Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Nourishment of 25,000 Feet of Beach in Topsail Beach, Pender County, NC, 43435-43438 [E8-17079]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 144 / Friday, July 25, 2008 / Notices
responsible for providing a safe,
efficient, affordable, environmentally
compatible and coordinated statewide
transportation system for the movement
of people and goods. NDOR has
identified two segments of Nebraska
Highway 12 that have experienced
flooding and damage due to high water
levels associated with the Missouri
River. Segment 1 is approximately 6.4
miles long and extends from just east of
Verdel on the west end to 2 miles west
of the bridge over the Niobrara River.
Segment 2 is approximately 6 miles long
and extends from just east of Spruce
Avenue in Niobrara to approximately 1
mile east of S–54D. Problems associated
with this portion of Nebraska Highway
12 include high maintenance, driver
safety, and disruption in use. The
following summarizes the issues that
create these problems:
Roadway Stability: Due to high water
levels and overtopping of Nebraska
Highway 12 in the project area, the
stability of the roadway is threatened.
Gavin’s Point Dam on the Missouri
River was built in the 1950’s near
Yankton, South Dakota, creating Lewis
and Clark Lake (lake). The lake has
caused the water table adjacent to the
Missouri River to rise. Nebraska
Highway 12, which runs parallel to the
Missouri River, is affected where it
crosses into the Missouri River
floodplain east and west of Niobrara,
Nebraska. About eight miles of Nebraska
Highway 12 runs through the
floodplain. About half of this length is
located to the east and half to the west
of Niobrara, in Knox County, Nebraska.
The distance between Nebraska
Highway 12 and the Missouri River
bank differs, but some areas are as close
as two to three thousand feet. Due to the
location of Nebraska Highway 12, the
following road related issues are
present:
(1) Roadway inundation: When high
water events occur on the Missouri
River, portions of Nebraska Highway 12
are under water. This jeopardizes the
integrity of the roadway due to
saturation of the roadway bed. This can
create roadway sloughing and potential
for failure. Bazile Creek enters the river
east of Niobrara, NE where it intersects
Nebraska Highway 12. During high
water events on Bazile Creek, Nebraska
Highway 12 becomes flooded. The
flooding has occurred numerous times
in the past.
(2) Roadway saturation: High water
levels adjacent to Nebraska Highway 12
are the result of the lake. The lake is a
man-made reservoir located behind
Gavin’s Point dam. The lake has
contributed to the rising water table
throughout the floodplain where
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nebraska Highway 12 is located. In
addition, system releases from upstream
reservoirs as part of the Missouri River
mainstem system, can provide constant
water levels. Additionally, large releases
of water can sometimes last for many
months causing roadway saturation. The
increased silt load coming into the lake
from the Missouri River tributaries,
primarily the Niobrara River and Bazile
Creek also contributes to roadway
saturation. The confluence of the
Niobrara River and the Missouri River is
just west of the town of Niobrara. The
water from these tributaries slows as
they enter the Missouri River and
sediment is deposited creating a fill area
that restricts the channel and raises the
bed of the river. This causes the area of
the lake to increase in dimension as
well as raising the water table. High
water levels create conditions of longterm saturation of the roadway
embankment, thus creating the potential
for roadway embankment erosion.
Driver Safety: Portion of Nebraska
Highway 12 are exposed to regular
flooding. Roadway flooding is a concern
for driver safety because even if the road
is marked closed, motorists may choose
to drive through flooded roadways.
Nebraska Highway 12 in this location
does not have lighting and the inherent
dangers of driving through flooded
roadways exist. In 1995, the Corps
implemented an interim fix by raising
the gradeline of Nebraska Highway 12
by several feet on two short highway
segments to alleviate the immediate
flooding problems. The resultant
roadway is narrow with shoulders that
are not adequate in width, and steep
foreslopes. Cable guardrail was installed
to help protect vehicles from running off
the road and into the water. Due to the
narrow roadway, the cable guardrail is
close to the edge of the driving lane.
