20081764 Ver 2_EPA Comments_20100430

FW: PN comments from EPA & FWS DWQ # 08 1764 V2
FW: PN comments from EPA & FWS DWQ # 08 1764 V2
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:37 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Attachments: document2010-04-09-135400.pdf (842 KB)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sugg, Mickey T SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:51 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: FW: PN comments from EPA & FWS
Sorry young lady- furgot 'er
Other comment letters will follow.
-mick
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403-1343
[phone] (o)
[phone] (fax)
Page 1 of 2
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to
the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer
Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sugg, Mickey T SAW
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Tom Jarrett; 'Brad Rosov'; 'Ken Willson'; 'stevefoster@north-topsail-
beach.org'; dan tuman
Subject: PN comments from EPA & FWS
All-
Attached are letters from EPA & FWS. Also, I left a message with Bill Rogers of
Camp Lejeune informing him that I would like to get together to address comments
disclosed in their letter. I'll throw some dates to you once I discuss it with
him. I'll be out of the office the week of April 19th and May 3rd, but I'll try to
schedule it as soon as possible.
-Mickey
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403-1343
[phone] (o)
[phone] (fax)
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to
https://mail.nc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vHV R... 4/30/2010
FW: PN comments from EPA & FWS DWQ # 08 1764 V2
Page 2 of 2
the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer
Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://pert.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:54 PM
To: Sugg, Mickey T SAW
Subject: Scanned Document
Please see the attached document.
https://mail.nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vHVR... 4/30/2010
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 18, 2010
Mickey T. Sugg
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
arCEIVED
MAR222"
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
Subject: Action ID No. 2005-00344, North Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project, Onslow
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Sugg:
This provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject
Public Notice (PN), issued on January 29, 2010. The PN was released in conjunction with a
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released in December 2009. These comments are
submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in your
determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest
review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Additional
comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's determination of project impacts
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The PN states that the applicant, the Town of North Topsail Beach, seek a Department of the
Army (DA) permit to modify the alignment of the tidal channel through New River Inlet. The
realignment would create a 500-foot wide corridor and allow for the removal of beach
compatible material for use as beachfill along approximately 11.1 miles of ocean shoreline in the
Town. Initial construction would occur in five phases extending from November 2010 to March
2019. Phases two through four would use sediment dredged from an offshore borrow source
approximately 482 acres in size. The preferred plan of the Town is designated as Alternative 3
and described in detail in the FEIS (pp. 30-47).
The FEIS states (p. 32) that the preferred alternative includes an inlet management plan. This
plan apparently includes work to maintain the tidal channel (approximately 3,500 feet long by
500 feet wide by 18 feet deep) through the inlet in a desired location. While maintenance of the
desired channel alignment is not considered to be "ebb tide delta mining" (FEIS, p. 37), periodic
dredging of the inlet channel would be required to maintain the preferred position and alignment
of the ocean bar channel. The material removed during the maintenance operations will be
disposed of along the North and Central sections of the oceanfront shoreline throughout the 30-
2
year life of the project (FEIS, p. 42). The PN states that maintenance event would be initiated
only when established thresholds are reached.
Overall, the frequency and magnitude of future maintenance events are unclear. Earlier project
planning called for inlet dredging for fill material approximately every four years over a 30-year
period. In response to the National Marine Fisheries Service comment # 6, the FEIS states that "
.. one of the controlling factors that will have an overriding influence on when the channel is
maintained is the ability of the Town of North Topsail Beach to fund the operation. Given the
existing economic climate and financial situation for the Town, a four year maintenance interval
is optimistic."
The PN does not specifically state the period over which such maintenance events would be
permitted. The project description given in the PN states that beach construction would extend
over 11.1 miles of shoreline in five phases. Phase one is scheduled to start in mid-November
2010 and the fifth phase is scheduled to end March 31, 2019, a period of less than nine years
(FEIS, p. 46). Elsewhere, the FEIS states (p. 26) that the "initial phases" would extend for a
minimum 12 years. At least two of the phases (three and five) would use sediment from an
"inlet maintenance event." The PN mentions "subsequent maintenance events," but it is unclear
whether such events are to be permitted beyond 2019. However, clarification from the Corps on
March 8, 2010, indicated that sand removed from the inlet, primarily to maintain the desired
orientation of the tidal channel, would be placed on the northern part of Topsail Island for a 30-
year period. However, the amount of material removed from the inlet during each maintenance
event probably cannot be predicted.
