19991112 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970313

JOHN C. WESSELL, III
WmT,iAm A. RANEY, JR.
WESSELL & 12ANEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WI AUNGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
March 13, 1997
Mr. John Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Mason Inlet Project
Dear Mr. Parker:

28402

TELEPHONE [phone]
J FAx [phone]
'pF
?y??o2 A,? j FG?Q
Y LF
On behalf of the sponsors of the Mason Inlet project,
I would like to thank you and the commenting agencies for the
internal review comments on the draft Environmental Assessment.
The Shell Island Homeowners Association and the Figure 118" Beach
Homeowners Association appreciate the prompt response to their
submission.
The engineers and environmental consultants who are
working on the project will be addressing the comments in the
near future and will be heeding the advice of Melba McGee to
contact the agency personnel directly to adequately address the
issues raised during the preliminary review. Some of the issues
raised will require consultation and coordination by and between
the governing bodies of the two project sponsors. Because the
Boards of Directors of the two Associations are comprised of
people who live in different cities, the consultation and
coordination may take a few weeks to accomplish.
In view of the sponsors, decision not to attempt the
project this winter, we have the benefit of being able to address
these issues in a less hurried atmosphere. However, we are
mindful that a project of this magnitude will require some time
to evaluate, so we hope to keep the process moving and would
appreciate continued prompt action by the Department and other
commenting agencies.

Thanks again for the comments. We continue to look
forward to working on developing a project which will address the

Mr. John Parker
March 13, 1997
Page Two
needs of the sponsors and will have many positive environmental
effects.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY
JAJ
W. A. Raney, Jr. r
WAR:ktw
WAR\ENVIRON\R96-233.C30
CC: Ms. Melba McGee
Mr. Roger Schecter
Mr. Preston Pate
Mr. James Gregson
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Daniel Sams
Mr. Steve Benton
Mr. Bob Stroud
Mr. Fritz Rohde
Mr. Stephen Hall
Mr. Bennett Wynne
Mr. Jeff Richter
Mr. John Hefner
Mr. Kenneth Shanklin
Mr. Art Poineau
Mr. Steve Morrison/Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Bud Davis/Mr. Paul Denison
Mr. George Taylor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February
?EHNF=1
21, 1997
MEMO
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Dorn
Cl'
RE: Water Quality comme s
Proposed Mason's Inlet Relocation and Beach Rebuilding
New Hanover County
The attached memo from the DWQ's Wilmington Regional Office
dated.14 February 1997 accurately expresses concerns that the
Division has following our review of the draft EA for this
project. In addition, the EA/FONSI should address two more
issues which are implied in the report:
1) What plans exist for the land between the existing inlet
and the new proposed inlet? I assume that this property is in
public ownership and will not be built upon thereby preventing
long-term problems like we have seen with the Resort.
2) What plans exist for long-term maintenance of the new
inlet? Again I assume that periodic dredging is contemplated to
attempt to maintain the relocated inlet in its new location.
This should be made explicit in the report.
Please call me at 733-1786 or Jim Gregson in Wilmington at
910-395-3900 if you have questions about our comments.
shellisl.mem
cc: Jim Gregson, Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626=0535
Telephone [phone]
FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501* recycled/100/9 post consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Date: February 14, 1997
To: John Dorney ?F R1c016 co
Environmental Sciences Branch 1.9
19,
From: James H. Gregson -' ?A?SCiF
Through: Rick Shiver y E
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Environmental Assessment #97-0421
Emergency Inlet Relocation and Beach Rebuilding Project
Shell Island Homeowners Association, Inc. and
Figure 8 Beach Homeowners Association, Inc
New Hanover County
The subject document has been reviewed for impacts to water quality, the following
comments are provided.
The proposed project includes the relocation of Mason Inlet some 3,500 to 4,000 feet to
the north of its present location, the closure of the existing inlet, the dredging of a new 300 feet
wide by 9 feet deep channel connecting Mason Inlet to Mason Creek, and dredging a 200 feet
wide channel in Mason Creek to its beginning at the AIWW. The purpose of the project is to
relocate Mason Inlet to the north so that it no longer poses an immediate threat to the Shell Island
Resort Development located at the northern most end of Wrightsville Beach and to provide a
source of sand for the renourishment of portions of the Figure 8 Island beachfront. Currently,
Figure 8 Island has up to 84 beach, houses which are in imminent danger of having their
foundations undermined by beach erosion.
The proposed project will result in the excavation of approximately 2.0 acres of Spartina
alterniflora habitat with the dredging of the new channel in Mason Creek. The filling in of the
existing location of Mason Inlet will initially require the placement of approximately 390,000
cubic yards of sand to construct a plug in the old inlet gorge. It is unknown at this time the exact
cubic yardage of sand that it will take to completely close the existing inlet, however, all excess
material from the dredging of the new inlet and Mason Creek will be used to renourish the south

Masons Inlet EA
February 14, 1997
Page Two
end of Figure 8 Beach.
The project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and should be consistent
with guidelines set fourth in 15A NCAC 2H .0506. Specifically, if it is determined that the
project has no practical alternatives and is water dependent, which it would appear that it is, that
existing wetland uses are replaced through mitigation under.DCM requirements or U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers requirements or as described in .0506 (h). If the latter is the case then it is
recommended that lost Spartina alterniflora marsh be replaced through restoration or creation at
a minimum of a 1:1 ratio plus an additional requirement for an increased mitigation ratios in
excess of the 1:1 ratio for restoration or creation. This additional mitigation requirement is based
on the projects distance to surface waters. Since this project is within 150 feet if surface waters
the ratio would be 4:1. The 4:1 ratio applies only to restoration. If other types of mitigation are
proposed the 4:1 ratio would increase by the following multipliers: 1.5 for creation, 2 for
enhancement and 5 for preservation. The current proposal outlined in the EA to transplant
Spartina alterniflora within storm damaged marsh and overwash areas would be considered
enhancement, i.e., increasing one or more of the functions of an existing wetland by manipulation
of vegetation or hydrology. To be considered restoration, both wetland hydrology and vegetation
would need to be re-established in an area where it previously existed. It is recommended that
at least 2 acres of alterniflora marsh be restored or 3 acres be created within the same river sub-
basin as the project site (per 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)(9)) prior to the use of enhancement. If
enhancement is used to fulfill the additional ratio requirements, then a minimum of an additional
14 acres would be required.
The EA states that the water resources of the Middle Sound area could benefit from the
proposed project by improved flushing caused by greater tidal exchange. There is no doubt that
a project of this magnitude will have some impact on the direction and volume of water exchange
in the Middle Sound estuarine system. It is highly recommended that the applicants coordinate
and help implement a monitoring plan to help quantify these impacts and their effect on salinity,
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, coliform bacteria, etc. within the tidal creeks of the Middle Sound
area.
JHG:Mason.EA
cc: Wilmington Regional Office Files
Central Files
Melba McGee
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan & Howesy Secretary
Steven J. Levitasy Deputy Secretary
f X? '
Aloft =000"ftwooff,
E)EHNR
2I Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FAX TO: I` be -- FAX NUMBER:
FROM: yrKw
PHONE:
I NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: L+

/ 1 "-\ f
SHELL ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
and
FIGURE 118" BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
A Joint Venture
January 22, 1997
Mr. Roger Schecter
Division of Coastal Management
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Mason Inlet Project - New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Schecter:
Enclosed herewith are ten (10) copies of a Draft
Environmental Assessment and a Draft Permit Application for the
Emergency Inlet Relocation and Beach Rebuilding Project at Mason Inlet
and Figure Eight Island in New Hanover County.
