20200622 Ver 1_EIS_FONSI_Project 15-0034_20200730

US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Wilmington District
CESAW-TS-PE
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
JUNE 25, 2014
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared for the West Onslow Beach and
New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) and Surf City North Topsail Beach Coastal Storm Damage
Reduction Projects located in Pander and Onslow Counties, North Carolina. The document is
available on the Wilmington District's website at
Beach.asox. This FONSI has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations as
contained in 40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, which directs federal agencies on how to implement
the provisions of NEPA. It has also been prepared in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' NEPA regulations at 33 CFR Part 230.
On July 17, 2013, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for direct impacts of the
WL ,,,, �Qlllmuo 1x=UU ,, U,1 r, Vioow renuer anu unsiow uounues North Carolina, was mailed
to federal and state agencies and the interested public for a 30-day review and comment period.
,Based on the EA and the comments received from the public, the District Commander has
determined that the proposed federal action will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. This concludes the
NEPA process for this action.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Eric Gasch, Environmental Resources Section,
telephone [phone], email [e-mail], or by writing to 69 Darlington
Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343.
/'�
Gatwood
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch

1213 `Iq s!
I
J
201
US Army Corps ' W, Ew
of Engineers ®. �.
Wilmington District
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach)
and
Surf City and North Topsail Beach
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Projects
Pender and Onslow Counties, North Carolina
April 2014

Wcsr Onslon Bea< h mid A'eu, River MCI (7apsail lirurb) and,S'm f('70 and Nor[h bapsail Brach ('oali(il
AYorw Aimage Reduc(ion Projccls
- - Ipri131)14
Finding of No Significant Impact
West Onshm Beach and Ne%% River Inlet (Topsail Beach) and
Surf Cite and North Topsail Beach
Coastal Storm Damage Redaction Projects
Ponder and Onsloty Counties, North Carolina
April 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Su13JECT:
F0INi'ROM VT[ON............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 A].IFRNA'I'IVI{5................................................................................................................I
2.1 Proposed Action - Wilmington District Compatibility Practice ...................................... 1
2.2 Alternatives('onsidered...................................................................................................2
3.0 IMPACI"S OF 11IF: PROPOSED ACIION........................................................................ 3
4.0 CI IANGES TO THC ENVIRONMENT AI. ASSESSMENT ............................................. 5
5.0 ITBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION .................................................................... i
6.0 FINDING OF No SIGNIFIC'AN"I' IMPAC 1...................................................................... 6
TABLES:
We 1. Summary and comparison of impacts to each resource category relative to the selected
andno action alternatives................................................................................................................ 3
APPENDICES:
Appendix A -- Responses to EA Comments

II're7 On.e/onBca, h mid V'eu Ri ,(r lnlrl (7opsuil Reuch/ amt Sul_iii and Abr//c Topsail Bv(u h ('ousfill
17urcn Auoryte Recludiou M oic c is - l•'( )VS/
----:I i�(1/a

II'rsi Onshnr Bradt on(l AcuRiver hilei I10psuil Bcurh! and.5'ur/Y'in and A'urlh Mpvlil Nruch ('otrstrd
Mort lhuuugr ReJnclion Proje(I., -
pril ?01 J
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The National linvironmental Policy Act of 1961 as amended (NFPA), requires consideration of
the environmental impacts fir major federal actions. the proposed action and the em ironmoual
impacts ofthe proposed action were addressed in the lKimmuenlal Assessment (FA) forclircct
impacts of the West Onslow Beach _and New Riy�er hilel Cl o t�sail Beach) and Surf City and
North Fo s nl Bcach Coastal "'torIn, Dama-re lZeduetion I'rojccts. Fender and Onslq,oy counties.
North Carolina, dated July 2013. This IEA was a supplement to the I"inal IEIS documents and
Records of Decision issued Ibr both of these 50-year storm damage reduction projects; the
narrow focus of the supplemental FA was to address the issue of horrow source sand
compatibility with these beaches.
fhe FA was coordinated with various regulatory agencies and the public and comment letters
and memoranda were received. These comments are included With this Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) (Appendix A). The purpose ofthis FONSI is to ensure the
environmental consequences of the proposed action are considered. that environmental and
project information are available to the public, and to document the decision that no significant
impacts would occur if the proposal N implemented.
this FONSI has been prepared pursuant to NFPA in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality, (CE(j) regulations as contained in 40 (TR Parts 1500 to 1508, which
directs federal agencies on how to implement the provisions of NEPA. It has also been prepared
in accordance with Wild States Army Corps of Hnginecrs (USAC'E) NGPA regulations al 33
CFR Part 230.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Proposed Action — Wilmington District Compatibility Practice
The purpose of the West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) and Surl City and
North Topsail Beach (SC'N 113) Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (C'SDR) projects is to reduce
storm damages resulting lions beach erosion and waves along the ocean shoreline orthe study
area. 'I o accomplish this, a dune and berm system will be constructed along Topsail Island beach
segments. Sand Ibr the beaclifill would be delivered from offshore horroa areas by hydraulic
dredging nwdwdologks.
Based on the Study phase geotcchnical investigations, it appeared that sufficient saliment was
available to meet Be 50 year project lilt. More complete geotcchnical investigations orthe
borrow areas have since been conducted during the Pre -construction I'Agiueering and Design
(PIED) phase fiir both projects. The additional analyses resulted in a refinement in the borroii
area characterizations. A borrow area utilization plan needs to he developed which provides
conipatihle heath material for a 50 year project life Ibr each project.

