20040561 Ver 4_Environmental Assessment_20201008

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND FPS BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
- LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEYI company
3805 Wrightsville Avenue; Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
910-452-0001
Prepared for:
The Village of Bald Head Island
Bald Head Island, Brunswick County, NC
August 2020

CONTENTS
CONTENTS.......
FIGURES......................................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLES...........................................................................................................................................................
ii
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................
ii
1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................3
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................................................3
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................................3
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE........................................................................................................................6
2.3 APPLICANTS PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................................................6
2.4 ALTERNATIVE SAND SOURCE SITES...............................................................................................9
3. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES....................................................................................18
4. POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.................................................................................................20
5. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATION.............................................................................................21
5.1 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT (MSA)
...................21
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF EFH CATEGORIES IN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA............................................23
5.2.1 ESTUARINE AND MARINE WATER COLUMN.......................................................................23
5.2.2 SOFT BOTTOM.....................................................................................................................24
5.2.3 HARD BOTTOM...................................................................................................................26
6. MANAGED SPECIES.............................................................................................................................26
7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT....................................................................31
7.1 ESTUARINE AND MARINE WATER COLUMN...............................................................................33
7.2 SOFT BOTTOM.............................................................................................................................35
7.2.1 SURF ZONE..........................................................................................................................36
7.2.2 FRYING PAN SHOALS...........................................................................................................36
7.3 HARD BOTTOM...........................................................................................................................41
8. IMPACT SUMMARY FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT.............................................................................41
9. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................44
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina i

FIGURES
Figure1. Project Location.............................................................................................................................4
Figure 2. Sand Source Location.....................................................................................................................5
Figure 3. Sand Placement Location...............................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Approximate locations of alternatives evaluated for potential sand source sites ......................10
TABLES
Table 1. Dredged Material Quantities from Wilmington Harbor Project 1976-1999................................15
Table 2. Sediment Composition of Dredged Material — Wilmington Harbor Project (USACE, 2012)........16
Table 3. Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast Statesl
.................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 4. Presence of Managed Species (including life cycle stage) for Area Waterbodiesl [E=Eggs; L=Larval;
J=Juvenile; A=Adult (A), N/A=Not Found]...................................................................................................28
Table 5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concernl,2
.................................................................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Design Drawings (prepared by Olsen Associates, Inc.).......
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
53

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to present the findings of an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment
conducted per the requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976, as amended through 1996 (Magnuson -Stevens Act). The objectives of the EFH Assessment are to
describe how the Applicant's proposed action may affect EFH designated by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS) and the South Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC), for the area of influence of the project. According to the SAFMC,
EFH within the South Atlantic Bight includes all estuarine and marine waters and substrates from the
shoreline to the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The area of influence of the proposed
action is principally the portion of Frying Pan Shoals (FPS) in the vicinity of the proposed dredge site
(including open water and subtidal bottom areas) as well as the beachfront and surfzone areas of West
Beach and South Beach on Bald Head Island, North Carolina.
The EFH Assessment includes a description of the proposed action; an analysis of the project alternatives
considered; an assessment of the direct and cumulative effects on EFH within the area of influence for
the managed fish species and their major food sources; and mitigative measures intended to minimize
expected project effects if applicable.
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Bald Head Island is a 3-mile long south -facing barrier island located immediately eastward of the mouth
of the Cape Fear River at 33.85°N, 77.9889°W (NAD27). The island forms the southern terminus of the
Smith Island complex at Cape Fear Point from which FPS extends over thirty miles southeastward into the
Atlantic Ocean.
Bald Head Island's east and south shorelines (East Beach and South Beach, respectively) front the Atlantic
Ocean. The western shoreline (a.k.a. West Beach) is located immediately adjacent to, and fronts, the Cape
Fear River entrance. The north side of the island is bounded by the Bald Head Creek estuary. The
remainder of Smith Island is composed of interior tidal creeks (including Cape Creek and Deep Creek),
associated tidal marsh, Middle Island, and Bluff Island. The mouth of the Cape Fear River (over one mile
in width) separates Bald Head Island from the eastern end of Oak Island (or Caswell Beach). Figure 1
depicts the location of these islands relative to the Cape Fear River entrance channel and its associated
shoal formations.
FPS is a submerged extension of a large-scale cuspate foreland (i.e. accretional feature formed by
processes of longshore drift and prevailing wind and wave conditions). The shoals extend over thirty miles
offshore from the eastern end of Bald Head Island. Geotechnical evaluations of sediments within Frying
Pan Shoals were conducted by the USACE as part of the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) for this 50-
year project. The findings of these analyses were reported in the Brunswick County Beaches
Renourishment Study (Catlin 2010). Vibracore borings indicated that the Frying Pan Shoal borrow area
identified in the GRR contained substantial volumes of sand compatible with the native beach material
(Catlin 2010).
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 3

Figure 1. Project Location
Olsen Associates, Inc. (OA) has identified a viable sand source (i.e. borrow site) along the west side of the
shoal approximately 1 mile seaward of the southeastern shoreline of Bald Head Island (Olsen Associates,
Inc. 2016) (Figure 2). As part of that sand search investigation, Geodynamics performed a hydrographic
survey of the area of interest (since NOAA charts are inaccurate in this dynamic area). Similarly, Tidewater
Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) performed two phases of a marine cultural resource investigation to discern
the location of potential wrecks. The Phase II investigation identified one small buffer area mapped
around one cluster of magnetic anomalies (TAR 2016). Accordingly, the project design has delineated a
9.73-acre Exclusion Zone within the borrow site based upon the TAR findings.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
4

4
Figure 2. Sand Source Location
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
5

Athena Technologies was retained to obtain multiple VIBRACORES within the proposed area of interest.
Those cores have been logged and analyzed for sand quality. CA subsequently completed a summary
report of the sand search investigation (Olsen Associates 2016). According to this report, the grand mean
sand content for composite samples from the proposed borrow site was 92.09%, and the percent fines
measured over depth (to -25 ft MLW) was low (2% on average). It can be reasonably expected based upon
these results and the findings of other geotechnical investigations in similarly occurring, nearby shoal
features that depositional sediments above a certain elevation within the defined borrow area will be of
beach quality. The continuity of the predicted horizon of sands above either clay or silty sands is highly
predictable at this location (Olsen Associates 2016). The permit request seeks authorization to dredge
above that horizon.
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project is to address on -going and
chronic erosion along South Beach and West Beach and to thereby protect public infrastructure, roads,
homes, beaches, recreational assets, and protective dunes.
Severe erosion has been chronicled along South Beach (particularly its western reach) since the 1970s.
Under the most recent detailed physical monitoring, Olsen Associates, Inc. (2016) reported that the
Island's gross volumetric loss (excluding East Beach) over the November 2000 to May 2016 timeframe was
approximately 5.733 Mcy (corresponding to an average annualized loss of 371,700 cy). The highest rates
of sand loss have occurred principally at the west end of South Beach in the vicinity of the Cape Fear River
entrance. This prompted the Village of Bald Head Island (Village) to procure authorizations for, and
subsequently construct, a 1,300-If terminal groin at this location. Construction of the terminal groin
structure was completed in December 2015.
While the terminal groin addresses chronic shoreline losses along western South Beach, it has been
documented that the terminal groin and existing sand tube groin field are not sufficient, in and of
themselves, to prevent or to adequately offset sand losses from South Beach or West Beach. As a result,
periodic nourishment through both the federally -sponsored Wilmington Harbor dredge and disposal
project and Village -sponsored projects are required to mitigate erosion along the entirety of South Beach
and West Beach. The threat to existing homes, dunes and infrastructure as a result of the erosion and
shoreline recession has prompted the Village to seek longer term beach nourishment options. Predicted
sand volume needs for South Beach and West Beach were identified in the terminal groin EIS (for both
the terminal groin alternative and non-structural alternatives). FPS was identified at that time as a long-
term sand source with the potential to satisfy the sand volume requirements for South Beach and West
Beach in the future.
2.3 APPLICANTS PROPOSED ACTION
In order to plan for and address expected sediment deficits over the next several decades, the Village of
Bald Head Island identified an approximate 460-acre area consisting of beach -compatible material
suitable for placement along the South Beach shoreline (refer to Figure 3). The proposed action is for the
use of an approximate 198-acre dredge site (portion of the 460-acre area of interest) with a predicted
Contract volume of 2.5 Mcy of beach fill (including losses experienced during dredging and fill placement).
This borrow site to be permitted is located on the western portion of the Frying Pan Shoals formation
approximately 1 mile off the southeast shoreline of Bald Head Island. Sediment identified within the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 6

Frying Pan Shoals borrow site will be excavated by cutter suction dredge and pumped by submerged
pipeline to the South Beach shoreline. Assuming a neat sand volume to a depth of -20 ft NAVD88, the
identified borrow site could theoretically yield up to 2.487 Mcy. To an elevation of -25 ft NAVD88, the
neat sand volume is estimated to be 3.995 Mcy. Within the requested 198.4-acre borrow site there is
included a 9.73-acre Exclusion Zone intended to avoid impact to potential cultural resources as identified
by T.A.R. As a result, the net area available for dredging is 188.7 acres. Pragmatically, it is expected that
the Contractor's Dredge Plan submitted prior to construction could reduce the actual spatial acreage
dredged by up to 25%. Refer to Appendix A for the design drawings of the proposed action (including
plan view drawings of the proposed borrow site).
The South Beach construction fill template will maintain an approximate average berm elevation of +8 ft.
NGVD which is consistent with prior beach fill berms constructed by the Wilmington District USACE and
the Village since 2001. A mild slope in the seaward direction will be introduced into the berm (by grading)
to reduce post -placement scarping and enhance post -construction turtle nesting activities. Should dune
erosion or benching be evident at the time of construction, up to 5 cy of sand per ft. of shorefront would
be mechanically moved and graded to repair the duneline. As in the past, any revegetation necessary for
dune stabilization will be performed by the Village under separate contract subsequent to fill placement
completion by the dredge contractor. Post -construction beach tilling will be performed based upon
consultation with Resource Agencies after each future fill event. To -date however, that requirement has
been waived after an on -site evaluation by agency personnel.
It can be reliably assumed that a 27"-30" cutter suction dredge (Ocean Certified) must be utilized to
excavate material from the permitted open water site. Both draft and operational (as well as safety)
considerations for such dredge plants necessitate depths of excavation exceeding -15 ft (MLLW datum).
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 7

QNSLOWBR Y
5 �r
a
z
W
CAK
FEAR t
� 1
r
J
J+
f
LFRY ING PAW.
SHOALS
—FILL LENGTH:
17,200 FT
0 .
A TLAN-nC
OCEAM
LIMITS OF FUTURE
PROJECT RELATED
FILL ACTIVITIES BY
VILLAGE UTILIZING
FRYING PAN SHOALS
BORROWSITE
CAPE F4EAR y
Rl VEIL i
. G ROIN J OGTOBER 2416 PHOTOGRAPHY
Figure 3. Sand Placement Location
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
E3

2.4ALTERNATIVE SAND SOURCE SITES
Areas considered as potential sources of suitable material for beach nourishment have been evaluated in
the context of the project requirements (both in terms of sand quality and quantity). Generally, sand
source areas must consist of sediments satisfying minimum standards for beach fill projects as stipulated
by the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 07H.0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill
Projects)'. The applicant must also consider the proximity of the source area relative to the area of beach
being nourished due to transport logistics, project duration, constructability, and cost constraints. All
dredging and beach filling operations must be confined to a relatively narrow window of time to minimize
potential adverse effects to environmental resources. In light of these considerations, the most desirable
potential sources are identified in the general vicinity of West Beach and South Beach on Bald Head Island.
The Applicant, in coordination with the project engineer, evaluated several borrow site alternatives prior
to the design of the proposed Frying Pan Shoals borrow site. The initial analysis of alternative borrow
sites was used to help identify the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA) in
accordance the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The alternatives analysis has been updated for
the purpose of this EFH Assessment. The following sites were considered as part of the alternatives
analysis:
(1) Nearshore Inlet Shoals (including Jay Bird Shoals and Middle Ground);
(2) Wilmington Harbor Entrance Channel (Inner Three Reaches);
(3) Bald Head Creek Shoal Complex;
(4) Offshore Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS);
(5) Confined Disposal Facilities; and
(6) Frying Pan Shoals.
The approximate locations of alternatives evaluated for potential sand source sites are depicted in Figure
4.
t Notably, Frying Pan Shoals (FPS) is exempt from the sediment criteria rules. SL 2017-10 specifies that until the North
Carolina Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) adopts rules exempting cape shoal systems from
the Sediment Criteria Rule, it is required to "exempt from the permitting requirements of the Sediment Criteria Rule and
any sediment in the cape shoal systems used as a borrow site and any portion of an oceanfront beach that
receives sediment from the cape shoal systems," including from FPS. SL 2017-10 section 3.15(b) and (c).
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 9

N I --N z / o CO
L T y f W N
N � N
r � �
y
yy K
r3
17
f U
� r
.
N
F
sr f
'gJ N
0O LL a
I—
� � f6
L „
LL
i
Figure 4. Approximate locations of alternatives evaluated for potential sand source sites
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
10

Alternate Borrow Areas within Nearshore Inlet Shoals (including Jay Bird Shoals and Middle Ground)
In January 2017, the Village submitted state and federal permit applications for the proposed dredging of
a borrow site on Frying Pan Shoals (FPS). In consideration of the concerns raised by National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and their accompanying recommendation to first explore other viable sand -
source alternatives, the Village further evaluated the potential to prioritize the use of the previously
authorized borrow site located on Jay Bird Shoals (JBS) (including both the partially recovered area
dredged in 2009 and any remaining, undredged portions of the permitted borrow site at that time). The
Village had identified the JBS borrow site as the only other viable alternative borrow area available for
near term sand placement at Bald Head Island (BHI).
From an operational and cost standpoint there is preference to utilize the previously authorized and
dredged JBS site. That being said, the Village utilized this site for a second time in its most recent Village -
sponsored nourishment project (occurring in Winter 2018/2019). This project included the dredging and
placement of 1.21VIcy of sand on South Beach. Sand reserves within the JBS permitted site were sufficient
to meet the nourishment volume required for the 2018/19 project; however, dredging beyond the
previously developed borrow site limits could eventually induce significant impacts to the JBS shoal
feature. More expansive dredging within the JBS and Middle Ground feature could affect wave climate
and tidal flows to such an extent that that it could adversely impact the shoreline of Caswell Beach and
Fort Caswell on Oak Island, as well as West Beach on Bald Head Island.
The Town of Oak Island recently completed investigations and modeling of the proposed use of JBS and
Middle Ground for nourishment of the Oak Island shoreline. Based upon vibracore data and modeling
results, the Town's engineer identified an approximate 304-acre borrow site within JBS as the least
environmental damaging, practicable alternative for that project. Authorizations for the Town of Oak
Island to dredge this borrow site were recently issued by the Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of
Water Resources (April 2020). Use of other areas on JBS and Middle Ground were excluded from
consideration either due to not having sufficient volumes of beach -compatible material or for the
increased potential for adverse physical impacts to the shoreline of Fort Caswell and the Town of Caswell
Beach (by way of alterations to tidal currents or wave transport). As part of the authorization for the 304-
acre JBS borrow site, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been established and will be engaged if it
is believed that the authorized project is causing unintentional effects on Caswell Beach.
In consideration of the recently constructed Village -sponsored nourishment project (2018/2019) and the
recently authorized Town of Oak Island project, use of JBS as a potential sand source site is not viable for
the foreseeable future. Additional removal of material from these two areas to offset sand losses on Bald
Head Island (or Oak Island) would provide temporary benefits at best with the likelihood of reducing
beneficial effects in their lee on one or both of the two adjacent barrier islands. Hence, "over -utilization"
of these potential sand sources is not recommended and, in all probability, would be strongly opposed by
interests on the east end of Oak Island. However, the borrow site previously permitted for Village -
sponsored projects is continuing to be physically monitored on an annual basis. If the shoreline of South
Beach can be maintained though federal nourishment for a period of time and sufficient physical recovery
occurs within JBS prior to the next nourishment need, then the Village will seek to utilize JBS as an
alternative sand source site prior to the use of FPS. Physical monitoring of the JBS borrow site will
determine the volume of sand available for dredging prior to the next Village -sponsored nourishment,
and this information will be provided to the agencies to determine if JBS can be utilized in lieu of FPS.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 11