A public scoping meeting will be held
(see DATES) to describe why the project
is needed, preliminary alternatives, the
NEPA compliance process and to solicit
input on the issues and alternatives to
be evaluated and other related matters.
Written comments will also be
requested. The Corps has invited the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Knox County to be
cooperating agencies in the formulation
of the EIS.
John L. Moeschen,
Nebraska State Program Manager, Regulatory
Branch.
[FR Doc. E8–17077 Filed 7–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–62–P
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43435
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (DSEIS) for the Nourishment
of 25,000 Feet of Beach in Topsail
Beach, Pender County, NC
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District, Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office has received a request for
Department of the Army authorization,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act, from the Town of
Topsail Beach to conduct a one-time
interim beach fill project to protect
oceanfront development and
infrastructure until such time that a
federally authorized shore protection
project can be implemented. While
federal budget priorities have made it
difficult to obtain funds for civil works
projects in general and beach protection
projects in particular, the projected
earliest construction date for the federal
project is 2012. A Draft General
Reevaluation Report—Environmental
Impact Statement (GRR–EIS) has been
prepared by the USACE and was
released for public review and comment
in June 2006 (USACE, 2006). Given the
current status of the GRR–EIS and the
need for Congressional authorization,
funding, preparation of plans and
specifications, and right-of-way
acquisition, the federal project may not
be implemented until Fiscal Year 2012,
or possibly later. Accordingly, the Town
would like to construct an interim
project to protect its development and
infrastructure during the period
between now and the time the federal
project is constructed. In order to
account for any possible delays in the
construction of the federal project, a
construction date of 2016 was used in
the development of the alternatives and
economic analysis for the interim
project. This would maintain the
baseline conditions described in the
Draft GRR and EIS.
Copies of comments and
questions regarding the DSEIS may be
addressed to: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District,
Regulatory Division. ATTN: File
Number SAW–2006–40848–071, Post
Office Box 1890, Wilmington, NC
28402–1890.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 144 / Friday, July 25, 2008 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Questions about the proposed action
and DSEIS can be directed to Mr. Dave
Timpy, Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone: (910) 251–4634.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Project Description. The fill
placement area will occur between
Godwin Avenue on the south to a point
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
2,000 feet northeast of Topsail Beach/
Surf City town limits, a total ocean
shoreline length of approximately
25,000 feet. The fill would consist of
three sections, a 1,000-foot transition on
the south beginning at a point opposite
Godwin Avenue, a 22,000-foot main fill
section that would extend to the Topsail
Beach/Surf City town limits, and a
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
2,000-foot northern transition (Figure 1).
The beach fill would have a variable
width berm constructed to an elevation
of +6.0 feet NAVD. The volume of
material for the emergency project is
based on providing erosion protection
until such time a federal storm damage
reduction project is implemented.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
EN25JY08.013
43436
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 144 / Friday, July 25, 2008 / Notices
The volume of beach fill material could
range from a minimal amount needed to
counter long-term erosion losses during
the interim period (approximately 5
years) to a maximum amount that would
include a contingency volume to
account for possible storm related
erosion losses during the time period.
The material to construct the emergency
project would be derived from an
offshore borrow site or a combination of
borrow sites. The potential borrow sites
include a portion of Borrow Area A
(Borrow Area A1) identified by the
USACE in the Draft GRR/EIS with the
area considered for the emergency
project shown in Figure 1. Borrow Area
A1 contains a total volume of
approximately 2.0 million cy. The
second potential borrow area,
designated as Borrow Area X in Figure
1, was developed specifically for the
interim project and lies offshore of New
Topsail Inlet outside the areas
investigated by the USACE. Borrow
Area X also contains approximately 2.0
million cy. Borrow Area B (Figure 1) is
considered as a possible source for the
interim project, however the volume of
material available in Borrow Area B is
an estimated total volume of 820,000
gross cy with an overfill factor of 1.23
resulting in a potential net volume of
suitable beach fill material of 660,000
cy. The superposition of the 500 m
buffer around the probable hardbottom
areas located close to Borrow Area B
eliminated approximately 54% of the
area. The remaining area of Borrow Area
B lying outside the 500 m buffer
contains approximately 230,000 cy of
relatively fine grained material (0.19
mm mean grain size) in a shallow
deposit (2 to 3 ft). The shallow nature
of the deposit in Borrow Area B would
not render it economical to dredge with
a cutterhead pipeline dredge.
