20120288 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20120515

10
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 28403 1343
May 11 2012
Regulatory Division
Action ID No SAW 2009 01242
Mr Calvin Peck
Village of Bald Head Island
Post Office Box 3009
Bald Head Island North Carolina 28461 7000
Dear Mr Peck
� - o a 4�
1
b rtu . W
Reference our March 14 2012 Public Notice describing the proposal by the Village of Bald
Head Island to construct a shore protection project, including a terminal groin on Bald Head
Island adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear River Brunswick County, North Carolina
After review of your proposal we have received comments from the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries (letter dated April 9, 2012) the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (letter dated March 21 2012) the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(letter dated March 29 2012) and the North Carolina Coastal Federation (letter dated April 12
2012) Copies of all these letters are enclosed and have been previously provided to you by
email These comments and recommendations are due to anticipated adverse environmental
impacts associated with your protect
Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to respond to the resource agency
comments before we make a final permit decision In this regard please review the comments
and recommendations and submit your written response to us on or before June 7t' 2012
P MAY, 207 '

2
If you have questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me at telephone (910)
251 4634
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure)
Mr Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms Karen Higgins
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1650
Mr Ronald J Mikulak Chief
Wetlands Section Region IV
Water Management Division
U S Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta Georgia 30303
Mr Pete Benjamin
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 3726
Sincerely
Dave Timpy Protect Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Mr Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island
Beaufort North Carolina 28516
Ms Rennee Gledhill Earley
North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699
Ms Anne Deaton
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington North Carolina 28405
Ms Jessi Baker
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington North Carolina 28405
t

3
Ms Deborah Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington North Carolina 28405
Molly Ellwood
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission Habitat Conservation Program
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington North Carolina 28405
Christian Preziosi
Land Management Group Inc
Post Office Box 2522
Wilmington North Carolina 28402

RECEIVED
MAY 01 2012
e ®p�
PG WILM FLO OFC
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr Louis B Daniel III Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO Dave Timpy Project Manager Wilmington USACE Regulatory Field Office
THROUGH Anne Deaton DMF Habitat Section Chief
FROM Jessi Baker DMF Habitat Alteration Permit Reviewer
SUBJECT Village of Bald Head Island Terminal Groin Draft EIS Scoping
DATE Apr119 2012
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submits the following comments pursuant to
General Statute 113 131 Representatives from DMF attended an agency scoping meeting in
Wilmington NC for the Village of Bald Head Island (VBHI) terminal groin on March 28 2012 DMF has
reviewed the Corps of Engineers Public Notice and the Bald Head Island Terminal Groin Work Plan for
installing a terminal groin The VBHI proposes to install a terminal groin with supplemental beach
nourishment at the west end of South Beach (or The Point ) at the southernmost extent of the existing
sand bag groin field
The 2010 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) summarizes the latest scientific information available
to assess the status and threats to marine fish habitats The CHPP process brings state regulatory
agencies together to implement the recommendations from the CHPP The CHPP states that research is
needed to determine when and where recruitment to adult fish stocks is limited by larval ingress to
estuarine nursery habitats The CHPP also states that the long term consequences of hardened
structures on larval transport and recruitment should also be thoroughly assessed prior to approval of
such structures DMF has concerns that terminal groins will alter larval transport and impact important
fish habitats through altered beach and nearshore sediment and profile
Impacts to Larval Transport
Terminal groins can potentially interfere with the passage of larvae and early juveniles from offshore
spawning grounds into estuarine nursery areas Successful transport of larvae through the inlet occurs
within a narrow zone parallel to the shoreline and is highly dependent on along shore transport
processes (Blanton et al 1999 Churchill et al 1999 Hare et al 1999) Obstacles such as betties adjacent
to inlets block the natural passage for larvae into inlets and reduce recruitment success (Kapolnai et at
1996 Churchill et at 1997 Blanton et al 1999) (from 2010 CHPP)
DMF requests a detailed scientific field investigation analysis and modelling of larval transport
dynamics that exist around Bald Head Island This information should be used to model estimated
impacts of the groin to larval ingress and egress through the inlet