Similar to JBS and Middle Ground, Bald Head Shoal is a depositional feature that generally exhibits high
sand content in sufficient quantities to provide the necessary amount of nourishment to offset the sand
losses on South Beach under consideration. However, this shoal plays a critical role in the dissipation of
storm wave energy affecting the beaches along Oak Island and Bald Head Island. In addition, the shoals
provide intertidal and subtidal habitat supporting estuarine and marine fauna. Furthermore, these areas
as inlet associated shoals are identified as HPAC. Dredging from Bald Head Shoal is predicted to be highly
detrimental considering ongoing changes at that nearshore location due to the navigation channel
reorientation, as well as the proximity and important beneficial sheltering effects of this depositional
feature to the currently eroding Bald Head Island beaches. Use of this shoal as a sand source site would
result in the need for increased frequency of nourishment events, a condition not deemed
environmentally favorable nor operationally and financially practicable. It can therefore be excluded from
consideration as a viable sand source site for the proposed project.
Wilmington Harbor Entrance Channel
By way of Permit Condition #60 of Department of Army (DA) Authorization of the Terminal Groin Project
(Action ID No. SAW-2012-00040), the Village must evaluate the Wilmington Harbor Entrance Channel as
a potential borrow site for the maintenance of the groin fillet. To that end, the Village evaluated the use
of the federal channel reaches for borrow material as part of the Village -sponsored 2018/19 beach
nourishment project. Since all sand dredged by the Corps of Engineers (COE) in 2017/18 as part of their
regularly occurring channel maintenance was placed on Oak Island pursuant to the Wilmington Harbor
Sand Management Plan (WHSMP), there was not sufficient sand quantities available to the Village for
their project. Similarly, the timing of future COE channel maintenance projects makes it difficult to design,
permit, and contract a Village -sponsored project within the federal channel with any level of certainty of
sand volumes and locations. This assessment was corroborated by the Wilmington District Engineering
staff as part of a Section 408 Permit analysis in May 2018 required bythe Villages' 20191.2 Mcy fill project.
At that time, the District determined that dredging of the navigation channel was not a "practicable"
option for beach maintenance on Bald Head Island. Moreover, pursuant to the WHSMP, the navigation
channel disposal sand is presently scheduled for episodic placement on Oak Island beaches every third
maintenance event.
Bald Head Creek Shoal
The previously permitted and dredged borrow site of the ebb tidal shoal of Bald Head Creek (BHC) is
limited in size and sand volumes to be able to address long-term sand needs of South Beach. Given its
location and relatively small quantity of sand available and the shallow depth of dredging required at that
location, the BHC borrow site is better suited for small volume requirements at West Beach. Moreover,
only a small shallow draft dredge can be utilized at that location. Therefore, the Bald Head Creek site is
not suitable for any large-scale nourishment event on South Beach.
Areas within Former Federal Channel
Offshore sediment data acquired from areas situated within the former federal channel alignment at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River indicate a high content of fine sediments generally considered unsuitable
for beach nourishment. Due to the nature of this depositional material and the technical standards for
beach placement, this alternative is determined not to be practicable and is therefore eliminated from
further consideration.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 12

Offshore ODMDS
The offshore ODMDS has been used for the disposal of dredged materials from the Wilmington Harbor
Federal navigation project and the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point (MOTSU) for many decades.
MOTSU is a military port facility located on the west bank of the Cape Fear River approximately 10 miles
upstream from the river's mouth. Both the Federal navigation project and MOTSU require some level of
annual maintenance dredging. Reaches of the Federal project maintenance extend from the ocean bar
channel at the mouth of the Cape Fear River to a point just north of Smith Creek on the Northeast Cape
Fear River (north of Wilmington, NC). The Wilmington Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan
(DMMP) provides specific information as to the historical and present-day use of the ODMDS including
documentation of the quantity and character of material placed within. In addition, an evaluation of
potential beneficial uses of material dredged from the Federal navigation project is required as part of the
DMMP. This requirement served as the premise for the establishment of the 2000 Wilmington Harbor
Sand Management Plan (SMP) which specifically provides for the return of littoral material to the
beachfront. According to the SMP, beach -compatible dredged material (sands) dredged from the ocean
bar or river navigation channel should be placed on nearby beaches or within the active littoral system
when it is economically and environmentally acceptable to do so.
The DMMP clearly documents conditions of the two ODMDS sites (both the old site used until 2002 and
the new site used for current dredged material disposal). Specific volume totals of dredged materials
placed within the former ODMDS site are available from 1976 through 1999 (Table 1). Since 1987, the
date of the site designation, approximately 27.6 Mcy of dredged materials have been placed within the
ODMDS. The source of the material is divided into three general zones within the Cape Fear River: (1) the
Wilmington Harbor Federal navigation project, ocean bar channels (WH-OB); (2) the Wilmington Harbor
navigation channel to Wilmington, excluding the ocean bar and portions above the Lower Brunswick
channel (WH-NAV); and (3) the MOTSU channel. Of the total material disposed in the ODMDS,
approximately 15.5 Mcy (56%) of the material has come from WH-NAV and the MOTSU channels.
As identified in
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
13

Table 2, the mid -project reaches of WH-NAV and MOTSU exhibit significantly higher silt and clay
components not compatible with beach placement. MOTSU dredged material alone (accounting for 12
Mcy or 43% of the total material placed in the ODMDS since 1987) is characterized as silty riverine
sediments consisting of 70% silt and clay. Additionally, it is commonly reported that the ODMDS
consists of woody debris associated with prior dredging of the river bottom. Since the development of
the Sand Management Plan (as part of the Wilmington Harbor Deepening Project in 2000), beach
compatible sand dredged during maintenance events has been pumped to the shorelines of Bald Head
Island and Oak Island. As a result, much of the material disposal at the new ODMDS location consists of
higher silt and clay content. In light of these documented conditions, use of either the old or the new
ODMDS sites has been determined to be not practicable and has been eliminated from further
consideration in the following analysis of potential actions.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
14

Table 1. Dredged Material Quantities from Wilmington Harbor Project 1976-1999.
DREDGED MATERIAL QUANTITY - CUBIC YARDS
YEAR
WH-OB
WH-NAV
MOTSU
YEAR TOTAL
1976
1,157,161
0
0
1,157,161
1977
218,624
0
0
218,624
1978
523,803
0
0
523,803
1979
138,817
0
0
138,817
1980
951,935
0
0
951,935
1981
376,942
0
0
376,942
1982
850,621
0
0
850,621
1983
1,018,839
0
0
1,018,839
1984
1,297,202
0
0
1,297,202
1985
190,633
0
0
190,633
1986
756,423
0
0
756,423
1987
1,571,976
0
983,250
2,555,226
1988
0
597,568
0
597,568
1989
1,124,408
0
1,255,134
2,379,542
1990
524,267
0
1,047,290
1,571,557
1991
427,176
466,349
0
893,525
1992
1,051,328
0
773,950
1,825,278
1993
749,800
0
945,255
1,695,055
1994
1,040,600
0
549,770
1,590,370
1995
1,594,295
1,633,852
398,111
3,626,258
1996
1,000,000
345,430
3,683,330
5,028,760
1997
1,444,000
217,294
132,914
1,794,208
1998
901,988
196,442
1,473,582
2,572,012
1999
675,549
0
825,000
1,500,549
1976-1999
19,586,387
3,456,935
12,067,586
35,110,908
1987-1999
12,105,387
3,456,935
12,067,586
27,629,908
Note: WH-OB - Baldhead Shoal through Battery Island Channels, inclusive.
WH-NAV - Lower Swash through portions of Lower Brunswick channels.
MOTSU - Materials associated with MOTSU only.
Material Management Plan (DMMP) Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, June 1996.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District - Ocean Disposal Database and Contract Dredging Records.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment - August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
15

Table 2. Sediment Composition of Dredged Material - Wilmington Harbor Project (USACE, 2012)
Channel
%Gravel
% Sand
% Silt & Clay
Sediment
Grouping
Bald Head Shoal
Offshore Reaches
0.0
73.2
26.8
Silty Offshore
Inlet Reaches
0.0
98.7
1.3
Sandy
Lower Project
Reaches
Smith Island
7.9
92.0
0.1
Caswell -Southport
18.0
80.5
1.5
Southport
12.5
85.5
2.0
Battery Island
38.0
61.0
1.0
Lower Swash
27.0
70.0
3.0
Horsheshoe Shoal
0.0
98.0
2.0
Reaves Point
0.0
99.0
1.0
Lower Midnight
0.0
76.0
24.0
Varied
Mid -Project
Reaches
Upper Midnight
0.0
82.5
17.5
Lower Lilli ut
0.0
56.5
46.5
Upper Lilli ut
0.0
98.0
2.0
Keg Island
0.0
63.0
37.0
Upper and Lower Big Island
2.0
94.0
3.0
Lower Brunswick
0.0
92.7
7.3
Upper Brunswick
0.0
57.0
43.0
Fourth East and Between
0.0
80.0
20.0
Anchorage Basin
0.0
6.0
94.0
Silty Upper -
Project Reaches
Between Memorial &
Hilton Railroad Bridges
10.0
55.0
35.0
Above Hilton Railroad Bride
0.0
58.0
42.0
MOTSU*
0.0
30.0
70.0
Silty Riverine
Note: Gravel - grain size larger than 5.0 mm
Sand -grain size between 0.07 and .5 mm
Silt and Clay -grain size smaller than 0.07 mm
Source: USACE 1996 except for * which is USACE 1993
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment - August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
16

Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs)
Over the years, maintenance for the Wilmington Harbor project has resulted in the creation of disposal
sites along channelized reaches of the Cape Fear River Estuary. The 1989 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the long-term maintenance of Wilmington Harbor (USACE 1989) identified eighteen
(18) disposal sites extending from Snow Marsh Channel (north of Southport) to near the upstream limit
of the federal project on the Northeast Cape Fear River (just north of the mouth of Smith Creek) (refer to
Attachment A). The disposal areas were originally formed from pumping material to unconfined areas
along maintained channel reaches. Over time, the federal project included the construction of upland
dikes to contain the dredged material. Most of these diked upland facilities have since been abandoned
by the USACE. These areas range in size with all but one site (Area 15 on Eagles Island) less than 50 acres.
Many of the sites have eroding dikes and have been subsequently overgrown by Phragmites australis and
wetland plant species. Based upon the location of these areas, many of the sites consist of mixed material
with higher content of fine-grained sediments. Only two sites (Area 3 and Area 4) are still maintained by
the USACE as CDFs. Area 3 (29 ac) has mixed sediment content and would likely not be a suitable source
candidate for beach quality material. Area 4 (25 ac) consists predominantly of beach -compatible sand.
However, sand from this island is dedicated for the federally -authorized Kure Beach project in New
Hanover County (NC).
Based upon documentation of existing disposal areas of the Wilmington Harbor project, use of any single
CDF as a source of beach -compatible sand is not viable. All but one of these sites consists of mixed
sediment content deemed unsuitable for beach placement. The one CDF (Area 4) that contains higher
percent sand content is dedicated as a sand source for the federally -authorized Kure Beach project. Given
the quantity of sand required for nourishment on Bald Head Island, the State technical standards the
material must meet, and issues associated with constructability, CDFs are not considered a practicable
sand source alternative.
Frying Pan Shoals (Applicant's Preferred Alternative)
The screening and identification of a suitable borrow site considered the following conditions:
• documented strata of high -quality beach compatible sediment suitable for meeting both State
Standards and post -placement performance criteria acceptable to the Engineer and the project
Sponsor (and in quantities sufficient to nourish the entirety of South Beach);
• desirable constructability characteristics for purposes of sand excavation and beach fill construction
by an ocean -certified cutter suction dredge;
• avoidance of cultural resources necessary for operational feasibility, and
• siting of the borrow area in a known dynamic but highly depositional area for purposes of ensuring
rapid substrate recovery;
• siting of the borrow area to minimize biological impacts to resident and transient species and their
habitats (including Essential Fish Habitat); and
• reasonable accessibility to Bald Head Island and proximity to nourishment site for logistic and cost
considerations (i.e. the project must be practicable and not prohibitively expensive).
In light of the criteria identified to meet the Applicant's project purpose and need, use of a potential
borrow site beyond three nautical miles (i.e. in federal waters) would not be feasible. In particular, such
a site would not provide reasonable accessibility to the nourishment site (needed for operational
benefits), would be cost prohibitive, and would necessitate working outside of acceptable environmental
windows. In addition, it would require the use of a hopper dredge that would result in entrainment
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 17

impacts to fish and sea turtles as well as increased risk of collision with protected cetaceans. As a result,
Olsen Associates, Inc. (OAI) identified a nearshore candidate sand source (i.e. potential borrow area) on
Frying Pan Shoals that is further described below as the Applicant's preferred alternative. In addition,
more detailed information regarding existing conditions and proposed work is provided.
OAI has identified a preferred borrow site location (consisting of an evaluation area of approximately 460
acres and a dredge site of approximately 198 acres) along the west side of Frying Pan Shoals approximately
1 mile seaward of the southeastern shoreline of Bald Head Island. Frying Pan Shoals is a submerged
extension of a large-scale cuspate foreland (i.e. accretional feature formed by the historical deposition of
a longshore drift originating from both the north and the west). The shoal formation extends well over
thirty miles offshore from the eastern end of Bald Head Island. Prior federal studies have identified the
presence of vast quantities of beach -quality sand throughout much of the shoal formation. The Village
recently initiated more detailed site investigations (including hydrographic surveys, geotechnical
investigations, and marine cultural resource surveys). Based upon these studies and subsequent
engineering analysis, the identified borrow site has been further refined to an approximate 198.4-acre
area (refer to Permit Sheet 7 of 9, Appendix A). Avoidance and minimization measures are further
described in Section 3 below.
3. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
The selection of the proposed Phase I Bald Head Island 198.4-acre borrow site met the identified screening
criteria outlined above and capitalized on the findings of hydrographic surveys, geotechnical
investigations, and two phases of cultural resource investigation.
The specified design depth of the proposed borrow site will ensure that substrate sediments exposed
immediately after project construction will continue to consist of high -quality sands. Borrow site
"recovery" (i.e. infilling) will initially be influenced by both slumping of excavation perimeter side slopes
and rapid deposition from predictable sediment transport from north to south along the marginal shoal
feature — as presently exists today. Advance quantification of infilling rates is difficult due to equilibration
processes between cut and uncut portions of shoal during the first few years following dredging.
Consequently, physical monitoring of the borrow site recovery will be performed. It is well documented,
however, that the section of shoal in question is naturally depositional both in the modern day and the
morphological sense. Regardless of future realized sediment deposition rates, the probability of
sedimentation by similar sandy material (in contrast to fines, organics, clays, etc.) is excellent (McNinch,
2009) and coincidently is the principal post -construction borrow site characteristic desired for purposes
of rapid recovery of benthic communities (Bergquist, et.al. 2008) and corresponding minimization of
potential adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
The project as designed will incorporate the following protection measures identified by the South
Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC) specific for dredge and fill projects in areas designated
as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). These include the following:
1. Impact assessment (description of potential impacts; baseline information; alternatives analysis;
construction monitoring; post -construction monitoring plan);
2. Fill material should match that of recipient beach as closely as possible;
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 18