Ultimately, the small volume of material
that could reasonably be obtained from
Borrow Area B compared to the increase
in potential environmental resources
associated with the placement of
pipeline around probable hardbottom or
use of a hopper dredge resulted in its
elimination as a viable borrow source
for the Topsail Beach Interim Beach Fill
Project. In addition to the borrow areas
discussed above, the USACE identifies
an additional five (5) offshore borrow
areas in Section 7.04 of the Draft GRR/
EIS (USACE, 2006). These offshore
borrow areas, Borrow Areas A, C, D, E,
and F, lie seaward of the 3-mile state
territorial limit and would require
permits from the U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS). Usage of
the USACE offshore borrow areas
located beyond the 4.8 km (3 mi) state
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
territorial limit would not meet the
purpose and need of the project. In
particular, the acquisition and
utilization of beach compatible material
for shore protection project no later than
March 31, 2009.
A possible fourth source of borrow
material, Banks Channel located behind
Topsail Beach, was considered a
potential alternative however it has not
been evaluated in detail due to the small
volume of material that could be
removed from within the limits of the
authorized navigation channel. A recent
maintenance operation in Banks
Channel and Old Topsail Creek,
completed in fall 2007, removed
approximately 160,000 cy of shoal
material and deposited the material
along 4,000 feet of shoreline extending
north of the Sea Vista Hotel/
Condominium. This operation further
reduced the quantity of material that
could be used for the interim project
that would be available from the
existing navigation channels. Upland
borrow sources are not an economical
option for the emergency project. Cost
estimates for truck haul material from
upland borrow areas located near the
Town of Wallace, NC determined the
unit cost for the material was noncompetitive. Accordingly, upland
borrow sources were not evaluated in
detail for the proposed emergency
project.
Beach fill alternatives evaluated in
detail for the interim project are listed
below and include constructing the
project using Borrow Area A1, Borrow
Area X, or a combination of Borrow
Areas X and A1. For the combined use
of Borrow Areas X and A1, only the two
seaward most dredge cuts of Borrow
Area X would be used. This particular
portion of Borrow Area X contains an
estimated 784,000 cy of material. The
Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
includes the use of Borrow Area X
which contains an estimated 2.0 million
cy of material. Two dredging methods
were also evaluated; ocean certified
cutter-suction pipeline dredge (pipeline
dredge) and hopper dredge using direct
pumpout (hopper dredge).
The naming convention for the
various beach fill alternatives is as
follows:
Alternative 3a: Borrow Area A1 with
pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3b: Borrow Area X with
pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3c: Borrow Areas X and A1
with pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3d: Borrow Area A1 with
hopper dredge.
Alternative 3e: Borrow Area X with
hopper dredge.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43437
Alternative 3f: Borrow Areas X and A1
with hopper dredge.
Based on the goals, needs and
objectives of the emergency project,
Alternative 3b is the Applicant’s
Preferred Alternative. The proposed
construction timeframe for the interim
beach fill activities will occur in early
calendar year 2009.
Beach Fill Surveys & Design. Typical
cross-sections of the beach along the
Topsail Beach project area will be
surveyed. Nearshore profiles will extend
seaward to at least the ¥30-foot NAVD
depth contour. The total volume of
beach fill to be placed in front of the
existing development and infrastructure
will be based on an evaluation of
erosion of the project area from 2002
through the expected construction date
of the Federal project. Additional
offshore and inshore data for Lea/Hutaff
Island were also obtained along the
northern 5,000 feet of the island. This
data was used in the evaluation of
possible impacts associated with the
removal of sediment from the selected
offshore borrow area and for future
impact evaluations following project
implementation through the use of
numerical modeling.
