T 1' ai q, 16238 14 2 a � 6202 � ,B I6203 I _ 11J I s s ai k _ 1J w s� Legend 0 Frying Pan Shoals: State 6286 ` i0 —6252 6253, 1 Q Frying Pan Shoals: Federal 9s 143 u r 0 Old ODMDS 4 P New ODMDS 0 3,500 7,000 14,0 00 Feet �1 Iff Spiny Lobster Panukrus argus ALL Slipper Lobster Scygurides -difer ALL Brown shrimp Farfimrepenaeus artaua Larvae/Eggs/Adult Pink Shrimp Farfantepenaeus dunnn rrrr Larvae/Eggs/Adult White Shrimp Lrtopenoues setIll Larvae/Epgs/Adult Bluefish efish� Pomatomus sahatrix Larvae/Eggs/Adultlluven ile Sum mar Flounder parakRhthys dentotus Adult/Juvenile Atlantic Butterfish PeprNus frlswnthus Larvae/Juvenile/Adult Coostof Pelogics ......... ................. Spanish Mackerel SmMberamarus nmcukatus ALL King Mackerel Scam6eromorus mvolla ALL Cobia Rachycentran conodum ALL Snapper -Grouper Snapper- Grouper ALL Management Unit Highly Migratory Species Spinner Shark Car,charhinus brevipinna Juvenile/Adult Neonate Atlantle Sait lsh Istiaphorus plutypterus Adult Sandbar Shark Corrhorhm. pkumbeus Adultluvenile Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Sphyma lewini Jwenile/Adult Tiger Shark Gakeocerdo cuvier Juvenile/Adult/Neonate Blacktip Shark Corchorhinus limborus Juvenile/Adult Bloc knose Shark Carcharhinus acronotus Juvenile/Adult Smoothhound Shark Mustelus cnnls ALL Adantle Sharpnose Shark F(hlroprionadan terraenovac Juvenile/Adult Neonate Bonnethead Shark Sphyrrra thhura 1u nilelAdult Sand Tiger Shark Carcharias tau rus Neonate/luyenile Adult Clearnose Skate Raja eglanterla Juvenile Wmdowoane Hounder Scophtholmus oquosus Juvenile • PNAs are designated as HAPC for shrimp, red drum, coastal migratory pelagics, and estuarine dependent species of the snapper - grouper complex. • PNAs in the vicinity of the area are primarily located west of the Lockwoods Folly River Inlet in small tidal creeks, in portions of the AIWW and the Davis Canal • Potential indirect effects on estuarine marshes and PNAs -" - LMW.MQoda Folly PJ _ f 3lWlot0e CrWk (LHtle BhallolY Rlver) IF � �i LAclnwad Foly Rher ,-z�,, 1. A10901C i. ....,:-A10511 - Oak 11Wrd AM - apdng Cnkak (CadlowyFlNNaej J �� Ev - .015110 .O,W 70a owa raeakc Dews trealc end barb Cend i a I I I 77 - 78 - 79 1 sd I Thk-1w.-1. J' ed by de Gw�agic lMonrmaon Syam+na (GS) pmpan. Infvnra�d dem aad 10 cam ll� a� wau.dadad Ron Ilfl I.dasl, gl0.mWaa[tlw DuetW K a�am D�a.oarwa, msaoo �.. aw�wa� aua ia 1p 1ta0aV+a DUTDw. waY. 4awy � .nwtt ay.4 mbar ll�uW am.aOa auD,Pm-0rla diarokl 122 I 123 ! ti{ a� m �.aam aaYaaaai.mt.. uarrouclmala+w iurswor or 11wW Cemraab�tdab suYaDlum tabuwm:wbn u.ds lwu �moa vy:r etioa mm.�edkvearmn, webnsaarm �v ahek tl1a Bah ba 1161a kr ay W1ar <uugiencec aqn rW auDh+alenla e.4-"raw. u.a owogoa mar ry nano-te.Raa.n p sow eaanmY Fishery Nursery Areas u,a A.kar;u[ aw. n... + ulp qt: u�ap+, �'"`P rk:m nno nxne.uf.reimicliarwl Map29 • Third Party Agreement — September/October 2022 • Field Investigations — November 2022 • Draft Engineering Report — January 2023 • Public Scoping Meeting — February 2023 • Draft NEPA Document Submittal — Summer 2023 Final Comments/Next SteDs/Adiourn