Impact evaluation for beach construction activities was restricted to the initial construction of the
beach and did not include maintenance events (FEIS, p. 26). Assessment beyond the initial
construction would be incomplete due to the absence of quantitatively identified additional sand
sources that would adequately support longer term beach nourishment projects. However,
maintenance events associated with the inlet management were able to be evaluated over a 30-
year period due to the implementation of appropriate engineer modeling and quantitative
assessment of the environment setting within the inlet (FEIS, p. 26). Therefore, the FEIS
suggests that dredging in New River Inlet could occur sporadically over a 30-year period, but a
detailed consideration of such events is not considered in the planning document.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) provided comments on the Draft EIS to the Wilmington
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers by letter dated February 6, 2008. The DOI letter
provided a number of recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on fish
and wildlife resources. Appendix A, Subpart 4 of the FEIS responds to 29 comments contained
in the DOI letter. The Service provided comments pursuant to section 7 of the ESA by letter
dated December 15, 2009.
Service comments on FEIS will focus on the responses provided by the applicant to the issues
raised by the DOI. These comments will be limited to the five phases of initial construction
outlined in the PN since dredging and beach construction beyond such construction is not fully
developed in the FEIS. The response to the DOI comment #16 states that "the frequency of
periodic nourishment will not only be dictated by the performance of the beach fill and storm
frequency, the ability of the Town of North Topsail Beach to financially support frequent
periodic nourishment operations will more-than-likely be the determining factor of when and
where periodic nourishment occurs." In fact, the economic climate and financial situation of the
Town after the initial five phases may lead to an entirely different response to global sea level
rise and the resulting shoreline recession.
The DOI stated (Comment # 8) that a DA permit should not be issued for 30 years and that there
should be periodic reevaluations of the inlet and barrier island system (Appendix A, subpart 4,
pdf p. 17). The DOI recommended that any DA permit terminate at the end of 2017. At that
time, the applicant could apply for another permit after submitting data on the geological and
biological impacts of the original permit. The FEIS response only notes that the issue of sea
level rise has been addressed.
The Service reiterates that a DA should not be issued for 30 years. The FEIS states (Response to
DOI comment # 26) that "the coastal geomorphology in proximity to barrier islands is dynamic
and therefore making it difficult to subtle changes within a specific time frame. However,
utilizing the most accurate and up to date data and cutting edge models will provide significant
results which can be used to predict changes to the environment." It is doubtful that any models
can forecast the geomorphology of the project area, an area that is subject to major hurricane
strikes and accelerating sea level rise, over 30 years with an acceptable degree of accuracy.
Since the FEIS states that "the issue of the permit lifespan will be determined by the [Corps]
USAGE" (Response to DOI comment # 8), the Service recommends that the Corps permit should
only cover the five phases of construction outlined in the PN. Two years ago an appropriate
permit expiration date was 2017, but at this time, these phases are expected to extend from
November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2019. Any dredging within New River Inlet beyond the five
phases described in the PN should not be covered by the current permit.
Section 6 of the FEIS discusses (pp. 251-291) a wide range of mitigation, minimization, and
avoidance measures. The measures discussed cover many of the recommendations made by the
DOI. The material considers such diverse aspects of the work as avoiding harm to hardbottoms,
pipeline observations, observations of beachfill placement, monitoring initiatives, sea turtle
protection, and habitat mapping initiatives. An important conservation measure is a construction
schedule extending from November 16 through March 31. Another important conservation
measure is a monitoring plan and research initiative to evaluate impacts on beach infauna. The
Corps should ensure that conservation measures proposed in Section 6 are fully incorporated into
conditions of the DA permit.