These documents are being submitted as a preliminary step in
the formal application process. Please cause the Environmental
Assessment (EA) to undergo the internal review process of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in accordance
with 15 NCAC 1C.0404. After internal review the applicant requests
that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) be made. At that time
the applicant will submit a final EA, with any input arising out of the
internal review process, for submission to the State Clearinghouse for
review in compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
and associated rules.
The applicant will also submit a completed CAMA/COE permit
application for processing at the time the final EA is submitted.
Due to the emergency situation at both Shell Island Resort
Hotel and Figure Eight Island, it is requested that the internal review
be completed as quickly as possible.
The applicant looks forward to working with the Division of
Coastal Management and its sister agencies in producing a quality
Environmental Assessment.
y
Mr. Roger Schecter
January 22, 1997
Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
SHELL ISLAND RESORT HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
By: -/ '
John O'M ey
FIGURE 118" BEACH HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
By: a&?
Art Poineau, Manager
WAR:ktw
Enclosures
WAR\ENVIRON\R96-233.C20
' FEB 18 '97 03:22PM EHNR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.1
'o"T &
EHN&LEGISLATI.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS
14TH FLOOR A.R.CHDALEBUILDING
Room 1425 '
512 X Salisbury Street
RALEIGH, NC 27604
,919) 715,4148
[phone] fax
. FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
To.- o f ?l?
Re:
$er : m c, (Y1c 6 <e .
YOU SI3'OLW AE E (PAGE (S), INCLUDING THIS COQ Sl-=
F YOUDO NOT REC=ALL THE PAGES, PLLASP CALL [phone]
FEB 18 '97 03:22PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
rµ l
P.2
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section
'W'ilmington Regional Office ?.
JY,M(')it AND7TN r
Date: February 14, 1997
Tos John Dorney
Environmental Sciences Branch
From: James H. Gregson-?'
U?
Th rough: Rick Shiver CD..-15 ? ?S
Subject: Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Environmental Assessment #97-0421
Emergency Inlet Relocation and Beach Rebuilding Project
Shell Island Homeowners Association, Inc. and
Figure 8 Beach Homeowners Association, Inc
New Hanover County
The subject document has been reviewed for impacts to water quality, the following
comments are provided,
The proposed project includes the relocation of Mason Inlet some 3,540 to 4,000 feet to
the north of its present location, the closure of the existing inlet, the dredging of a new 300 feet
wide by 9 feet deep channel connecting Mason Inlet to Mason Creek, and dredging a 200 feet
wide channel in ]Mason Creek to its beginning at the AIWW. The purpose of the project is to
relocate Mason Inlet to the north so that it no longer poses an immediate threat to the Shell Island
Resort Development located at the northern most end of Wrightsville Beach and to provide a
source of sand for the renourishment of portions of the Figure 8 Island beachfront. Currently,
Figure S Island has up to 84 beach houses which are in imminent danger of having their
foundations undermined by beach erosion.
The proposed project will result in the excavation of approximately 2.0 acres of Spartina
alterniflora habitat with the dredging of the new channel in Mason Creek. The falling in of the
existing location of Mason Inlet will initially require the placement of approximately 390,000
cubic yards of sand to construct a plug in the old inlet gorge. It is unknown at this time the exact
cubic yardage of sand that it win tape to completely close the existing inlet, however, all excess
material from the dredging of the new inlet and Mason Creek will be used to renourish the south
FEB 18 97 03:23PM EHNR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.3
Masons Inlet EA
February 14, 1997
Page Two
i
end of Figure 8 Beach.
; The project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and should be consistent
with guidelines set fourth in 15A NCAC 2H .0506. Specifically, if it is determined that the
project has no practical alternatives and is water dependent, which it would appear that it is, that
existing wetland.uses are replaced through mitigation tinder I)CM requirements or U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers requirements or as described in _0506 (h). If the latter is the case then it is
recommended that lost Spartina alterniflora marsh be replaced through restoration or creation at
a minimum of a 1:1 ratio plus an additional requirement for an increased mitigation ratios in
excess of the 1:1 ratio for restoration or creation- This additional mitigation requirement is based
on the projects distance to surface waters. Since this project is within 150 feet if surface waters
the ratio would be A:1. The 4:1 ratio applies only to restoration. If other types of mitigation are
proposed the 4:1 ratio would increase by the following multipliers: 1.5 for creation, 2 for
enhancement and 5 for preservation. The current proposal oudined in the EA to transplant
Spartina altertiniflora within storm damaged marsh and overwash areas would be considered
enhancement, i.e., increasing one or more of the functions of an existing wetland by manipulation
of vegetation or hydrology. To be considered restoration, both wetland hydrology and vegetation
would need to be re-established in an area where it previously existed. It is recommended that
at least 2 acres of alterniflora marsh be restored or 3 acres be created within the same river sub-
basin as the project site (per 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)(9)) prior to the use of enhancement. If
enhancement is used to fulfill the additional ratio requirements, then a minimum of an additional
14 acres would be required.
The HA states that the water resources of the Middle Sound area could benefit from the
proposed project by improved flushing caused by greater tidal exchange. There is no doubt that
a project of this magnitude will have some impact on the direction and volume of water exchange
in the Middle Sound estuadne system. It is highly recommended that the applicants coordinate
and help implement a monitoring plan to help quantify these impacts and their effect on salinity,
dissolved. oxygen, nutrients, coliform bacteria, etc. within the tidal creeks of the Middle Sound
area.
JHG:Mason.EA.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office Files
Central Fides
Melba McGee.
1
1
r
0
0
0
0
r
0
I
D
1
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1 EMERGENCY INLET RELOCATION AND BEACH REBUILDING PROJECT
SHELL ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
and
FIGURE 8 BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
MASON INLET/FIGURE EIGHT BEACH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1
r
r
0
0
R
January, 1997
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
CENTURY VON OESEN, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1
PREFACE
In order to proceed with the review of the CAMA Major Development Permit application being
submitted for the proposed relocation of Mason Inlet and Emergency Beach Rebuilding for Figure
1 Eight Island, this Environmental Assessment was prepared within a compressed time frame reflecting
the impending timely review of the project in light of the real physical dangers threatening both
homeowners associations. A prompt review procedure is desired with an understanding of the urgent
nature of this project and due consideration of this most suitable long-term solution.
/ It is the function of an Environmental Assessment to briefly describe anticipated impacts to the
environment so as to be a decision making tool on whether an Environmental Impact Statement is
warranted for a particular project. All pertinent categories of potential impact to the environment
are addressed and summarized within this document. Existing bodies of work concerning local flora
and fauna, inlet morphology, water quality and other facets of the nearby environment have been
1 consulted for the purpose of incorporating authoritative, independent knowledge into this assessment.
