20120288 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20140303

United States Department of the Interior
Mr. Ronnie D. Smith
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
February 28, 2014
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 -1890
Subject: Action ID #SAW- 2012 - 00040; Village of Bald Head Island
Brunswick County, NC
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
subject Public Notice (PN), dated January 10, 2014, and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Village of Bald Head Island (VBHI). VBHI proposes to
construct a terminal groin structure on Bald Head Island in the Atlantic Ocean. These
comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661- 667d). Comments related to the
FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40
CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection
of fish and wildlife resources. Comments related to the District Engineer's determination
of project impacts in the BA, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) will be addressed during formal
consultation.
Project Area, Proposed Activities, and Anticipated Impacts
The project area is South Beach and the adjacent Atlantic Ocean on Bald Head Island.
The waters of the project area are classified as SB. The area is not designated as a
Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The substrate of the project area is primarily sand.
The preferred alternative in the DEIS is Alternative 5, which includes the construction of
a 1,900 linear foot terminal groin on the southeast end of Bald Head Island, concurrent
with, and following a federal beach disposal operation. The terminal groin would be

2
constructed in two phases and would serve as a template for fill material placed eastward
thereof. In Alternative 5, the existing groin field of 16 sand tube groins is proposed to
remain. The terminal groin is intended to be a "leaky" structure, so as to provide for a
level of sand transport to West Beach, which is located northwest of the proposed groin.
The applicant proposes that the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps) place the
sand first on the nearshore area (from regular dredging of the Wilmington Harbor
Channel project), and then the Village will construct the terminal groin in two phases
within the sand fillet. Because Phase 1 of the groin will be constructed after a winter
dredging and nourishment project, the applicant states that construction will likely stretch
into the piping plover and sea turtle nesting seasons.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed available information on federally- threatened or endangered
species known to occur in Brunswick County. Our review indicates that several species
may occur in the project area, including the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus),
piping plovers (Charadrius melodus melodus), 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. Of the five sea turtle species, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and
green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtle may nest in the project area. 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.
On September 30, 2013, the Service proposed listing the rufa red knot (Calidris canutus
rufa) (or red knot) as threatened throughout its range. Please refer to Federal Register
Notice 78 FR 60023. The Service also plans to publish a proposal to designate critical
habitat for the red knot in the very near future.
The Service is also proposing to designate portions North Carolina beaches as critical
habitat for the Northwest Atlantic (NWA) population of loggerhead sea turtles. Bald
Head Island is located within Critical Habitat Unit LOGG- T -NC -06 (Baldhead Island,
Brunswick County). From the Federal Register (FR) Notice (see
http: / /www. regulations. gov / #!documentDetail;D= FWS- R4 -ES- 2012 -0103- 0001), this
unit consists of 15.1 km (9.4 miles) of island shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean. The
island is part of the Smith Island Complex, which is a barrier spit that includes Bald
Head, Middle, and Bluff Islands. The island is separated from the mainland by the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Cape Fear River, Battery Island Channel, Lower Swash
Channel Range, Buzzard Bay, Smith Island Range, Southport Channel, and salt marsh.

3
The unit extends from 33.91433 N, 77.94408 W (historic location of Comcake Inlet) to
the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The unit includes lands from the MHW line to the toe
of the secondary dune or developed structures.
The Corps has made a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect the
West Indian manatee, piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth, and Kemp's Ridley,
hawksbill, loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea turtle.
Service Concerns and Recommendations
1. The EIS should clarify the proposed nourishment cycles. In several places, the
DEIS states that nourishment would occur at 3 years post- construction, and then
on 9 -year intervals. The Service understands that this schedule is due to the
Corps' Wilmington Harbor Sand Management Plan (SMP). However, the
language is not clear in many places. We recommend that in order to make the
schedule completely clear, the EIS include a table, chart, or figure in Sections 3
and 5 to spell out the expected or proposed nourishment schedule from all
sources, for each alternative.
2. The Service recognizes that a 3 -year beach nourishment cycle is likely to be
needed in many cases. As stated in Section 8.3.3 of the draft BA, "studies have
shown that intertidal macrofauna can recolonize a nourished area within one or
two seasons...." This is a concern of the Service, because as soon as the
macrofauna are recovered (by the end of the second season), the SMP
nourishment schedule typically provides for beach disposal that season or the very
next season. The Service is concerned with the long -term impacts from frequent
beach nourishment. The schedule of nourishing every three years or so results in
a healthy macrofauna population for as little as one year out of every three.
The FR notice concerning loggerhead critical habitat states: "In most cases, a
significantly larger proportion of turtles emerging on engineered beaches abandon
their nesting attempts than turtles emerging on natural or prenourished beaches,
even though more nesting habitat is available (Trindell et al. 1998; Ernest and
Martin 1999; Herren 1999), with nesting success approximately 10 to 34 percent
lower on nourished beaches than on control beaches during the first year post -
nourishment. This reduction in nesting success is most pronounced during the first
year following project construction and is most likely the result of changes in
physical beach characteristics (beach profile, sediment grain size, beach
compaction, frequency and extent of escarpments) associated with the
nourishment project (Ernest and Martin 1999). During the first post- construction

