20081764 Ver 2_More Info Received_20100628

FW: Surf City and North Topsail Beach - Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS - Coastal ... Page 1 of 2
FW: Surf City and North Topsail Beach - Integrated Feasibility Report and
EIS - Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
DWQ # 08 1764 V2
We have already issued a permit, will we have to modify it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Piatkowski, Douglas SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:10 PM
To: Rynas, Stephen; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Michael
Barnette; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Ellwood, Molly M.; Godfrey, Matthew H; Allen, David H; Deaton,
Anne; Gledhill-earley, Renee; Steenhuis, Joanne
Cc: Kimmel, Richard H SAW; Payonk, Philip M SAW; Lin, Jeffrey P SAW; Piatkowski,
Douglas SAW; Brodmerkel, Jan P SAW
Subject: Surf City and North Topsail Beach - Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS
- Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project
The purpose of this email is to provide you with an update on the status of
the Surf City and North Topsail Beach (SCNTB) Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
Project and to inform you of a change to the nourishment interval of the
tentatively selected plan.
As you are aware, on 13 January 2010 the Corps circulated the DRAFT
Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated
August 2009, for a 45 day Agency and Public review in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. In addition to
the Agency and Public review, the Corps also conducted an Independent
External Peer Review (IEPR) as well as a USACE Agency Technical Review (ATR)
and USACE Headquarters (HQ) Policy review. All comments received from the 45
day Agency and Public review and associated responses have been packaged in a
new Appendix titled "Public Comments and USACE Responses" which will be part
of the FINAL report. Based on the comments received from these multiple
reviews, several changes have been made to the report.
One significant change to the project was based on USACE HQ comments
associated with the economic evaluation and selection of the National
Economic Development (NED) plan. Specifically, the tentatively selected
"1550" plan has not changed; however, the recommended nourishment interval
has changed from 4 years to 6 years. Changing to a 6 year nourishment
interval will not significantly change the total amount of sediment required
for the life of the project; however, the amount of sediment required for
each 6 year nourishment interval will increase considering the longer
duration between nourishment events. The increase in nourishment volumes
will now require two dredges in order to stay within the recommended
environmental window of 1 December to 31 March. The 6 year nourishment
interval was specifically recommended by a few environmental Agencies during
the DRAFT review in order to allow for a longer recovery time between
disturbances on the beach, surf zone, nearshore, and offshore habitats.
Based on the current project schedule, the Corps plans to conduct a Civil
Works Review Board (CWRB) with USACE Headquarters on 26 August 2010. One of
the purposes of the CWRB is to gain approval from HQ for release of the FINAL
https://mail.ne-gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vHVR... 6/28/2010
FW: Surf City and North Topsail Beach - Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS - Coastal ... Page 2 of 2
report for Agency and Public review. Assuming the report is approved for
release, the Corps intends to file the FINAL report with EPA and circulate
for Agency and Public 30 day review on 4 October 2010, at which point in time
you will have the opportunity to formally review these updated report and
associated changes.
As stated previously, the purpose of this email is to provide you with an
update on the status of the Surf City and North Topsail Beach (SCNTB) Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction Project and to inform you of a change to the
nourishment interval. Your agency will be given an opportunity to formally
comment on the proposed change from a 4 to 6 year nourishment interval
during the 30-day review period of the FINAL Integrated Feasibility Report
and EIS Report and in associated consultation documents, consistency
determination, etc. scheduled for October 2010. Thank you in advance for
your continued involvement in this study and please feel free to contact
myself or Jeff Lin (Lead Planner; [phone];
[e-mail]) with any questions. Please forward this email
to anyone that I may have missed. Take care.
Doug Piatkowski
Biologist
USACE - Wilmington District
[phone]
[e-mail]
https://mail.nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAAOgPoLNIPQZ06vHVR... 6/28/2010