20081615 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20081024

vg-1(.15
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
October 23, 2008
OCT 2 4 2008
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Action ID No. SAW-2007-40848-071, Topsail Beach Emergency Beach Nourishment Project,
Pender County, North Carolina.
Mr. Steve Foster, Town Manager
Town of Topsail Beach
820 South Anderson Blvd
Topsail Beach, North Carolina 28445
Dear Mr. Foster:
Reference our Public Notice issued on July 22, 2008 and the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) regarding the proposal by the Town of Topsail Beach
to construct the Topsail Beach Interim (Emergency) Beach Nourishment Project, Pender County,
North Carolina. Your proposed project consists of hydraulically dredging (via pipeline)
approximately 2 million cubic yards from Borrow Area X and pumping this material to 25,000
feet of beach between Godwin Avenue to a point 2000 feet northeast of the Topsail Beach/Surf
City town limits to create a variable width beach berm to an elevation of +6.0 ft NAVD.
We have received comments to our public notice from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) by letter dated October 6, 2008; the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) by letter dated October 10, 2008; the United States Minerals Management Service
(MMS) by letter dated September 2, 2008; and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) by letter dated October 10, 2008. Mr. David Timpy of the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office previously transmitted copies of these letters to you; however, we have
also enclosed copies with this correspondence for your reference.
Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS states that, according to
their findings, the dredging of Borrow Area X would adversely affect essential fish habitat
(EFH) and federally managed fishery species; moreover, they recommend that you revise your
proposal to utilize borrow areas indentified in the Federal Civil Works Project. The Corps has
similar concerns. The USFWS and USEPA have also expressed similar concerns raised by the
NMFS.
r_- CERTF'' ? MAIL
RETURN REC,-J-f REQUEST 7)
-2-
Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to respond to the NMFS,
USFWS, MMS, and USEPA concerns before we make a final permit decision. In this regard,
please review the comments and recommendations and submit your written response to us on or
before November 14, 2008.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dave Timpy,
Regulatory Project Manager at telephone [phone] or me at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Jennifer Frye, Acting Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies furnished (with enclosures):
Dawn York
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
330 Shipyard Blvd.
Wilmington, NC 28412
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
-3-
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Geoffrey Wikel
Environmental Division
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street, MS 4041
Herndon, VA 20170
sy UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
° ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
?L o?ti o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
October 10, 2008
Colonel John E. Pulliam, Jr.
District Engineer
Wilmington District, U. S. Army Carps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
SUBJECT: Topsail Beach Interim Beach Fill Project, North Carolina - Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
CEQ # 20080330,E # COE-E11060-NC
Dear Colonel Pulliam:
. 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 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(Draft EIS) issued by the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the subject project.
Under Section 309 of the CAA, EPA is responsible for reviewing and commenting on
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Topsail Beach is a town located at the southern end of Topsail Island, a 22-mile
long barrier island along the coast of Pender County, North Carolina. The Town has
proposed a beach nourishment project to the Corps that would place up to 975,000 cubic
yards of sand onto the beach, with the sand to be dredged from an offshore borrow area
within State jurisdictional waters less than 3 miles from the shoreline. The Town's
preferred interim action would address a 4.7 mile section of severely eroded beachfront
as an interim measure until the entire Alternative 3 of the proposed 11.1 mile shoreline
federal project. This interim action requires a Section 101404 permit from the Corps and
is being considered as a stop gap measure until the federal shoreline restoration project,
now scheduled to be dome in 2012.
Alternatives
An economic analysis is presented in the DEIS for three basic alternatives: no
structural actions; relocation and/or demolition of structures in potential jeopardy; and
performing a limited beach filling action on the 4.7 mile segment of the beat front. The
non-structural alternative states an assumption for defining when substantial damage
would occur: the lass of 2 feet of sand at the front of the beaclifront structure foundations
at pre-storm MRW. There are 61 structures affected in this analysis, and the sand loss is
equated to structures receiving 20% damage. The analysis of this alternative has no costs
to conduct the action except routine sand pushing which occurs annually for all
3 temat Addre" (URL) a ttp,11.epe. ov
ecycte t }c to % Printed vAth Vegetable oil Based inks an Recycled ft per (Nniaraum 30% P tconsu w)
alternatives. The model yielded a total average annual damage of $13,767,000. Analysis
of the second alternative, relocation/demolition of structures, assumes the same criterion
as the non-structural alternative with all 61 structures being demolished. The average
annual cost to do the actions, including the damage losses was determined to be
$16,707,000. EPA's previous comment on the West Onslow Island DEIS also is
relevant here, that the values of beachfront development are extremely high given the
present jeopardy to the existing structures and storm-prone vacant lots. This analysis
therefore should be checked to ensure that property values reflect present real estate
value. To improve reviewer's understanding, additional text in the final EIS should
explain and provide the numeric risk probability of occurrence of the beach erosion
criterion over time.