11' w oils hnr flcuch and .Velf Rico hilet I hipsoil /leach) and Surl01Y mid :Vorih 71 psaiil Ue och ('ousiul
5Iorm Donm,,e Reduction Prujectc - F(hVV
I pril 2014
I lie proposed action is to implement a borrow area utilization plan which includes the
Wilmington District's compatibility practice for beach placementoCsediment. Specifically. this
includes, but is not limited to, implementation of: ( I ) a visual classitication and laboratory
analysis of v ibracorc sediment samples, (2) use of the federal guidelines for calculating overlill
ratios (Section V-4-1 .e.(2)i. of -the U.S. Anny Corps of latgincers Engineer Manual (I{M) I 1 10-
2-1 100. part V. titled Coastal lingincering Manual) and (3) an average weighted line -grained
sediment content of less than 10`%u passing (he #200 sieve. The proposed action would provide
approximately 13.6 million cubic yards (MCY) for Topsail Beach and approximately 14.6 MC),
Ibr SCMI 13 of compatible dredged material for placement on the beach in order to meet the 50
year project life of both projects. A combination ofdredging operational techniques (i.e.
coarsening ol' material through losses ol' line -grained sediment during dredging and placement
activities), construction management measures (i.e. quality control monitoring. coordination, and
con(ingcttcy planning). and screening measures (i.e. physical renewal of incompatible granular
material) will be implemented to assure that sediment placed on the beach is "compatible" with
the natke sediment. The proposed action would maintain the current borrow area acreage
impacts evaluated in the Topsail Beach and SCNT13 HSs and amid the impacts associated v�hll
additional ol'Ishore investigations for borrow areas and actual dredging and conveyance of
sediment from those sites.
2.2 Alternatives Considered
The FA also considered it No Action Alternative. (hider the no action Alternative. no changes
would he made to the preliminary borrow area utilization plans identified in the Topsail Beach
and SC'N fB FlSs. l he authorized borrow areas would be utilized in compliance with the North
Carolina sediment compatibility standards Iband at 15A NCAC 0711.0312. These standards have
not been made part of the States approved Coastal Management Plan for purposes ol- Icderal
Coastal lone Management Act (C'ZMA) consistency. The District has intbrmed the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) of its concerns relating to these sediment
compatibility standards. One concern raised by the District is applicable to this project: that the
state restriction on Zinc -grained borrow material not exceeding the fine-grained content on the
native beach by more than 5% can work an unnecessary hardship when the native beach has very
little fine-grained component (in this case, sometimes less than 2%). Tlie result is that very good
sand with a line -grained component of approximately 7% can be considered incompatible by
State standards.
(finder this alternative. the State standard would be Billowed. The borrow areas would be used
until all identific(I beach compatible ma(crial. as defined by the State standard. is exhausted. Due
to very minor differences in line -grained percentages between some borrow sources and the
State standard, this alternative would not provide FCdlnrenl volumes to support the 50 year
project life of both projects. Additional borrow areas located further offshore would be required
resulting in incremental direct and indirect environmental impacts- and increased cost to both
projects.
E

If e.N1 011%lonBel« h uud ,4'('n. Rh cr brlel th)p wil Reuchj onrl.Sur'l ('ill unit A'm th 7opsuil Beach ('o(ojul
.SIorw l kuags;e Wdumon Projects - l�7).ArSl
,Ipril 201-1
3.0 IMPACTS OF TllE PROPOSE,) ACTION
Table I. Sumn.ary and comparison of iIII pacts to each resource categorc relative to the selected and no
action al IcroatiN es.
Resource
Proposed Action
No Action Alternative
• Localized short term increase in
• Localized short term increase in turbidity
fill bidity within the offshore
within the offshore dredging localion. in
dredging location. in [lie surl'zone.
the surfztn.e, and in the immediate area
and in the immediate area of sand
of sand deposition.
deposition.
\4'atel'
• Additional borrow areas would likely be
011mlily
• 1 lie percentage of increase in fine-
pul:;tlod further offshore resuhiug in the
grained sediment is negligiblem
and
potential cumulative inerill .'towl area
impacts arc not expected to exceed
ofdredging related lurbidity within the
(lie threshold evaluated in the
water column offshore.
original EISs.
• Localized .shell term lurbidity
• localized short terni turbidity disturbance
disturbance confined to the beach
confined to the beach placement location
StIIT/oIIC
placement location during
during construction.
Fishes
construction.
• Additional borrow areas would Hell, be
• 1 he percentage of increase ill line-
pursued further offshore resulting in the
grained sediment is negligible and
potential increase in coilsu'uetion duration
impacts are not expected to exceed
and risk of extending into the peak
the threshold evaluated in the
recruitment and abundance periods of surf
original IiISs.
zone fishes.
• Localized, short-term, and
• Localized. short-Iernl. and reversible
IYVCISIble Impacts to bcwhlc
impacts to benthlc Intertidal 11MCtOGRAIM
Benl6ic
ntertidal macrofauna from direct
frrnn direct burial, increased lurbidity in
burial, increased uu'bidily in the
the surfzonc, or changes in the sand
Resources
surf zone. or changes in the sand
grain size or beach profile.
Surf'7.olle
grain size or beach profile.
Additional borroly areas would likeh be
• I he percentage of increase in fine-
pursued further ofltihore resulting in Ile
grained sedimcnl is negligible and
potential increase in construction
....pacts we not expected to exceed
duration and risk of extending into the
the threshold evaluated in the
peak rccmiuncnt mod abundance periods
original FISs.
of intertidal mactolauna.
ficmhic
• Localized and tunpol try turbidity
• Localized and temporaly turbid6
RevoltI es -
Impacts vyetlld not exceed (lie
impacts,
Nearshore
impact Ihreshold considered in the
. Additional bonem areas.vould likely be
Occa❑
relerenced F.ISs.
pursued lilrther oftshorc resulting in the
potential lllereaSC in cunullative acreage
ol,directbenthic resoul'ec impacts.
3