3. Dredging to be located in areas characterized by strong currents and sand movement to
promote more rapid infilling rates (and thus reducing the duration of impacts to benthic
habitats); and
4. Dredging should be performed in a manner intended to minimize impacts to wave energy and
currents, "thus reducing the likelihood of infilling with fine-grained sediments"
In addition to the SAFMC protection measures, the proposed project incorporates following design
elements that helps to further reduce or avoid impacts to natural resources:
1. The site is a highly dynamic and renewable shoal feature (maintained by seaward flow of current
off cape) and thus physical and biological disturbances tend to be short-lived;
2. The position of borrow site on the western flank represents a sediment sink (thus promoting
rapid recovery and infilling with like material);
3. The combination of size and position of sand source site results in least impacts to shoal
integrity;
4. Dredging to occur during winter months (reduced biological activity);
5. The project will allow for undredged areas in close proximity to be left undisturbed to promote
more rapid recolonization of benthos (as was documented for Jay Bird Shoals and Bald Head
Creek Shoals with similar post -project conditions);
6. The project will avoid hard -bottom habitat;
7. The project will avoid Primary Nursery Area (PNA) impacts;
8. The project will avoid inlet and associated shoals for large-scale sand volume needsz;
9. The project will utilize hydraulic cutter suction dredge (thereby avoiding and minimizing physical
entrainment of species in close proximity to the dredge operation); and
10. The project will include post -project physical monitoring of borrow site (i.e. assessment of
physical recovery).
Attributes of the borrow site location and design as described above help to minimize both physical and
related ecological effects. The Applicant and project engineer have worked to further reduce the limits
of spatial impacts of the proposed borrow site based upon comments received subsequent to the
submittal of the 2016 proposal. Of particular note with respect to avoidance and minimization efforts
since the 2016 submittal is the following: the deletion of the dredge access corridor (aka "fairway"); the
reduction in borrow site acreage (from 460.1 acres to 198.4 acres); and the limitation of dredging to an
initial single borrow event to be monitored. In addition, the Applicant continues to monitor the physical
recovery of the Jay Bird Shoal (JBS) borrow site on an annual basis. If the shoreline of South Beach can be
maintained though federal nourishment for a period of time and sufficient physical recovery occurs within
JBS prior to the next nourishment need, then the Applicant will seek to preferentially utilize JBS as an
alternative sand source site prior to the use of FPS. Physical monitoring of the JBS borrow site will
determine the volume of sand available for dredging prior to the next Village -sponsored nourishment,
and this information will be provided to the agencies to determine if JBS can be utilized in lieu of FPS.
As indicated above, the permit request is for a one-time dredge event with both physical and benthic
monitoring proposed to evaluate the effects of dredging on FPS prior to any requests for dredging in the
future. The Applicant acknowledges the need for the monitoring of physiographic, sedimentary and
2 All coastal inlets are designated HAPC for paneaid shrimp, blue crabs, and estuarine -dependent snapper -grouper
species.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 19

benthic recovery within the proposed area of excavation. VHBI's engineer (Olsen Associates) believes that
based upon the existing precepts of the Wilmington Harbor Sand Management Plan, which episodically
places high quality maintenance sand on BHI, it could be necessary to construct an interim locally
sponsored beach fill project on 8- to 12-year intervals (more or less). However, the use of JBS for future
events could very well provide a viable alternate sand source in lieu of the FPS borrow area.
4. POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
The Village as Permittee shall perform physical monitoring of the dredged FPS borrow site immediately
after construction, annually for three (3) years and biennially thereafter. The post -construction
bathymetry will be compared annually with subsequent monitoring results to calculate in -filling or
"recharge" of the site. The results of the monitoring will be incorporated into the Village's existing
comprehensive Shoreline Monitoring Program and reported annually.
The footprint of each monitoring survey shall include the entire permitted area plus a 500-ft buffer outside
the site. No changes in morphology to the Frying Pan Shoals formation is anticipated; however, changes
in bathymetry throughout the study area as well as proximate to any cultural resource buffer will be
monitored.
In addition, both sediment substrate and benthic infaunal sampling will be performed before dredging
and once annually post -dredging for a period of three years. Sediment samples will be analyzed by a
certified laboratory for analysis of percent organic matter and particle size distribution/texture (percent
sand, silt, and clay) in accordance with ASTM standards. Benthic sampling will be performed via grab
samples of both reference (undisturbed) transects and dredge transects. All samples will be sorted and
identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible (generally species) and counted.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 20

5. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATION
5.1 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT (MSA)
The 1996 amendments of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
mandate the identification and maintenance of habitats essential to the development and support of
fisheries. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is identified as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (MSA § 3(10)). The MSA amendments provide
guidelines for the incorporation of EFH provisions into Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) developed by
NOAA Fisheries and applicable regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCS). For the purpose of
interpreting the definition of EFH, "waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical
and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters and
associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable
fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle. EFH is described by the Councils in amendments to
FMPs, and is approved by the Secretary of Commerce acting through NOAA Fisheries (50 CFR §600.10).
Section 305(b)(2) of the MSA requires all federal agencies to consult with the Secretary on all actions or
proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.
Procedures developed to address EFH coordination, consultation and recommendation requirements are
identified in 50 CFR § 600.905-930. Additional consultation guidance was developed by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Habitat Conservation (NMFS 2010).
EFH that are considered particularly important to the long-term productivity of a managed species or to
be particularly vulnerable to degradation have been defined as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(HAPC). The EFH provisions authorize the NOAA — NMFS and Regional Fishery Management Councils
(FMCS) to provide consultation and conservation recommendations on proposed projects that may
adversely affect EFH and HAPC either directly or indirectly.
The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Amendments of the SAFMC have targeted specific categories of EFH
and HAPC as depicted in Table 3. Coastal inlets and areas of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are
identified as HAPC for several managed species.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 21

Table 3. Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast
Statesl
Essential Fish Habitat
Geographically Defined Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Estuarine Areas
Area -Wide
Aquatic Beds
Council -designated Artificial Reef Special Management Zones
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Hermatypic (reef -forming) Coral Habitat and Reefs
Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Mangroves
Hard Bottoms
Estuarine Water Column
Hoyt Hills
Soft Bottom/Intertidal Flats
Sargassum Habitat
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
State -designated Areas of Importance for Managed Species
Palustrine Emergent and Forested Wetlands
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Seagrass
Coastal Inlets
Marine Areas
North Carolina
Artificial/Manmade Reefs
Big Rock
Coral and Coral Reefs
Bogue Sound
Live/Hard Bottoms
Capes Fear, Lookout, & Hatteras (sandy shoals)
Coastal Inlets
Sargassum Habitat
Soft Bottom/Intertidal Flats
New River
Marine Water Column
Ten Fathom Ledge
The Point
'As identified by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in the Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic
Region (SAFMC, 1998).
The HAPC designation is described in the implementing regulations of the EFH provisions (50 CFR
§600.815). According to the Mid -Atlantic Fishery Council (MAFMC 2016), Councils are encouraged to
identify habitat types or areas within EFH as HAPCs, based on one or more of the following considerations:
(i) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat;
(ii) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human -induced environmental degradation;
(iii) Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and
(iv) The rarity of the habitat type.
According to the MAFMC guidance (2016), the HAPC designation does not confer any specific habitat
protections, but can focus habitat conservation efforts through several pathways. Councils may take
HAPCs into consideration when minimizing adverse impacts from fishing, for example, through
restrictions on where and when fishing activities may occur. While NOAA Fisheries and the councils lack
the authority to regulate non -fishing activities, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries when
authorizing, funding or undertaking activities that may adversely impact EFH (16 U.S.C. 1855 §305(b)(2)).
Within the EFH consultation process, HAPCs encourage increased scrutiny and more rigorous conservation
recommendations for reducing adverse impacts to fish habitat. Finally, HAPCs can serve as a tool for
focusing habitat research and monitoring efforts.
Categories of EFH potentially affected by the proposed action include the estuarine emergent wetlands,
estuarine and marine water column, oyster reefs and shell banks and soft bottom and intertidal flats.
HAPC potentially affected by the proposed action include coastal inlets and SAV.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
22

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF EFH CATEGORIES IN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA
5.2.1 ESTUARINE AND MARINE WATER COLUMN
Water column habitat is defined as "the water covering a submerged surface and its physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics. The water column provides corridor and connectivity for all life stages of
managed species. Species occurrence and distribution is influenced by the physiochemical parameters of
the water column (principally salinity and temperature) in conjunction with location relative to inlets and
habitat structure. Differences in the chemical and physical properties of the water affect the biological
components of the water column, including fish distribution" (Deaton et al. 2010). The water column is
considered the primary component which binds the entire coastal aquatic ecosystem connecting a
complex web of influences from both land and sea [15A NCAC 07H .0206(b)].
Estuarine and marine water column EFH is present within or near the proposed project. Estuarine waters
are located in the vicinity of the mouth of the Cape Fear River (i.e. in proximity to the nourishment site of
West Beach). The offshore borrow site and nearshore surf zone of South Beach consist of marine waters.
Impact assessment and mitigative measures for the proposed action will focus on the estuarine and
marine water column present at the offshore borrow site and the nearshore waters of the surf zone of
the nourishment sites (along South Beach and West Beach).
Estuarine water column is described as the transitional zone located between freshwater and marine
waterbodies where riverine and ocean systems mix. Nutrient mixing and fish recruitment in these
estuarine water columns are primarily a function of the prevailing winds, buoyancy -driven flows, and lunar
tides. Estuaries are highly productive and provide vital nursery areas and habitat for many of North
Carolina's commercial and recreational fish species. Estuarine -dependent species comprise more than
90% of North Carolina's commercial landings and over 60% of the recreational harvest (Deaton et al.
2010). The Cape Fear River is the only major river in North Carolina that flows directly into the ocean
which makes its estuary unique compared to others in the state. In the lower Cape Fear River estuary,
lunar tides have a dominant effect on salinity variations, whereas the upper estuary (above Wilmington)
is more influenced by freshwater discharge. Because of the relatively high discharge of freshwater and
the low volume of the Cape Fear estuary, the flushing rate is approximately 14 days which makes it the
most rapid turnover of all major estuaries in North Carolina.
The water column associated with the mouth of the Cape Fear River provides a corridor for numerous
estuarine -dependent species utilizing the estuary for foraging, refuge, and nursery habitat. Juvenile and
adult coastal demersal species (e.g. summer flounder, red drum, and bluefish), juvenile and adult coastal
pelagics (cobia, Spanish mackerel, and king mackerel), and juvenile members of the snapper -grouper
complex (e.g. black sea bass, sheepshead, and gag grouper) migrate through the mouth of the Cape Fear
River to and from nearshore marine waters.
Marine water column are those waters overlying the continental shelf and its associated high-energy
coastlines where salinities exceed 30 ppt. (Deaton et al. 2010; Cowardin et al. 1979). Lunar tidal cycles are
the major mixing mechanism in the marine water column with tidal amplitudes averaging 4.3 ft near Cape
Fear. Winds are also an important component to water movement and mixing in all layers of the marine
water column. Winds move large water masses inshore, in turn, aiding larval transport of ichthyofauna
spawned in the offshore waters of the continental shelf in their migration to the nearshore environment.
Larvae have been demonstrated to exert considerable control over vertical movement within the water
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
23

column (Morgan and Anastasia, 2008). Migration of larvae outside the tidal influence of the estuary is
influenced through wind -driven transport and directed vertical movement by larvae to maximize
shoreward movement (Boehlert and Mundy, 1988). Once nearshore, then alongshore drift is the principal
mechanism until larvae reach the entrainment influence of the estuary.
The surf zone water column is the principal transport corridor for larvae of marine -spawning, estuarine
dependent species that migrate into the coastal inlets. In addition, the water column of the surf zone
provides habitat for juveniles and adults of a number of managed species including bluefish (Pomatomus
saltatrix), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus).
The offshore waters of North Carolina are uniquely suited for the occurrence of a range of species due to
the convergence of the warm, north -flowing Gulf Stream and the cool, south -flowing Virginia Coastal
Labrador current near Cape Hatteras. Off the southeastern shorelines of North Carolina, the Gulf Stream
tends to increase water temperatures and salinities and transport fish larvae from southern areas into
nearshore zones. Along shoals, there may be localized upwelling of cooler, nutrient -rich waters (Deaton
et al. 2010).
NOAA issued a draft amendment to update EFH for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) with the most
recent information available (NOAA 2016). According to this report, the EFH in close proximity to the
shoreline of Bald Head Island (including the offshore waters in the vicinity of FPS) was identified for the
following HMS: bluefin tuna (adult); skipjack tuna (juvenile); roundscale spearfish (adult); longbill
spearfish (all life stages); blacktip shark (Atlantic stock, juvenile and adult); sandbar shark (juvenile and
adult); scalloped hammerhead shark (juvenile and adult); spinner shark (neonate/YOY, juvenile, and
adult); tiger shark (neonate/YOY, juvenile, and adult); blacknose shark (Atlantic stock, juvenile and adult);
bonnethead shark (Atlantic stock, juvenile and adult); Atlantic sharpnose shark (neonate/YOY, juvenile,
and adult); oceanic whitetip shark (neonate, juvenile, and adult); smooth dogfish (all life stages); dusky
shark (juvenile and adult); and sand tiger shark (juvenile and adult).
5.2.2 SOFT BOTTOM
Surficial sediments of soft bottom substrate (consisting of unvegetated and unconsolidated sands) act as
a storage bank for nutrients and chemicals, cycling between the sediments and the water column (Deaton
et al. 2010). Soft bottom habitat is comprised of mud flats, beaches, shoals and sand bars. In the estuaries,
soft bottom provides habitat for a variety of microscopic plants and benthic infaunal/epifaunal taxa.
Together, these populations may serve as an important food source for many juvenile fish. Juvenile and
adult fish species that forage on the abundance of microalgae, detritus, and small invertebrates in turn
attract larger, economically valuable, predatory fish such as Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), red
drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentalus), spot (Leiostomusxanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and kingfisher (Menticirrhus spp). In the surf zone, inorganic
nutrients are continually resuspended by wave action in sufficient concentrations to create localized
phytoplankton blooms (Mclachlan et al. 1981; Hackney et al. 1996). This self-sustaining nutrient input
perpetuates a cycle of phytoplankton production, which supports large numbers of intertidal filter
feeders, high concentrations of baitfish and estuarine -dependent fish migrating through the surf zone
including Florida pompano, gulf kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis), summer flounder, southern flounder, red
drum, and bluefish.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
24