While the conservation measures in Section 6 would reduce the adverse impacts of the proposed
dredging and beach construction, some additional measures would be beneficial to the natural
resources of the area. The DOI recommended (Comment # 19) that sediment compatibility
standards should extend beyond those factors in the state sediment criteria rules and include
criteria such as mineral content, organic content, and color. The FEIS states (p. 167) that the
results of the comparison indicate that the color of the potential fill material is similar to the
material currently found on the beach. The Service is concerned that the material currently on
the beach may not represent natural beach material, but may be primarily material imported
4
during past beach construction efforts. The Service has recommended that material imported for
beachfill should have value/chroma designations of 8/4, 7/4, 6/3, and 5/2, or less chroma on the
l OYR page in a Munsell Soil Color Chart. The response to DOI comment # 22 notes that native
beach composite colors referenced to the Munsell chart were determined to be gray to grayish
brown with a value (a measure of material lightness) of 5.4 for wet sand and light gray with a
value of 7.0 for dry sand. A value of 5.4 would be darker than what the Service considers
acceptable for normal sea turtle incubation. Furthermore, wet and dry sand from the borrow area
have values of 4.6 and 6.3, respectively. Wet sand with a value less than five would also be
considered darker than what the Service considers acceptable for normal sea turtle incubation.
The Service recommends that the DA permit require minimal standards for beachfill color that
compares the imported material to the color of the relatively undisturbed beach. Such control
beaches may be available on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune or Huff Island, areas north and
south, respectively, of the project area.
Comment # 23 of the DOI stated that the post-construction monitoring program should include a
program to measure nest and sand temperatures as compared to an unmanipulated, control area.
This would be an effort to assess project impacts on the thermal conditions within sea turtle
nests. The monitoring program would include funding by the applicant to acquire and use field
resistant data loggers and compensation for field work and data analysis. The monitoring
program could be coordinated by Matthew Godfrey, the Sea Turtle Coordinator of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and Howard Hall of the Service's Raleigh
Field Office. In response, the FEIS states that the Corps will determine the permit conditions
and whether sand and nest temperature monitoring will be a necessary condition of the project.
The Service again recommends that the DA require the applicant to coordinate with the Service
and the NCWRC prior to construction to determine whether such a sediment temperature
monitoring program is necessary. Four, separate, beachfill projects (two federal and two non-
federal) are currently being planning for Topsail Island. The actual start of construction for each
is dependent on funding and uncertain at this time. Early projects may include sediment
temperature monitoring and acquire sufficient data to make additional monitoring unnecessary.
Therefore, the actual need for sediment temperature monitoring for the North Topsail Beach
project cannot be established at this time, but the DA permit should require the applicant to fund
such a program if it considered necessary at the start of construction. If such a program is
implemented, the program could extend over approximately the first several years of beach
construction. If no detrimental changes in incubation temperature are found, the program could
be discontinued with the approval of the NCWRC and the Service.
Comment # 14 of the DOI recommended a monitoring program for shorebirds in the project area
to determine the extent, if any, of adverse impacts on shorebird habitats. The FEIS states (p.
264) that a Bird Monitoring Plan has been developed to collect observational data of the
federally listed piping plover (Charadrius melodus), other shorebirds, waterbirds and colonial
waterbirds that may utilize the New River Inlet complex. Data obtained from the bird surveys
will determine positive and/or negative effects from the inlet channel relocation efforts to
breeding, migrating and wintering birds utilizing the inlet complex. The plan includes pre-
construction (November 2007-May 2009), mid-construction, and post-construction monitoring
schedules. The FEIS states (p. 267) that the duration of the post-construction monitoring would
5
be dependent on the review of data by the Corps, NCWRC, and the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM). Since monitoring reports will assess piping plover usage of the
project area, all bird monitoring reports should also be provided to the Service.