f
RECEIVED
MAY 01 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and NataakqW%lbcea.,
Division of Marine Fisheries
Impacts to Fish Habitat
DMF has significant concerns about the use of hardened shoreline stabilization techniques along high
energy ocean shorelines due to accelerated erosion in some location along the shore as a result of the
longshore sediment transport being altered These structures may also modify sediment grain size
increase turbidity in the surf zone narrow and steepen beaches and result in reduced intertidal habitat
and diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates Anchoring inlets may also prevent shoal formation
and diminish ebb tidal deltas which are important foraging grounds for many fish species (Deaton et al
2010) Changes to the surf zone or inlet could affect species that depend on these areas for nursery
spawning or foraging
DMF requests a field investigation of the current distribution of larval and juvenile fishes in the vicinity
of the inlet and the proposed groin location These data can identify the most highly utilized habitat
areas as well as serve as baseline data to compare to larval and Juvenile fish monitoring data that should
be collected after groin construction
Due to the potential for altered sediment grain size beach profile and intertidal habitat due to the
influence of a groin DMF requests benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring within the impact area of the
proposed groins
Based on these concerns DMF also requests detailed discussions of the following be included in the EIS
• All Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)and state protected habitats that occurs in this area
• All fish habitats outlined in the most recent NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) that occur
in the area
• Characterization of and potential impacts to fish and invertebrate community composition and
abundance in the inlet and adjacent surf zone at Bald Head Island
• Compilation of relevant research regarding larval transport through inlets especially inlets with
hardened structures
• Potential impacts to the benthos of the surf /swash zone and nearshore areas and a detailed
plan to monitor for impacts within the impact area of the proposed groins
• Potential impacts to commercial or recreational fishing including any indirect economic impacts
due to adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat
• Potential direct impacts from dredging beach placement and nearshore placement of sand and
how those impacts will be minimized
• Potential impacts on regional sand budgets
If the USACE would like assistance in locating information regarding the above topics or has any other
questions please contact Jessi Baker at [phone] or lessi bakerCeDncdenr eov
T rr

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos Administrator
Beverly Eaves Pe due Govemo
Linda A Carlisle Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow Deputy Secretary
March 29 2012
Dave Timpy
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403
ecE�vED
MAR 3 0 2012
G,FG WIIM FLD OFC
Office of Archives and History
D vision of Histoncal Resources
Dav d Brook, Directo
Re Construction of a Terminal Groin at the Juncture of Bald Head Island and the Entrance to the Cape
Fear River SAW 2012 00040 Brunswick County ER 12 0437
Dear Mr Timpy
We have reviewed the above public notice concerning proposed plans to construct a terminal groin at the
juncture of Bald Head Island and the entrance to the Cape Fear River Your agency and the applicant should be
aware that the Office of State Archaeology underwater research files have references to extensive maritime
activities and shipwreck losses in the general project vicinity therefore much of the project area holds a high
potential for containing submerged cultural resources Three known shipwrecks (La Rosa de Bilbao 1804 Ella
1864 USS Violet 1864) and two probable shipwrecks are located within less than one mile of the proposed
groin
While no known archaeological sites are within the project boundaries the project area has never been
systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of submerged cultural resources As the
project creates a bottom disturbance that may damage unknown elements of our underwater cultural heritage
we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the
presence and significance of submerged archaeological remains lying within the project boundaries Potential
effects on these resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at http / /ww,.v archaeology ncdcr go-,,/ nc lrch /resource /consultints htm The
archaeologists listed or any other experienced archaeologist may be contacted to conduct the recommended
investigation
These comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 North
Carolina legislation (G S 121 22 to 28 Article 3) and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (P L 100 298)
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures
Locat on 109 E t J n St t Rai igh NC 27601 M 1 ng Addre s 4617 Mail S ry Cent Ral gh NC 27699 4617 T I ph n /Fax [phone] 6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the above comment
please contact Renee Gledhill Earley environmental review coordinator at 919 807 6579 In all future
communication concerning this project please cite the above referenced ER tracking number
Sincerely
6��, Ramona M Bartos
cc Calvin Peck, Village of Bald Head Island
Eric Olsen Olsen Associates Inc
4..4ECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2012
REG "I.M ng. 9M