If'ieq ou.cknr Beach ailo''VcII River lu/et ILtlt.cui! !leach) and h'ur%('ity cnnl 1 orlh Iopwil lieuIt( ',Imm/
17orm bumu,e Reduction Projects - 1�7),A`S'l
Jim il'lIN
Resource
Proposed Action
No Action Alternative
• 1 he pelcenlagC of -increase in fine-
• Addmomd borrow v'cas would likely he
GI I I
grained sedilliew is negligible and
pursued further offshore %vLill a high
I lard
%could not lC ull it an incremental
likelihood ol'encounleringadclitional
d1lect not prceiously evaluamcl or
moderate and high relief hard bottom
Hotlonls
result in an increase in sediment
communities requiring additional
dispel_sion that wwuld require a
surveys. coordination. and devClopnlenl
roevalua(ion of buffer distances.
of mitigative buffers.
I
• The project Slav Affect_ Not
. Additional hourow teas vcould likely hr—
Lndangcrcd
Likely to Advelselp Affect the
pm'SLIM furtheroffshorc. Incteased haul
Mid
piping plover. seabeach autaranth.
distances could require additional lime [o l
Threatened
and loggerhead, lealhcrhack, and
complete a nourishmwnt event: Thus.
leell sea turtle and Not Likely to
increasing the risk of sea turtle
Species
Aversely Modify critical habitat
entrainment.
for piping plovers.
Recreation
hhe pelcentage of increase in fine-
• Additional borrow areas %could like]y he
mid
gl'allled sediment IS negligible and
IM SaC(l filltllCloIIShorC. lllCl-CaSCCI haul
Aesthetic
would not rcstll in a discernible
distances Could require additional lime to
1Zcsourecs
increase in impacts to recreational
complete a nourishment event and
I
and aesthetic resources,
extend into the peak recreation season.
CA

II c.ct Onslow Beach and A'ew River Met (l bpsoil Bcachl oat SrwI ('itrand Vorth I ipsail Beach ('oawol
Slot in Annage Reduction Projects - FO V'S'l
_ - 4pr"1 J
4.0 CHANGES TO TFIE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Section I.l relcrenced the 1VWest OnSION Beach and Nev4 River Inlet ('Topsail Beach). North
Carolina and SUN Ili C'SDR projects for more cstcnsive background inbotination pertaining to
project related environmen(al impacts in accorelancc with the VITA of 1909. as amended. 'I'his
section has been rev iced to include the following paragraph. which rellects that (lie Burcau of
Uccan Energy Management (BOEM) is a Cooperating agency on (lie SCM 13 project and
clarifies their involvement in the NFTA process:
The U.S.. Bureart o/Ocean Energy Hallagement (BOEM) .served as a cooperatinif agency
au the 2010 S( \T13 ELS'. ant its glhorr ou' areas locatedd nn the Fedcr(d Otter
('onlinental Shelf (O('S) a ould require authorizations from 13O1:dIto undertake the
proposed project. 7'he BOEM has juri.vdiction over mineral resources on the Federal
Outer Continental Shell (O('S) puni and to section 8(k)(2)(d) q/'the OCS Lanais act. The
US, l C'l, .serves aslee« l itedera/ agenel Jbr Ii,SA ,Section , crud Me, EF11 cort.ctthwimrson
this project. Further, the US1f ('E (tlso serves (Is the land lederal cr,Irencv lur the AWPA
Section 106 crud (YMA Section 301 complirurce with BOEM acting in a consrthing role.
5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCV COORDINATION
On 17 July 2013 the FA for direct impacts of the_West Oils Iow 13each and Nesa River Inlet
To sail Beach) and Surf CIIV and North Topsail Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
Projects, Ponder and Ons mo counties. North Carolina was mailed to federal and state agencies
and file intcrestcd public for a 30-daN review and comment period.
The FA and the comments received From the public have been consicicred in the decision to
prepare this FONSI in accordance with NITA requirements, Lelters and memoranda on the FA
were received fi-om the following:
Federal Agencies
Burcau of Ocean i:nergN Management
Office of SUI'faee Mining Reclamation and knforcemcnt
Fm honmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Administration Slate Clearing Ilouse
North Carolina Department of Fnvironmenl and Natural Resources
- North Carolina Department ofC'Ultural Resources -State I lis(oric PfCSCI'VallOn O(lice
- North Carolina Division of Water Resources. Public Water Supply section
- North Carolina Wildlilc Resources Commission
North Carolina Office of C'onservalion, Planning. and C'onununith' Affairs. National
I Icritage Program
North Carolina DcparUneni oft ransportation