The Service has received the pre-construction monitoring report dated December 2009. The
report accurately notes that given the known impacts of beach stabilization projects on bird
resources and the possibility of additional unforeseen impacts, it is important to monitor large scale
beach stabilization projects and protect existing bird habitat. Furthermore, channel relocation
projects such as the proposed North Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project are relatively new
and there is a need to monitor changes within inlet complexes. This project provides an opportunity
to study the waterbird and shorebird communities in proximity to New River Inlet and monitor
changes in response to the project. The report concludes that "the observations from the pre-
construction monitoring, along with supporting data obtained from similar surveys within the area,
will serve as a baseline data for this study. The results gathered during post-construction surveys will
be statistically compared to the pre-construction results and will reveal if project related impacts to
bird resources have been incurred."
Since the five phases of construction would extend from 2010 to 2019, the terms pre-, mid-, and
post-construction would be different for each phase in any given year. When phase three is
constructed, phases one and two would be in post-construction and phases four and five would be in
pre-construction. Therefore, birds monitoring reports should be prepared annually through the
completion of the final phase. Each report would state the construction status of each phase. After
the final annual report has been evaluated, state and federal resource agencies should be allowed to
determine whether the monitoring program should be continued.
The Service recommends that the DA permit contain some objective standards for declaring that
shorebird habitat within the project area has been adversely affected. Such a standard could involve
a reduction, perhaps a 50% decline for two consecutive years, in the average number of birds per
survey or the number of species seen, data given in Table 3 of the report. If adverse impacts are
detected, mitigation measures should be developed and implemented by the applicant.
The Service is concerned that New River Inlet would be dredged for material to be used as
beachfill in the project area. While the FEIS asserts (p. 37) that maintenance of the new channel
alignment is not "ebb tide delta mining," much of the material to be removed could be
considered part of the ebb tide delta or in the process of becoming part of the delta. Tidal deltas
exist in equilibrium with waves and currents, and when a deep, wide trench is excavated, it
eventually fills with sand that would otherwise find its way to the beach. Mining sand from an
inlet is, therefore, a self-defeating process because it accelerates erosion by robbing adjacent
islands of sand. The Service recommends that the initial construction be accomplished entirely
from the designated offshore borrow site. Since the identified offshore borrow area has
approximately 6.55 million cubic yards of material and the volumes identified in Table 5 (p. 46)
are slightly more than 4 million cubic yards, this approach appears feasible.
Federal Protected Species
The Service provided comments on the Final Biological Assessment (FBA), dated November
2009, by letter dated December 15, 2009. The Service concluded that some species under the
6
jurisdiction of the Service are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed work. The
roseate tern (Sterna dougalld) is primarily a transient in the project area and most of the work
would occur during periods when the species is not likely to be in the project area. Seabeach
amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), an annual plant, would not be in the growth and reproduction
stages during the proposed work schedule. While some seeds may be covered by sediment
disposal, these seeds may remain viable and germinate when the imported sand washes away.
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is not likely to in the project area during the
construction period. The implementation of the Service's guidelines to protect manatees in
construction zones would provide additional protection for the species. The leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys
kempii) sea turtles are not expected to nest in the project area and were not included in the
Service's section 7 consultation.
Our letter stated that a few issues should be resolved in regard to potential impacts to the
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles that may nest in the project
area. While plans may exist to monitor sand compaction and escarpment formation following
each sediment disposal event and correct any conditions that may harm sea turtle reproduction,
such measures should be more clearly stated. Both sediment compaction and escarpment control
must extend from the end of the construction period of each segment through three subsequent
sea turtle nesting seasons.
The Final EIS discusses procedures for mitigating sediment compaction (p. 255). Compaction
monitoring would begin after: (1) the material has been graded and dressed to the final slope; (2)
a period of time has elapsed for finer particles to be washed away; and, (3) final settling of the
material has occurred. If compaction of the fill material appears higher than acceptable,
additional testing such as cone penetration testing will be considered. Monitoring for the project
can follow procedures that the Service has recently developed in coordination with the NCWRC.
This is a more qualitative approach for post construction compaction evaluations on North
Carolina beaches where sediment meets the state compatibility standard. The applicant should
arrange an inspection of the beach by the NCWRC at time when all compaction monitoring can
be completed in time to allow for remedial actions to be completed prior to May 1 of each year.