Alternative borrow areas include those under consideration for the future federal
project. One very important consideration is whether this interim action would preclude
any other alternative actions at a later time that could be more environmentally sound and
cost-effective. It is stated in a January 23, 2007, comment letter from Dr. Robert Taylor
that local funds being set aside for the local matching share on the future federal project
are to be used for this interim project. This commenter is making the point that this
utilization of local funds jeopardizes the federal project. Also, we believe that it is
important for the local sponsor to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for
planned maintenance of the beach after the beach restoration occurs. Further, there
should be a determination by the Corps about whether the utilization of the beach-
compatible sand of the proposed borrow site would have substantial environmental or
economic impact on the future federal project.
Environmental Consequences
Environmental impacts associated with this project that should receive most
attention are: borrow sand compatibility with the requirements for shorebird and sea
turtle nesting requirements, recolonization of near-shore bottom habitat, avoidance of
hard bottom habitat further offshore and beach fill slopes or ledges impeding turtle
nesting. All of these concerns are likely to be commented upon in detail by Federal and
State wildlife resource agencies.
One of the potential effects of coastal dredging in and around inlets between
barrier islands is the rate of accretion or erosion at the ends of adjoining islands. Section
5.2 discusses an evaluation done of the potential for the project to alter inlet and barrier
island geomorphology. The DEIS states that the inlet has a "persistent southward
migration" meaning Topsail Island is accreting on its southwest end while Lea/Hutaff
Island, southwest of New Topsail Inlet, is eroding. It is important for the Corps to
consider detrimental effects to Lea/Hutaff Island even though it is not the site of the
beach restoration. Because this island is undeveloped, it has potentially greater value to
wildlife, and therefore steps should be taken to minimize adverse effects there. This
could be important because the preferred sand borrow site is just seaward of the inlet.
Running the Delft3D model predicts what would be the sand infill rates in the
borrow cuts subsequent to the dredging. Equally important to consider is the origin of the
migrating infill material. There is no mention of what is the proposed depth and
configuration of the dredging cuts. Data show that the post-dredging borrow cuts would
capture mostly sediment moving along the shore, but is this sand from the sediment
transport in and out of the inlet or erosion of the barrier island sand? Based on the
analysis of sediment transport (Section 5.2) utilizing the more seaward cuts of Borrow
Area X would take sand from outside the predominant zone of sediment long-shore
movement thus avoiding interruption of the fairly balanced sand movement in both
directions over time. Therefore, the wiser plan perhaps would be to use only the most
seaward portion of Borrow Area X. While there is conflicting sampling data with regard
to the particle size of Alternative Borrow Area A, this more seaward borrow area would
be preferable except for its unsuitably high percentage of silt content and small sand
particle size.
Shoreline impacts were also predicted by the use of the Delft3D model. The
focus and the conclusions from this analysis, shown in Figures 46-50, are on the sections
of the ends of the adjacent islands seaward of the throat of New Topsail Inlet. While
there is little impact predicted to these end sections, there is no mention of the erosion
that occurs to the segment of Lea/Hutaff inshore of the inlet throat. Attention should be
directed to this segment for possible mitigation of this erosion especially since it is noted
that a cumulative net loss of 5.8 acres of dune habitat on Lea/Hutaff Island would occur
at its northern end (Table 28). Being uninhabited, this end of the island is likely highly
utilized as shorebird nesting and foraging habitat.
In regard to the concern about intertidal and subtidal benthic recolonization, the
DEIS cumulative impacts analysis greatly minimizes the long-term impacts to
invertebrate populations. These populations have strong regenerative capacities and none
are considered threatened with extinction. Nevertheless, beach fill projects create
unnatural sediment movement and smothering of sand bottoms. The Town's interim
project is defined as a one-time action, but it is possible that additional interim filling
actions could be requested. The federal project will encompass the interim project and
result in large disruption to the benthic community, and continual repetitive annual
maintenance actions are envisioned for that project. Natural storm events also result in
substantial community losses. Some of these infaunal species require a year to recolonize
to normal densities.