According to Peterson and Peterson (1979), the most numerous meiofaunal taxon occurring in soft
bottom habitats on subtidal and intertidal flats of North Carolina are the nematodes. Other meiofaunal
taxa of these systems may include harpacticoid copepods, gastrotrichs, and turbellarians (Peterson and
Peterson 1979). Investigations by Birkhead et al. (1979) indicated the abundance of polychaete worms in
samples collected from the nearshore ocean at the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Representative
polychaete worms included Spiophanes bombyx, Magelona sp., Heteromastus filiformis, and
Paraprionospio pinnata. Additional taxa identified included the sea pansy (Renilla reniformis), the sand
dollar (Mellita quinquiesperforata) and brittlestar (amphiurid). Relatively small, opportunistic species of
polychaetes and amphipods tend to be the numerically dominant benthic macrofauna of intertidal and
subtidal flats. Species abundances and diversity tend to decrease within higher intertidal areas and within
areas of increased physical energy (e.g. on rapidly accreting shoals). Common macrobenthos of the
oceanfront intertidal beaches include mole crabs, coquina clams, species of haustoriid amphipods, and
certain polychaetes (e.g. Scolelepis squamata) (Deaton et al. 2010). Subtidal soft bottom offshore of Kure
Beach was reported to be dominated by polychaetes with bivalves, crabs, and amphipods also prevalent
(Posey and Alphin 2002).
The marine soft bottom habitat of nearshore shoals provides important foraging habitat for several
recreational and commercially important fish species that tend to congregate in or around areas of distinct
topographic relief (Deaton et al. 2010). Both inlet shoals and cape -associated shoals are considered HAPC
for managed species. Cape -associated shoals (such as FPS) generally extend from cuspate foreland
promontories with sediment distribution influenced by wind -driven currents, waves, headland -related
residual flows and tidal currents (McNinch unpublished). A report commissioned by BOEM (Rutecki et al.
2014) synthesized available data regarding ecological functions and the potential impacts from sand
mining of shoals (the latter of which is described further in Section 5.0 below). The authors reported that
while shoals and shoal complexes are among the least -studied marine habitats, there are sufficient data
demonstrating their importance as refuge, forage areas, spawning sites, and nursery areas for a range of
pelagic and demersal species. Shoal complexes (including inlet shoals and cape -associated shoals) have
been designated EFH for a number of species including cobia, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, red drum,
and several Atlantic highly migratory species (Rutecki et al. 2014).
FPS itself is identified as a HAPC for coastal migratory pelagics including the following managed species:
cobia, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel. FPS provides for benthic invertebrates adapted to dynamic
substrate and serving as trophic base for demersal fish. It also serves as refuge for pelagic planktivores
(e.g. anchovies, menhadens) that are prey species for resident and transient piscivores (e.g. bluefish, spiny
dogfish, smooth dogfish, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel).
Subtidal bottom areas off the southeastern shoreline of North Carolina (including inlet shoals and cape -
associated shoals) serve as pupping grounds for several species of shark including Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo), blacknose shark (Carcharhinus
acronotus), spinner shark (C. brevipinna), dusky shark (C. obscurus), and to a lesser degree, the blacktip
shark (C. limbatus), sandbar shark (C. plumbeus), and scalloped hammerhead shark (S. lewini) (Deaton et
al. 2010). The Magnuson -Stevens Act requires the identification of EFH in FMPs, and towards that end
NMFS funded two cooperative survey programs designed to further delineate shark nursery habitats in
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery (COASTSPAN)
Survey and the Gulf of Mexico States Shark Pupping and Nursery (GULFSPAN) Survey have been
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 25

implemented to assess the geographical and seasonal extent of shark nursery habitat, determine which
shark species use these areas, and gauge the relative importance of these coastal habitats in order to
provide information that can then be used in EFH determinations. Limited COASTSPAN sampling occurred
in nearshore waters along the southern coast of North Carolina from New River Inlet to the South Carolina
border. Atlantic sharpnose was the most abundant species caught along with bonnethead, blacknose,
blacktip and tiger sharks (NOAA 2009).
10' W,SM:/_\:i07:101fi101JL
Hard bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight generally consists of exposed rock or consolidated
sediments in nearshore or offshore marine waters. Exposed hard bottom provides the substrate surface
area for colonization by invertebrates and algae as well as safe havens for larval and juvenile fish. In turn,
these areas serve as an important food source to a variety of invertebrate and fish species. Community
structure varies widely with depth, location, and season. Hard bottom habitats are characterized by a rich
diversity of invertebrates (e.g. sponges, corals, anemones, tunicates, and mollusks) and reef fish such as
gag grouper (Micteroperca microplepis), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), red snapper (Lutjanus
campechanus), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), black sea bass (Centropristis striata),
greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) and white grunt (Haemulon plumieri) and are thus commonly
referred to as "live bottoms" or "live rock" (Deaton et al. 2010). The majority of hard bottom sites occur
greater than three nautical miles from the shore. Other hard bottom sites may be subject to covering by
storm -induced shifting sands and therefore may not be readily identified. According to the North Carolina
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP), northern Long Bay consists of a number of hard bottom sites
occurring generally greater than one mile from shore.
According to a report commissioned by the US Army Corps of Engineers (DCA 2010), there was no hard
bottom habitat identified within the FPS borrow area considered for the Brunswick County Beaches
Project based on the remote surveys and towed video confirmations performed at selected ground-
truthing targets. Sediment samples confirm the presence of homogeneous sand throughout the FPS
survey area. Similarly, the geotechnical investigation recently completed and documented by Olsen
Associates (2016) did not reveal the presence of hard bottom within the proposed borrow site.
6. MANAGED SPECIES
The SAFMC, Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC), and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) have designated unvegetated bottom (hard and soft), and water column areas
(estuarine and marine) within the study area as EFH, in compliance with the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act
of 1996. Table 4 provides a list of all federally and state managed species (including life history stage)
present in the Lower Cape Fear River, associated shoals, and estuary as identified by the NMFS. Species
addressed in this section are representative and consist of fish and invertebrates of both recreational and
commercial importance that are managed under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and the 1997 Fisheries Reform Act which requires the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF) to prepare Fisheries Management Plans for review and adoption by the North Carolina
Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC).
The proposed action occurs in EFH categories (estuarine/marine water column and soft bottom) identified
for several managed species including: brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
26

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus); demersal species such as bluefish,
summer flounder (Paralichthys dentalus), and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) ; coastal pelagics such as
cobia (Rachycentron canadum), king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel; and various species of the
snapper/grouper complex such as black sea bass (Centropristis striata), sheepshead (Archosargus
probatocephalus), and gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis). Highly migratory species (HMS) with EFH
in the vicinity of the proposed action include: longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri); blacktip shark
(Carcharhinus limbatus), sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna
lewini), spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna), tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), blacknose shark
(Carcharhinus acronotus), bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo), and Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). Other estuarine -dependent species including spot (Leiostomusxanthurus),
Atlantic menhaden (erevoortia tyrannus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus),
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), kingfishes (Menticirrhus spp.), black drum (Pogonias cromis),
and gray trout (Cynoscion regalis) that serve as prey for fisheries managed species (e.g. snappers,
groupers, tuna, and sharks) inhabit the project area.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 27

Table 4. Presence of Managed Species (including life cycle stage) for Area Waterbodiesl
[E=Eggs; L=Larval; J=Juvenile; A=Adult (A), N/A=Not Found]
SPECIES
Cape Fear
River to US
421
Lockwoods
Folly to NC
211
Myrtle
Sound
Masonboro
Sound
AIWW
(throughout g
NC)
Atlantic
Ocean South
of Cape
Hatteras
Coastal Demersals
Red drum
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
A
Bluefish
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
JA
Summer flounder
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
ELJA
Invertebrates
Brown shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
Pink shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
White shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
Calico scallop
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Snapper/Grouper
Gag grouper
J
J
J
J
J
ELJA
Gray snapper
J
J
J
J
J
ELJA
Black sea bass
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
ELJA
Gray triggerfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Yellow jack
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Blue runner
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Crevalle jack
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Bar jack
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Greater amberjack
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Almaco jack
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Banded rudderfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Spadefish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
White grunt
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Hogfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Puddingwife
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 28

Table 4 (continued). Presence of Managed Species (including life cycle stage) for Area Waterbodies.1
SPECIES
Cape Fear
River to US
421
Lockwoods
Folly to NC
211
Myrtle
Sound
Masonboro
Sound
AIWW
(throughout g
NC)
Atlantic
Ocean South
of Cape
Hatteras
Blackfin snapper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Red snapper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Cubera snapper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Silk snapper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Vermillion snapper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Blueline tilefish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Sand tilefish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Bank sea bass
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Rock sea bass
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Graysby
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Speckled hind
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Yellowedge grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Coney
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Red hind
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Goliath Grouper
(Jewfish)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Red grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Misty grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Warsaw grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Snowy grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Yellowmouth grouper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Scamp
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Sheepshead
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
N/A
ELJA
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
29

Table 4 (continued). Presence of Managed Species (including life cycle stage) for Area Waterbodies.l
SPECIES
Cape Fear
River to US
421
Lockwoods
Folly to NC
211
Myrtle
Sound
Masonboro
Sound
AIWW
(throughout g
NC)
Atlantic
Ocean South
of Cape
Hatteras
Red porgy
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Longspine porgy
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Scup
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Coastal Pelagics
Dolphin
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ELJA
Cobia
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
JA
King mackerel
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
ELJA
Spanish mackerel
JA
JA
JA
JA
LJA
ELJA
Highly Migratory Species
Spiny dogfish
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
ELJA
Shortfin mako shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Blue shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Spinner shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Scalloped
hammerhead shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Big nose shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Black tip shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Dusky shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Night shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Sandbar shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Silky shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Tiger shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Atlantic sharpnose
shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
30

Table 4 (continued). Presence of Managed Species (including life cycle stage) for Area Waterbodies.l
SPECIES
Cape Fear
River to US
421
Lockwoods
Folly to NC
211
Myrtle
Sound
Masonboro
Sound
AIWW
(throughout g
NC)
Atlantic
Ocean South
of Cape
Hatteras
Longfin mako shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Whitetip shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Thrasher shark
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
Atlantic bigeye tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Atlantic bluefin tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Skipjack tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Longbill spearfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swordfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
White marlin
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Sailfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Yellowfin tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Blue marlin
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
Little tunny
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ELJA
'Table contents from National Marine Fisheries Service (Beaufort, NC)
7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The following potential impacts to EFH are examined with regard to the Applicant's proposed action.
Potential effects of the proposed action or actions on the EFH designations occurring within or adjacent
to the project area are identified. Mitigative measures to be employed by the Applicant to reduce the
potential adverse effects to EFH are included below. Potential consequences of the other viable project
alternatives (as described in Section 2.4) are also summarized.
Table 5 provides a summary assessment of the potential impacts to EFH and HAPC within or adjacent to
the project area resulting from the implementation of the applicant's proposed action. The following
assessment addresses those specific EFH categories occurring within or adjacent to the project area. These
include: (1) estuarine and marine water column; and (2) soft bottom (including intertidal habitat of the
surf zone and FPS, the latter of which is designated as HAPC).
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
31

Table 5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern1,2
(N/A = Not Applicable; MAA = May Adversely Affect)
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Present w/in or
adjacent to
project area
Impacts from
excavation of
borrow site
Impacts from
beach fill
placement
Estuarine Areas
1 Aquatic Beds
NO
N/A
N/A
2 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
NO
N/A
N/A
3 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Mangroves
NO
N/A
N/A
4 Estuarine Water Column
YES
MAA
MAA
5 Intertidal Flats
YES
NO
NO
6 Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks
NO
N/A
N/A
7 Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands
NO
N/A
N/A
8 Seagrass
NO
N/A
N/A
Marine Areas
9 Artificial/Manmade Reefs
NO
N/A
N/A
10 Coral & Coral Reefs
NO
N/A
N/A
11 Soft Bottom
YES
MAA
MAA
12 Live/Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
N/A
13 Sargassum
NO
N/A
N/A
14 Water Column
YES
MAA
MAA
GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HABITAT
Present w/in or
Impacts from
Impacts from
adjacent to
excavation of
beach fill
AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
project area
borrow site
placement
Area -Wide
14 Council -designated Artificial Reef Special
NO
N/A
N/A
Management Zones
15 Hermatypic (reef -forming) Coral Habitat &
NO
N/A
N/A
Reefs
16 Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
N/A
17 Hoyt Hills
NO
N/A
N/A
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 32

18 Sargassum Habitat
NO
N/A
N/A
19 State -designated Areas Important for
Managed Species
NO
N/A
N/A
20 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
NO
N/A
N/A
North Carolina
21 Big Rock
NO
N/A
N/A
22 Bogue Sound
NO
N/A
N/A
23 Coastal Inlets
YES
NO
NO
24 Capes Fear, Lookout & Hatteras (sandy shoals)
YES
MAA
MAA
25 New River
NO
N/A
N/A
26 The Ten Fathom Ledge
NO
N/A
N/A
27 The Point
NO
N/A
N/A
'As identified in the Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
zAdapted from USACE Environmental Assessment - Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington
Harbor, North Carolina (February 2000)
7.1 ESTUARINE AND MARINE WATER COLUMN
During the dredging process and sand placement for beach nourishment, immediate localized impact
originating from removal of substrate and the abrupt increased sedimentation of the marine water
column at both the borrow sites and intertidal surf zones adjacent to the construction area and disposal
sites are expected. Localized increases in turbidity also has the potential to reduce benthic prey availability
(Deaton el al. 2010).
According to USACE (1997), sediment consisting of more than 90% sand is not likely to produce significant
long-term suspension of sediment or turbidity and any effects of elevated turbidity levels tended be
limited both temporally and spatially. Turbidity levels decrease rapidly subsequent to dredging and
disposal through simple mixing and dilution processes (associated with longshore and tidal currents, wind,
and surf). Indeed, storm events can produce equally high levels of suspended sediments. The sandy
substrate of both the borrow site and the nourishment site will reduce the potential for any significant or
prolonged elevation of turbidity levels in the water column.
Larval/early juvenile fish species spawned in the offshore and nearshore waters arrive in the inlets of
North Carolina in three distinct stages: winter -early spring, late spring, and summer with the peak
abundance occurring in late spring (Hettler and Chester 1990). Seasonal restrictions on dredging for
navigation projects has been shown to be an effective means of protecting fish during critical life stages,
such as spawning or juvenile fish growing periods in nursery areas (NCDEQ 2016).
Hydrodynamic modeling performed by Olsen for the project EIS (2014) predicted that there is no inlet -
directed tidal flow on either peak ebb or peak flood conditions at Frying Pan Shoals. Therefore, there is
no expected effect on the entrainment of larvae from the proposed borrow site by tidal action. Given the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 33