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild P E Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
March 21 2012
DWQ Project # I2 0288
Brunswick County
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Village of Bald Head Island
Calvin Peck
PO Box 3009
Bald Head Island North Carolina 28461 7000
Subject Property Village of Bald head Island — Terminal Groin Structure
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr Peck
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 2012
R6®i WI6M 112691 OFG
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received a Public Notice issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers on March 15 2012 An Individual 404 Permit will be required for this project (SAW 2012
00040) Please note that the following must be received prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification
Additional Information Requested
I The 401 Certification cannot be processed until five (5) complete sets of the application and
associated maps are received at the DWQ Central Office in Raleigh along with the appropriate
fee
Any large scale maps that are provided also need to include a copy of the site plans on a cd One
(1) data CD of full size plans in TIFF Group 4 format (black and white not grayscale or color) If
the plans are too large to store in TIFF format they can be stored in PDF If you have questions
pertaining to this please call Bev Strickland at [phone]
2 Application Fee The fee for applications is now $240 for projects impacting less than an acre of
wetland and less than 150 linear feet of streams (whether intermittent or perennial) For projects
nnpactiiig one or iiiore acres of wetland or 150 lineai feet of btreains lwhelihei interailitteiit ur
perennial) the fee is $570
Until the information requested in this letter is provided I will request (by copy of this letter) that the
Corps of Engineers place this project on hold Also this project will be placed on hold for our processing
due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H 0507(a))
Wetlands Buffers Stormwater Compliance and Permitting unit (WBSCP)
1650 Mali Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 276991650
Location 512 N Salisbury Street Floor 9 Raleigh North Carolina 27604 1170
Phone [phone] /Fax Q1 807 6494
Internet www ncwaterquality org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarollina
Nawrally

Thank you for your attention If you have any questions please contact me in our Central Office in Raleigh
at [phone] or Ian McMillan at [phone]
Sinc
, /I /I / ///
4aren A Higgins, Supervisor
etlands Buffers Stormwater Compliance
and Permitting Unit (Webscape)
KAH/Ijd
cc USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Olsen Associates Inc Erik J Olsen 2618 Herschel St Jacksonville FL 32204
File Copy
Filename 120288VBHITermmalGromS tructure(Brunswick)_Hold_ IP_NeedSets_Fee

RECEIVED
North Carolina Coastal Federation
APR 16 2812
C,TIZEN3 WJ4KIN6 TOGETHER i 0k A HFALIM WASH rw@, OM
Ce(edratincg 30 Years of CoastaCConservation
1982 2012
April 12 2012
Dave Timpy
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403 -1343
Re Village of Bald Head Island Terminal Groan Scoping Comments Corps Action
ID# SAW - 2012 -00040
Dear Mr Timpy
Please accept these comments regarding the needed scope of the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared to evaluate a possible terminal groin at the
Village of Bald Head Island to address the erosion at the western end of South Beach
These comments are based upon the federation s experience with beach and inlet
management in North Carolina and participation in the development of numerous
environmental reviews for beach and inlet management projects In addition our direct
participation in the development of terminal groin legislation in North Carolina during
2011 (NC General Assembly Senate Bill 110) as well as at the scoping meeting held by
the Corps on March 8 2012 allow us to provide some insights into issues that need to
be thoroughly vetted by this environmental analysis
To provide adequate and useful information to federal and state agencies to make
permit decisions regarding this proposed project the federal EIS that is ultimately
prepared for this project must address and resolve significant regulatory requirements
that are specified in the terminal groin law enacted in 2011 by the North Carolina
General Assembly This law is being incorporated into the federally approved coastal
plan for North Carolina and therefore there is an obligation by all federal agencies to
act in a manner consistent with the state s plan as mandated by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972
Fortunately the Council of Environmental Quality s (CEQ) guidelines call for detailed
descriptions of proposed altematives as well as for a thorough explanation of their
refection (CFR 40 § 150214(a -f)) This is further supported by the NCGS § 113AA that
defines the information the state agency needs to include in an EIS to satisfy state
environmental review requirements Similarly the NCGS § 113 A —115 1 (e)(1) requires
the applicant for the permit to submit information to demonstrate that non structural
approaches to erosion control including relocation of threatened structures are
1