I I es/ ons/ov Brach and clI Hirer /nlet ! l himuil Bem hA and .Snrl Cal and A'nrth I opsuil Beach ('unsiul
.Germ l)uno,i�e Reflut uon Prop,(is - kavlY
Ipril d0N
North Carolina Division of Fmergcncy Management. Ploociplain Management
Program
North Carolina Div isian of Land Qualit}
Elected 01, icials
None
Local Agencies/Entities
None
Conservation Groups
None
Universities
None
None of the continents received identified any reasonable alternativcS or major issues that were
not aheacly addressed in the FA or the projects' respective FIS documents. Clarifications
regarding Endangered Species cllccts, ranee ol'allernativcs, and CYMtAcemsistcnca can he
fiwnd in the IISA(T responses to comments in the following Appendix, and confirm that each of
these issues has been adequately addressed. All comments and associated responses arc included
in Appendix A.
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I have reviewed the FA for direct impacts of the supplemental actions idcntilied in the West
Onslow Beach and New River Inlet Topsail Beach) and Suff City and North Topsail Beach
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Proiccts. Pender and OnSIM counties, North Carolina
Environmental Assessment, dated July 2013. the information provided by interested parties, and
the information contained in this Finding ol'No Significant Impact, and I find that the proposed
action gill not signiticantlN affect the quality of the Itmnan or natural env,� onment. Therefore.
preparation ol'an FlIvironmental Impact Statement pursuant to Section Y02(2) Wthe NatiSptal
I_.nvironmcntal Police Act of 1969. as amended, is not required.
P. trb L. K', _-
GT61 V.S. A(-
✓6 amku
Stesen A. Baker
Colonel. t I.S. Army
District C'onuuandel

APPENmx A
RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIIIENT COMMENTS

tl'Cs'I I)/) l/ it Bcuch and \cnRtrcr hilei Il npsuit Bet it 1 Im/S1111Y'ity ulzd Nol'tli Rgisuil Beads Cues/ 1/
Snvnt /)anutgc Rediu lion Projects - f-i)�A,Sl
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Ismail dated 24 Jul),2013
Comment: the Oflice of Surface (Mining has reviewed the I?nvironmental Assessment 161 West
Onslosv Beach and Ness Rker Inlet ( I opsail Beach) and Surf Cite and North Topsail Bench
Coastal Stonn Damage Reduction Projects. Pender and OOS10vC Counties. NC. In this regard. we
have no comments. I hank you for the opportunity to review this document
Response: Noted.
2. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Email dated 13 August 2013
Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FA addressing the relinement in
utilization ol'borrow areas located offshore of'l opsail Island for the CSDR at 'topsail, Surl'City.
and North Topsail Bcaches. The B01:M does not have any specific comments regarding your
determination.
Response 1: Noted
Comment 2: BOI N is a cooperating agency on this project and recommends the following
language be incoiporatecl into the t'_A to indicate 1301:M involvement in the NGPA process:
The 1L,S. Bureau of Ocean fiber-gy il h ituigement (BOE. I /) served cgs ct cooperating agenel' on
the 2010 SC N713 1, R...9l!1' ttse gf borro:r areas located on the Fcdercil Outer COntilWIlI(i1 S17ei1
(OC'.S) would require atdhort-ctlions front BO EH to undertake the proposed project. The B01!:I1
ha.r.jurisdiction over milleral re.sourres on the Lederal Outer ContinelwO' S101(0( S) pursucim
to .section 8(k)(2)(d) of the OC',S Loins Act- The USdC k serves as leile(%dei al agenc:i for ESA
Section - and the EI.11 constihalions on this project. Further, the 1 /SaC E also serves cts the lead
Jederld ugencr 1hr the ;Vl1P,4 Scclinn 106 and C7H,1 S'eclion 30- compliance u1[h BOL11 acting_
in a cols illhig role_
Response 2: Concur. Section 1.1 of the FA has been updated to include this recommended
language. Additionally. Section 4.0 of the PONSI diSCUSSCS this change.
Continent 3: In regards to the affected environment and general water quality impacts. you may
find some more recent relevant references in the Michel et al. 2013 (BOOM 2013-01 19) report
that support your determinations.
A-2