size of the proposed borrow site relative to the large shoal feature (less than 0.5%) and the predicted
physical recovery of the borrow area, it can be reasonably expected that the proposed action will not
induce any large-scale disruption to circulation patterns. In addition, the excavated area will tie into
natural bottom contours on the western edge of the shoal feature (i.e. there will not be a hole that could
theoretically entrap or slow larvae). Rather, it is likely that vertical mixing and upwelling patterns would
continue to be maintained with only limited, localized effects to currents/circulation. As a result, there is
not expected to be an effect on the transport of larvae. Lastly, any assumed impacts to circulation (or
disruption to upwelling) is unlikely to affect larval transport given that larvae have been demonstrated to
exert considerable control over vertical movement within the water column (Morgan and Anastasia,
2008). Migration of larvae outside the tidal influence of the estuary is influenced through wind -driven
transport and directed vertical movement by larvae to maximize shoreward movement (Boehlert and
Mundy, 1988). Once nearshore, then alongshore drift is the principal mechanism until larvae reach the
entrainment influence of the estuary. Based upon the lack of pronounced effects to circulation patterns,
the uninterrupted wind -driven transport of larvae, the ability of larvae to exert control over vertical
movement, and the large entrainment field of the Cape Fear River estuary; larval transport into the
estuary will not be adversely affected.
Although limited data are available regarding impacts of beach nourishment on transient or resident surf
zone fishes (especially early life history stages), it is anticipated that performing the work during periods
of reduced biological activity will reduce potential adverse impacts to these life history stages. Research
conducted by Ross and Lancaster (1996) focused on the use of the surf zone by two species, Florida
pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) and Gulf kingfish (Mentecirrhus littoralis), as a nursery. Both species
were reported to exhibit a high degree of site fidelity. Placement of beach fill within the surf zone would
likely have a temporary impact upon these fish through the burial of their primary forage of amphipods
and coquina clams (Donax variabilis). Recolonization and species recovery of these affected areas of the
surf zone by benthic prey species is generally rapid when the deposited material is compatible with that
of the beach front where it is to be placed. Studies conducted on the changes in geomorphology and
sediment characteristics indicate that these factors have a greater impact upon benthic recovery than the
actual burial (USFWS 2000). Given the proposed length of shoreline to be nourished, a relatively small
percentage of these larval/early juvenile fishes would be affected. Also, considering the compatibility of
the material to be deposited with the existing beach sediments, relatively quick recovery of the benthic
fauna through horizontal and vertical migration is expected.
A study conducted by Versar, Inc. (Versar 2004), on behalf of the USACE Wilmington District, collected
data over a two year period on the "Effects of Dredge Material Beach Disposal on Surf Zone Fish and
Benthic Resources on Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden Beach, North Carolina,
2003 and 2004". During the years 2001-2002, the USACE Wilmington Harbor Project deepened and
realigned the entrance channel to the Cape Fear River. Approximately 5.6 million cubic yards of material
was removed from the Cape Fear River navigation channel as well as the offshore navigation channel
leading to the river entrance. This material was then deposited on the four mentioned beaches to
replenish areas affected by erosion over the previous years. Dredging and sand placement occurred
between Spring 2001 through Winter 2002. Following both year 1 and year 2 sampling, Versar reported
that no immediate impacts in fish abundances and diversities among disturbed, undisturbed, and
reference stations were identified at any of the four beaches.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
34

Increased turbidity associated with beachfront disposal is minimized through dewatering of material
behind upland dikes. The nature of the material dredged (i.e. less than 2% fines) will serve to minimize
turbidity problems. In general, the spatial scale of elevated turbidity related to dredging and beachfront
disposal is very small (USACE 2001). In addition, the area of shoreline for the proposed nourishment has
been the location for prior federal sand disposal associated with maintenance of the adjacent Wilmington
Harbor Entrance Channel. The proposed nourishment limits of the Village -sponsored project are
consistent with the authorized federal disposal project.
Mortality of organisms (i.e. pelagic eggs and larvae to pre -flexion stage individuals) within the water
column that lack the ability to escape the suction field of an operating dredge and subsequent
entrainment in the flow of water and sediment passing through its pumping equipment is likely. However,
previous USACE studies have demonstrated that only an extremely small percentage (a fraction of 1%) of
marine and estuarine water column inhabitants are subject to entrainment based upon the amount of
water that a dredge can pump. In similar soft bottom habitats, Van Dolah et al. (1992) estimated that
mortality of post larval shrimp (L. setiferus) due to entrainment during dredging activities was in the order
of 1,883 individuals. This was considered insignificant since a single female white shrimp produces
between 500,000 and 1,000,000 eggs each spawning period. Impacts to sessile, slow moving taxa that
cannot escape the suction field of the dredge are expected but limited. Due to the mobile nature of most
fish assemblages it is believed that these fish will relocate to other areas while dredging activities take
place. Subsequently, effects on these life forms are expected to be relatively minor relative to local or
regional population levels.
Pullen and Naqvi (1983) found that motile animals were the least affected by dredging and concluded that
benthic and fish utilization likely depends upon water quality of the dredge area. Provided the dredge
area does not form an anaerobic pit of organic -laden sediment, biological communities may be restored
rather quickly. In addition, multiple studies have indicated rapid recovery of benthic populations and fish
utilization at locations with high water and sediment dynamics such as tidal channels (Pullen and Naqvi
1983; Van Der Veer et al. 1985; Schaffner et al. 1996; Musick 1998).
The proposed action may adversely affect the estuarine and marine water column EFH (including
managed species utilizing these habitats); however, potential adverse effects due to the following
considerations: (1) limited spatial and temporal effects of elevated turbidity (due to high quality and
compatibility of sand material); (2) avoidance behavior and mobility of finfish; (3) the small fraction of
water column to be affected by the proposed activities (relative to the volume of water in the nearshore
waters of the Cape Fear River and nearby beaches; and (4) the timing of the proposed action start date
coinciding with decreased water temperatures and decline in fish abundances.
7.2 SOFT BOTTOM
Soft bottom consists of unconsolidated, unvegetated sediment of freshwater, estuarine, and marine
systems (Street et al. 2005). For the purpose of this EFH Assessment, soft bottom is principally associated
with the marine intertidal beach and the shallow subtidal bottom of the surf zone (at the nourishment
site) and the marine sandy, subtidal bottom of FPS. Note the nourishment site of West Beach is located
along the estuarine shoreline adjacent to the federal Wilmington Harbor Entrance Channel. Each of the
soft bottom categories are characterized as high energy environments with high percentage sand content
(and correspondingly low percent fine-grained sediments and low percent organic content). High water
velocities and shifting sand shoals within higher energy areas (e.g. surf zone and depositional shoals)
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
35

present a largely prohibitive environment for most bottom -dwellers (Posey et al. 1996). Benthic
assemblages of depositional, sandy shoals are opportunistic in nature and tend to be adapted to
disturbance -prone environments.
7.2.1 SURF ZONE
Implementation of best management practices associated with more recent beach nourishment helps to
reduce potential adverse effects to soft bottom habitat and the managed species that utilize these areas
for foraging. Use of high quality, beach compatible sand generally limits the spatial and temporal extent
of elevated turbidity levels while promoting more rapid recovery of benthic fauna of the supratidal beach
and swash zone. In addition, the nourishment will be performed during periods of reduced biological
activity. While certain fish species may be displaced for a short period during the pumping of material
onto the beachfront, some demersal species may be attracted to this type of disturbance due to the
suspension of prey items in the water column (CZR and CSE 2015). Impacts to the soft bottom of the surf
zone will occur through burial and mortality of benthic fauna. However, these effects are generally
considered short-lived and are of a scale that is not expected to result in any pronounced impact to the
EFH or to the species utilizing this type of habitat. Consideration should also be given to the maintenance
of a wide upper beach resulting in benefits to the intertidal habitat in comparison to alternatives such as
hardened structures (NCDEQ 2016).
7.2.2 FRYING PAN SHOALS
The proposed sand source site is located on the western flank of FPS approximately 1 mile southeast of
the South Beach shoreline. The shoals extend approximately 32 miles offshore of Bald Head Island. FPS is
a highly dynamic and renewable shoal feature maintained by seaward flow of the currents off the cape.
As described previously, FPS is identified as a HAPC for coastal migratory pelagics including the following
managed species: cobia, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel. FPS provides for benthic invertebrates
adapted to dynamic substrate and serving as trophic base for demersal fish. It also serves as refuge for
pelagic planktivores (e.g. anchovies, menhadens) that are prey species for resident and transient
piscivores (e.g. bluefish, spiny dogfish, smooth dogfish, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel). Subtidal
bottom areas off the southeastern shoreline of North Carolina (including inlet shoals and cape -associated
shoals) serve as pupping grounds for several species of shark (Deaton et al. 2010).
There are limited number of field studies examining the impacts of sand mining on individual fish or fish
populations (Michel 2013). Available literature summarizing potential adverse effects of offshore borrow
sites commonly address concerns with respect to the following general impact categories: (1) elevated
turbidity levels; (2) reduction in prey availability for foraging fish species; (3) long-term alteration of
habitat from the physical removal of sand (including the potential disruption of wave climate influencing
physical recovery); and (4) potential effects to hard bottom habitat underlying shallow sand deposits.
These general impact categories in the context of the proposed action are discussed further below. Note
that turbidity effects have been evaluated in Section 7.1 above. In addition, Section 3 above identifies
SAFMC protection measures for dredging within identified HAPCs and avoidance and minimization
measures specific to the proposed action.
Prey Availability.- Subtidal shoals tend to be rigorous environments for marine organisms with physical
stressors affecting benthic populations (Peterson and Peterson 1979). The faunal community is a function
of the substrate and energy regime of the area and varies naturally through time in response to physical
changes (Hobbs 2002). Given that these soft bottom areas are regularly affected by shifting sands, the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
36

dominant taxa are opportunistic in nature and thus are adapted to relatively rapid colonization and
recovery (Posey and Alphin 2001).
Benthic regeneration of a disturbed area will vary depending upon the magnitude of the disturbance, the
character of the new sediment interface, duration and timing of the dredging, the type of equipment used
to extract the sediment, life history characteristics of colonizing species, water quality, and rate of
sediment recovery (Pullen and Naqvi 1983; Van Dolah et al. 1992). Faunal recovery may take more time if
the excavation significantly alters the character of the sediment interface or if poor water quality ensues
due to low wave energy and high organic matter. Though species abundances may return to pre -dredging
conditions rather quickly, species composition and diversity indices may remain altered for a period of
time subsequent to excavation (Jutte and Van Dolah 1999). However, benthic infaunal populations
recover rather quickly provided that the post -dredging environment is favorable for colonization (i.e.
dynamic, accreting sandy shoals with low percent organic content) (Bergquist et al. 2008) and that peak
periods of larval recruitment are avoided (National Research Council 1995; Hackney et al. 1996).
While removal of sediments during dredging results in direct mortality to benthic infauna, several studies
have indicated relatively rapid recolonization and species recovery of benthos subsequent to dredging
operations (Pullen and Navqi 1983; National Research Council 1995; Hackney et al. 1996; Schaffner et al.
1996). Posey and Alphin (2002) concluded that the rapid infilling of a borrow site (resulting from strong
water currents and dynamic sand movement) contributed to a relatively quick species recovery. Based
upon the results of this study, interannual variability contributed more to the observed differences in
species abundance than the sediment removal effects (Posey and Alphin 2002). Saloman et al. (1982)
concluded that faunal abundance of a dredge site recovered within three months subsequent to dredging.
The authors also determined that species diversity and faunal composition had returned to pre -dredge
conditions within nine months.
The Town of Nags Head completed a beach nourishment project in 2011 that placed 4.71Mcy from an
offshore shoal borrow site along approximately 10 miles of shoreline. In the first post -project year benthic
monitoring (CSE, 2012), results for the winter/winter and spring/spring samples showed no significant
difference in richness between pre- and post -nourishment samples at the borrow site. However,
winter/spring numbers were measurably different in both the pre- and post- samples at both the control
site and borrow site. These data indicated that seasonal differences were greater than differences
between the control and impact sites.
Benthic monitoring associated with prior Bald Head Island nourishment projects has demonstrated rapid
recolonization of dredged sites by characteristic taxa. For the Village -sponsored beach nourishment
project constructed in the winter of 2009/2010, benthic monitoring was conducted pre -dredge and post -
dredge (for three years) in both reference shoals (Middle Ground and Bald Head Shoals) as well as in the
authorized borrow area of Jay Bird Shoals. Monitoring indicated that mean total abundances did not differ
between years at any of the sites (Jay Bird Shoals, Bald Head Shoals, and Middle Ground) sampled. In 2012
(Year 3 post -dredging), mean total abundance at Jay Bird Shoals was greater than at two of the three
reference sites (Middle Ground and Jay Bird Reference), but the differences were not significant. Similar
to the reference sites, diversity and species richness at Jay Bird Shoals did not significantly differ between
2009 (pre -construction) and 2012 (post -construction Year 3). The infaunal assemblage at Jay Bird Shoals
was dominated by amphipods and other taxa which are adapted for life in environments prone to natural
disturbance. These taxa presumably recolonized quickly after project construction and were joined by
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
37

other taxa that may have capitalized on the reduced competition for space associated with recently
disturbed habitats. The rapid recolonization of Jay Bird Shoals observed in 2010 (Year 1 post -construction)
appeared to have resulted in a relatively stable benthic community assemblage which persisted through
2011 and 2012 (LMG 2013).
Dominance patterns were also similar between years at the Jay Bird Shoals borrow site. In all four years,
Jay Bird Shoals was dominated by the amphipod Protohaustorius wigleyi. The gastropod Olivella mutica
was also dominant at this site in all four years. Although there were some species that were dominant at
Jay Bird Shoals during one year but not the other years, this appears to reflect natural interannual
variability which is typical of benthic infaunal communities, particularly in high-energy environments
susceptible to periodic natural disturbance. Similar to the reference sites, diversity and species richness
at Jay Bird Shoals did not significantly differ between 2009 (pre -construction) and 2012 (post -construction
Year 3). The third and final year of post -construction data indicated that the benthic community inhabiting
the Jay Bird Shoals borrow site recovered quickly from any potential deleterious effects of project
activities and that the recovery was persistent.
Benthic monitoring was also conducted in association with the Village's Bald Head Creek dredge and
nourishment project in 2012. Benthic infaunal sampling of both reference shoals and dredged shoals (pre -
and post -dredging) indicated that dominance patterns remained relatively stable between years.
Polychaetes and amphipods were among the most abundant taxa collected at both sites during all years
(pre- and post -construction). Six taxa were dominant at one or both sites during all four sampling years
(Acanthohaustorius intermedius, Caulleriella venefica, Nematoda sp., Paraonis fulgens, Protohaustorius
cf. wigleyi, and Spiophanes bombyx).
At the borrow site, many of the same species that were dominant in pre -construction sampling were also
dominant in post -construction Year 3 sampling. Amphipods of the family Haustoridae (Acanthohaustorius
intermedius and Protohaustorius cf. wigleyi) have been documented to colonize quickly after disturbances
(Levinton 1982, Posey and Alphin 2002). These organisms may be especially adapted for life in
disturbance -prone environs of depositional, sandy shoals as their ability to multiply rapidly once
established makes them resilient to environmental perturbations. The dominance of relatively
opportunistic species such as these likely contributed to the rapid recovery of the Bald Head Creek Shoal
borrow site observed in Year 1, the recruitment pulse observed in Year 2, and the continued robustness
of the benthic community documented in Year 3.
Polychaetes were also dominant taxa at the Bald Head Creek Shoal borrow site during all four years of
sampling. Most polychaetes are considered to be good dispersers, and many have planktonic larvae. The
mobility of these dominant polychaetes inhabiting the borrow site likely contributed to the resilience of
the benthic community observed during the four years of sampling.
The third and final year of post -construction monitoring (2015) indicated that the benthic communities
inhabiting the Bald Head Creek Shoal reference and dredge sites are resilient. Diversity, species richness,
and mean total abundance at the borrow site were significantly higher during Year 3 post -construction
sampling than during Year 0 pre -construction sampling. Diversity, richness, and mean total abundance
were all significantly greater at the borrow site than at the reference site during Year 3 monitoring. Based
upon pre- and post -construction monitoring, there was no discernible adverse effect on benthic
populations resulting from project dredging. In fact, these resilient benthic communities may actually
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
38