impractical Under state law no permit for a terminal groin can be issued if
nonstructural alternatives are practical and will achieve the projects purpose
The applicants stated purpose of the project is to implement an erosion control and
beach/dune restoration that will provide long -term protection to residential structures
and Town infrastructure along the western end of South Beach The applicant also
states the project would be expected to complement existing island wide nourishment
activities and is expected to protect town infrastructure roads homes beaches
protective dunes and wildlife habitat
The project description is troublesome in that the applicant clearly states its preferred
alternative before any alternatives have been thoroughly investigated and discussed
during the formal EIS process It would seem reasonable to limit the project s purpose
as stated in the public notice and vet all alternatives prior to selection of the preferred
alternative by the applicant The description of the project purpose in the Corps public
notice dated March 14 2012 would provide that overall general purpose of the applicant
but it instead takes the leap from that stated purpose to the specific altematve of a
terminal groin which would seem to prejudice the project s stated purpose from the
beginning
Clearly other alternatives must be evaluated and non - structural alternatives may be
much more practical once the total benefits and costs of this project are more fully
understood Other communities have selected to pursue non - structural alternatives to
achieve similar project purposes For example the Town of North Topsail Beach has
chosen the option of inlet channel relocation over the one of building a terminal groin
Similar inlet channel relocation projects have been permitted in the past at both Mason
and Bogue Inlets
In addition the applicant also needs to provide detailed information necessary to
demonstrate that structures or infrastructures are imminently threatened by erosion
[NCGS § 113 A --1151 (e)(1))] According to 15A NCAC 07H 0308 imminently
threatened structures are defined as those which foundation septic system or nght -of-
way in the case of roads is less than 20 feet away from the erosion scarp The actual
number and location of structures that qualify as imminently threatened based upon
the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission need to be identified
In relation to the latter it is paramount forthe applicant to demonstrate that the
construction and maintenance of the terminal groin will not result in significant adverse
impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach [NCGS § 113 A — 115 1
(f)(4)] In order to comply with this requirement the applicant needs to identify what
constitutes a significant negative impact that must be mitigated as well as what
boundaries (and specifically why certain boundaries are chosen over others) the
applicant is considering when demonstrating lack of significant adverse impacts
NCGS § 113 A — 115 1 (f)(5) also requires the post - project monitoring and necessary
mitigation To comply with this the project application must show one crucial component
2