In summary, EPA has identified the need for additional clarification of the degree
of risk of beach erosion, and the assumptions of beachfront real estate values used in the
economic impact analysis. EPA has rated the document EC-2 meaning that we have
environmental concerns with the location of the proposed borrow sites and request
additional information to fully address the concerns and define the project impacts. EPA
is requesting that the Corps consider limiting the potential borrow locations to the
seaward portions of Borrow Area X to avoid the zone of greatest long-shore sand
transport. The final EIS should address the potential ways to avoid and minimize
identified adverse impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS. Please contact Ted Bisterfeld
of my staff at 404/562-9621 or email [e-mail] or me if you wish to discuss
EPA's comments.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Enclosure: EIS Rating System Criteria
---------------
cc: Miles Croom, NMFS St. Petersburg
Pete Benjamin, USFWS Raleigh Office
United States Department of the Interior
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Washington, DC 20240
Mr. David Timpy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Timpy:
RECEIVED
SEP 8 - 2008
1LM-FMOM
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) prepared in support of the Topsail Beach Interim (Emergency) Beach Fill Project
planned for West Onslow and Topsail Beach, North Carolina. As a cooperating agency, we have
provided our comments on the draft document below.
DSEIS Comments
Beach Fill Alternative Number 3 identifies borrow areas on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) that could be used to obtain sand for the proposed project. The DSEIS eliminates
that alternative, indicating that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) leasing process
does not allow the applicant to meet its material acquisition deadline of March 31, 2009.
The DSEIS accurately describes the steps of the leasing process for borrow areas that
have not undergone previous NEPA evaluation. However, since the proposed OCS
borrow areas are addressed in the final Integrated General Revaluation Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (GRR/EIS) for the West Onslow Beach and New River
Inlet Shore Protection Project, some aspects of the process may differ from that
described. The MMS may adopt and re-circulate the final NEPA document and execute
an independent Record of Decision since MMS was not a cooperating agency on the
development of the GRR/EIS. Or, the MMS may undertake or require supplemental
evaluation if it is determined to be necessary. The MMS would also have to ensure
existing compliance with other applicable environmental regulations. While that process.
including the actual leasing phase, may take less than 10 months, the exact time
requirement is not known. Since the time required to obtain a prospecting permit and
complete the design engineering for a borrow area is fixed, the use of offshore borrow
areas would still not meet the project's proposed timeline.
• The timing of initial construction of the Federal shore protection project should be
consistent across the SEIS and GRR/FEIS. The DSEIS uses an initial construction
scenario of 2016 compared to the 2011 baseline assumed in this NEPA document.
• The DSEIS indirectly addresses the potential encounter of ordnance in the borrow areas
by reference to the draft GRR/EIS. More explicit attention could be given to the potential
encounter of ordnance, including the development of a contingency plan.
SEP 0 2 2008
TAKir PRIDE
INAM ERICA gr;?
4
2
• The air quality analysis included in the Environmental Consequences section fails to
demonstrate compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as
does the GRR/EIS a comment also provided to the Corps of Engineers in response to the
GRRIFEIS. A more thorough analysis would present calculated emissions rates given
different dredging and construction scenarios project, including both pipeline and hopper
dredging operations.
If you would like to discuss any of these comments, please contact Geoffrey Wikel at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
James F. Bennett
Chief, Bureau of Environmental Assessment
Environmental Division
cc: Ms. Loretta Sutton
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
?S?EpT nr ep?
a?