Geotechnical Investigations. The
offshore sand search investigations have
included bathymetric surveys, sidescan
sonar surveys, seismic surveys, cultural
resource surveys, vibracore collection
and analysis, and ground-truth diver
surveys to verify existence or nonexistence of hard bottoms. The results of
the offshore investigations coupled with
the compatibility of the sand resource
area and native beach sand were
assessed to define the borrow area. All
sediment compatibility assessments
were based on State of North Carolina
sediment compatibility standards that
went into effect in February 2007.
Environmental Resource Coordination
& Permitting. The USACE prepared a
General Reevaluation Report—
Environmental Impact Statement (GRR–
EIS) for the larger federal shore
protection project (June 2006). The next
step for the West Onslow Project is for
the USACE to release the Final GRR and
EIS for public and agency review and
comment in summer 2008. The interim
beach fill project will be subject to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (NCEPA).
Preliminary coordination with the
USACE-Wilmington District resulted in
a determination that a Department of the
Army Application for an Individual
Permit will be needed for project
compliance with Sections 10 and 404.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
43438
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 144 / Friday, July 25, 2008 / Notices
Similarly, coordination with the North
Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM) determined that
the project would require a State EIS
developed in accordance with NCEPA;
as well as a Major Permit under the
Coastal Area Management Act.
2. Proposed Action. The scope of
activities for the proposed interim beach
fill project included: (a) Vibracores in
the identified borrow area, (b) side scan
sonar surveys of the ocean bottom, (c)
in-water investigations of potential near
shore hardbottom resources identified
by the side scan sonar survey, and (d)
beach profile surveys. Offshore
investigations included bathymetric
surveys, sidescan sonar surveys, seismic
and cultural resource surveys, as well as
vibracore collection and analysis. The
results of the offshore investigations
coupled with the compatibility of the
sand resource area and native beach
sand were assessed to define the borrow
area.
3. Issues. There are several potential
environmental issues that are addressed
in the DSEIS. Additional issues may be
identified during the public review
process. Issues initially identified as
potentially significant include:
a. Potential impact to marine
biological resources (benthic organisms,
passageway for fish and other marine
life) and Essential Fish Habitat,
particularly hardbottoms.
b. Potential impact to threatened and
endangered marine mammals, birds,
fish, and plants.
c. Potential impacts to water quality.
d. Potential increase in erosion rates
to adjacent beaches.
e. Potential impacts to navigation,
commercial and recreational.
f. Potential impacts to private and
public property.
g. Potential impacts on public health
and safety.
h. Potential impacts to recreational
and commercial fishing.
i. The compatibility of the material for
nourishment.
j. Potential economic impacts.
4. Alternatives. Several alternatives
are being considered for the proposed
project. These alternatives were further
formulated and developed during the
scoping process and an appropriate
range of alternatives, including the No
Action and Non Structural alternative,
are considered in the Draft
Supplemental EIS.
5. Scoping Process. Project Delivery
Team meetings were held to receive
comments and assess concerns
regarding the appropriate scope and
preparation of the DSEIS. Federal, state,
and local agencies and other interested
organizations and persons participated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
in these Project Delivery Team
meetings.
The COE is also consulting with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with
the National Marine Fisheries Service
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
Endangered Species Act. Additionally,
the Draft Supplemental EIS has assessed
the potential water quality impacts
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, and is being coordinated
with NCDCM to determine the projects
consistency with the Coastal Zone
Management Act. The USACE will
closely work with NCDCM through the
DSEIS to ensure the process complies
with all North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (NCEPA) requirements. It is
the USACE and NCDCM’s intentions to
consolidate both NEPA and NCEPA
processes to eliminate duplications.