thrive in environments that are prone to disturbance. Factors contributing to the recovery and robustness
of the benthic community at the Bald Head Creek Shoal borrow site included: (1) the consistency of
sediment texture/composition both pre- and post -dredging; (2) the presence of undisturbed shallow
subtidal bottom that can serve as a source for recruitment into the dredged area; and (3) the opportunistic
and resilient nature of the benthic taxa inhabiting the disturbance -prone shoal habitat (LMG 2015).
High densities and fecundity of infaunal species would minimize any potential long-term adverse effects
on benthos. The proposed FPS dredge site is depositional in nature and thus subject to rather rapid
infilling, sediment recovery, and benthic infaunal recruitment. The location of the borrow site precludes
the deposition of fine, organic -laden sediments. Changes in sediment character and resultant
anoxic/hypoxic conditions are cited as principle causal factors restricting benthic re -population (NRC
1995). Additionally, timing of the dredging is important in light of peak recruitment periods and adult
activity. Avoiding these peak periods of biological activity (i.e. dredging fall through winter) will facilitate
post -dredging recovery since larval recruitment and adult migration are the primary recolonization
mechanisms (Herbich 1992).
HabitatAlteration and Effects on Species Utilization. -Vertical relief associated with FPS (as with other shoal
habitats) provides refuge for numerous species (e.g. anchovies, menhaden) that are prey species for
resident and transient piscivores (e.g. bluefish, spiny dogfish, smooth dogfish, king mackerel, and Spanish
mackerel). Offshore shoals or cape -associated shoals represent multi -use habitat for several species and
potential spawning areas for demersal species and schooling planktivores (CSA International, Inc. 2010).
Study of a federal dredging project at Asbury Park/Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey found that fish species
assemblages and abundances post -dredging were similar to that of a previous study of the area. In
addition, the researchers concluded that feeding habits of winter flounder and summer flounder remain
unaltered post -dredging (USACE 2001). Van Dolah et al. (1994) found that changes in species composition
between pre- and post -dredging monitoring were attributed to normal seasonal and yearly variability
rather than from the effects of dredging. Van Dolah et al. (1992) evaluated effects of dredging on
recreationally important fish species based upon changes in the abundance of prey species. Findings of
this particular study indicated that there were no appreciable differences subsequent to dredging. Other
studies have actually demonstrated an increase in fish utilization subsequent to dredging. Fish may be
attracted to a dredged area due to suspended nutrients and infauna in the water column and as a haven
from cold surface water in the winter (Courtenay et al. 1980; Pullen and Naqvi 1983). Schaffner et al.
(1996) concluded that a dredged borrow area in the lower Chesapeake Bay provided more favorable
habitat for the blue crab. No changes in the within -sediment depth distributions of macrobenthos (an
indication of availability to fish and crustacean predators) were observed subsequent to dredging. The
authors concluded that it was "unlikely that the resource value of benthos in trophic support of fisheries
was negatively impacted" (Schaffner et al. 1996).
Demersal grazers and detritivores will be able to move and forage upon expansive subtidal bottom
available adjacent to the project area while infauna and macrofauana recover. Given the mobility of these
species and small area of excavation proposed compared to the expansive shallow subtidal habitat of the
larger FPS feature, the proposed action is not anticipated to have widespread effects upon the larval and
juvenile life history stages of prey species utilizing the project area. Using a conservative estimate of the
aerial extent of the most prominent shoal feature, there is approximately 42,000 acres of shallow soft
bottom habitat of which the proposed dredge area consists of 188.7 acres, equivalent to 0.45% of the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
39

aerial extent of FPS. Subsequent to the dredging, post -construction monitoring will evaluate both physical
and biological (benthic infaunal) recovery. Prior to any future use of the site, the findings of the post -
construction monitoring will be reviewed by resource and permitting agencies for use in any future permit
decisions. In addition, the Applicant will prioritize the use of Jay Bird Shoals as a borrow site prior to future
use of the FPS borrow site.
It is expected that demersal species will relocate to other expansive areas of unaffected soft bottom
habitat on, and adjacent to, the shoal during the period of construction activities and subsequent benthic
recovery period. Finfish will return to the project area within a short period of time taking the opportunity
to forage upon suspended nutrients and benthic infauna. Subsequently, the potential adverse effect on
fisheries resources dependent upon soft bottom habitats is expected to be relatively minor.
While knowledge of the geology and ecological importance of shoals is incomplete and additional research
is needed to improve the understanding of the mechanism for maintenance of shoals (Hayes et al. 2004,
Michel 2013, Rutecki et al. 2015), the long-term alteration of habitat is minimized based upon the size
and siting of the borrow site within such a large, dynamic and depositional feature. As discussed above,
only 0.45% of the shallow soft bottom habitat associated with FPS is proposed for dredging. The proposed
volume of 2.5 Mcyrepresents 0.18% of the estimated 1.46cy total volume of sand within FPS. Sediment
input from updrift cuspate forelands provides active recharge of the shoal feature. The position of the
borrow site on the western flank will allow for more rapid physical recovery. According to McNinch
(unpublished), the crest of the shoal is "likely planed -off during storm conditions, when waves are steep
and breaking across the shoal". Sediment during these events is transferred to the flanks of the shoal. The
combination of the size and position of sand source site (on the western flank) minimizes effects to the
shoal integrity and will have minimal influence on processes contributing to shoal formation and
maintenance. As a result, the overall morphology of the cape -associated shoal will remain unchanged.
With respect to the predicted rate of sediment transport, McNinch (2009) observed the following:
"The most active region of sediment recharge to FPS is likely near the cape point,
particularly along the crest of the shoal where it extends seaward from the subaerial cape
point and the shore parallel sand bar that merges into FPS from the updrift beach". (Note
— the updrift beach or shoreline northward of the cape point is known as East Beach on
BHI).
Numerous individuals or organizations have performed estimates of littoral transport along the ever -
varying shoreline components of the State of N.C. More recently, (Van Gaalen, Tebbens and Barton,
2016) have summarized sediment transport directions from Northern Maine to Tampa Bay, FL. For the
Cape Fear formation, the published rates for the two Bald Head Island shorelines that join to form the
Cape Fear Point are as follows:
• South Beach — 339,300 cubic meters annually toward the East.
• East Beach — 341,000 cubic meters annually southward.
This represents a potential net annual hypothetical rate of deposition to the Cape Fear Shoal formation
of 680,300 cubic meters (i.e. 813,215 cy). Annual monitoring of South Beach indicates that net easterly
transport would typically be less than that estimated above.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
40

Given the size of the proposed borrow site relative to the large shoal feature (less than 0.5%) and the
predicted physical recovery of the borrow area, it can be reasonably expected that the proposed action
will not induce any large-scale disruption to circulation patterns or to larval transport to the shoreline and
to the Cape Fear River estuary. In addition, the excavated area will tie into natural bottom contours on
the western edge of the shoal feature (i.e. there will not be a hole that could theoretically entrap or slow
larvae). Rather, it is likely that vertical mixing and upwelling patterns would continue to be maintained
with only limited, localized effects to currents/circulation. As a result, there is not expected to be an effect
on the transport of larvae. Lastly, any assumed impacts to circulation (or disruption to upwelling) is
unlikely to affect larval transport given that larvae have been demonstrated to exert considerable control
over vertical movement within the water column (Morgan and Anastasia, 2008). Larvae and early
juveniles are not passive in their movement. Migration of larvae outside the tidal influence of the estuary
is influenced through wind -driven transport and directed vertical movement by larvae to maximize
shoreward movement (Boehlert and Mundy,1988). Once nearshore, then alongshore drift is the principal
mechanism until larvae reach the entrainment influence of the estuary. Larvae are adapted to highly
dynamic physical conditions in nearshore environments. Based upon the lack of any significant effects to
circulation patterns, the uninterrupted wind -driven transport of larvae, the ability of larvae to exert
control over vertical movement, and the large entrainment field of the Cape Fear River estuary; larval
transport into the estuary will not be adversely affected.
A number of factors help to minimize the effects of the proposed alternative to this category of EFH within
or adjacent to the proposed project area. These include: (1) the mobility of finfish and associated
avoidance behavior; (2) selection of the borrow site to maximize suitable post -dredging sand quality and
consistency; (3) the physical conditions of the dredge site favoring rapid infilling and benthic recovery; (4)
the presence of undisturbed, exclusion zones serving as refuge patches and sources of colonization for
benthic infauna; (5) avoidance of peak benthic and larval fish recruitment periods; and (6) fecundity and
opportunistic nature of benthic communities of this type of habitat. In order to quantify and monitor the
infilling of the borrow and surround shoal effects, monitoring will be conducted as described in Section 4
above.
7.3 HARD BOTTOM
There are no known hard bottoms occurring in the vicinity of the proposed borrow area(s) to be dredged
(Rester et al. 2001, DCA 2010). For projects occurring in the vicinity of hard bottom areas, excavation of
soft bottom and subsequent changes to shoaling patterns can potentially result in secondary effects to
these communities. Hard bottoms may become covered by thin layers of sand (as is more often observed
through storm -induced shoaling). Given the lack of observed hard bottoms near the project area, it is
anticipated that excavation activities from the source site and subsequent sand placement on West Beach
and South Beach will not adversely affect hard bottoms or their associated fish assemblages in the
nearshore or offshore waters off Bald Head Island.
8. IMPACT SUMMARY FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The functional value of the lower Cape Fear River and its associated sandy shoals serve as a conduit
between the open ocean environment and the estuarine environment for passage of larval, juvenile, and
adult fish species as well as organisms of lower trophic levels (e.g. phytoplankton and zooplankton) and is
an essential component of fishery habitat. While certain EFH categories will be subject to short-term
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 41

impacts, these disturbances are considered temporary and localized. The potential effects on managed
fish and essential fish habitat from the proposed action include:
• Temporary loss of foraging habitat and prey availability through burial at the nourishment
site;
• Temporary suspension of sediments at the excavation site and nourishment site (i.e. surf
zone) which could affect foraging;
• Entrainment and mortality of benthic infaunal species during dredging; and
• Longer -term habitat alteration of the borrow site.
The proposed action is not anticipated to have any long-term effects on EFH and managed species. This is
due in part to the following considerations: (1) the limited spatial and temporal effects of elevated
turbidity due to high sand content of dredged sediments and rapid dilution; (2) the mobility of finfish and
associated avoidance behavior; (3) the physical conditions of the dredge site favoring rapid infilling and
benthic recovery; (4) avoidance of peak benthic and larval fish recruitment periods during dredging and
nourishment; (5) fecundity and opportunistic nature of benthic communities to accommodate
anthropogenic and natural disturbance; and (6) the avoidance and minimization measures described in
Section 3 above.
Sand source sites of high volume, beach compatible sand are limited (Section 2.4). Sites that may yield
large volumes of beach compatible sand may be operationally prohibitive or cost -prohibitive if they are
located too far from the nourishment site. As indicated previously, Jay Bird Shoals (JBS) has demonstrated
to be a viable sand source site for the Village. It should be noted that JBS is a more finite resource and is
identified as HAPC for shrimp, estuarine -dependent snapper -grouper, and red drum by the SAFMC.
Moreover, in consideration of the recently constructed Village -sponsored nourishment project
(2018/2019) and the recently authorized Town of Oak Island project, use of JBS as a potential sand source
site is not viable for the foreseeable future. Additional removal of material from JBS under the current
and anticipated near -term conditions would provide temporary benefits at best with the likelihood of
reducing beneficial effects in their lee on one or both of the two adjacent barrier islands. Hence, "over -
utilization" of these potential sand sources is not recommended and, in all probability, would be strongly
opposed by interests on the east end of Oak Island. However, the borrow site previously permitted for
Village -sponsored projects is continuing to be physically monitored on an annual basis. If the shoreline of
South Beach can be maintained though federal nourishment for a period of time and sufficient physical
recovery occurs within JBS prior to the next nourishment need, then the Village will seek to utilize JBS as
an alternative sand source site prior to the use of FPS. Physical monitoring of the JBS borrow site will
determine the volume of sand available for dredging prior to the next Village -sponsored nourishment,
and this information will be provided to the agencies to determine if JBS can be utilized in lieu of FPS.
Given the size of the proposed borrow area relative to the FPS feature (both spatially and volumetrically)
and the annual rates of sediment input, the morphological integrity of the shoal will not be affected by
the proposed action. Provided the overall physical integrity of the shoals is maintained, then potential
adverse effects to ecological functions are minimized. In general, it is preferable to utilize sites that are
anticipated to have a high likelihood of physical and biological recovery. The location of the borrow site
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 42

on the western flank of FPS ensures infilling with sand (consistent with the existing substrate) and a
relatively high rate of recharge.
In light of the favorable physical conditions of the borrow site (suitable substrate and characteristics
favorable for physical and biological recovery), avoidance of other sensitive EFH habitats, adherence to
the identified SAFMC protection measures, and incorporation of additional mitigative actions, it is
believed that potential adverse effects to EFH and managed species are minimized.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
43

9. REFERENCES
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 1981. Fishery Management Plan for
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Fishery Management Report No. 1. 329 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 1987. Fishery Management Plan for
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). Special Scientific Report No. 49. 81 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for
Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus. Fisheries Management Report No. 18. 93 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 1998. Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus. Amendment to the Interstate Management Plan
for Atlantic Sturgeon. Report No. 31. 59 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2001. Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic
menhaden. Report No. 37.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2003. Fishery Management Report
No. 41 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. 63 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2007. SEAMAP.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2008. Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Fishery Management Report No. 17. 85
PP•
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2011. Omnibus Amendment to the
Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Spanish mackerel, Spot, and Spotted seatrout. Includes technical
addendum 1a to the Spanish mackerel Amendment 1. 161 pp.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2012a. Habitat Fact Sheet — Spanish
mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates). www.asmfc.org.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2012b. Habitat Fact Sheet — Striped
bass (Morone saxatilis). www.asmfc.org.
(ASFMC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Management Commission. 2012c. Managed species brief for
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). www.asmfc.org.
Bergquist, D.C. et al. 2008. Change and recovery of physical and biological characteristics at beach and
borrow areas impacted by the 2005 Folly Beach nourishment project. For Charleston District, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Charleston, South Carolina. Final Report by South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources.
Birkhead, W.A. et al. 1979. Ecological monitoring in the lower Cape Fear estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-
1. Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina. 292 pp.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 44