WeSI 01INIoir Brach anJ Xcli River hilei (Topsoil Brarh) (wet Sm;10ty oml Xorrh I opmdl Brach C"au.srrd
Storm Dmna,�rz Rcduciion Projrrrs - 1'0VS1
- --- fjni12011
Response 3: Concur. 'this reference has bccn reviewed and considered in the cffcct
detcrnlinaGons Thal were made.
3. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office
Letter slated 30 July 2013
Comment: We have conducted it review of the project and are aware ofno historic resources
which would be allcctcd by Um project. 'therefore. we have no comment on the project as
proposed.
Response: Noted.
4. Environmental Protection Agency
Email dated 16 August 2013
Comment 1: I.PA requestjsI clarification regarding language presented in section 3.2 -- No
Action —"A NEPA document would be prepared to assess additional offshore borrow area
alternatives which contain compatible sediment in accordance %eith the State compatibility
standard." FPA is unclear on why the COI? did not include an alternative in this EA that
addressed potential additional borrow areas that could provide material that is compatible with
the Slate standard. This altemalive would provide the public with an opportunity to better
understand the cost and environmental benefits associated with meeting this standard. EPA
believes the proposed suit[cj ofallernativcs. as presented in the FA_ are too narrow.
Response I: We dlo not agree that the suite of alternatives is too narrow. This EA was prepared
for the limited purpose of examining sediment compatibility issues raised as we gathered more
data about proposed borrow sources. The Corps does not believe that the inclusion of additional
borrow area alternatives further offshore is warranted for this I'A. particularly given the
negligible environmental impact of the selected alternative.
The No Action Alternative compares present borrow area utilization plan actions against the
proposed action alternative. (TQ allows grouping of existing plans and policies into an
alternative to shovy the impacts of implementing them in the luture. The "no action" alternative
means continuing with the present borrow area utilization plan until that plan is changed. A
component of the existing plan. outlined in the underlying EIS documents, consisted of a
requirement or commitment to do additional environmental and NI PA analysis if new or
additional oflshore borrow areas are proposed. Additionally.. an updated planning document (i.e.
Limited Re-evaluation Reporl) would be prepared by the Corps to assess potential changes to the
I(1rnlnlaUOn. evaluation. and selection of alternatives based on the use of borroAy areas located
further oflshore. I he statement referenced in the ITA comment is referring to this contingeney
commitment. which continues to be it part of the existing plan.
A-3

II'ev onyhnr Bcuch and Nrlr Rh (,I- Intel ITup.tail /leach/ and Surf Citi, und;Porth Topsail Beach ('omful
SIorin Anmt,,e Reducnmi ProjecI c - /-o,A(Sl
— dpril 'PTl
Specific details for hoth the West Onslovw Beach and Nm River Inlet ( fopsail Beach). North
Carolina (NC) and Soo rfCity and North Topsail Beach (SC'N'I'B) Coastal Storm Damage
Rccluction (C'SDR) projects were incorporalecl by reference in the following reports:
U.S. ;Iron Carps al Ellgineer.s. 2009. hiaal Integrale(I (;ci oral Reevaluation Report and
Enrirann+enlul hmpaclSlalemew, Shore Prolection, West 010mr Beach and New Ricer
Inlel (Iol uil Reach). NC. Februarr?009.
• U..S. �lrnn Corps' qj ingineers. 2010. /'inu! httegrrrtcd h'ca.rihllily Report and
Environmenled hnpact Siatemenl. Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, Sur/ 0(l, (Intl N`avh
TopwilBeach, North Carolina, Decemher?olo.
I hose Mo reports contain extensive information pertaining to potential borrow areas. fhey
completely and adequately discuss potential borrow areas. Additional investigations were not
conducted fur This EA.
Comment 2: IPA rcquesl[sJ the COI; provide clarification on the need to meet the 50-year
project life for compatible sand supply. Based on our reviews of the draft and final IASs
supporting this EA it doesn't appear that the 50-year project life and need fir compatible sand
over that period was discussed.
Response 2: hi accordance with USACk regulations for how Corps of Engineers Civil Works
prgjects arc formulated. evaluated and selected for implementation (ER 1 I05-2-100). the
planning objectives for both studies consider a 50 year period ofanalysis. Specifically. section
4.01. "Goals and Objectives" of the SCNTB report states that the study objective is: "Over a
50-year period of analysis, provide coastal storm damage reduction (as measured by increases
in NEI) benefit's) to the shoreline in Surf City and North Topsail Beach. while minimizing or
avoiding impacts to natural resources." The opening sentence of the Executive Summary of the
SCNTB report states: "The purpose of this study is to evaluate coastal storm damage reduction
Ior the towns ol' Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, and deycfop the most
suitable plan of damage reduction for (lie present and future conditions for a 50-year period of
allahsis." 'I he 50 year period served as the required basis for evaluation. comparison. and
selection ofafternatives for both prgjects. 'I his was adequately addressed in each underlying Els.
Comment 3: EPA is concerned that the preferred alternative presented in the EA will result in
the use of beach till material that is not consistent with current beach material potentially
impacting 1&F species. EPA strongly recommends consuhation with the USPWS regarding the
proposed change and any potential impacts to TLZ I{ species.
Response 3: Based on the analysis and subsequent conclusions of -the F'A. the Corps confirms
that the preferred alternative will result in the use of beach fill material that is lolly compatible
syith accepted standards. 'I he use of Corps standards. rather than State standards. for determining
compatibility of sand will not adversely aflect species. including 1'&,IC species. The Corps has