6. Availability of the Draft
Supplemental EIS. The DSEIS has been
published and circulated, and a public
hearing will be held August 26, 2008 at
the Historical Society Assembly
Building, 720 Channel Blvd., Topsail
Beach, NC at 6 p.m.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–17079 Filed 7–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–GN–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The Acting Director,
Information Collection Clearance
Division, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of
Management invites comments on the
submission for OMB review as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before August
25, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Education Desk Officer,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Room 10222,
Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are
encouraged to submit responses
electronically by e-mail to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or via fax
to (202) 395–6974. Commenters should
include the following subject line in
their response ‘‘Comment: [insert OMB
number], [insert abbreviated collection
name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting
comments electronically should not
submit paper copies.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The Acting
Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Regulatory
Information Management Services,
Office of Management, publishes that
notice containing proposed information
collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each
proposed information collection,
grouped by office, contains the
following: (1) Type of review requested,
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of
the collection; (4) Description of the
need for, and proposed use of, the
information; (5) Respondents and
frequency of collection; and (6)
Reporting and/or Recordkeeping
burden. OMB invites public comment.
Dated: July 21, 2008.
Sheila Carey,
Acting Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
Office of English Language Acquisitions
Type of Review: New.
Title: Foreign Language Assistance
Program for Local Educational Agencies:
Annual Performance Report.
Frequency: Semi-Annually.
Affected Public: Individuals or
household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t,
SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour
Burden
Responses: 127.
Burden Hours: 6,350.
Abstract: The purpose is to
implement a data collection process for
a new semi-annual reporting for
Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) purposes for the Foreign
Language Assistance Program (FLAP)
for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).
These data are necessary to assess the
performance of the FLAP for LEAs in
meeting its stated goals and objectives
and report to ED’s Budget Service.
Requests for copies of the information
collection submission for OMB review
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 144 (Friday, July 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43435-43438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Nourishment of 25,000 Feet of Beach in
Topsail Beach, Pender County, NC
AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for
Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, from the
Town of Topsail Beach to conduct a one-time interim beach fill project
to protect oceanfront development and infrastructure until such time
that a federally authorized shore protection project can be
implemented. While federal budget priorities have made it difficult to
obtain funds for civil works projects in general and beach protection
projects in particular, the projected earliest construction date for
the federal project is 2012. A Draft General Reevaluation Report--
Environmental Impact Statement (GRR-EIS) has been prepared by the USACE
and was released for public review and comment in June 2006 (USACE,
2006). Given the current status of the GRR-EIS and the need for
Congressional authorization, funding, preparation of plans and
specifications, and right-of-way acquisition, the federal project may
not be implemented until Fiscal Year 2012, or possibly later.
Accordingly, the Town would like to construct an interim project to
protect its development and infrastructure during the period between
now and the time the federal project is constructed. In order to
account for any possible delays in the construction of the federal
project, a construction date of 2016 was used in the development of the
alternatives and economic analysis for the interim project. This would
maintain the baseline conditions described in the Draft GRR and EIS.
ADDRESSES: Copies of comments and questions regarding the DSEIS may be
addressed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Regulatory Division. ATTN: File Number SAW-2006-40848-071, Post Office
Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890.
[[Page 43436]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action
and DSEIS can be directed to Mr. Dave Timpy, Wilmington Regulatory
Field Office, telephone: (910) 251-4634.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Project Description. The fill placement area will occur between
Godwin Avenue on the south to a point 2,000 feet northeast of Topsail
Beach/Surf City town limits, a total ocean shoreline length of
approximately 25,000 feet. The fill would consist of three sections, a
1,000-foot transition on the south beginning at a point opposite Godwin
Avenue, a 22,000-foot main fill section that would extend to the
Topsail Beach/Surf City town limits, and a 2,000-foot northern
transition (Figure 1). The beach fill would have a variable width berm
constructed to an elevation of +6.0 feet NAVD. The volume of material
for the emergency project is based on providing erosion protection
until such time a federal storm damage reduction project is
implemented.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25JY08.013
[[Page 43437]]
The volume of beach fill material could range from a minimal amount
needed to counter long-term erosion losses during the interim period
(approximately 5 years) to a maximum amount that would include a
contingency volume to account for possible storm related erosion losses
during the time period. The material to construct the emergency project
would be derived from an offshore borrow site or a combination of
borrow sites. The potential borrow sites include a portion of Borrow
Area A (Borrow Area A1) identified by the USACE in the Draft GRR/EIS
with the area considered for the emergency project shown in Figure 1.
Borrow Area A1 contains a total volume of approximately 2.0 million cy.
