20081764 Ver 2_USACE Correspondence_20100430

FW: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project Fin... Page 1 of 2
FW: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline
Protection Project Final EIS DWQ # 08 1764 V2
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:37 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Attachments: CO Camp Lejeune Itr 20100-1.PDF (309 KB)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sugg, Mickey T SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:54 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: FW: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection
Project Final EIS
From USMC, which I have a tentative meeting with (including CP&E) on the morning of
May 12th, here in the District office.
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
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: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:31 PM
To: 'Brad Rosov'; 'Ken Willson'; Tom Jarrett
Cc: '[e-mail]'; dan tuman
Subject: FW: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection
Project Final EIS
Comments from Camp Lejeune.
-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
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
https://mail.nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vHVR... 4/30/2010
FW: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project Fin... Page 2 of 2
to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers CIV William H [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Sugg, Mickey T SAW
Subject: MCB Camp Lejeune comments on N Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project
Final EIS
Mickey: Our comments are attached. Hard copy is in the mail. Please call if you
have any questions or want to discuss.
Thanks,
Bill
http s: //mail. nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vH V R... 4/30/2010
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS BASE
PSC BOX 20004
CAMP LEJE,iNE, NiC 28542-0004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
5090.12
BEMD
11 Mar 2010
Mr. Mickey T. Sugg
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Sugg:
The Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCB CamLej) staff and I
have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the North Topsail Beach (NTB) Shoreline Protection Project.
In the following paragraphs are comments regarding potential
impacts to Onslow Beach. Onslow Beach is vitally important to
the Marine Corps as a unique venue supporting realistic
amphibious warfare training. Any activity potentially affecting
Onslow Beach is of special interest to me and the Marine Corps.
I am concerned about the level of uncertainty of the effects
on Onslow Beach from the proposed inlet management plan, and
specifically associated with some of the alternatives, including
the Applicants Preferred Alternative #3. A team of coastal
scientists, under the Defense Coastal Estuarine Research Program
(DCERP) has been Studying Onslow Beach since 2007; e.g., island
evolution, geomorphology and sediment dynamics. In their
opinion the FEIS does not fully represent the degree of
uncertainty, or the potential negative implications for Onslow
Beach from the proposed inlet management plan.
'he inlet management plan includes repositioning the main
ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment, plus periodic
maintenance of the preferred position and alignment
approximately every four years. DCERP scientists suggest that
the proposed sand removal from the ebb-tide delta mil' alter
erosion, sediment-transport patterns, and sedilm.entation in and
near the inlet in ways not predicted in the FEIS. "hey feel
that the ability of engineers and sedimentary geologists to
predict the consequences of such inlet interventions is limited
in accuracy and reliability. Should the NTB Shoreline
Protection Plan be delayed, we hope that new information
emerging fruit DCERP wil.1 be used for greater and
erstcx.nd' :'"lg u?
the potential negative consequences of an inlet relocation and
sand removal. Information on relevant DCERP research is
enclosed.
I fully support the monitoring initiatives described in
section 5.4 of the FEIS as a means to determine if the initial
phase of the project is performing as expected. I request that
the Wilmington District provide MCB CamLej with an opportunity
to review the monitoring results, and to provide comments prior
to issue of authorizations to conduct maintenance dredging as
described in the FEIS.
Review of documents associated with the project, such as the
2009 report by Robert Dean to the Beach Erosion Study Team
suggest that others share my concerns regarding uncertainty of
the outcome of the Inlet Management Plan. Mr. Dean said in his
report "I support the overall design with the understanding that
the performance of the inlet component is more uncertain than
the beach nourishment component. The monitoring results will be
invaluable in interpreting the Project performance and in fine
tuning, as appropriate, the subsequent phases. To some degree,
the performance of the inlet component of the project should be
regarded as an experiment, the results of which will serve in
the fine tuning of subsequent phases of the project."
Due to concerns about the uncertainty associated with
predicted impacts, I would like to see Alternative #5 selected.
This alternative allows new information and additional study to
be considered before a decision is made to authorize maintenance
dredging of the relocated inlet channel.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment, and your
willingness to extend the deadline for comments by a few days to
12 March 2010. I and my staff look forward to continued
cooperation with your agency in support of the Base's mission.
If you have any questions or need additional information please
contact Mr. William Rogers, Environmental Management Division at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
P. FLATA JR.
Commanding ffiCer
Enclosure: (mo), DCERP Coastal Barrier Module Monitoring
Components and Research -ro j ecs
DCERP Coastal Barrier Module :Monitoring Components
±PII ' - rI Shale
-
imeteorology _ .
Air temperature, wind speed, air pressure, _
2 stations: 5 and 25 miles I
(ocean) solar radiation, and wind direction seaward of the New River Inlet
l Hydrodynamics Horizontal and vertical wave velocity, 2 stations: 5 and 25 miles
wave heights, and period; direction; , seaward of the New River Inlet
currents; water temperature
Horizontal and vertical wave velocity, 2 stations: Located seaward of ,
wave heights, period, and direction Focus Site 3 and at Bogue Pier
I
I Tide data Acquired from NOAA sites in
Wilmington, NC: Charleston,
SC; and Norfolk, VA
Shoreline position, sand bar position, Entire length of authorized
and morphology; beach and individual sites
nearshore wave period, direction, and
height
Geomorphology Shoreface bathymetry Across the nearshore (2-m to
10-m) depths throughout the
region of coastal barrier island,
including the New River Inlet
and Onslow Bay
Barrier morphology 15 sites across Onslow Island
and 3 sites across Bear Island
Sedimentology Compaction, texture, and composition 20 samples from each of the 10
focus sites (7 on Onslow
Island and 3 on Bear Island)
Biology Benthic invertebrate abundance and 2 replicate vertical transects
biomass by size class and community from each of the 10 focus sites
structure (7 on Onslow Island and 3 on
Bear Island)
Shorebird and seabird abundance and Entire length of Onslow Beach
community structure and the New River Inlet
Dune, shrub, and marsh plants aerial Vertical transects at 6 sites
cover; vegetation height; and surface
elevation
Surf fish abundance and community 2 replicates at each of the 10
composition ( focus sites (7 on Onslow f
I Island and 3 on Bear Island)
f Site selection for sea turtle nests, false ' 'jesting and false crawls
crawls, and success of nesting effort recorded along the entire
length of Onslow Beach and
the New River Inlet
r-N CLOX2117 1
Hydrodynamics
Acoustic Wave and Current: The collection of water velocity data concurrently with coastal barrier island sampling
for understanding the processes behind the changes in coastal barrier island morphology.