If the qualitative evaluation, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, determines that tilling
is necessary to reduce compaction, the contractor will till the beach to a minimum depth of 36
inches throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen the compaction of the placed
material. Beach tilling will only be performed as a result of an identified compaction problem
based on agency consultation. Beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would
ensure that project impacts on sea turtle nesting are minimized.
The Final EIS discusses (p. 256) remedial measures for escarpments along the constructed beach.
Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after
completion of construction, and at three-month intervals for three years following completion of
construction. After appropriate consultation with the NCDCM and Corps, escarpments in the
newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for greater than 100 ft shall be graded to match
adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of any escarpments during the sea turtle nesting and
hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be coordinated with the Service, NCWRC,
USFWS, and the Corps.
7
The Service review of the Final BA noted that the shorebird monitoring program is important to
minimizing the adverse impact on the piping plover. Overall, the design of the monitoring
appears adequate. However, there was no specific information on the entity that will conduct
these surveys throughout the project. The qualifications of those responsible for this important
work are a necessary part of any finding that the project is not likely to adversely affect the
piping plover. This work should be completed by an entity approved by the Corps, NCWRC,
and the Service.
Overall, based on the information provided in the Final EIS and BA, the Service believes that
with conditions to ensure adequate shorebird monitoring, the proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Therefore, the requirements of
section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. However, the Corps' obligations
under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action
is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action. With regard to potential
project modifications, the Corps should contact the USFWS if beachfill must be extended outside
the proposed schedule of December 1 through March 31 or the material to be used for the
beachfill deviates significantly from the standards proposed in the Final EIS.
Summary
The recommendations contained in these comments represent the best professional judgment of
the Service and are provided in accordance with the FWCA. As noted, we request that these
comments be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230)
and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and
wildlife resources. The FWCA requires federal water resources development agencies to
consider the recommendations of the Service. While these recommendations represent the best
conservation measures for fish and wildlife resources, the Corps may determine that other
aspects of the public interest review preclude the full incorporation of all these conservation
measures into the subject DA permit.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at
< [e-mail] >.
Sinc ly,
/4
ete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort, NC
Molly Ellwood, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
J,teo srt?s
Z,; A YV UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s ?? W REGION 4
o " ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
s Q
?F ,02 61 FORSYTH STREET
I,' PR03 EG4 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
March 5, 2010
Mr. Mickey Sugg
Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army COE of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RFC
RFC ??< 0
Za, V
C
Subject: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Relocation of New River Inlet Ebb Tide Channel Between North Topsail
Beach and Ouslow Beach, and the Placement of the Dredged Material
Along the Ocean Shoreline of North Topsail Beach in Onslow County, NC;
CEQ Number: 20100025; ERP Number: COE-E30043-NC
Dear Mr. Sugg:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the "Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the Relocation of New River Inlet Ebb Tide Channel Between North Topsail Beach
and Onslow Beach, and the Placement of the Dredged Material Along the Ocean
Shoreline of North Topsail Beach in Onslow County, NC," which EPA received on
February 11, 2010. The FEIS report was issued by the Wilmington District of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and was intended to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). EPA previously commented by letter dated February
11, 2008 to Colonel Pulliam, Commander of the Wilmington District, on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The public commenting period
on the FEIS will reportedly end on March 1, 2010.
EPA understands that this FEIS was developed in conjunction with the Town of
North Topsail Beach's request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, to
"protect residential homes and town infrastructures by nourishing approximately 11.1
miles of beachfront via repositioning the New River Inlet channel, implementing an inlet
management plan to control the positioning of the new inlet channel, and utilizing an
offshore borrow area." The new channel will be centrally located and the proposal will
be to maintain that position, which "essentially will be located perpendicular to the
adjacent shorelines of North Topsail Beach and Onslow Beach." The proposed sources
of the material for the beach nourishment will come from the repositioning of the inlet
and an identified offshore borrow area. The projected amount of material needed to
initially nourish the oceanfront shoreline is approximately 3.11 million cubic yards. The
placement of beach fill along the Town's shoreline would result in the initial widening of
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
2
the beach by 50 to 100 feet. The widened beach is to be maintained through a program of
periodic beach nourishment events with the material extracted from the maintenance of
the newly relocated channel. All work will reportedly be accomplished using a hydraulic
cutterhead dredge. The proposed project construction will be conducted "in a five phase
approach to correspond with the Town's anticipated annual generation of funds."