P

b
i
DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
1
1
L PURPOSE
II. PERMITTING
M. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
IV NEED
A. Shell Island Development Situation
1. Figure Eight Beach Emergency Situation
C. Joint Effort to Find Solutions
V. ALTE RNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. No-Build Alternative
B. Construction of an Inlet Diversion Barrier
C. Construction of a Jetty on the South Side of he Inlet
D Construction of a Radial Groin Field
E. Closure of Mason Inlet
F. Applicant's Preferred Alternative-Relocation of Mason bilet
and Associated Emergency Rebuilding Project
Inlet Relocation
Proposed Emergency Beach Rebtd]A*ng Pmject
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use
Upland/Beach Development
RecroadonalWadgadonal Uses
B Estuarine Resources
Nekton
Benthos
Proposed Changes
Impacts
C. Wetlands
Salt Marshes
SAYS
Proposed Changes
lm pncis
D. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
E. Public Lands
Pmposed Changes
Impscis
F. Scenic and Recreational Areas
Proposed Ganges
Impacts
G. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
Proposed Changes
Impacts
H. Air OualitY
Pmposed Changes
Lnpwcls
PAGE
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
1p
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
DRAFT
0

1
1
1
M

1
i
b
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Water Resources
Proposed Changes
Impacts
Z Groundwater Quality
Proposed Changes
Impacts
K. Introduction of Toaac Substances
Proposed Changes
Impacts
L Noise Levels
Pmposed Changes
impacts
M. Water Suppli
Proposed Changes
Impacts
N. Shellfish. Fish and Their Habitats
Mason (meek and Afiiddle Sound
Oceanlmnt
Pmpmd Changes
Impacts
0. Ecology and Wildlife of Ocean/bdet Zone
Inlet Zone Ecology
Dune Formations
Ocean Beach Ecology
Endangered S ies
1. Loggerhead Turtle
2 Pining plover
3, Seabeach amaranth
Project Impacts
1. Entrainment Impacts
2. Beach Fill Impacts
2 Endangered Species Impacts
P. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Proposed Changes
Impacts
Q Cumulative Impacts
Mitigative Measures
VII. FINDINGS
VIII. POINT OF CONTACT
IX. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
PAGE
14
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
25
25
25
25
26
27
27
27
DRAFT
0
1
FIGURE NUMBER PAGE
1.Inlet Relocation and Fill Area 29
2.Emergency Beach Rebuilding Cross Sections 30
1 3-Emergency Beach Rebuilding Cross Sections 31
4.Proposed Emergency Beach Rebuilding Area 32
5.Dredge and Fill Aerial Overlay 33
6-Observed Falling Tide Directions 34
7. Mason Inlet Composite 35
/ 8. Location Map 36
PHOTOGRAPHS
1 Aerial Overlay 37
November 1996, Snapshot Series 38
Dated Aerial Photograph Series 55
APPENDICES
1. Literature Cited 70
2.Soil Sample Grain Size Analysis 72
3.Shellfish Survey 94
4.New Hanover County Endangered and Threatened Species 98
5.Presence and Recruitment Periods of Surf Zone 99
1
6.SHPO Letter 100
7. Comments About Piping Plover, Seabeach Amaranth and Other
Declining Species on South Spit of Figure 8 Island 102
8. Compliance with Environmental Requirements 112
9.Notification 113
1
0
1
1
DRAFT
0

DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EMERGENCY INLET RELOCATION AND BEACH REBUILDING PROJECT
SHELL ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
/ and
FIGURE 8 BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
MASON INLET/FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P
I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to provide the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and associated agencies
with a decision making tool to determine if the proposed emergency Inlet Relocation and Beach
1 Rebuilding Project at Mason Inlet and Figure Eight Beach in New Hanover County is of
sufficient impact to the environment as to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). If an EIS is not warranted, a Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) will
be issued prior to the approval of a CAMA Major Development Permit.
1 H. PERNUTTING, A CAMA Major Development Permit Application will be submitted to the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and the US Army Corps of Engineers for
review. The State review of this permit application is coordinated by DCM. Other
commenting State agencies include the Divisions of Water Quality, Land Quality, Water
Resources, Marine Fisheries, Environmental Health, Archives and History, Community
i Assistance as well as the Wildlife Resources Commission, the Department of Administration and
the Department of Transportation. Federal review is coordinated by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Commenting Federal agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
DCM also reviews applications for compliance with local regulations and for consistency with
county and municipal land use plans.
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT. The project site is located within the area between the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) and the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Mason Inlet in New
Hanover County. In general, the work area lies between the developed limits of Wrightsville
1 Beach and Figure Eight Island.
Mason Inlet currently is positioned within a few dozen feet of the Shell Island Resort complex
located at the north end of Wrightsville Beach at the terminus of North Lumina Avenue.
Emergency dozing of sand is being performed in an on-going manner to temporarily thwart the
/ southward migration of the inlet and lessen the direct impacts to the Shell Island Resort. The
throat of the inlet has migrated southward approximately 3,500' since 1980. Inlet migration has
already destroyed a public beach accessway which was located on the north side of the resort
property. The Shell Island HOA has been issued and is implementing an emergency sand bag
permit to install 300 LFT of sandbags with a 6' vertical and 20' horizontal cross section.
DRAFT

/ Migration of Mason Inlet to the south has resulted in the lengthening of a sand spit which
currently extends over 3,800' southward from the end of Beach Road South at the southern end
of Figure Eight Island. The newly proposed inlet location and the area north of it features
moderately small, sparsely vegetated dunes which survived Hurricanes Bertha and Fran. The
actual new inlet location contains sparsely vegetated dunes of about 2' in height (see photo).
1 Vegetation observed on the spit recently includes Ca Ule endentula (Sea-rocket); Solidago
sempervirens (Seaside goldenrod), Amn7ophila brevilligulata (American beachgrass), Uniola
paniculata (Sea oats), Panicum amarum (Bitter panicum), Iva impricata (seashore elder), and
Hydrocotyle bonariensis (Penny wort).
/ South of the proposed inlet location on the spit, vegetation rapidly thins with virtually no plants
on the southern 1,200' of the spit. This zone is characterized as packed sand and shell material
which remains from inlet migration through the area. In general, as you move north from the
existing inlet, you encounter advancing stages of dune formation and associated successional
vegetation types.
1
West of the sand spit is located the main water connection from the Figure Eight Channel and
the mouth of Mason Creek to the throat of Mason Inlet. Westward of this water body are two
large intertidal sand shoals on each side of the mouth of Mason Creek. The approximate size
of these shoals totals 60 acres. From the current mouth of Mason Creek between these shoals
1 to the AIW W measures roughly 3,800'. The length of Mason Creek is severely shoaled with
accumulated sand to the point that its western half drains toward the AIWW on a falling tide
rather than toward Mason Inlet (Figure 6). On either side of Mason Creek are large stretches
of coastal marsh dominated by Spartina alterniflora (Smooth cordgrass). Other coastal species
include Juncus roemerianus (Needlerush), Spartina patens (Saltmeadow hay), Salicornia
r virginica (Woody glasswort), Borrichia frutescens (Sea ox-eye), Baccharis halimifolia (Eastern
baccharis), and Iva frutescens (Marsh-elder). Dredge spoil islands are located on either side of
Mason Creek's intersection with the AIWW. These islands are periodically used for
maintenance dredging along the waterway and feature upland vegetation.
Northwest of the Shell Island Resort is a large area of Spartina marsh which has been subjected
to sand overwash during the past storms. A majority of this overwash area resulted from recent
Hurricanes Bertha and Fran. Overwash in this general area has occurred frequently with more
severe storms.
C
IV. NEED.
A. Shell Island Development Situation. Over the past five decades, Mason Inlet has slowly
migrated southward to a point where it has extensively eroded a large portion of the northern
end of Shell Island (Wrightsville Beach) to the extent that it is now an imminent threat to the
Shell Island Resort complex and other developed properties at the north end of Shell Island. A
1 study of aerial photographs ranging from 1945 to the present indicates that the inlet has moved
approximately 6,500 feet southward to its present position. The historical location for the main
inlet channel is assumed to be in alignment with Mason Creek as it flows from the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) southeastward to a discharge point in the Atlantic Ocean. This
alignment also offers optimum hydraulic efficiency.