II t' / (har/un lfeurh and .Veit River hdel I blecuil BeudU unrl Rurf('III, urrd A'm III I op.suil Beur h ('nus/ul
i7orm lkmurkfr Reduc lion Projects - /-'O:V.S/
_Ipril_201-!
consulted with the USl:WS on this project ancl, in accordance with Section 7 ofthe I{ndangered
Species Act (I:SA). the (!SIAWS has reviewed and provided comments on the GA (via letter
dated I) August 2013) regarding potential impacts to protected resources. 'Ilie Corps received
the USPWS concurrence via letter (sec ( IS]- WS 4a below) on 14 March 2014. which coolirmed
that the projects' eflecls on listed species is unchanged front previous (feterntinations.
Comment 4: FPA antlinucS to be concerned Is ith potential impacts to hard bottom areas. We
continue to recommend rigorous dclineation of all hard bottom resources within the proposed
borrow arras to avoid intpacis to hard bottom resources.
Response 4: As discussed in the relerenccd Topsail Beach and SCN'I'13 EISs, extensive hard
bottom and associated biological characterization surveys were completed to idcntily and
support appropriate buffer determinations relative to hard bottom relief. No hard bottom
resources were identified within the borroly areas located offshore Of`lopsail Beach: however.
low. moderate. and high relief hard bottom features were identified within borrow areas located
of7shore ol'SurrCity and North Topsail beaches. Avoidance buffers were established, in
coordination with the Resource Agencies, in order to minimize mid/or avoid direct and indirect
impacts to Wrapped hard bottom resources. Commitments to avoid hard bottom resource impacts
within the borrow areas arc summarized in Table 7.2 otthe relerenccd SCN l6 EIS. Nothing in
this EA affects those commitments, and this proposed action vhill have a negligible etlect on
those resources.
Comment 5: Dredging activities should be done in a manner that dots not cause or contribute
to exceedances in Stale WQ standards. EPA recommends providing details oil proposed BMPs
to minimize impacts to WQ.
Response 5: As discussed in the relerenccd I{IS's for both projects, proposed clredging and
beach placement activities Ivould not cause or contribute to excccdanceS in State WQ standards.
Table 7.2 of the SCN IR EIS states the tolloWing environmental commitments (i.e. BMf 's) to
minimize impacts to water quality:
• Belbre consh'uction, the Corps would obtain a Section 401 Water Quality C ertiticalion from
the NCDWQ Ibr the proposed project. The Corps WOUId comply with the requircntcats of the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A copy ol'the ccrtificalioa Would be forwarded to
NC'DC'M (NCDCM consistency condition).
• 1 emporary dikes would be used to retain and direct llow ol'material parallel to the shoreline
to minimize surfzone turbidities. 'I he temporary dikes Would be removed and the beach
graded in accordance with approved profiles on completion o1'pumping activities in that
section of beach (NCI)CM consistency condition).
A-5

IPe.sl ()'asluuBo'1 h oud:%'rir Rimy Inlrl llopscril Bea hl o10S}n•/Y7n oral rA'urlh Itpwil Beach ('otwal
Storm Uonloer Reduction Projec[s - G7LV'.S'l
-- — Ipril.011
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter dated 13 August 2013
Comment I: Page 3, Service Concerns and Recommendations: "I he Biological Assessment
(Appendix I of the FIS) toil. Sttt'I'City and Not Topsail Beach project states on Page I-18: "this
assessment assumes the sediment being placed on the beach meets the new state Sediment
Criteria Rule Language... for borrow material and subsequent beach placement.... I hcrefore,
sediment characteristics will be compatible with native beaches." The Service relied on this
commitment in our 1'010+ ofthe project for effects to Icdcrally-listed species. Changes in the
compatibility of sediment proposed for nourishment will require re -initiation of Section 7
consultation.-'
Page S, Summa11•: "'the Service believes that the proposed changes to the project will result in
the placement of sand that is not consistent With sand currently on the project area beaches. I -he
proposed change in composition of beach fill material constitutes a modification oflhe project in
a manner and extent that causes an effect to listed species and proposed critical habitat that was
not previously considered. 'I herefore. the Scrvice reconunettds that the Corps reinitiate Section
7 consultation."
Response I: Though the rcferellMl reports dOClnnenl the Corps previous commitment to
implement the States sediment criteria rule language. the reports CIO not suggest that the
previous methodologies for evaluating sediment compatibility (i.e. "Wilmington District
practice') Would result in material being placed on the beach that is not compatible wilh the
native beach. The "Wilmington District practice" and the NC sedimcnt compatibility standards
are mo different sediment compatibility methodologies With the same goal of identify-ing
"compatible" sediment for (teach placement that is consistent with the native sand on the project
area beaches. 'I he purpose of the EA was to evaluate environmental resources within the project
area for potential incremental impacts from implementing a different cmnpalibility methodology
(i.e. Wilmington District practice). The FA conclueles that the proposed action would not result
in significant incremental adverse impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the FISs.
Therefore, both sediment compatibility methodologies would result ill sediment being placed on
the beach that is "compatible' with the native sediment. Furthermore. based on this conclusion.
implementation of the proposed action would not aliect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner or to an extent not considered in the previous consultation; therefore, re -initiation of
consultation is not required. The District did clarify its compatibility practices with the FWS and
received FWS ecmcurl.encc that the potential effect on T&F species remains unchanged.
Comment 2: Page 3, Service Concerns and Recommendations: "Section 1.04 (Page 6) of the
final HS for the Surf Ciq' and North Topsail Beach CSDR project (and Section Lfl3 of the Final
FIS foil the Topsail Beach C'SDR project) does not mention a requirement to iden6k 50-ycars-
wurth of compatible borrow material in order to meet the purpose and ncc(I of the project.
A-6