Blanton, J. O., F.E. Werner, A. Kapolnai, B.O. Blanton, D. Knott, and E.L. Wenner. 1999. Wind -generated
transport of fictitious passive larvae into shallow tidal estuaries. Fisheries Oceanography 8(2): 210-223.
Boehlert, G. W. and B.C. Mundy. 1988. Roles of behavioral and physical factors in larval and juvenile fish
recruitment to estuarine nursery areas. Am. Fish. Soc. Sym. 3: pp. 51-67.
Carlson, J. K. 2002. Shark nurseries in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: McCandless, C. T. and H. L.
Pratt, Jr. (eds.) Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic States shark nursery overview. U. S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Highly Migratory Species Management Division, FISFI NMFS
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Springs, MD.
Carlson, J. K. and J. H. Brusher. 1999. An index of abundance for coastal species of juvenile sharks from
the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev. 61:37-45.
Carlson, J. K., M. R. Heupel, D. M. Bethea, and L. D. Hollensead. 2008. Coastal habitat use and residency
of juvenile Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). Estuaries and Coasts. 10 pp.
(Catlin) Catlin Engineers and Scientists. 2010. Brunswick County Beaches Renourishment Study, Frying Pan
Shoal Soil Testing and Compatibility Analysis and Geotechnical Report. Catlin Project No. 209-049.
Appendix to Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Brunswick
County Beach, North Carolina in press. USACE Wilmington District.
Cenci, E., M. Pazzoton, N. Chimento, and C. Mazzoldi. 2010. The influence of a new artificial structure on
fish assemblages of adjacent hard strata. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 91 (2011) 133-149.
Clark B.M. B.A. Bennett, and S.J. Lamberth. 1996. Factors affecting spatial variability in seine
net catches of fish in the surf zone of False Bay, South Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series
131: 17-34.
Coen, L.D., M.W. Luckenbach, and D.L. Breitburg. 1999. The role of oyster reefs as essential fish habitat: a
review of current knowledge and some new perspectives. In: Benaka LR (ed) Fish habitat: essential fish
habitat and restoration, Am Fish Soc Symp 22:438-45.
Collier, Chip. (personal communication). 2012. Personal communication concerning Southern flounder.
Courtenay, Jr., W.R., B.C. Hartig and G.R. Loisel. 1980. Evaluation of fish populations adjacent to borrow
areas of beach nourishment project at Hallandale (Broward County), Florida. Vol. I. Ecological Evaluation
of Beach Nourishment Project at Hallandale (Broward County), Florida, MR 80-1 (1), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D. C.,
FWS/OBS — 79/31.
CSA International, Inc., Applied Coastal Research and Enginnering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor &
Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., and Florida Institute of Technology. 2009. Analysis of
Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Shoal Features.
Prepared by CSA International, Inc. in cooperation with Applied Coastal Research and
Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., and the Florida Institute
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
45

of Technology for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division,
Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 2010-010. 160 pp. + apps.
(CSE) Coastal Science & Engineering. 2012. Memorandum to Cliff Ogburn, Town of Nags Head. RE: Nags
Head Post -Project Monitoring. Preliminary Results — Pre/Post Project Environmental Moniroring by CZR.
CZR Incorporated and Coastal Science & Engineering. 2015. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in support
of the NEPA documents prepared for Beach restoration to Protect NC Highway 12 at Buxton, Dare County,
North Carolina. PROTECT NC HIGHWAY 12
AT BUXTON, DARE COUNTY, NC. 74 pp.
Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squire, D. Machette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of biological data
on shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, NOAA Technical Report NMFS -14, FAO Fisheries Synopsis No.
140, 45 pp.
(DCA) Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc. 2010. Archaeological and Hardbottom Surveys of Offshore Borrow
Areas within Jay Bird and Frying Pan Shoals, Brunswick Beaches, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Draft
Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Brunswick County
Beaches, North Carolina — Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project, Appendix C. 103 pp.
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal, B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC.
635 pp.
Dennison, Paul S., 1998. Beach Nourishment/Groin Field Construction Project, Bald Head Island, North
Carolina. Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Vol. 66. No. 1. 33 pp.
(FLMNH) Florida Museum of Natural History 2003. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu
Greene, K. E., J. L. Zimmerman, R. W. Laney, and J. C. Thomas-Blate. 2009. Atlantic coast diadromous fish
habitat: A review of utilization, threats, recommendations for conservation, and research needs. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series No. 9, Washington, D.C.
Hackney, C.T., M. Posey, S. Ross, and A. Norris. 1996. A Review and Synthesis of Data on Surf Zone Fishes
and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from Beach Renourishment. For
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Hare, J.O., J.A. Quinlan, F.E. Werner, B.O. Blanton, J.J. Govini, R.B. Forward, L.R. Settle, and D.E. Hoss.
1999. Larval transport during winter in the SABRE study area: results of a coupled vertical larval behavior -
three -dimensional circulation model. Fisheries Oceanography. 8(2): 57-76.
Hayes, M.O. and Nairn, R.B., 2004. Natural maintenance of sand ridges and linear shoals on the U.S. gulf
and Atlantic continental shelves and the potential impacts of dredging. Journal of Coastal Research, 20
(1), 138-148. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
Gilbert, C. R. 1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (Mid -Atlantic Bight). Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. U. S. Army and U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 28 pp.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
46

Haas -Castro, Ruth. 2006. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US, American Shad. NOAA-
NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. 6 pp.
Herbich, J.B. 1992. Handbook of dredging engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 740 pp.
Hettler., W. F. Jr. and A. J. Chester. 1990. Temporal distribution of ichthyoplankton near Beaufort Inlet,
North Carolina. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 68:157-168.
Hobbs III, C.H. 2002. An investigation of potential consequences of marine mining in shallow water: an
example from the mid -Atlantic coast of the United States. lournal of Coastal Research, 18(1), 94-101. West
Palm Beach, Florida, ISSN 0749-0208.
Jutte, P.C. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1999. An assessment of benthic infaunal assemblages and sediments in the
Joiner Bank and Gaskin Banks borrow areas forthe Hilton Head Beach Renourishment Project. Final Report
—Year 1. Prepared by the Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for
Olsen Associates, Inc. and the Town of Hilton Head Island.
Knot, D. M., R. F. Van Dolah, D. R. Calder. 1984. Ecological effects of rubble weir jetty construction at
Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Volume II: Changes in macrobenthic communities of sandy beach and
nearshore environments. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report. EL-84-4. 46 pp.
(LMG and Olsen) Land Management Group, Inc. and Olsen Associates, Inc. 2008. Environmental
Assessment: Bald Head Island Beach Restoration Project, Bald Head Island, NC. Prepared for the Village of
Bald Head Island and NC Division of Coastal Management.
(LMG) Land Management Group Inc. 2011. Village of Bald Head Island Beach Restoration Project
Brunswick County, NC: Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report.
(LMG) Land Management Group Inc. 2012. Village of Bald Head Island Beach Restoration Project
Brunswick County, NC: Third Annual Biological Monitoring Report.
(LMG) Land Management Group Inc. 2013. Village of Bald Head Island Beach Restoration Project
Brunswick County, NC: Third Annual Biological Monitoring Report.
(LMG) Land Management Group Inc. 2014. Village of Bald Head Island Shoreline Protection Project: Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 370
pp•
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. Aquatic ecology studies, Cape Fear River estuary, North
Carolina, September 1972 to August 1973. Appendix A of Environmental Impact Assessment of
Alternatives for the Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor North Carolina. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District.
Lindquist, N. and L. Manning. 2001. Impacts of beach nourishment and beach scraping on critical habitat
and productivity of surf fishes. Final Report. 107 pp.
McLachlan, A., T. Erasmus, A.H. Dye, T. Wooldridge, G. Van der Horst, G. Rossouw, T.A. Lasiak, and L.
McGwynne. 1981. Sand beach energetics: an ecosystem approach towards a high energy interface.
Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 13: 11-25.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
47

McNinch, Jesse. 2009. Literature Review of Cuspate Forelands, Implications to Dredging Frying Pan
Shoals. Prepared for USACE, unpublished. 64 pp.
Meisburger, E.P. 1977. Sand resources on the inner coastal shelf, Cape Fear Region, NC. Miscellaneous
Report No. 77-11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, VA. 20
PP•
(MAFMC) Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. 1988. Fishery Management Plan for the Summer
Flounder Fishery, Paralichthys dentatus. MAFMC and ASMFC in cooperation with National Marine
Fisheries Service, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC). 291 pp.
(MAFMC) Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish
Fishery, Pomatomus saltatrix. MAFMC and ASMFC in cooperation with National Marine Fisheries Service,
New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(SAFMC). 176 pp.
McNinch, J. E. Literature Review of Cuspate Forelands — Implications to Dredging Frying Pan Shoals.
Unpublished Report. USACE Field Research Facility, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. 64 pp.
Morgan, S.G. and J.R. Anastasia. 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 8, 2008.
Vol. 105 (1): pp 222-227.
Moser, M. L. and Steve W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons
in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 124:2, 225-
234.
Musick. J.A.1998. Environmental survey of potential sand resource sites offshore Delaware and Maryland,
Part 2: Transitory Species (Vertebrate Nekton). In: Hobbs, C.H., III, (Project Manager) 2000, Environmental
Survey of Potential Sand Resource Sites Offshore Delaware and Maryland, Final Project Report to the
Mineral Management Service, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
Nelson, W.G. 1993. Beach restoration in the Southeastern US: environmental effects and biological
monitoring. Ocean and Coastal Management. 19: 157-182.
(NCDEQ) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management. 2016.
Coastal Erosion Study. 59pp.
(NCDEQ) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Marine Fisheries. 2016. North
Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. 33pp.
(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Essential Fish Habitat
for Cobia and Mackerel. http://www.nero.noaa.gov
(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan. Chapter 5 — Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic sharpnose
shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae).
(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat
Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies South Atlantic Region. 14 pp.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment —August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
48

(NRC) National Research Council. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press. 334
pp•
(NEFSC) New England Fisheries Science Center. 2006. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov
(NOAA) Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register.
77(24) 50 CFR Part 224.
(NOAA) Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for Highly Migratory Species. 248 pp.
(NOAA) Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Office of
Sustainable Fisheries Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division. DRAFT Amendment 10 to
the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan: Essential Fish Habitat
and Environmental Assessment. 380 pp.
Noble, Liz. Oyster Reefs Provide Critical Habitat for Marine Ecosystem. URL - NC Division of Marine
Fisheries.
(NCDMF) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries.
2013. Stock status report. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/26-american-shad-ssr-2013.
(NCDMF) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries.
2012. Stock status report. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/web/mf/2012-stock-status-report.
(NCDMF) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries.
2006. Fishery Management Plan for Shrimp. 390 pp.
(NCDMF) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries.
2005. North Carolina Fishery Management Plan, Southern Flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma). 360 pp.
(NCWRC) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2007. North Carolina Wildlife Profiles, American Shad.
http://www.ncwiIdIife.org/portals/0/Fishing/documents/AmShad.pdf
Olsen Associates, Inc. 1989, Feasibility Study of Beach Restoration at Bald Head Island, NC, 4438 Herschel
St., Jacksonville, FL
Olsen Associates, Inc. 2007. Sand Search Investigation Summary, Bald Head Island, N.C. Beach Restoration
Project. Prepared for the Village of Bald Head Island. Olsen Associates, Inc. Jacksonville FL. 40 pp.
Olsen Associates, Inc. 2007. Bald Head Island Beach Restoration Project — Analysis of Potential Impacts of
Borrow Site to the Local Wave Climate.
Olsen Associates, Inc. 2011. Bald Head Island, NC. Beach Monitoring Program: Monitoring Report No. 9
(May 2010 - May 2011). Report prepared for Village of Bald Head Island. Olsen Associates, Inc. 2618
Herschel St., Jacksonville, FL 32204. 69 pp plus app.
Olsen Associates, Inc. 2016. Frying Pan Shoals Sand Search Investigation. Prepared for the Village of Bald
Head Island. Olsen Associates, Inc. Jacksonville FL. 361 pp.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 49

Olsen Associates, Inc. 2016. Bald Head Island, NC Beach Monitoring Program, Monitoring Report No. 14
(April 2015 to April 2016). Prepared for the Village of Bald Head Island. Olsen Associates, Inc. Jacksonville
FL. 90 pp. plus appendices.
Peters, D. J. and W. G. Nelson. 1987. The seasonality and spatial pattern of juvenile surf zone fishes of the
Florida east coast. Florida Science. 50:85-99.
Peterson, C.H and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina: a community
profile. OF Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-79-39.
Posey, M.H., C.M. Powell, and T.D. Alphin. 1996. Invertebrate indicators of renourishment effects on the
beach community. In C.T. Hackney, M.H. Posey, S.W. Ross, and A.R. Norris (eds.), A Review and Synthesis
of Data on Surf Zone Fishes and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from
Beach Renourishment. Prepared for Wilmington District, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North
Carolina, pp. 10-40.
Posey, M.H. and T.D. Alphin. 2001. Monitoring of benthic infaunal responses to sediment removal
associated with the Carolina Beach and vicinity area south project. UNC-Wilmington, Wilmington, NC.
Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 18 pp.
Posey, M.H. and T.D. Alphin. 2002. Resilience and stability in an offshore benthic community: responses
to sediment borrow activities and hurricane disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 18(4): 685-697.
Pullen and Naqvi. 1983. Biological impacts on beach replenishment and borrowing. USACE, CERC Reprint
83-3.
Rester, J.K. 2001. Annual Report of the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP)
October 1, 2000 - September 30, 2001. 18 pp.
Ross, S. W. and J. E. Lancaster. 1996. Movements of juvenile fishes using surf zone nursery habitats and
the relationship of movements to beach nourishment along a North Carolina beach: Pilot project. Final
Report to NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District) for NOAA Award No. NA570Z0318. 31p.
Rutecki, D., T. Dellapenna, E. Nestler, F. Scharf, J. Rooker, C. Glass, and A. Pembroke. 2014. Understanding
the Habitat Value and Function of Shoals and Shoal Complexes to Fish and Fisheries on the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Literature Synthesis and Gap Analysis. Prepared for the U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Contract # M12PS00009. BOEM 2015-012. 176 pp.
Saloman, C., Naughton, S. and J. Taylor. 1982. Benthic Community Response to Dredging Borrow Pits,
Panama City Beach, Florida. Miscellaneous Report No. 82-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. March 1982.
Schaffner, L.C. et al. 1996. Effects of sand -mining on benthic communities and resource value: Thimble
Shoal, lower Chesapeake Bay. Final Report by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine
Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Point, Virginia.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina 50

(SAFMC) South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic
Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council.
(SAFMC) South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998b. Amendment Number 9,Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, and
Social I m pactAssessment/Fisheryl m pact Statement for the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark
Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699.
(USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Wilmington Harbor — Bald Head Island, Section 933
Evaluation Report. Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division.
(USACE) US Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Final supplement I to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement on improvement of navigation, Wilmington Harbor Channel Deepening. Wilmington, NC.
(USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Draft Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment
for Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection. Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.
Ocean Isle Beach Portion. Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division.
(USACE) US Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Environmental Effect Statement: Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay
North Carolina, Draft Supplement #3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, 232 pp.
(USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Environmental Assessment for Preconstruction
Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. Wilmington District,
South Atlantic Division.
(USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. The New York District's Biological Monitoring Program for
the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project, Final
Report. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
(USACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Wilmington Harbor Sand Management Plan Ocean Entrance
Channels and Inner Harbor Between Lower Swash and Reaves Point. Appendix D. Wilmington District,
South Atlantic Division.
(USACE) US Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
Impact Statement for Brunswick County Beach, North Carolina in press. USACE Wilmington District.
(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Brunswick
County Beaches Project. Ecological Services Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 175 pp.
(USFWS) United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Species Profile: Life Histories and Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) — White Shrimp.
Van Der Veer et al. 1985. Dredging activities in the Dutch Wadden Sea: effects on macrobenthic infauna.
Netherlands Journal for Sea Research. 19: 183-190.
Van Dolah, R.F. D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open -water disposal on benthic
macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries (7)1: 28-37.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
51

Van Dolah, R..F., P.H. Wendt, R. M. Martore, M.V. Levisen, and W.A. Roumillat. 1992. A Physical and
Biological Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. Unpublished report prepared
by South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department for Town of Hilton Head Island, S.C.
Van Dolah, R.F., R.M. Martore, A.E. Lynch, M.V. Levisen, P.H. Wendt, D.J. Whitaker, and W.D. Anderson.
1994. Final Report: Environmental Evaluation of the Folly Beach Nourishment Project. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC.
Van Gaalen, J.F., Tebbens, S.F., and Barton, C.C., 2016. Longshore sediment transport directions and rates
from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida: Literature compilation and interpretation. Journal of Coastal
Research, 32(6), 1277-1301. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
Versar Inc. 2004. Year 2 recovery from impacts of beach nourishment on surf zone and nearshore fish and
benthic resources on Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden Beach, North Carolina. Final
Study Findings. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 198 pp.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — August 2020
Village of Bald Head Island FPS Beach Nourishment Project
Brunswick County, North Carolina
52

Appendix A: Design Drawings (prepared by Olsen Associates, Inc.)