The second potential borrow area, designated as Borrow Area X in Figure
1, was developed specifically for the interim project and lies offshore
of New Topsail Inlet outside the areas investigated by the USACE.
Borrow Area X also contains approximately 2.0 million cy. Borrow Area B
(Figure 1) is considered as a possible source for the interim project,
however the volume of material available in Borrow Area B is an
estimated total volume of 820,000 gross cy with an overfill factor of
1.23 resulting in a potential net volume of suitable beach fill
material of 660,000 cy. The superposition of the 500 m buffer around
the probable hardbottom areas located close to Borrow Area B eliminated
approximately 54% of the area. The remaining area of Borrow Area B
lying outside the 500 m buffer contains approximately 230,000 cy of
relatively fine grained material (0.19 mm mean grain size) in a shallow
deposit (2 to 3 ft). The shallow nature of the deposit in Borrow Area B
would not render it economical to dredge with a cutterhead pipeline
dredge. Ultimately, the small volume of material that could reasonably
be obtained from Borrow Area B compared to the increase in potential
environmental resources associated with the placement of pipeline
around probable hardbottom or use of a hopper dredge resulted in its
elimination as a viable borrow source for the Topsail Beach Interim
Beach Fill Project. In addition to the borrow areas discussed above,
the USACE identifies an additional five (5) offshore borrow areas in
Section 7.04 of the Draft GRR/EIS (USACE, 2006). These offshore borrow
areas, Borrow Areas A, C, D, E, and F, lie seaward of the 3-mile state
territorial limit and would require permits from the U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS). Usage of the USACE offshore borrow areas
located beyond the 4.8 km (3 mi) state territorial limit would not meet
the purpose and need of the project. In particular, the acquisition and
utilization of beach compatible material for shore protection project
no later than March 31, 2009.
A possible fourth source of borrow material, Banks Channel located
behind Topsail Beach, was considered a potential alternative however it
has not been evaluated in detail due to the small volume of material
that could be removed from within the limits of the authorized
navigation channel. A recent maintenance operation in Banks Channel and
Old Topsail Creek, completed in fall 2007, removed approximately
160,000 cy of shoal material and deposited the material along 4,000
feet of shoreline extending north of the Sea Vista Hotel/Condominium.
This operation further reduced the quantity of material that could be
used for the interim project that would be available from the existing
navigation channels. Upland borrow sources are not an economical option
for the emergency project. Cost estimates for truck haul material from
upland borrow areas located near the Town of Wallace, NC determined the
unit cost for the material was non-competitive. Accordingly, upland
borrow sources were not evaluated in detail for the proposed emergency
project.
Beach fill alternatives evaluated in detail for the interim project
are listed below and include constructing the project using Borrow Area
A1, Borrow Area X, or a combination of Borrow Areas X and A1. For the
combined use of Borrow Areas X and A1, only the two seaward most dredge
cuts of Borrow Area X would be used. This particular portion of Borrow
Area X contains an estimated 784,000 cy of material. The Applicant's
Preferred Alternative includes the use of Borrow Area X which contains
an estimated 2.0 million cy of material. Two dredging methods were also
evaluated; ocean certified cutter-suction pipeline dredge (pipeline
dredge) and hopper dredge using direct pumpout (hopper dredge).
The naming convention for the various beach fill alternatives is as
follows:
Alternative 3a: Borrow Area A1 with pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3b: Borrow Area X with pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3c: Borrow Areas X and A1 with pipeline dredge.
Alternative 3d: Borrow Area A1 with hopper dredge.
Alternative 3e: Borrow Area X with hopper dredge.
Alternative 3f: Borrow Areas X and A1 with hopper dredge.
Based on the goals, needs and objectives of the emergency project,
Alternative 3b is the Applicant's Preferred Alternative. The proposed
construction timeframe for the interim beach fill activities will occur
in early calendar year 2009.