11 Cst (Ms I0II /3euch and A'eu River lelet (h)lYscid Ileaeh) and.Swl ('itt and b4n'th bip.suil headt ( busial
Sturm lhtutntc Reduction Projects - l'ONSI
-April 1014
Page 4, Scrrice Coocerns and Recommendations: "Instead of relaxing the sediment criteria
Ibr this project. the Service recommends that the Corps continue to investigate other borrota
arcas Ibr store compatible sediments. or shorten the lilt ol'the project to match availability of
compatible sediment .... Ilccause this is a 50 year project. it specific borrow areas is not nettled
right away, and it is likely that other sources of more compatible material could be indenulicd in
the futurc.--
Page G, Sunnuary°: -'lflherc is not cmough sand to support it 50-year project. the Corps should
reduce (Ile life of the project to one that the sand will support, or redesign the project so that the
available cccnmpalible sand can support a 50-year project life. Alternatively. the Corps could seek
additional sand sources. I Itet'efore, use reconhnhend that the Final FA include it third alternative.
Ibis alternativo would include removing all or part of borrosy meas A. O, P, and I. front
consideration and conmmitnunt to pursue investigations of'otherproject designs. project lengths.
ol" potential borrow areas."
Response 2: Section 1.03 of the Topsail Beach report and Section 1.04 of the SCNf[3 report do
not mention a requirement to identity 50-years worth of compatible borrow material to meet the
purpose and need of the project. I fowever- in accordance with USAC[ regulations till' how
Corps of Iagineers Civil Works projects are Iornullated_ evaluated and selected for
implementation (ER 1105-2-100), the planning objcetives ter both stndics consider a 50 veal'
period of analysis. Specifically- section 4,01. "Goals and 01 jectives' of the SCN'I'll report
states that the study objective is: "Over a 50-year period of analysis. provide coastal storm
damage reduction (as measured by increases in NFD benelits) to the shoreline in Surf City and
North Topsail Beach. while nhininhixing or avoiding impacts to natural resources."
I he opening sentence of the FxeCUllye Summary of the SC'N B report states: "'I he purpose 01'
this study is to evacuate coastal storm damage reduction tin' the towns ol' surf city and North
Topsail Beach. North Carolina, all(] develop the most suitable plan of damage reduction tier the
present and future conditions for a 50-year period of analysis.- Therefore. the 50 year period
served as the basis for evaluation. comparison, and selection of alternatives liter both projects.
As discussed in response to Comment t above. the proposed action does not suggest a `relaxing..
of sediment criteria fur this project, but rather an alternative method Im conducting seclintent
compatibility analyses (i.e. Wilmington District practice). 'I he FA concludes that the proposed
action would not result in significant incremental adverse impacts that had not been previously
Militated in the HS under the State's recommended compatibility criteria. Considering that no
additional environmental impacts would occur based on the proposed change in the methodology
used to place compatible sediment om the beach, the Carps does not agree with the service's
suggestion to continue to investigate other borrow areas fur "more conhpatible sediments. or
shorten the file of the project to match availability ofcompatible sediment. --I he Corps contends
that the material that has been identified within the current borrosc areas is "conhpatiblc" and that
the investigation and potential Use of sediment that meets the State conhpalibilily criteria would
likcly result in incremental direct and indirect impacts associated hvith the increased surface area
A-7