L
b
r A
¢ a
'ram of
Colonel Jefferson Ryscavage
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: David Timpy
Dear Colonel Ryscavage:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 13`h Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5511
[phone]; FAX [phone]
http://sero.nrnfs.noaa.gov/
October 10, 2008 F/SER4:RS/pw
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the Draft Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment dated April 2008 and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) dated
July 2008 submitted by the Town of Topsail Beach to support their application for a permit that would
authorize a beach nourishment project along Topsail Island (Action ID No. 2006-40848-071). The town
proposes to place fill material along 25,000 linear feet (4.7 miles) of ocean shoreline to nourish their
beach in Pender County, North Carolina. The fill material would come from a shoal associated with New
Topsail Inlet; the DSEIS refers to the site as "Borrow Area X." The Wilmington District has not yet
made its determination as to whether the project would adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) or
federally managed fishery species. As the nation's federal trustee for the conservation and management
of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the following comments and recommendations
are provided pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Consultation History
The Wilmington District released a public notice for this project on November 16, 2007. By letter dated
January 31, 2008, NMFS provided the District with comments, including an EFH conservation
recommendation that no dredging be authorized within Borrow Area X. In addition to this permit
application from the Town of Topsail Beach for a one-time nourishment event, the Wilmington District is
planning a long-term, recurring, federal civil works project for essentially the same beach area. On
September 30, 2008, NMFS provided the District with comments on the Final Integrated General
Reevaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Shore Protection, West Onslow Beach
and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) (GRR/EIS); the federal civil works project does not propose use of
Borrow Area X, and the comments from NMFS on the federal civil works project did not include EFH
conservation recommendations. Due to a variety of issues outside the control of the town and
Wilmington District, the federal project is not likely to be constructed until at least 2012 (in order to
provide a buffer for any additional delays, the engineering analysis in the DSEIS uses a construction start
date of 2016 for the federal project). The town's permit application is meant to provide storm protection
V-0
and recreational benefits until the federal project is constructed. Lastly, it should be noted that a federal
civil works project is being proposed for the northern portion of Topsail Island, and the Town of North
Topsail Beach, like its neighbor to the south, has applied for a permit to conduct a one-time nourishment
event in advance of the federal project; NMFS is coordinating with the Wilmington District on these
proposals. Ideally, nourishment of all beaches on Topsail Island would be addressed in a single NEPA
review, rather than fragmenting the review across four (two locations each with a proposed federal civil
works project and a locally funded project).
Project Description
The Town of Topsail Beach proposes a one-time nourishment event that would place beach fill between
Godwin Avenue and a point 2,000 feet northeast of the border between Topsail Beach and Surf City; the
total length of ocean shoreline is 25,000 feet (4.7 miles). The fill area would consist of three sections, a
1,000-foot transition on the southern end beginning at a point opposite Godwin Avenue, a 22,000-foot
main fill section that would extend to the Topsail Beach/Surf City town limit, and a 2,000-foot northern
transition area; the total area to be filled is approximately 113.9 acres. The design height for the berm is
+7 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum); an optimum berm width of 50 feet is proposed. The
in-place volume of the beach fill has not been determined, but would likely range between 800,000 to
975,000 cubic yards. The applicant's preferred borrow site a 128-acre area located just offshore of New
Topsail Inlet; this site, referred to as Borrow Area X, is not available for the construction of the federal
project due to the site's location within an area designated for exclusion under the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (CBRA), commonly referred to as a "CoBRA zone." As proposed, all construction work
for this one-time beach fill is scheduled to occur within the environmental-based dredging window of
November 16 to March 31.
EFH within the Project Area
The DSEIS includes an assessment that describes the EFH for species managed by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) or
NMFS. Our previous comment letters describe federally managed species that use the project area and
their EFH requirements; these comments will not be repeated here and are incorporated by this reference.
SAFMC provides detailed information on these EFH requirements in a comprehensive amendment to the
fishery management plans that SAMFC prepared in 1998. MAFMC provides detailed information on
EFH requirements in separate amendments to individual fishery management plans. Amendments
prepared by the Councils and NMFS were developed in accordance with requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. According to the applicant's EFH assessment, the EFH within the project's influence
includes 60 acres of marine intertidal (swash zone), 60 acres of marine intertidal shoals, 262 acres of salt
marsh, 0.09 acres of seagrass, and 3,613 acres of sub-tidal marine unconsolidated bottom habitat.
Concerns Regarding Borrow Area X
While NMFS does not object to the concept of a one-time nourishment event to provide storm protection
until the federal project can be implemented, as noted in our comments from January 31, 2008, we are
concerned with the proposed use of Borrow Area X as the source of beach fill. SAFMC designates tidal
inlets, including their ebb and flood-tidal shoals, as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for
penaeid shrimp and red drum. HAPCs are a subset of EFH and afforded special recognition because of
their ecological importance, rarity, or susceptibility to human-induced degradation. Tidal inlets have this
designation because of the unique role they play as migratory corridors connecting ocean and estuarine
waters that serve as spawning and nursery areas for shrimp, red drum, mackerels, and other species. It
should be noted that areas in close proximity to New Topsail Inlet are designated by the State of North
Carolina as Primary Nursery Areas (which also makes them an HAPC), and this close proximity
emphasizes this important linkage role for this particular inlet.