The ocean shoreline of the Town of North Topsail Beach measures approximately
11.1 miles along the northern end of Topsail Island, with approximately 7.25 miles of the
shoreline contained within the project area except for two small areas located within the
Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). Those areas within the CBRS are banned by
law from receiving federal funds for use on projects that would encourage development.
The channel through New River Inlet has been maintained by the COE for commercial
and recreational boating interest for over 55 years, and the COE is authorized by law to
maintain the navigation channel in the inlet "to a depth of 6 feet mean low water (mlw)
over a width of 90 feet, following the channel thalweg."
The Town of North Topsail Beach has proposed to fund the nourishment of the
oceanfront shoreline and reposition New River Inlet channel as a means "to address a
severe erosion problem in order to preserve the Town's tax base, protect its
infrastructure, and maintain its tourist oriented economy." EPA notes that the entire
stretch of the Town's shoreline has experienced a considerable amount of erosion over
the last 20 years due primarily to the impact of numerous tropical storms and hurricanes
during the mid to late 1990's and due to impacts of the shifting of the main ebb channel
in New River Inlet. The Town believes that the shoreline erosion and residual effects of
the storms have left North Topsail Beach in "an extremely vulnerable position with
regard to its ocean front development and infrastructure," and the community has
estimated that "over $250 million in property tax value as well as roads, water and sewer
lines, and other utilities are at risk."
EPA notes that the FEIS' stated purpose and need for this project includes eight
(8) elements:
(1) Long-term stabilization of the oceanfront shoreline located immediately south of
New River Inlet;
(2) Providing short-term protection to 31 imminently threatened residential structures
over the next five years;
(3) Providing long-term protection to the Town's infrastructure and approximately
1,200 homes;
(4) Reducing or mitigating for property damage associated with shoreline erosion
along 11.1 miles of oceanfront shoreline of North Topsail Beach;
(5) Improving recreational opportunities along the Town's oceanfront shoreline;
(6) Ensuring all material utilized for shore protection is beach compatible;
(7) Maintaining the Town's tax base by protecting existing development and
infrastructure on the oceanfront shoreline of North Topsail Beach;
(8) Balancing the needs of the human environment by minimizing and avoiding
adverse effects to natural resources.
3
In "Appendix A, Subpart 4: Response to Comments" of the FEIS, the COE
responds to the 31 comments on the DEIS that our agency provided by letter on February
22, 2008. The following are our comments and the remaining issues that EPA has
identified as continuing concerns:
• The FEIS states that impacts of historic rates of rise in sca level "are implicitly
included in the historic shoreline change data used to formulate the shoreline and
inlet management plan for North Topsail Beach. The historic rate of rise in sea
level applicable to the project area is 1.25 feet per century." The reference for the
COE's projected 1.25 feet per century rise in sea level should be provided with
this comment.
• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(a))
require that an EIS is to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives" for a proposed action. The regulations (40 CFR
1502.14(b)) further require that substantial treatment be made of each alternative
considered in detail, including the proposed action. EPA previously commented
on the seven (7) alternatives presented in the DEIS including the No Action
alternative. Because of the lengthy duration of the activities, it was unclear to our
agency whether the COE has latitude in its authorizations or permitting of the
project. EPA was concerned that this would become "an all or nothing approval
of the project rather than a provision for interim mid-course review at an
appropriate juncture." The FEIS states that it is anticipated that the record of
decision (ROD) as determined by the COE "will include result in an appropriate
permit including relevant permit conditions." Please provide a clarification on
what the ROD will include.