Beach Fill Surveys & Design. Typical cross-sections of the beach
along the Topsail Beach project area will be surveyed. Nearshore
profiles will extend seaward to at least the -30-foot NAVD depth
contour. The total volume of beach fill to be placed in front of the
existing development and infrastructure will be based on an evaluation
of erosion of the project area from 2002 through the expected
construction date of the Federal project. Additional offshore and
inshore data for Lea/Hutaff Island were also obtained along the
northern 5,000 feet of the island. This data was used in the evaluation
of possible impacts associated with the removal of sediment from the
selected offshore borrow area and for future impact evaluations
following project implementation through the use of numerical modeling.
Geotechnical Investigations. The offshore sand search
investigations have included bathymetric surveys, sidescan sonar
surveys, seismic surveys, cultural resource surveys, vibracore
collection and analysis, and ground-truth diver surveys to verify
existence or non-existence of hard bottoms. The results of the offshore
investigations coupled with the compatibility of the sand resource area
and native beach sand were assessed to define the borrow area. All
sediment compatibility assessments were based on State of North
Carolina sediment compatibility standards that went into effect in
February 2007.
Environmental Resource Coordination & Permitting. The USACE
prepared a General Reevaluation Report--Environmental Impact Statement
(GRR-EIS) for the larger federal shore protection project (June 2006).
The next step for the West Onslow Project is for the USACE to release
the Final GRR and EIS for public and agency review and comment in
summer 2008. The interim beach fill project will be subject to Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA).
Preliminary coordination with the USACE-Wilmington District
resulted in a determination that a Department of the Army Application
for an Individual Permit will be needed for project compliance with
Sections 10 and 404.
[[Page 43438]]
Similarly, coordination with the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM) determined that the project would require a State
EIS developed in accordance with NCEPA; as well as a Major Permit under
the Coastal Area Management Act.
2. Proposed Action. The scope of activities for the proposed
interim beach fill project included: (a) Vibracores in the identified
borrow area, (b) side scan sonar surveys of the ocean bottom, (c) in-
water investigations of potential near shore hardbottom resources
identified by the side scan sonar survey, and (d) beach profile
surveys. Offshore investigations included bathymetric surveys, sidescan
sonar surveys, seismic and cultural resource surveys, as well as
vibracore collection and analysis. The results of the offshore
investigations coupled with the compatibility of the sand resource area
and native beach sand were assessed to define the borrow area.
3. Issues. There are several potential environmental issues that
are addressed in the DSEIS. Additional issues may be identified during
the public review process. Issues initially identified as potentially
significant include:
a. Potential impact to marine biological resources (benthic
organisms, passageway for fish and other marine life) and Essential
Fish Habitat, particularly hardbottoms.
b. Potential impact to threatened and endangered marine mammals,
birds, fish, and plants.
c. Potential impacts to water quality.
d. Potential increase in erosion rates to adjacent beaches.
e. Potential impacts to navigation, commercial and recreational.
f. Potential impacts to private and public property.
g. Potential impacts on public health and safety.
h. Potential impacts to recreational and commercial fishing.
i. The compatibility of the material for nourishment.
j. Potential economic impacts.
4. Alternatives. Several alternatives are being considered for the
proposed project. These alternatives were further formulated and
developed during the scoping process and an appropriate range of
alternatives, including the No Action and Non Structural alternative,
are considered in the Draft Supplemental EIS.
5. Scoping Process. Project Delivery Team meetings were held to
receive comments and assess concerns regarding the appropriate scope
and preparation of the DSEIS. Federal, state, and local agencies and
other interested organizations and persons participated in these
Project Delivery Team meetings.
The COE is also consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the Draft
Supplemental EIS has assessed the potential water quality impacts
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and is being
coordinated with NCDCM to determine the projects consistency with the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The USACE will closely work with NCDCM
through the DSEIS to ensure the process complies with all North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) requirements. It is the USACE
and NCDCM's intentions to consolidate both NEPA and NCEPA processes to
eliminate duplications.
6. Availability of the Draft Supplemental EIS. The DSEIS has been
published and circulated, and a public hearing will be held August 26,
2008 at the Historical Society Assembly Building, 720 Channel Blvd.,
Topsail Beach, NC at 6 p.m.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-17079 Filed 7-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-GN-P