- the definition of thresholds This definition will serve the dual purpose serve as a
baseline for determining mitigation of any future adverse impacts and serve as a
baseline for future monitoring Shifting baselines a widely accepted term among
scientific community is used to describe ways in which significant changes in a system
are measured against previous reference points or baselines Failure to identify correct
baseline can significantly affect future assessment of not only monitoring of natural
systems but also of mitigation of the adverse impacts to the natural system and private
property as well
The federation suggests that the thresholds be determined based upon the predictions
of future shoreline and inlet configurations that are associated with each individual
project alternative identified in the EIS In order to demonstrate that non structural
alternatives are impractical the EIS must clearly rp ove that a terminal groin will result in
more beneficial shoreline and inlet configurations that cost - effectively accomplish the
rp oiect Purposes This means the terminal groin alternative must then deliver on what
the applican t romises since any future shoreline and inlet configurations that could
have been achieved with a non - structural alternative constitute unacceptable
Performance by the terminal groin Therefore the thresholds for mitigation of
unacceptable impacts caused by the preferred alternative are any actual beach and
inlet configurations that could have been achieved by using a non - structural alternative
or no action
In evaluating the costs and benefits of various project alternatives the applicant should
represent scenarios that include the effects of storms on the project area The applicant
should compare the effects of storms on the project area with a terminal groin with non-
structural alternatives and with no action If the applicant is unable to account for the
effects of storms in predicting and comparing project benefits and costs among various
alternatives then the state law will make the applicant liable for future damages that
result from storms once the terminal groin is constructed In other words if the EIS
indicates that the terminal groin will protect property and property -- supposedly
protected is later lost during a storm- -that constitutes a project failure unless those
losses are not accounted for upfront in the analysis of alternatives
According to National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration and the U S Geological
Service recent data show that the coast of North Carolina will likely be affected by more
than 60 hurricanes in a 100 -year period it is therefore reasonable to assume that the
proposed project will be affected by at least one mayor storm with catastrophic
consequences over its projected lifetime (which in the case of terminal groins is 30
years) The CEQ defines those impacts which have catastrophic consequences even if
their probability of occurrence is low' as reasonably foreseeable (CFR 40 §
1502 22(b)(4) and hence requires to the applicant to include them in the EIS
Therefore the applicant should account for the impacts of storms when drafting the EIS
for the proposed project
State law requires that the applicant for a terminal groin submit proof of financial
assurance (bond escrow account or other financial instrument) that can cover the costs
3

of monitoring and maintenance implementation of mitigation measures and modification
and /or removal of the structure as well as of restoration of Rg= and na vats property
negatively affected by the structure These exact costs of this bond insurance policy or
escrow account need to be determined so they can be factored into the cost/benefit
analysis that is done as part of the alternatives analysis Additional project costs that
need to be determined include the increased commitment to beach nourishment near
the inlet as well as inlet management costs and how the proposed terminal groin will
affect the inlet as well as the inlet inner beaches and estuarine ecosystems Also the
EIS should detail the costs of preparing the EIS obtaining permits and expected legal
proceedings since any permitting around this issue is likely to be challenged through the
courts These total costs of the project are necessary to fully evaluate project
alternatives and especially to determine if the terminal groin option is practical feasible
and cost- effective
Below is a list of other information and issues that the EIS should address
• The CRC terminal groin report dated March 1 2010 recommended strategies
other than hardened structures to protect beaches and manage inlets should
always be considered first To comply with state policy investigating non-
structural alternatives should be the main objective of this analysis not
rationalizing the construction of a terminal groin Non - structural approaches to
erosion control include inlet channel relocation beach nourishment relocation of
structures and relocation of power water and sewer infrastructure in a manner
and location to protect such infrastructure and public health and safety
• Jurisdictional 404 wetlands throughout the project area must be identified and
mapped This area includes both sides of the inlet Any impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands need to be evaluated and compliance with avoidance minimization
and mitigation requirements explained for each project alternative
• Critical habitat' as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be
mapped on both sides of the inlet The effects of the project alternatives need to
be evaluated on this habitat There now seems to be a general agreement by
some regulators and agencies that some protected species such as the federally
listed endangered Piping Plover can adapt to changes in its required habitat and
find new places to live" are troublesome to say the least Critical habitats must
be identified and protected as much as reasonably possible due to any impacts
of proposed beach erosion measures
• Structures or infrastructures that are imminently threatened by erosion as
defined by 15A NCAC 07H 0308 need to be identified and mapped Imminently
threatened structures are defined as those which foundation septic system or
right -of -way in the case of roads is less than 20 -feet away from the erosion
scarp
• A plan for construction and maintenance of the proposed terminal groin and its
accompanying beach fill project that is prepared by a professional engineer
licensed to practice in North Carolina must be provided as part of the terminal
groin option (NCGS § 113 A —115 1(e)(4))
4