1
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
2
0
0 In recent years, the southward migration of Mason Inlet approached the point that it was a
serious danger to the Shell Island Resort properties (combined hotel/169 privately owned
condominium units and commercial properties) and a state road that provides public access to
the north end of Shell Island. A public access bath and change facility owned by the Town of
Wrightsville Beach was removed in December, 1996. The actual concrete and wooden
1 accessway to the beach front has been destroyed. Based on a 1995 study that the Shell Island
Homeowners Association (HOA) commissioned which analyzed numerous alternatives to remedy
this threatening situation, it was proposed that the most suitable long-term solution to the
problem would be to relocate Mason Inlet back northward to its general alignment with Mason
Creek. After detailed consideration analyzing anticipated problems and costs for implementation
1 of this option, the Shell Island HOA opted to seek a more expeditious alternative to construct
an "inlet diversion barrier", first using steel sheet piles and then large sandbag systems to
provide temporary relief until a more permanent solution could be found. Three attempts to
seek authorization for variance to use one of these options were denied by the Coastal Resource
Commission (CRC). The advents of Hurricanes Bertha and Fran on July 11 and September 5-6,
0 1996, respectively, further aggravated the problem, creating a real emergency situation. Based
on this threatening condition and the fact that numerous authoritative and environmental agency
sources suggested publicly that the HOA should initiate action to relocate the inlet back to its
old historical location, it was decided to undertake a project to move the inlet from its present
location back to the north about 3,500 to 4,000 feet to provide a more permanent solution to the
problem.
B. Figure Eight Beach Emergency Situation. During late 1992 and early 1993, the Figure
8 Beach Homeowners Association undertook a large-scale beach nourishment project on the
southern half of the island which had been seriously eroded by a series of storms and a
relentless alongshore erosion process. Beach nourishment materials were dredged from the
small boat navigation channel extending along the western edge of the island in Middle Sound
as part of a maintenance dredging project for that badly shoaled channel area. The overall
project was considered to be highly successful in restoring small boat navigation safety in the
Middle Sound area. The beach fill project was completed using sand produced by this dredging.
1 The resultant 1992-93 renourishment project performed as projected for the next two years
despite normal erosion processes, and the overall project remained relatively intact until the
early Fall of 1996. The advent of Hurricanes Bertha and Fran resulted in the destruction of the
remaining protective beach and dune project to a degree that a severe emergency situation has
resulted. At present, the normal tidal wave runup has reached a point that it is threatening the
0 dwellings in the beachfront area. Though it is possible that sediment accretion could take place
over time, there is no evidence to date that this is occurring. It is important to point out that
without the prior renourishment project there is a high probability that some of these beachfront
dwellings and properties would have been lost or completely destroyed. The existing situation
now indicates that an emergency beach and dune reconstruction project be undertaken as soon
0 as possible to restore the recreational beach and to protect all upland properties from the
continuing erosion and/or future storm threats. Beach renourishment appears to be the only
realistic option available.
In addition to the beachfront problem described above, estuarine productivity levels may have
been impaired with reduced nutrient exchange taking place because of the shoaling/sedimentation
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 3
actions. It is feared that in association with the lower hydraulic functioning of the inlet and
connecting estuarine channels that water quality within the sound may have deteriorated.
However, no comparative data exists. It is felt that the actual water exchange capacity through
the inlet and small creeks will diminish if no action is taken.
1 Small boat navigation and boating safety has been seriously affected by sand washed or driven
into the inlet proper and small connecting channels and creeks by the storm surge from
Hurricane Fran. Mason Creek and associated tributary creeks are completely impassable during
low tide conditions.
1 It is felt that overall environmental impacts of the proposed dredging and renourishment work
would be typical and minimal. The physical disruption caused by the recent hurricanes to the
entire area from the beaches all the way back to the AIWW and beyond has been so massive
that the small scale and temporary burdens placed on these systems by the work proposed would
be comparatively short-lived and relatively minimal. The total system has been stressed by the
recent storms and may be expected to require several months and/or at least one cycle of
seasonal occurrences to begin to approach normal conditions. It is recognized that some
biological recovery would begin immediately, but we are beyond the end of the most productive
season and little significant recovery should be expected during the current winter season.
C Joint Effort to Find Solutions. Based on the above described problems, The Shell Island
HOA began to move toward implementation of the proposed inlet relocation project at the same
time that the Figure 8 Beach HOA interests were moving rapidly to initiate an emergency beach
rebuilding project. Based on an obvious mutual interest in the same area, the two homeowner
associations determined to join together to initiate projects that would accomplish both of their
' objectives. This joint effort is to be entirely privately funded with no burden to be placed on
local government or taxpayers.
V. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.
A. No-Build Alternative. By taking no action to halt the southward migration of Mason
Inlet, the Shell Island HOA could be faced with the catastrophic loss of their building and
property. In addition, up to 84 beach houses at Figure Eight Island are in imminent danger of
having their foundations undermined by beach erosion exacerbated by the last two hurricanes.
The loss of individual residences would be devastating to Shell Island and Figure Eight property
owners. Hotel business, restaurant business and convention/conference business would be
eliminated. There would also be a significant loss to the county property tax base of
approximately 92 million dollars as well as a loss of employment for many local residents.
Other losses include the costs already associated with the relocation of the public access way and
1 bath/changing facility to the south of the Shell Island Resort. Additionally, the opportunity to
restore a sizable beach area for uses that include fishing, swimming and waterfront activities by
the public would be lost. The potential for public use and enjoyment of the north end of
Wrightsville Beach is substantial. Figure Eight Island will also lose an opportunity to acquire
the volume of sand required for their emergency beach rebuilding project.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 4
1 The Home Owners Associations of the Shell Island Resort and Figure Eight Island have joined
forces to solve two major problems. This rare teamwork can result in a privately funded
solution to these dire situations. The No-Build alternative would end this fortunate cooperation.
B. Construction of an Inlet Diversion Barrier. Three proposals for use of inlet diversion
1 barriers have been considered and denied by the Coastal Resources Commission. The proposed
inlet diversion barriers consisted of interlocking steel sheet piles and later a sandbag system.
Each proposal included constructing the barriers between the migrating inlet and the Shell Island
Resort. Located along the northern property line, the barriers were to extend from the seaward
edge of vegetation (pre-Bertha and Fran) westward to the rear property boundary or to where
1 the landward anchor of the barrier would not be "flanked" by the erosion process. The steel
sheet pile barrier was proposed as permanent structure while the sandbag systems were to be
temporary to allow time for planning and consideration of the applicants preferred alternative
(F)•
1 This alternative does not address the Figure 8 HOA beach rebuilding needs.
C. Construction of a_ Jetty on the South Side of the Inlet. A substantial jetty could be
utilized on the south shoulder of the inlet throat. This hardened structure would be looked upon
unfavorably as the above option because it violates current CRC regulation.
1
There is also the possibility that the inlet at some future date could migrate northward leaving
the jetty high and dry and an obstacle to the public enjoying the beach resource.
This option also does not address the Figure 8 HOA beach rebuilding needs.
D. Construction of a Radial Groin Field. Functioning as channel diversion structures, an
array of groins could extend from high ground into the south side of the inlet. The groins would
be constructed of rock, heavy stone, stone fill cribs, steel sheet piles or heavy duty timbers.
This grouping of structures would divert the erosive forces of the inlet channel outward. The
created cells would trap and hold sand which would help curtail the erosion process as well.
This option would also be contrary to CRC policy and would fail to address the Figure 8 HOA
beach rebuilding needs.
Soft structures (longard tubes and oversized sand bags) have also been considered to serve as
1 groins. However, water depths of 8' or more and the steep slope of the southern channel
shoulder make this method impractical.
E. Closure of Mason Inlet. The actual closure of Mason Inlet would eliminate the erosional
threat at the Shell Island Resort. Inlet closure would be accomplished by a major effort to
1 mechanically fill across the entire inlet throat thereby stopping the flood and ebb tidal flows.