II Gal omlou BefI( /1 and .h'eu Riror Inlet III psail /Iru,/u and Rnl/'('inmed A'orlll I igtsuit heat h t om I(I/
Storm 1)(mi(i Krduclion Piojc(ls - l'o;A'.S'I
April 1014
51). North Carolina Department of t;nvirountent and Natural
Resonrces — Division of Coastal Management
Letter dated 12 August 2013 (comments provided I) N, NC'DC'M via
memorandtun to Stephan Rynas, DCNI federal consistenc. coordinator,
dated 26 July 2013)
Comment 1: 'I le NC Division ol'Coastal Management (PUM) is in the process of
reviewing the existing sediment compatibility standards (I 5A NCAC 0711.0112). At the
last Coastal Resources Commission (CRC') meeting on Jule I L 2013, a series ol'
proposed changes were approval for public heating. One proposed change is to allow
the percent by weight of granular material (Grain size ? 2 nun and <4.76 nun) to exceed
the native beach be 10% instead ol'5%. The allowable percent by weight ofline material
and gravel material would each remain at 5% above the native beach percentage.
Response I: Noted. 'I he Corps appreciates the update ou the existing sediment
compatibility standards and the current proposed change to allow the percent by weight
ol,granular material to exceed the native beach by 101/, instead of 5%. The Corps
requests that the NCDCM continue to keep the Corps updated of any approved changes
to the Slate's sediment compatibility standards. I low%ever, as discussed in the F'A. to dale
the state compatibility standards have not been submitted to the National Occanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) OCRM Rlr consideration as a leclerally
approycd component of the State's coastal management program. In the continued
absence ofthis OCRM approval. the Stale sediment compatibility standards are not
required as a component of the Federal consistency detcnnination in accordance with the
Coastal /one Management Act (C'ZMA) of 1972. The proposed action identified in the
GA is to follow the Wilmington District compatibility practice, which has successfully
been implemented on multiple CSDIt and navigation disposal pro iects prior to the
adoption ol'the State's sediment compatibility standards,withoul significant
environmental impacts. fhe GA concludes that Borrow Arca I, contains 5.2% more
granular material for the Wilmington District compatibilitN practice borrow composite
than the current State standard. Assuming that the proposed change for granular material
is made final, the percentage ofgranular material within Borrow Area I. would only
exceed the state standard by 0.2%, Nonetheless. the contingency plans referenced in the
FA will be in place to monitor for and avoid and/or reniosc areas of unacceptable
granular material that are believed to be a persistent problem.
Comment 2: The IJSACF should strive to meet the state sediment compatibility
standards tothe maximum extent practicable. PaNICUIaik when dredging Borrow A.
Borrow Area P. or Borrow Area L, the dredge operator should be cognizant that. based
on sampling data. these areas contain sedintcnt that may be too tine or too coarse to be
considered beach compatible. Should the ch-edging operations encounter sand deemed
A-10

tfr.sr l baslor Reach and V'ru' River In/el 17bpwil Reachl and surf Cim and Nnr[h Top.suil Reath (buslul
i'Inrm l huna�n' Redu<7ion /,I oirer�e - /•'(h\:Cl
non -compatible with native grain size or sorting characteristics of the native beach. the
dredge operator shall immediately cease operation and contact DCM. Dredge operations
swill resume only after resolution of the issue of sand compatibility.
Response 2: 'fhc optimization ol'borrow areas based on extensive gcotcchnical
investigation and analyses conducted prom feasibility through PFD (Pic -Construction
higincerin(, and Design) phases of both projects supports the Corps' efforts of placing
sediment on the beach that is "compatible" with the native scimenis. When evaluating
compatibility for all borrow areas for both projects, there are many instances where the
material meets file compatibility criteria established by the State.
I lowevcr. as discussed in the FA_ the proposed action is to utilize PHI) gcotechnical data
firom the offshore borrow area for the 'I opsail Beach and SCN113 CSDR projects and
implement a borrow area utilization plan which relics upon the application of the
Wilmington District's compatibility practice for beach placement of sediment. This
practice would consider sediment with an average weighted tine -grained sediment
content of Iess than I0% passing the //200 sieve as beach compatible (less than J% above
the native percent passing the #230 sieve is the State criteria). Measures would be
implemented to screen incompatible granular material. Based on a review of'the existing
literanrc as documented in this LA and refercnced FIS's, implementation of the
Wilmington District practice would place sediment that is "contpatihle" with the native
sediments of the recipient beaches with no incremental clivironmental impacts relative to
implementation of the Stale criteria. I herelore, the Corps does not concur that sediment
ss'ithin horrow areas A. P, and 1. would he too fine or too coarse to be considered
compatible with the native beach. To minimize the risk of sediments being placed on the
beach that are considered incompatible relative to the Wilmington District practice,
contingency plans refercnced in the FA will be in place to monitor for and avoid and/or
remove areas of unacceptable granular material that are believed to be a persistent
problem. Additionally, as discussed in the FfS's for both projects, il'Ihe dredging
operations encounter sand deemed non -compatible with native grain size or sorting
characteristics ofthe native beach. the Wilmington District would stake the decision on a
suitable contingency measm-c that may include moving the dredge to another site in the
borrow area or to another borrow area and would notify the NCDC'M and other resource
agencies ofsuch a contingency measure.
As the NC DC'M has chosen not to submit the state compatibiliq standards to the
National Occanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) OCRM for consideration
as a Icderally approved component of the State's coastal management program, it is
inappropriate to request Federal agencies to comply with them -to the maximum extent
practicable" as if they were part of the State's approved plan.
A-11

II (<ci Onslon, Reurh and .A'vII River hrlrl 0)psuil Rauch/ rrnd ,Sur/ ('ih' amI Abrill 7bpmril Rruclr ('o(wal
WI In Uunrq[�e Krducction projerr+ -I
fpril ?01 a
5c. North Carolina Department of Agriculhnr
Letter dated 9 August 2013
Comment: No comment
Response: Noted
5t1. North Carolina Division of Emergency Management Floodplain
Management Program
Letter dated 2 August 2013
Comment: No comment
Response: Noted
5e. North Carolina Department of Transportation
Letter dated 31 Jule 2013
Comment: No comment
Response: Noted
5f. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources— State
Historic Preservation Office
Letter dated 26 July 2013
Comment: No comment
Resnonsc. Noted
A-12