-2-
NMFS is concerned that dredging of ebb tide deltas, such as Borrow Area X, may result in unanticipated
changes in habitat quality. While we recognize that modeling studies conducted for this project and
summarized in the DSEIS conclude that changes in the physical characteristics of New Topsail Inlet as a
result of mining Borrow Area X will be minor, we note these studies do not examine the response of fish
and other organisms to those changes. For example, the DSEIS notes that any refilling that occurs in the
two borrow cells closest to the inlet at Borrow Area X would likely come from the migration of sand from
the ebb tide delta and that refilling of the seaward borrow cells is unlikely. Most larval and juvenile fish
that utilize the inlet to access their estuarine nurseries have limited ability to control their path of entry
and respond to a variety of environmental factors once they reach the inlet. Species such as summer
flounder orient with the bottom and the recruitment of this species may be affected by the presence of the
deepened areas associated with the dredged borrow area. Also according to the DSEIS, utilization of
Borrow Area X will result in changes in the flow regime of the long shore currents on the northeastern
and southwestern limits of the ebb shoal. These currents not only affect the transport of sediments along
the beach but also influence the recruitment of early life history stages of fish and invertebrates into the
estuary. In short, the modeling studies were not able to examine how fish would respond to the modified
inlet. Channel maintenance and relocation to control beach erosion has impacted ebb tide deltas in
association with both private and federal actions at other North Carolina inlets, such as Mason Inlet in
New Hanover County and Bogue Inlet in Carteret County. However, we are not aware of a project
involving the dredging of such a large area on and adjacent to portions of an ebb tide delta for fill as the
current proposal. NMFS is concerned that dredging the applicant's preferred borrow area would result in
site specific and cumulative impacts to a HAPC and may set a precedent for other applicants. Avoiding
mining sand from Borrow Area X and other shoals in the vicinity of the New Topsail Inlet would ensure
that these important areas would not be altered to the point that fishery species are significantly impacted.
As part of its planning for the federal beach nourishment project, the Wilmington District examined
multiple offshore sand sources, including areas within the 3-mile North Carolina territorial limit. While
the concentration of fine material in the borrow areas described in the GRR/EIS is higher than preferred,
the sites appear acceptable when balancing environmental, engineering, and economic factors. The Town
of Topsail Beach prefers to not use these offshore sites based solely on the economic benefits of using
coarser material from Borrow Area X. This decision ignores the environmental costs and ignores the fact
that a less environmentally damaging, practicable alternative exists.
Conservation Recommendation
NMFS finds that use of Borrow Site X would substantially and adversely affect EFH and federally
managed fishery species. Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide
EFH conservation recommendations when an activity is expected to adversely impact EFH. Based on this
requirement, NMFS provides the following:
EFH Conservation Recommendation
The project shall be denied as proposed. As an alternative, the Town of Topsail Beach should revise their
application to make use of the offshore borrow areas identified for the federal civil works project.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
600.920(k), requires your office to provide a written response to our EFH recommendations within 30
days of receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 days, in accordance with
our "findings' with your Regulatory Functions Branch, an interim response should be provided to NMFS.
A detail response must then be provided prior to final approval of the action. Your detail response must
include a description of measures proposed by your agency to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse
impacts of the activity. If your response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations,
your must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not following the recommendation.
The detail response should be received by the NMFS at least ten days prior to final approval of the action.
-3-

These comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. If any activity "may effect" listed sea turtles and marine mammals and
their habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be initiated with our Protected Species Division
at the letterhead address.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Related questions or comments should be
directed to the attention of Mr. Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722, or at [phone].
Sincerely,
4111 a 41A
/ for
cc: (via electronic mail)
CESAW, [e-mail]
USFWS, Howard [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
NCDMF, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
NOAA PPI, [e-mail]
F, [e-mail]
F/SER, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail]
Miles M. Croom
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
-4-
United States Department of the Interioi
ER08/911
9043.1
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
H Lo-
I
October 6, 2008
OCT - 9 2008
Mr. Samuel K. Jolly WILM.FLD OFD
Chief, Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Topsoil Beach Interim
(Emergency) Beach Fill Protection Project, Onslow and Pender Counties, NC
Dear Mr. Jolly:
The U. S. Department of the Interior (Department) offers the following comments -on Draft
Supplemental Enw4enmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Topsail Beach Interim _040W
(Emergency)-Beach Fill Project (Coastal Planning and Engineering [hereafter CP&E] 2008).