A hydraulic pipeline dredge and bulldozers would be employed for the closure work. Sand from
Mason Creek near its junction with the AIW W and from shoal areas near the inlet would be
used for this filling activity.
1
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
5
0
Environmental impacts caused by natural closure of the inlet could be significant. Hydraulic
flushing of the tidal marsh areas behind both Shell Island and the southern end of Figure Eight
Island would be impaired and effects on ultimate water quality would be expected. A major
hydraulic study would be needed to determine if it was possible to permanently cut off the
natural tendency for water to flow over the entire area. The new consolidated beachfront would
likely be vulnerable to the reopening of an inlet as the result of major storm events.
Closure of the inlet with resultant vegetative colonization could ultimately encourage private
development of the newly consolidated barrier island. If closure was accomplished long term,
no inlet hazard AEC would exist - therefore lifting restrictions associated with the classification.
1
This alternative could supply some of the material for the Figure 8 HOA beach rebuilding needs.
F. Applicant's Preferred Alternative-Relocation of Mason Inlet and Associated
EmeMcncy Rebuilding Project.
/
Inlet Relocation. A project will be initiated to relocate the inlet approximately 3,500 feet
north of its present location.
To accomplish this, a new 300-foot wide by 9-foot deep channel would be excavated,
/ extending the Mason Creek alignment straight across the sand spit peninsula that has extended
southward from the southern end of Figure Eight Island. This new channel is dimensioned
to insure equal or greater hydraulic capacity than the existing inlet gorge in its present
location to the south. The new channel will extend into the ocean out to a contour of -6'
MLW depth. The maximum distance waterward from the existing shoreline will be 400'.
Obviously, to be functional and effective, when the "new" inlet is opened, the existing inlet
area must be choked off or "plugged" in a fashion that will direct all tidal flows through the
newly created inlet gorge. The construction requirements to accomplish the foregoing are
not simple, but they are entirely feasible.
/ Mason Creek (which is shoaled almost completely closed) will be dredged in order to gain
borrow materials and enhance the hydraulic flow characteristics throughout the
AIWW/Middle Sound estuarine area. It should be noted here that within the past few years,
not only Mason Creek but almost all of the connecting tidal creeks in the estuary have
shoaled badly, adversely affecting overall water circulation, navigation, recreational use, and
other normal functioning properties of the estuary. Badly shoaled areas behind the proposed
new inlet channel will be dredged and provide a hydraulic "stilling basin" to slow channelized
flow velocities through the area to reduce erosive forces. This basin area will also become
a sediment or sand trap for materials to be used in future renourishment projects.
1 As material is excavated from locations described above ( and shown on the attached drawing
Figure 1), portions of it will be temporarily stockpiled at the south end of the sand spit, and
on high ground near the north end of the Shell Island Resort properties and North Lumina
Avenue. If additional storage area is required, additional sand will be stored on a portion of
the wide natural beach in front of the resort property. All of the proposed relocated inlet
/ dredging will be completed except for a remaining plug of insitu sand left in the seaward end
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
6

1 of the new proposed inlet channel for later removal. When the above described work is
completed and overall weather conditions are considered to be optimum, the temporarily
stockpiled sand materials will be pushed into the existing (old) inlet gorge during low tide
conditions to stop all flows through the inlet so that all tidal functioning will be forced
through the new inlet gorge.
1
It is planned that this inlet closure operation will be facilitated by using temporary barriers
to resist the strong current flows and erosion processes through the inlet gorge during the
closure operation. These temporary retention/current resisting structures will be constructed
of large-diameter geotechnical bags. Their purpose will be to help retain the sand fill
1 materials that will become the "plug" for inlet closure. When nominal closure of the inlet
has been accomplished, the fill section will be further built up and widened until it
approximates the dimensions shown on the permit application sketches.
Closure will be accomplished by utilizing a rapid mechanical sand moving effort. Sufficient
1 equipment will be employed to bridge the inlet span in as little time as possible. Loss of sand
during the closure process will effect the total volume available for beach renourishment on
the Figure Eight beachfront. Therefore, every effort will be made to close the inlet quickly.
At the same time that the "closure" operation begins, the ocean end plug of the new inlet
1 channel across the sand spit will be excavated and tidal flows will be initiated through this
new channel. When this is completed, the dredge discharge pipes will be relocated to the old
inlet fill area to further supplement materials used to effect the closure and to expedite same.
This old inlet "plug" will be constructed to be substantial enough to withstand tidal flows
(until they are redirected) and/or normal sea wave actions that might reach the seaward toe
/ of the fill during the closure operation. This old inlet sand barrier will be constructed to a
minimum elevation of 10 feet MLW and extend entirely across the old inlet area from its
southernmost end (Shell Island bluff area) northward to a point to intersect an approximate
7-foot elevation on the sand spit area. A sufficiently wide area adjacent to both sides of the
new channel will be left at an elevation of between plus 1.0 and 2.0 feet to accommodate
high tide flows across what will become the entire new inlet gorge. The barrier will be
0 constructed to have a 300' wide flat surface with a very slight 30:1 slope to mean high water
on each side.
It is expected that this newly dredged channel will quickly begin to widen and "shallow-up"
through natural processes until it reaches an equilibrium state approximating the dimension
/ of the old inlet gorge. The existing old ebb tide delta at the seaward end of the present inlet
will slowly be forced southward by natural littoral drift forces until it "welds" itself to the
existing Shell Island beach area.
All channel and shoal excavation proposed in the project will be accomplished by hydraulic
1 pipeline dredge. It is anticipated that all work on high ground will be accomplished by
bulldozers and/or front end bucket loaders. The total estimated quantity of material to be
excavated is approximately 1,300,000 cubic yards. About 390,000 cubic yards of this will
be required to construct the plug for the old inlet gorge. All surplus materials excavated
during the dredging process will be transported to the Figure Eight Island South beach area
1
En vironmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOAy Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOAy Inc. 7
1 for use in the beach rebuilding project. All of the proposed project components are clearly
depicted on the sketches and drawings appended to this Environmental Assessment.
Due to the inexact known cubic yardage of material required to close the existing inlet, and,
therefore, an inexact remainder of material available for beach renourishment, it is proposed
1 that the southern "wing" of the sediment/surge basin be left unexcavated until after inlet
closure. This will allow an assessment of the amount of material actually utilized during the
closure process. At that point, the remaining cubic yardage needed to complete the beach
nourishment will determine whether the entire southern "wing" of the sediment/surge basin
can be excavated.
1
The new inlet position will be located within a 1,000' wide easement through land which is
above mean high water belonging to the Hutaff family. This easement across the spit on the
southern end of Figure Eight Island will be an area designated for inlet relocation and gorge
maintenance to preserve the hydraulic flows and depths desired for coastal marsh flushing and
1 recreational navigation as well as to serve as a source for required beach sand. Materials
removed from the gorge and sediment/surge basin during maintenance will be utilized for
future beach renourishment as required by either Figure Eight Island or Wrightsville Beach.
During gorge maintenance, materials will be dredged from a cross section approximating the
initial 300' wide cut in a position within the easement opposite the direction of inlet
migration. No filling or structures are proposed along either side of the relocated inlet.
Proposed Emeigency Beach ReNufOng Project A majority of the materials excavated
during dredging of Mason Creek, the new proposed channel, and badly shoaled areas in the
sound will be used as beach reconstruction material for the South Beach of Figure Eight
/ Island.