• A plan for the management of the inlet and the estuarine and ocean shorelines
immediately adjacent to and under the influence of the inlet must be provided
The inlet management plan shall do all of the following relative to the terminal
groin alternative and its accompanying beach fill project (NCGS § 113 A — 115 1
(e)(5))
• Describe the post - construction activities that the applicant will undertake
to monitor the impacts on coastal resources
• Define the baseline for assessing any adverse impacts and the thresholds
for when the adverse impacts must be mitigated (These thresholds
should correlate with the various alternatives evaluated by the EIS and
any performance of the terminal groin alternative that could have been
achieved by a non - structural alternative should be identified as an
adverse impact,")
• Identify mitigation measures to be implemented if adverse impacts reach
the thresholds defined above and state the costs of these mitigation
measures
• Provide for modification or removal of the terminal groin if the adverse
impacts cannot be mitigated and the costs for these modifications and
removal
• Under each possible project alternative identify those property owners and local
governments on both sides of the inlet that may be affected
• Identify funding sources necessary to fund the terminal groin and beach fill
alternative (including the costs of developing this EIS and obtaining permits) over
its design life given that no state funds are available for these projects and local
funds spent on these projects by a local government need voter approval No
permits for Terminal groins can be issued in North Carolina where funds are
generated from any of the following financing mechanisms and would be used for
any activity related to the terminal g=orLts accompanying beach fill ro ect
(NCGS § 113 A — 115 1 (h))
• Special obligation bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 1591 of the General
Statutes
• Nonvoted general obligation bonds issued pursuant to G S 1590148
• Financing contracts entered into under G S 160A -20 or G S 159 -148
• The applicant must provide cost estimates for the required financial assurances
specified by state law for a terminal groin project These assurances must be in
the form of a bond insurance policy escrow account or other financial
instrument that is adequate to cover the cost of
• Removal of the terminal groin and restoration of the beach if it is
determined by an independent third party that the groin has an adverse
impact on the environment or on other properties and
• Removal of the terminal groin and restoration of the beach if it is
determined that the groin has an adverse impact on the environment or on
other properties and on the federal navigation channel and
• Long -term maintenance of the terminal groin including the cost of any
required mitigation measures and compliance with all conditions of the
permit and variance
E

• Detailed information about storm impact and effects upon the terminal groin and
also on the inlet dynamics and morphology the beach profile sand resources
residential structures private property adjacent properties and the natural
resources and environment of the permit area due to the placement of the
terminal groin
• Detailed information and modeling on the impacts of sea level rise on the
terminal groin and the resulting effects upon inlet dynamics adjacent property
beach profiles residential structures and the natural resources and environment
of the island and adjacent islands and estuarine habitats and resources
• The development of accurate cost- benefit analysis to ensure the costs of storm
events is appropriately considered and modeled using real world and real time
property appraisals for all project alternatives The high risk of significant storm
damage to beach front properties should be part of the cost - benefit analysis and
used to discount the project benefits for each possible alternative considered
• The economic costs and benefits of each project alternative should include the
positive economic values associated with natural inlet processes (fishing
tourism habitat creation and larvae transport and fish migration)
• Detailed study and modeling of the effect of any proposed terminal groin on the
inlet dynamics which increase the frequency of needed dredging and could
have long -term negative impacts upon the structure itself and on adjacent
shorelines both east and west of the groin The effect of the groin on inlet
narrowing and loss of natural inlet shoals and sand flats should be investigated
as well at the possible increase in tidal flow due to inlet morphology changes
• Thorough modeling of the effects of the terminal groin on the ebb shoal deflation
should be considered along with both the economic and resource related costs
This loss of sediment volume could steepen the near shore beach profiles and in
turn increase the wave energy reaching the coast and inner inlet areas
• Thorough modeling of the effects of the terminal groin on the navigation channel
and the effects of the continued required navigation channel maintenance and
dredging on the integrity of the terminal groin itself and its proposed functions
and purported benefits
• Incorporation of the state Beach and Inlet Management plan into the EIS process
and consideration of those recommendations for avoidance of hardened
structures on the beach
• Consideration of the proposed terminal groin and its possible effects of reducing
the long shore transport of sediment to the area identified as West Beach and
how that reduction of sediment will affect erosion or accretion at that location as
and that potential effect upon the areas natural resources and public and private
infrastructure
• Identification of the purpose and need to keep the e)asting permitted sand filled
tube groins in addition to the construction of a terminal groin as proposed
Detailed analysis of the success or failure of the permitted sand groins and
detailed modeling of the effects of the terminal groin with the sand groins
removed and kept upon the affected areas and requested terminal groin
• Consideration of the proposed terminal groin and its possible effect upon the east
end of Oak Island the historic sites public and private property Detailed
1.1