9
year, the time required for turtles to excavate an egg chamber on untilled, hard -
packed sands increases significantly relative to natural beach conditions. Also
during the first post- construction year, nests on nourished beaches are deposited
significantly more seaward of the toe of the dune than nests on natural beaches.
More nests are washed out on the wide, flat beaches of the nourished treatments
than on the narrower steeply sloped natural beaches. This phenomenon may
persist through the second post- construction year and result from the placement of
nests near the seaward edge of the beach berm where dramatic profile changes,
caused by erosion and scarping, occur as the beach equilibrates to a more natural
contour."
Because of the potential on -going impacts from a short nourishment cycle, we
encourage the Corps and VBHI to consider extending the beach nourishment
cycles to 4 and 5 years when possible to minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles,
to benthic macroinvertebrate fauna, and to surf fishes and shorebirds.
3. Although we agree that it is unlikely (given the documented history) that piping
plover would nest on Bald Head Island, we do not believe that a determination of
"no effect" can be made for any of the alternatives that include continued
nourishment or beach management activities (such as Alternative 1). Please
change the language on Page 5 -27 for Alternative 1 to state that the SMP events
may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect piping plover. Also, please
change the language in Section 6.5.5 of the DEIS to state that "piping plovers are
not known to nest within the project boundaries...."
4. In Sections 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 5.4.5, and 5.4.6 (discussions of Alternatives 5 and 6), the
Final EIS should include a more specific proposed construction schedule for the
terminal groin. These sections state that Phase 1 construction of the terminal
groin could theoretically start in November and December, but that construction
would probably extend well into the sea turtle nesting season. What amount of
time is estimated to be needed solely for construction of the groin, after sand
placement?
5. In Sections 3.2.5 and 5.4.5 (discussions of Alternative 5), the Final EIS should
include more discussion of the potential removal of some or all of the sand -tube
groins, if it is shown that they are not needed.
6. In Sections 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 5.4.5, and 5.4.6 (discussions of Alternatives 5 and 6), the
Final EIS should include a discussion of the potential remediation plans if the
terminal groin fails or is shown to be causing significant negative impacts. We

5
recognize that Appendix B contains information from the applicant concerning
potential impacts of the terminal groin, physical monitoring plans, and potential
remediation or mitigating actions. The text of the Final EIS should at least refer
to Appendix B for monitoring and remediation. In addition, the potential for
removal of the groin (an example of the type or severity of negative impact that
would necessitate consideration of removal) should be discussed in the EIS. The
applicant should also discuss the method for financing remedial or terminal groin
removal actions.
The Service appreciates the continued opportunity to comment on this project. We look
forward to working with the Corps during formal consultation. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at 919- 856 -4520, ext. 27 or by
e -mail at <kathryn_matthews @fws.gov >.
Sincerely,
v /
Peter Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc:
Fritz Rohde, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort
Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington
Doug Huggett, NC DCM, Morehead City
Debra Wilson, NC DCM, Wilmington
Chad Coburn, NC DWR, Wilmington
Karen Higgins, NC DWR, Raleigh
References:
Ernest, R.G. and R. E. Martin. 1999. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project: Sea
Turtle Monitoring and Studies. 1997 Annual Report and Final Assessment.
Ecological Associates, Inc., Jensen Beach, FL. 96 pp.
Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta)
nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. M.S. Thesis.
University of Central Florida. 150 pp.

Col
Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody and B. Morford. 1998. Post - construction marine
turtle nesting monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77 -92 in Tait,
L.S. (compiler), Rethinking the Role of Structures in Shore Protection. —
Proceedings of the 1998 National Conference on Beach Preservation
Technology. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association,
Tallahassee, Florida.