The previously described 1992-93 project placed approximately 350,000 cubic yards of beach-
suitable sand on the southernmost 9,300 feet of Figure Eight Island Beach. The bulk of the
sand was placed against the primary dune erosion scarp to an elevation of approximately 9.5
feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), extending seaward for a distance of about 150
feet to an approximate 8.5 foot MLLW elevation. The seaward toe of this material
placement was approximately 0.0 elevation (MLLW). This fill was then allowed to assume
a natural angle of repose that would result from normal tidal actions.
The proposed beach restoration project will enlarge to a degree the scope of the 1993 project.
1 The beach fill project will extend from its southern terminus northward for a distance of
approximately 14,000 feet to meet the southern extent of the recently completed beach
renourishment project on the north end of Figure Eight Island (Figure 4). Depending on the
remaining available material, some overlapping of the southern end of the recently
renourished area may occur. This area received approximately 25 cubic yards of sand per
1 linear foot recently and supplemental sand not to exceed a combined total of 50 cubic yards
per linear foot may be added if available. The main renourishment project area will also not
exceed 50 cubic yards per linear foot. It should be mentioned that the project will use the
surveyed base line established for the earlier project and shown on Figures 2 and 3. This
baseline provides a permanent horizontal measurement reference for the beach work.
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
8
1 A detailed post-Fran study and field survey of the entire project area was made to determine
the extent and volume of severe shoaling in the estuary and to find beach-compatible material
to be used for the beach nourishment project (Figure 1). The Middle Sound and Mason
Creek areas to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) were evaluated. All of these
areas were found to contain beach-suitable materials in that they had been extensively agitated
1 and sorted during the movement and transport of both beach and bottom materials resulting
from the extreme surge and ebb tide flows produced by the hurricanes (Appendix 2). The
resultant improved inlet flow characteristics described above should also aid in sustaining
water quality throughout the Middle Sound area. Additionally, small boat navigation within
the entire new inlet and sound areas could be improved and made safer for recreational
1 boaters and fishermen.
VI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use.
1
Upland/Beach Development The project as proposed will not change the existing land use
patterns or type on either side of Mason Inlet. To the north Figure Eight Island will remain
a private development with single family lots which are 90% built upon. To the south Shell
Island Resort which is the closest building will maintain its current land use. The resort will
1 be the northern most building on Wrightsville Beach and the project will expand the
dwindling public beach and protect the public parking lot, water lines, and roadway. The
project will greatly expand the public's use of the intertidal beach by extending the walkable
beach/dune system by approximately 58 acres. County officials hope this action will expand
the beach access beyond the parking lot. Since the town of Wrightsville Beach and CAMA
/ Regulations restrict development within inlet hazard zones, this privately funded project will
not use public funds which would encourage growth and development in a known hazard
area.
RecnadonaMadgadonal Uses. As a result of the planned project, there will be much safer
navigation from the AIWW through Mason Creek to the inlet gorge area and adjoining tidal
creeks. The project as proposed will not preclude an existing use of the many and varied
public resources. It should help to maintain and will not adversely impact productivity in the
various adjoining sand and mud flat resources thus encouraging greater public benefit and
use. Commercial and sport fishing activities around and behind Mason Inlet will benefit
through maintenance of existing land and water use patterns. Navigational use will be
/ enhanced but safety issues with changes in water depths need to be acknowledged.
B. Estuarine Resources.
Nekton. The free-swimming species that inhabit Mason Creek and surrounding small tidal
creeks within Middle Sound are both migratory and permanent residents. Post-larval and
juvenile fishes and invertebrates utilize the extensive coastal marsh behind the barrier islands
for protection and feeding during life cycle development. The marsh areas beyond the run
of Mason Creek, Mason Inlet and associated shoals are classified as Primary Nursery Areas
(PNA) by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. PNAs serve as areas where early
post-larval growth takes place for many oceanic fishes and crustaceans. PNAs are usually
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 9
1 shallow intertidal and subtidal areas characterized by very fine textured bottom sediments
with higher organic contents.
Some of the more common fish that are known to inhabit the Mason Inlet and Mason Creek
area are Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), White
1 mullet (Mugil curema), Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), Summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus), Southern flounder (Paralychthys lethostigma), Atlantic croaker (Micropogon
undulatus), Smooth dogfish (Mustelus cans), Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia),
Sheephead (Cyprinodon variegatus), Black sea bass (Centropristis striata), Bluefish
(Pomatomus saltah*, Tarpon (Megallops atlanticus), Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), Florida
1 pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), Northern puffer (Sphoeroides maculatus) and Red drum
(Sciaenops ocellata). Crustaceans include Blue crab, Calico crab, Stone crab, and Shrimps.
Benthos. The bottom-dwelling community's composition, abundance and diversity is
dependent upon several factors. Sediment type, tidal dynamics, salinity and water quality
1 components including nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen all help determine the make up
of the benthic population between Mason Inlet and the AIWW.
Benthic organisms are more abundant within the small tidal creeks and coastal marsh areas
away from the more rapid tidal currents of Mason Inlet, Mason Creek and the maintained
channel behind Figure Eight Island. Shifting sand shoals within these areas present a largely
prohibitive environment for most bottom-dwellers.
Common benthic organisms of the area around Mason Creek include Hermit crab, Littorina,
Fiddler crab, Polychaete worms, Amphipods, Isopods, Barnacles, and Bivavle mollusks.
1 Pmposed Changes. The dredging of Mason Inlet, Mason Creek and the shoaled areas of the
maintained channel behind Figure Eight Island will involve the removal of sand which has
accumulated over time and dramatically reduced hydraulic flows between the ocean and the
estuary. Most of the sand to be removed is within a higher energy environment which is
1 relatively low in biomass and diversity. Within the more moderate energy environment of
Mason Creek, biomass is also relatively low due to suffocation of bivalve mollusks and
continuing deposition of sand. This condition was also documented by Marine Fisheries staff
during the last three years and is reflected in the enclosed shellfish survey (Appendix 3).
The removal of sediments from the planned dredging areas will substantially increase the area
/ of coastal marsh flushed by Mason Inlet. The many small tidal creeks which connect to
Mason Creek and the Figure Eight Channel will receive optimal ocean water exchange via
Mason Creek approximating or exceeding the conditions which existed in 1980.
Impacts. Most free-swimming and mobile benthic organisms can easily avoid the actions of
the operating hydraulic dredge. Sessile benthic organisms within the planned dredging areas
will be directly impacted by the work. However, biomass here is relatively low due to the
accumulating and shifting sands. Negative impacts to estuarine resources from the proposed
dredging activity are considered to be minimal. Overall, long-term impacts on the estuarine
resources of Middle Sound are considered to be positive.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
She11 Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 10
1 C. Wetlands.
Salt Marshes. The project as proposed will open up the Mason Creek alignment thereby
excavating about 2.0 acres of cordgrass - Spartina alterniflora habitat. This impact to the
coastal marsh occurs within the 200' wide planned channel corridor (Figure 1). The width
1 of Mason Creek between the marsh edges varies greatly. The impacts to coastal marsh along
the creek represent areas where the smooth cordgrass extends within the planned channel
corridor. The corridor does not impact coastal marsh on the north side of Mason Creek
which is classified as Outstanding Resource Waters. With the continued sediment
accumulation, it is quite possible the once prevalent low tidal marsh along Mason Creek will
/ be replaced gradually with irregularly flooded marsh which has diminished tidal amplitudes,
lower salinities and less direct detrital importance. Since the degree of tidal inundation
influences the distribution of marsh flora and fauna it is quite possible the existing saltmarsh
zonation patterns and organism communities would gradually change with less salinities if the
dredging project were not initiated. It is common knowledge that even with one species such
/ as Smooth cordgrass, the higher the substrate elevation gets, the less flushing and nutrient
exchange occurs and the plants produce less bio-mass (Adams, 1963). In general, as the
distance from Mason Creek increases, cordgrass height decreases and primary estuarine
system productivity decreases (Odum, 1971).