modeling should be required to review the possible effects of the proposed groin
upon the federal navigation project and detailed modeling and monitoring of any
impacts upon that public project as a result of a terminal groin
• The effects of the terminal groin on the critical piping plover habitat on each side
of the inlet must be evaluated How the project will comply with the Endangered
Species Act must be addressed
• The potential effects of the terminal groin upon the dust listed Atlantic Sturgeon
on the federal Endangered Species Act and upon the Short Eared Sturgeon
Eastern Manatee and other endangered marine life that utilize the Cape Fear
River and inlet channel in their life cycle
• The effects of the terminal groin upon endangered sea turtle habitat on both Bald
Head Beaches and beaches at Oak Island should be thoroughly researched and
analyzed
-The potential effects of the design of the proposed terminal groin as a leaky"
structure should be researched and analyzed and how any injury or death will be
avoided due to the leaky structure design from trapping sea turtles and other
critical manne and mammals within the groin itself
• - How will both adult and hatching sea turtles survive storm and wave action in
and around the terminal groin?
• The proposed terminal groin is described as a leaky structure Detailed
description of that structure should include it s leakage rate and how that will
affect the required beach nourishment and identify milestones that should be
established to address the groin s leakage rate How will this leakage rate affect
the use of the public beach and its affect upon the natural resources of the beach
community? How will the leakage rate affect erosion or accretion on the West
Beach area and how will that leakage rate be calculated
• Consideration of the gradual blockage of the leaky" groin due to growth of
marine life debris and other impediments and what measures and strategies will
be designed to address this possibility
• The potential effects of the gran upon the Cape Fear River inlet system tidal
flow and fish migration should be investigated as well as the effects upon Jaybird
shoals and essential fish habitat identified in the inlet system
• Proof and analysis that a terminal groin will reduce the frequency of required
beach nourishment and address how the proposed leaky structure will affect
that required frequency
• A terminal groin could negatively affect an inlet s equilibrium and its ability to
maintain a sediment balance This could result in more manipulation of the inlet
and associated costs to the overall long -term project These long -term
management costs need to be determined and factored into the alternatives
analysis
• One option that is not addressed in the proposal is to augment or enhance and
improve the current permitted sand filled tubes to address the erosion issues and
perform a detailed analysis of the sand filled tube groin field success and how
those permitted structures could be revised to fulfill the projects stated purpose
• If the permitted sand filled groin field is allowed to remain and a terminal groin is
permitted will that violate the intent and language of Senate Bill 110*7 According
7

to the approved legislation only one terminal groin will be permitted at the end of
a bamer island The 16 sand filled groins if left on the public beach might violate
the intent and spirit of the approved legislation A legal opinion of this issue
should be considered by the state and the Coastal Resources Commission
The Federation has serious concerns about the proposed terminal groin project at Bald
Head Island A careful analysis of alternatives that are evaluated based upon the
requirements established by the NC General Assembly are likely to show that non-
structural alternatives are more cost- effective and practical The Corps must ensure that
the EIS addresses these explicit state mandates since they are part of the state s
coastal management requirements and program
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and be involved in this project Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions of need any clanfication of these
preliminary comments We intend to fully participate in the development of this EIS the
review of project permits and any court proceedings that might follow
With best
Mike'Giles Ana Zivanovic- Nenadovic
Coastal Advocate Program and Policy Analyst