The applicant, the Town of Topsail Beach (Town), has requested a Department.of the Army
(DA) permit for a one-time placement of sand on 25,000 linear feet (4.7 miles) of the Town's
shoreline to protect the dune complex, oceanfront development, and infrastructure from
damaging storms and continued beach erosion until a federal, 50-year program of beach
construction and periodic replacement is funded. The federal program is designated as the West
Onslow Beach and. New River Inlet Shore Protection Project (WOB project) (U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers [hereafter USACE] 2008). Maps showing important project features and the
DSEIS are available online at <
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Projects/TopsailBeach/index.html >. These
comments 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.
New Topsail Inlet, directly south of the Town, is a food-rich migration stop-over area used by
shorebirds to replenish food reserves and accumulate fat needed for long flights (CP&E 2008, p.
106). Migratory shorebird species that may be found during the non-breeding season at the inlet
include; red knot (Cali&is canutus rufa), dunlin (Cali&is alpine), western sandpiper (Calidris
mauri), and sanderlings (Cali&is alba) (CP&E 2008, p. 107). Many Arctic breeding species are
experiencing declines including the red knot, which was recently listed as a candidate for
protection under the Endangered Species Act. Other shorebirds that may be found in the permit
area include Wilson's plover (Charad1rius wilsonia), American oystercatcher (Haematopus
palliatus), gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica), least tern (S. antillarum), and black skimmer
2
(Rynchops niger) (CP&E 2008, p. 57). These species have a State status of either significantly
rare or special concern. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Consider the red knot, American
oystercatcher, and Wilson's plover to be "focal species." The FWS places priority emphasis on
these species and seeks to provide strategic and adaptive conservation actions to return these
species to healthy and sustainable levels. By improving the status of these priority focal species,
other migratory shorebirds will benefit.
A priority of the FWS is to restore and maintain aquatic trust species to self-sustaining
populations for the benefit of the public. Several fish have been designated by the FWS as inter-
jurisdictional focal species. These include the anadromous striped bass (Moron saxarilis) which
may occur in the ocean waters of the project area from areas of breaking waves to several miles
offshore. The red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) is another focal species that can be found in
important commercial and recreational fishing grounds off Topsail Island and is actively fished
from boats, the beach, and local piers (USACE 2008, p. 11).
Project Area
Topsail Island is a barrier island approximately 22 miles long and one-half mile wide in Pender
and Onslow Counties, North Carolina. The Town occupies approximately the southern five
miles of Topsail Island. The island is narrow and flat with no significant area higher than the
500-year flood elevation. The average elevation of the island is nine feet and most of the island
lies within the 100-year floodplain (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 171).
Plans for the federal beach construction project in the Town stated that over the last 40 years the
most serious shoreline recession has been occurring in the southern half of the area (USACE
2008, p. 44). Shoreline change rates along the northern half of the project area have remained
relatively low, generally ranging from -1 to +1 foot per year. The average recession rate for the
Town is about two feet per year (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 179).
Project Purpose and Proposed Actions Description
The proposed interim beach fill project seeks to reduce damage due to storms and shoreline
recession along the ocean shoreline of Topsail Beach. The applicant expects the beach
construction project to protect development and infrastructure between now and the start of the
50-year, federal beach construction effort.
The DSEIS considered the six borrow areas developed for the federal project (Borrow Areas
(BA) A-F) as sources of beach fill material. A new borrow area (BA X) was developed just
seaward of New Topsail Inlet, south of the project area. BA X was divided into five units,
designated as "cuts" (CP&E 2008, p. 134). Due to costs and permitting issues, the portions of
the federal borrow areas beyond the three-mile limit of State waters were eliminated. This
exclusion left only BA B and a portion of BA A as available for the project. Borrow Area B was
eliminated because the need to avoid encroachment on hardbottom areas and the relatively small
grain size of the material provided only a small amount of usable material. Only a portion of the
2,297 acres in BA A was evaluated for the project. This area was designated as BA Al.