Brt T1597. LJ r, r r:
I rs .r'„�
i_ yr
+ �STACK o � f�� [jfr
FIR 8 FA LLc
q
OGLING Tqg { v
i&o BQ..4l.TANK
i I$`
'prLL Cr Y '
_
23
GDLREGS trEMAfZp.4 IpN LINE 1 -�
�"SOU' PORT, % � � Ish�y� 60.52V [Sag Aafo A]
0aa rulK _ _• ' Se
O PRa PIRV
,•. I � 31 Gb'
I' �
' I t
{i}StrikmC I�°' r ❑ Bra15 20
.. k FI 11l. y ! h C; ♦ h. -.�� S Sh
r'� . + .- p ♦ �` c�ien Arno o E 110 aw a 2 sa
APPLICANT: I fl
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND 13 4 �a��Cr IS I 33`
Pw,
6••..:_ If11 fis9G 8ots'scrd j
ENGINEER: aGH ISLn TANK 9 ] ;i'"f.••' ' pA Bay
_ ?� 3 11 !.: Fi1� r
OLSEN ASSOCIATES, INC. ' � 15
• f 13 ,I 2 5 ® umm 5,
AGENT: s FL Yr i f%*y P1� n /`
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
f I N MQ,Lt k
I R 2.56ec "P• PA 1j
T�+S ry 1I I Pr! mGinS6 r 22 `
roWEo ,`2 0 f 16 11 �` 3 r
GOU?M °' ;' H` BALD HEAD ISLAND
R 8 eo.ssnx rshm o m
2 m Baldlad I's -_p7 22 4
23
+ rrc
pre as 21
.
23
pa s d Ie v =5`
q Brio II ` ONSL W B ra
1 q 1
27
ATLANTIC OCEAN ` AP FE as
21 g ':3 :'�• 1 '
281" s s FRYING PAN SHOALS]
— Ppra�, 1 ✓ 11� 1
DATUM: MLLW �i'ue i ~ ` NITS
LI CAPE HATTERAS
CAPE LOOKOUT
ATL4NTIC OCEAN
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, N.C. CAPE FEAR
51TL
olsen VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND DATE APPROVED REVISION07/01/2019
�e0 associates, inc. SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT DRAWN BY:
ma 2618 Herschel Street ML
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
[phone] PROJECT LOCATION SHEET
• �e°' •• C-1468 1 of 9

SCALE ONSLO W BAY
0 1100 2200 FEET
NOTES:
1. PROJECT BASELINE UTILIZED FOR ANNUAL
BEACH MONITORING BY VILLAGE AND FEDERAL
BEACH DISPOSAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, USACOE.
2. FILL SHALL TAPER TO ZERO AT STA 48+00 AND o
STA 220+00. z
Q
07
0
J
Q
m
22o+0o CAPE
FEAR
N
x =
-----198+oo
W
-----494+00
x
O.ea
Ln
86+00
8E
182+00
='a
_ 178+00
1°
174+00
170+00
— 158+00
FRYING P
SHOALS
v so 46+00 ---FILL LENGTH:
a m 42+00 17,200 FT
'� �
38+00
0 . ----L34+00
tA
r ..m
$« s $ WEST BE4C - r o 0',°,� yo'oo
46-00
� Sx�
CAPE FEAR M 8
RIVER
TERMINAL GROINo Xoo
olsen VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
associates inc SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
I.
ATLANTIC
122+00
OCEAN
a
_118+00
ua
__114+00
..
,10+00
----106+00
LIMITS OF FUTURE
- 02+00
PROJECT RELATED
---96+00
FILL ACTIVITIES BY
w°
VILLAGE UTILIZING
'*00
FRYING PAN SHOALS
2618 Herschel Street
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
4) 387-6114
C-1468 PROJECT BASELINE AND LIMITS OF FILL
C-1
---88+00 1 BORROW SITE
OCTOBER 2016 PHOTOGRAPHY
DATE APPROVED REVISION
02-07-2020 EEO B 07/01 /2019
DRAWN BY:
ML
SHEET
2 of 9

LOCAL TIDAL DATUMS (FT)
MHHW +2.8
MHW +2.5
NAVD +1.1
NGV 0.0
MLW-1.8 FILL TEMPLATE
-1
MLLW -2.0
LIMIT OF PROJECT EASEMENT
s
= DISTANCE VARIES
m
LL
O
• LIMIT OF WORK
w
U'
+8.5' SLOPE
w
©
EXISTING
©
ERODED BEACH
PROFILE (VARIES)
NOTES:
1)
FILL DENSITY TO VARY
SPATIALLY DEPENDING ON
CONDITION OF BEACH AT TIME
OF CONSTRUCTION.
2)
FILL LENGTH IS 17,200 FT.
TERMINAL GROIN
?pyz�
BEACH FILL
TYPICAL SECTION
b�xj 5
5
LIMIT OF FILL
ATLANTIC OCEAN
DISTANCE VARIES
SOUTH BEACH
J
LL
O
w
O
H
+8.0' NGVD TYPICAL FILL DENSITY
APPROX. 100cy/ft (VARIES)
MHW (2.5' NGVD)
NGVD (0.0)
MLW (-1.81') ASSUMED FILL TEMPLATE
SLOPE DURING CONSTRUCTION
-12TO -15FT NGVD (TYP)
SLOPEINTERCEPT
OF FILL TOE
NTS
DATUM: NGVD 29
BALD HEAD ISLAND
�`�uTHBEgCy �.
NOTE: BEACH FILL SHALL TAPER TO ^
ZERO AT TERMINAL GROIN SAND TUBE ' o
GROIN, TYP.
TLANTIC OCEAN
-' VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND ,0-0�20,9 APPROVED REVISION
Olsen 07/01 /2019
�e = os-o�-202o Ego R
associates, Inc. SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN BY:
® o 2618 Herschel Street ML
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
[phone] SHEET
�'�° • C-1468 TYPICAL BEACH FILL DETAILS 3 of 9

mem � nem awu ooa+ reoo
a
� �{f
^
Z
O - z o.
Z d
m c
\ n
Y m
E
Z Q
wCa E
o � m
Ch
a 4 m
21R
. ��. W
y ti IL yam_ R
l a Fe
.•. Ry ]
T I .i 8
N
i 2 bt 00
M1RN Y'-� .�
����•� ma
X.
4JFf �� Q W
L p J-
k
.Q}
o�.
o
c
n
et
fag
•n
� �7`
s
•�`
Doors oeooe eoec. se. some eeeee Bean r.a: eeea eeeea
DEPTHS - NA
NOT FOR PURPOSES OF C
NSTRUCTION
olsen
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
DATE
APPROVED
REVISION
07/01/2019
02-07-2020
EJO
B
associates, inc.
SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN BY:
ma 2618 Herschel Street
ML
Jacksonville, FL.32204
[phone]
BALD HEAD ISLAND
SHEET
`P' •• C-1468
MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES
4 of 9

U
N
tn
CCr�-j
�p�
O_ Z
w00
m 1L N �N
oo
LLJ
Lu
$
Q
uj
LO
r
Q sr
LL
w
V•
N a �'t
a LU 3� pi
c-,
Lu
U M
— z --
M a O
_
0 N i
c Z $ v
L r4
r
Nplb NNb J f~
N7V''-3p
co
J-
r7 a
J
co
ti n
T. 14
1
6f �-
Oj'• F ! 4
VT �(��, ,� ? A_ LLr \ c
fcl� NOT FOA
PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION
e olsen
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
DATE
APPROVED
REVISION
07/01/2019
02-07-2020
ElO
B
associates, inc.
SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN BY:
ma 2618 Herschel Street
ML
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
[phone]
FRYING PAN SHOALS HYDROGRAPHY
C-1468 `P' ••
AND PROPOSED BORROW SITE
5SHEET
of 9

mace eeeec eenc ou:e men eew .eov
m $
N
CO � R
>\I
m
w a� I
a
a o E
M1
<
°
Lu
Q
W ^
Q Q
I
m
Q L u
Z
Q (�
w LNG w' v
E c 7
3
UQ
�<
o
00mmd
O
r
O T
Z=
_19
Ca' C
A N R
V) Ln
V)
N
lY fl
U �t T
O
rr� T
by
C>
4
S
s�Lgp
y¢
$
wH
,mayFcf)
�
g
8 BA mmC
Btu
•
Ra-
m 9 g 0
E
.,
g
P-.
W
C'
'
+
g g
Aa
R
jam.
M T
R
s
o
Tui
$
r
e G
ram+
T C
3 P
C\j
$m
Z m m
$ LLI
2 Q U
Z`�
If•'�
CJ
n
L
O
4eR 7
IL
r T
CM
2
¢O
CV
C Q
z
o
N
=_
U Q
r
p O
. f� \�Y
m• r
V
N •
C J
i
C\j
(%
QX
NOT FOR PURPOSES OF
ONSTRUCTION
000a Bonn eoosc neon oeecc eon eeoa ee.ee oeaer eeeor ooeee eoece eeaa 000ee
e olsen
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
DATE
APPROVED
REVISION07/01/2019
associates, inc.
SOUTH
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN
BY:
ma 2618 Herschel Street
ML
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
[phone]
FRYING PAN SHOALS
SHEET
e�° C-1468
SAND SOURCE AREA
6
of 9

71
Q
2
U
m
Q
LL1
U)
O
w
O
m
W
U)
Q
2
0_
a�
(0(0 u)mm't't't
QOON V V (000r-
Z N N N N N N N N
00
C 00 O.--iNm V Lnw r, W mOc-INm V m LO Q Qei N M I L9 T 1�TT V V V V V V V V V V NNNNNN OM O O O M M co co
C —I N N N CON —I —I
N > Q •N C2 2 `2 c2 c2
Z M M M M M M M
N WCl W N N N N N N N N
�Q00U0ww(7=
OOE`LTE`Z
OOT'LTE'Z
006'9TE'Z
OOL'9TE'Z
OOS`9TE`Z
OOE'9TE'Z
OOT'9TE'Z
006'STE`Z
OOL`STE`Z
UM 5 Lb c w
Cr
00VSTE'Z u
Q
006`bTE`Z v
06
OOL'bTE'Z m
OOS'bTE'Z L,
OOE'bTE'Z 00 O
Q N
OOT`bTE`Z z Q z0
006'ETE'Z u in
m m Z)
OOL'ETE'Z Q v
w iX
OOS'ETE'Z Z N
OOE'ETE'Z �: o
O
OOT`ETE`Z Cr
U
006'ZTE'Z m z
OOL'ZTE'Z
N®
N® C4®
Q
OOE`ZT£`Z
u
cYf
Z
OOT'ZTE'Z
Q
0
006'TTE'Z
O
UJ
OOL'TTE'Z
C7
m
005`TT£`Z
Lu
= z0
>-
OOE'TTE'Z
LL N
-�� OZ
>
OOT'TTE'Z
o O
006'OTE`Z
U N
a J
00
cn
OOL`OTE`Z
v w
'a
OOS'OTE'Z
z
z
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o
0
0-
Vn o
N
l0 ei' N O
00 l0
N O 00 l0 st N O 00 lD d' N O 00
(D N O 00 l0
0
=
cr 01 (3 (3
N N N N
00 00 00
N N N
00 00 r- r-n r-n l0 tO (O (O l0 M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Ifl Ifl u M .9 qz
N N N N N N
-�F
N
z J
U
Lu(ESOVN-4)
SulglJON
Q
z
0
NOT FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION
Olsen
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
DATE
APPROVED
REVISION
07/01/2019
02-07-2020
Ego
a
associates, inc.
SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN BY:
2618 Herschel Street
ML
-
��
Jacksonville, FL.32204
[phone]
FRYING PAN SHOALS
SHEET
•
C-1468
BORROW SITE DETAILS
7 of
9

ELEVATION (FT, NAVD88)
Q Ln + O
LO 0 N N
M
0)W L~L N
Z Z
F
LLLL LLLL w
N N Q
w
H 2 O
O
O
Q
Q
a
0L
D
w
� o
U) J
W
77
m 0 Q
_ O
w
IL J
W m
\ p Q
o
o
z �
Lrio"
C9 O
w
W J
a
❑
_
r)
~
ILL
N
0
fY
0
0
w
w
Q
m
,
W
ILL
Q
w
()
z
~
z
z
O
w
I=
m
Ln
C)
0 0
W
Q
o
u)
M
\
o
0
N
/
00
z
O
Lu
Cw7
0
o
w
LL
J
v
H
� � O
IIIql
_
�
O O
Q}+ N
O
W
W
i-y
.+.
N
❑ N
_ CO
3
w
0
c=g>>�g
z
Zz
z
O
J
Q
F71
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lJ
J
Ln O
+
IA C. In O Ln
7 7 N N
lM
O
(89GAVN '13) NOIIVA313
NOT FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION
Olsen
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
DATE
APPROVED
REVISION
07/01/2019
associates, inc.
SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DRAWN BY:
ma G 2618 Herschel Street
ML
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
FRYING PAN SHOALS
SHEET
[phone]
C-1468
BORROW SITE SECTION A -A'
8 of 9

olsen
associates, inc.
2618 Herschel Street
Jacksonville, FL. 32204
[phone]
C-1468
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
FRYING PAN SHOALS BORROW SITE
CULTURAL RESOURCES EXCLUSION ZONE
NOT FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION
DATE I APPROVED I REVISION
07/01/2019
DRAWN BY:
ML
SHEET
9 of 9