• EPA previously commented on the Alternative 7 presented in the DEIS, which
involves the construction of a terminal groin on the north end of North Topsail.,
This alternative was apparently eliminated because it is inconsistent with the
State's coastal policies. Our agency commented that the COE should have
considered other more innovative structural options that might be found suitable,
including temporary subaqueous structures or wave baffles to modify the
hydrodynamics and sand movement, or methods to lessen the wave energy at the
eroded beach areas. The FEIS states that "hardened structures, including terminal
groins, are currently illegal within the State of North Carolina." The COE should
include the relevant citation from the state code.
EPA previously suggested an investigation of whether remedial action on Onslow
Beach would offer a long-term benefit to North Topsail Beach, as Onslow appears
to provide better habitat quality than does North Topsail. The data presented in
the DEIS indicated substantially greater erosion along Onslow Beach, with a trend
towards an increasing rate of beach loss. The FEIS states that the U.S. Marine
Corps (USMC), which controls Onslow Beach, "was a participant in the Project
Delivery Team process and is fully aware of the potential impacts of the project
on Onslow Beach." During the initial stages of the plan formulation process the
plan reportedly included the placement of mitigation beach fill on the southern
end of Onslow Beach to counter the predicted impacts, but the USMC "was not in
favor of nourishing Onslow Beach as that activity was deemed to potentially have
4
a negative impact on piping plover habitat, namely, an overwash area located on
the south end of the island." Please provide a reference (and include) any
communications from the USMC to the COE on this issue.
• The FEIS reports that the identified borrow source lies outside areas preliminary
identified by the COE for the federal storm damage reduction project being
evaluated for the southern end of North Topsail Beach and the town of Surf City
which lies south of North Topsail Beach. Please provide a reference and include
all copies of the most recent communication(s) with state and federal resource
agencies regarding the selected offshore borrow area, which will reportedly
eliminate adverse impacts on the offshore hardbottom resources.
As mentioned previously, EPA is also currently reviewing the EIS developed for
the adjacent project known as the "Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction for Surf
City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina." This EIS evaluates coastal storm
damage reductions for the Towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, NC, and
then develops "the most suitable plan of damage reduction for the present and
future conditions" for the selected 50-year period of analysis. The primary study
area includes the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach and the associated
nearby borrow sites. It describes a tentatively selected NED Plan that consists of
a sand dune system constructed to an elevation of 15 feet above NGVD, fronted
by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD,
with the berm and dune extending along a reach of 52,150 feet in length (about 10
miles). EPA recommends careful coordination to ensure that there are no
conflicts between the federal and non-federal projects, either on the shoreline or
in the borrow areas. The Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement states that in the event that the non-federal project is not in
place when the federal project begins, then the northern 2,000 feet of the dune and
berm system will be replaced with a transition section.
• The FEIS states that "in the absence of maintenance dredging, controlling depths
over the outer edge of the ebb tide delta of New River Inlet would likely vary
between 2 and 4 feet below MLW depending on antecedent tide and wave
conditions." Please provide a citation or reference with this statement.
• To avoid conflicts, the project should be coordinated with monitoring efforts led
by the North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program (NCRWQ), which
regularly tests these coastal waters in order to protect public health by monitoring
and notifying the public when bacteriological standards for safe bodily contact are
exceeded. Also, the project should be coordinated with the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Health, Shellfish Sanitation Section, which is also continually monitoring and
classifying these coastal waters as to their suitability for shellfish harvesting for
human consumption.
• Finally, CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.15) require an EIS to describe the
environment of the areas to be affected (or created) by the alternatives under
consideration. The data and analysis in the FEIS were found to be commensurate
with the significance of the impacts, although EPA still has some general
concerns about the potential impacts from dredging on marine threatened and
endangered resources, particularly if plans change and hopper dredges are
eventually used. At present all work is tentatively planned to be accomplished
using a hydraulic cutterhead dredge.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this FEIS. EPA rates this
FEIS as EC-2, we have some environmental concerns and have requested additional
information. If you wish to discuss these comments or have any other questions, please
contact me at [phone] (mueller.heiLi epa.gov) or Paul Gagliano, P.E., of my
staff at [phone] (gagliano.paul a[)„epa.gov).
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management