Mobile Radar:. The mobile radar component will bridge the gap between long-term morphological responses of the
beach (e.g., erosion over a decade) and hydrodynamic observations by modeling of short-term events (e.g., storms).
Ultimately, this monitoring activity will enable us to distinguish the relative importance of multiple causes of
erosion across the coastal barrier island beach. Observational measured include: beach topography, wave
parameters (speed, wavelength, period, breaking height in inner surf zone), surf zone bathymetry, shoreline and
maximum run-up, sandbar morphology, and channel and shoal morphology around inlet deltas. Lower beach
topography, including shoreline position and morphology, particularly the extent of maximum run-up during storms,
are critical parameters for assessing inundation damage to property from dune overtopping, and model predictions of
storm surge.
Geomorphology
Shoreface Bathymetry: The shoreface mapping assesses the morphology, sediment distribution, and framework
geology of the coastal barrier island near shore. This will provide clear understanding how sediment dynamics
influence the bathymetry and island morphology as a function of the framework geology and physical forcing, as
well as excellent understanding of the environmental metrics that influence island stability and response to short-
term storms and long-term sea level rise.
Barrier Morphology: Provides sediment-volume and elevation of the dune, backshore, and foreshore through time,
indicating areas vulnerable to storm surge and sea-level rise.
&dimenlology
Sediment Texture and Composition: Sediment compaction, texture, and composition are being monitoring to be
used as metrics of indicators of habitat quality. Sediment texture varies with the intensity of hydrodynamic
processes, as the aerial extent of habitats change, and when dredge material is deposited on the barrier. Sediment
texture and composition are important factors in sediment transport, benthic invertebrate composition and
abundance, bird-foraging success, and thus habitat quality.
Biology
Benthic Invertebrates: The sandy-beach macro invertebrates are being monitored along the ocean beaches and on
sand flats on inlet and backbarrier shores because they represent the universal food supply for all demersal surf
fishes and shorebirds, a prey resource that is impacted by natural physical-sedimento logical forcing mechanisms and
activities (i.e., physical disturbance by vehicles and, more importantly, by massive sediment deposition and potential
changes in sediment character during and after potential beach nourishment).
Surf Fish and Sea Turtles: MCBCL monitoring data is being used to provide insight on how sea turtle nesting site
choice and hatching success vary with natural conditions and Base activities. Monitoring is also being done to
quantify the habitat value of the Onslow Beach as foraging grounds for recreationally and commercially important
surf fishes. These demersal surf fishes prey upon benthic macro invertebrates and, along with shorebirds, contribute
to inducing seasonal changes in abundance of the benthos and patterns of abundance relative to natural and human
disturbances.
Shorebirds and Seabirds: Monitoring of shorebirds and seabirds is to understand the responses (e.g., habitat use fbr
feeding, survival, reproduction, and abundance) of these mid-trophic level vertebrates as indicators to the ecosystem
impacts of anthropogenic and random forces in the coastal barrier ecosystem.
Dune, Shrub, and Marsh Plants: Monitoring provides understanding of the short- and long-term changes in
vegetation in response to natural events, such as storms and sea-level rise, and anthropogenic effects, including
military training and recreational use.
DCERP Coastal Barrier Research Projects
The DCERP research projects build on detailed and comprehensive monitoring (outlined below) on Unslow Beach
over the last two years. The projects will develop maps of shoreline change and the underlying cause for spatial
variations in coastal retreat rates. Conceptual models will be developed that predict the morphology and location of
the shoreline and will derive coastal barrier response to extreme storm events and the rate of recovery:
Short-Term Barrier Evolution Related to Storms and Land Use
- models short-term beach response (erosion/accretion) to storms, variable bathymetry and bottom type, and Base-
related land use
- observational and modeling tools will be developed that discern key variables forcing beach erosion and overwash
such as waves, currents, geology, and bar morphodynamics
Long Term Barrier Evolution Related to Variations in Underling Geoly? Lund rise and Inlet Dvnamics
- correlates the historical rates of shoreline erosion with anthropogenic activities (e.g., waterway dredging, dredge
spoil disposal, and Base activities), storms, inlet dynamics, and the underlying geology to identify the principle
forcing mechanisms and direction of morphologic change
- compares the historical average rates of shoreline erosion along the barrier with the long-term evolution of the area
derived from paleogeographic maps constructed from cores, seismic data, and radiocarbon dates obtained from new
and previously collected data
- provides predictions of both long-term (century) and short term (seasonal to decadal) morphologic changes
(shoreline migration, island topography) to the coastal barrier island by integrating results with the short-term
(event) beach-response model
- places short-term geomorphic evolution of the area in context with the historical (100 years) and geological
(thousands of years) geomorphic evolution