1 The mouths of about nine braided tidal creeks covering about six square miles adjoining
Mason Creek will be directly affected by what does or does not occur in Mason Creek and
its inlet saltwater source. It is very common that Juncus roemerianus (Black needlerush)
takes over in the less frequently inundated zones of creeks similar to Mason Creek when tidal
amplitudes are reduced. This coarse monotypic rhizomatous plant takes over many raised
1 sand flats and accumulated mud bottoms choking out more diverse high salinity systems.
Spartina patens (Saltmarsh hay), Distichlis spicata (Saltgrass) and Cladium jamaicense
(Sawgrass) take over even higher elevations and provide less direct nutrient/habitat benefits
to the once more productive intertidal wetlands. These high marsh zones can be found at the
upper ends of the Mason Creek's sloughs at the back side of the AIWW dredge spoil islands.
1 SA Vs. There is no indication that submerged aquatic vegetation exists within Mason Creek's
drainage area. Zostera marina (Eelgrass), Halodule unghtii (Shoalgrass), and Ruppia
maritirm (Widgen grass), the three predominant species appear to occur only north of the
Pender County line and are not found in the project area.
1 Proposed Changes. In order to clear the accumulated sand from the run of Mason Creek
between the rear spit area to the AIWW, a 200' wide area will be dredged to follow the
alignment of the existing creek. It is estimated that a small area of coastal marsh will be
impacted here totalling approximately 2.0 acres. Most of the affected area of Spartina
alternipora is located roughly 3,000' from the rear of the spit into Mason Creek. Here, there
1 is an extension of marsh on the south side that constricts the creek width to about 90'. The
remainder of the marsh area that would be impacted within Mason Creek consists of sporadic
individual alterniflora volunteers which have appeared on the accumulated sand. It is evident
from aerial photography that all of the affected Spartina alterniflora stands have volunteered
within the last decade as the channel area became shallower.
1
En vironmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
11
0
1 It is important to maintain a constant channel width for the Mason Creek dredging segment
to avoid restrictions in water flow and avoid erosion of any protruding marsh banks. Any
bottleneck between marsh stands would be subject to the increased erosive effects of the
water volumes associated with a fully functional inlet. Completely avoiding impacts to the
marsh edge here during dredging could ultimately lead to the loss of the same marsh edge
1 through erosion. Mitigation for this area is warranted.
In order to mitigate for the impacts to coastal marsh area, the applicants propose to transplant
or plant Smooth cordgrass into suitable intertidal flats nearby as approved by the Division of
Coastal Management. This work will be performed prior to the dredging of the Mason Creek
1 segment. The planting work will help repair damage to the coastal marsh from the recent
hurricanes. The storms recently damaged or buried approximately ten acres of productive
marsh between the Shell Island Resort and Mason Creek in July and September, 1996. It is
anticipated that this planted wetland area would survive with low mortality due to the
increased hydraulic exchange and sustained salinities brought by this project.
1
Impacts. Considering the proposed planting of Smooth cordgrass prior to creek dredging,
the potential for repairing storm damaged marsh and the increased tidal flushing for the
nearby wetlands; adverse impacts are considered to be insignificant.
1 D. Prime or Uniaue Agricultural Lands. No agricultural land exists within the boundaries
of the project area.
E. Public Lands. The project as proposed will not diminish the existing "public rights" to
use and enjoy the affected public resources. Through the use of the "Public Trust Doctrine" all
1 citizens of North Carolina starting back with Magna Carta through the present State Property
Sovereignty Rules preserve all rights of use of these resources below the mean high water
(MHW) mark. This modern day line denoting the average of the tidal waters amplitudes during
a tidal epoch matches the ebb flow of the tides to an elevation benchmark which is very dynamic
around Mason Inlet.
1 Looking at old aerial photos, the MHW contours have migrated approximately 6,500 LF to the
south since 1945. Essentially the public lands have shifted as the ribbon of sand goes through
a series of posturing and adjustments based on the various wave climates, flushing hydraulics,
and sediment load through time. The net acreage of the public resource appears to remain about
the same. The public resource type(s) may change over time at any given coordinate spot such
1 as from an inlet gorge changing to a sand bar to a dune to an overwash fan to a salt marsh and
vice versa. This project should improve public bottom conditions by enhancing flushing causing
better primary productivity in public marshes and shellfish areas and allowing for greater public
access to these estuarine and ocean front public trust areas.
1 Proposed changes. The project as proposed will take 1,300,000 cubic yards of medium to
fine intertidal to subtidal sand out of the recently coagulated Mason Creek and pump it onto
the eroding beach on Figure Eight Island (Figure 1). The prograded nature of this
nourishment activity will add wider beaches, more bare shoal and denuded inlet bar acreage
to the area. Approximately 58 acres will be added to the north end of Wrightsville Beach
1 and it will be accessible to the public again.
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
12
0
Impacts. Since Mason Inlet has been repeatedly migrating within a 6,500' zone the last 50
years, the relocation activity will have little negative impact on loss of public lands.
F. Scenic and Recreational Areas. Mason Creek, Middle Sound, Mason Inlet, the Atlantic
Ocean, and the north end of Wrightsville Beach all offer excellent scenic and recreational
1 opportunities for the public. Popular recreational activities near the project site include fishing,
swimming, walking, shell collecting, surfing, sailing, skiing, crabbing, sunbathing, bird
watching, shellfishing, and boating. Scenic opportunities include ocean and marsh vistas which
are spectacular. Public accesses to the beachfront have always been utilized and greatly
appreciated by visitors to Wrightsville Beach. Beach access at this location has been very
0 important to this urbanized section of the state.
The extreme situation created by the recent migration of Mason Inlet has hindered the public's
ability to enjoy this resource. At present, it is impossible to walk from the beachfront around
to the north end of the island because of emergency dozing of sand and the steep escarpment
formed from the inlet's erosion. This dozing of sand is a temporary response to the inlet's
threat to the Shell Island Resort. The public accessway which has been enjoyed by visitors for
years has been destroyed by this erosive process. The amount of beach itself has been reduced
by 3,500' since 1980.
Navigation through Mason Creek from the AIWW to the Figure Eight Channel is now only
barely possible at times of high tide in small boats. This also reduces the enjoyment of the
waters by fishermen and shell fishermen as well as other people appreciating the resources of
the Middle Sound area by boat.
Proposed Changes. The proposed project will restore approximately 3,500' of accessible
ocean front to the north end of Wrightsville Beach. Recreational opportunities at the north
end of Wrightsville Beach will be expanded for the public's enjoyment.
Navigation through Mason Inlet will be appreciated by area boaters. Access to the Atlantic
Ocean by most boat owners in the Middle Sound area will be much more direct and less
costly than having to utilize Masonboro Inlet or Rich's Inlet. A reopened Mason Creek will
allow boaters to once again to fully utilize the areas of these waters which are now hazardous
to navigate or entirely cut off at low ride.
Relocation of the inlet northward will benefit the scenic enjoyment of the public as well.
0 Visitors would likely appreciate the view of a restored north end more than the view of debris
along the shoreline. The project will also enhance tourism which is the primary business
along the coastline.
Impacts. The proposed project will improve the scenic and recreational opportunities for the
public in this region.
G. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value. Through coordination with the State
Historical Preservation Office, the presence of two known shipwrecks within the Mason Inlet
area has been reviewed. A copy of a letter from the SHPO Office relating to the proposed
project and theses wrecks is enclosed (Appendix 6). SHPO recommends that no underwater
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 13
/ archaeological investigation be conducted. SHPO also requests that their underwater
archaeology staff be provided with detailed plans concerning the current inlet closure as
available. Staff will in turn attempt to pinpoint the present location and nature of the nearest
wreck to help engineers avoid shipwreck site damage. SHPO also recommends caution during
excavation of the new inlet and filling of the old inlet and requests that if submerged materials
/ are discovered, to stop work in that area and notify staff to assess the site for determining the
proper course of action.
Proposed Changes. Project work will proceed as planned with recommended caution as
requested. If the wreck sites of concern are located by the underwater archaeological unit,
1 further coordination to avoid site impacts will be conducted.
Impwcts. No proposed impacts are to be made to archaeological or historical sites.
H. Air Qgalfty. The Wilmington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
1 Environment, Health and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the air quality in this region.
It has been determined that the ambient air quality for New Hanover County is in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Proposed Cbanges. The proposed project will not create a significant adverse effect on the
1 current air quality of the county. Any air quality impacts from the operation of construction
equipment will be short-term and minor. Elevation of airborne pollutants should be
insignificant and represent the level of a small on-going construction site inland.
InWcls. Considered to be insignificant.
1 I Water Resources. The waters of Middle Sound in the vicinity of Mason Creek are
classified SA ORW by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The SA class of waters
is suitable for shellfishing for human consumption and any other usage specified by SB and SC
classifications. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are those which are unique and special
1 waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require
special protection to maintain existing uses. The area on the north side of Mason Creek is
classified as ORW. Salinities within the Mason Creek area range from 27 ppt to 35 ppt
depending on such factors as tidal amplitude, freshwater inflow rates from mainland creeks,
direct precipitation amounts and wind speed and direction.
1 Recent observations during calm conditions indicate a greatly reduced area within Middle Sound
which is actively flushed by Mason Inlet. During falling tide conditions, directions of flow were
noted which showed water moving away from Mason Inlet to the AIWW within Mason Creek
as close as 2,400' from the rear of the spit (Figure 6). This water flowing into the AIWW then
joined ebb flows from Page's Creek and Howe Creek moving southward to Masonboro Wet.
1 Similarly, falling tide waters were noted flowing away from Mason Inlet 7,500' northward of
Mason Creek within the maintained creek on the backside of Figure Eight Island. Beyond
7,500' from Mason Creek, water flowed to the AIWW where it also began movement toward
Masonboro Inlet. It was noted that from a point just south of the Figure Eight Island bridge,
water within the AIWW broke to flow south towards Masonboro Inlet and north toward Rich's
1 Inlet. From these and other field observations, it appears that only approximately 710 acres of
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
14

/ coastal marsh are flushed currently by Mason Inlet. A more exact acreage could be obtained
through a more in-depth examination of flows within the small tidal creeks of the marsh.
At low tide, the western half of Mason Creek goes dry. Only scattered trapped puddles of
water are observed. Accumulated sand effectively cuts off any water flow through this area in
1 the periods around low tide. The eastern half of Mason Creek maintains about a foot of water
at low tide within a narrow run of about 85' width. The majority of this water is flowing from
the small tidal creeks which intercept Mason Creek from the south. Water depths from the
outflow of Mason Creek south toward the current inlet throat range from 5 to 7 feet with a
pronounced shoaling in the immediate vicinity of the throat resulting in depths here of about two
1 feet. Within the inlet throat, water depths are reportedly 6 to 8 feet at low tide. Tidal
amplitudes within the immediate throat of Mason Inlet are comparable to those of Masonboro
Inlet located some 4.3 miles to the SSW. The average tidal amplitude at Masonboro Inlet is
3.8' (NOAA, 1995).
Proposed Changes. The relocation of Mason Inlet and clearing of accumulated sand within
Mason Creek will allow the "watershed" area flushed by the inlet to expand dramatically.
Tidal creek and marsh areas within Middle Sound will receive optimal levels of water
exchange which would closely approximate historic conditions. Howe Creek and, to a lesser
degree, Page's Creek should witness a degree of improved water exchange due to the
expanded area serviced by the local inlet. Currently, both of these creeks are largely flushed
by waters from much more distant inlets. The following table illustrates the inlet proximities
by water from the creeks:
Hoov Creek Mouth
1 To Masonboro Inlet 5.33 miles
To Rich's Inlet 5.52 miles
To Reworked Mason Inlet 0.96 miles
Page's Creek Mouth
To Masonboro Inlet 7.13 miles
To Rich's Inlet 3.72 miles
To Reworked Mason Inlet 2.28 miles
The rate of water exchange from a nearby ocean source will likely increase within the Middle
Sound marshes and small tidal creeks. Upland stormwater runoff pollutants and nutrients
would be expected to flush from the intertidal reaches of Howe and Page's Creek and be
diluted at a somewhat increased rate.
Improved hydrologic flushing has been demonstrated to potentially improve water quality
parameters locally. In April, 1995, dredging was performed to clear an accumulated sand
bar from the south channel of Futch Creek 4.2 miles north of Mason Creek. The sand bar
had formed over time from heavy waterway traffic. The dredging increased flushing within
the creek by removing the sand obstruction. Decreased fecal coliform bacteria levels were
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 15
recorded throughout the creek and subsequent dredging of the north creek channel took place
in April and May, 1996. Sampling analysis initially indicated that the lower portion of Futch
Creek was safe for shellfishing and it was opened by the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation
Branch following the dredging of 1996 (Mallin, et. al., 1996). It is important to note that
this is not conclusive in proving that the dredging project decreased fecal coliform bacteria.
Longer term data would certainly be beneficial. However, this study is noteworthy.
Salinities would be expected to rise slightly due to improved hydrologic flows in these
estuarine areas not presently reached by Mason Inlet waters.
Actual water quality impacts during the proposed inlet relocation and beach rebuilding project
should be minimal. The accumulated material to be cleared from Mason Creek as well as
the proposed stilling basin and new inlet throat is composed of medium to fine sand with
essentially no silt or organic sediment. Therefore, suspended particles will settle out of the
water column rapidly within the actual excavation areas and material deposition areas along
the beachfront.
JhWc/s. The water resources of the Middle Sound area could benefit from the proposed
project. Improved flushing may enhance water quality properties including dissolved oxygen
levels. The ability of the system to dissipate pollutants should be enhanced by the increased
hydrologic exchange. It is anticipated the proposed project will not adversely impact water
resources.
L. Groundwater Quality. The dredging depth of the project will be a constant -9' mlw
depth from the AIWW to the ocean. This is less than the AIWW -12' (mlw) depth and is
similar to the existing Mason Inlet gorge depth and it should not slice through an aquatard or
interject saline waters into shallow coastal aquifers. The dredge spoil slurries along the beach
front will have some unpleasant sulfurous smells but the salinities of the effluent will be slightly
less than that of the adjacent ocean water and will not intrude into the islands fresh water lens.
Pmpnsed Changes. None proposed.
AWR,C s. No impacts anticipated nor contravention of ground water quality.
K. Introduction of Toxic Substances. Due to the very dynamic nature of Mason inlet and
its residential adjacent land uses, it is very doubtful the bottom sediments have accumulated any
toxic or hazardous substances as regulated by CERCLA (1980) or RCRA (1976). There has
been no known spillage, storage, treatment or disposal of regulated toxic substances within the
dredging corridor. It is very unlikely a composite TCLP bottom sample for heavy metals would
exceed the EPA standards any more than adjacent background.
Pmpawd Changes. No toxic substances will be introduced or released as a result of this
project.
hgWcts. None anticipated.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 16
1 L. Noise Levels. The proposed project will involve operating a hydraulic dredge and earth
moving equipment over an approximate 12 week period. Most of the activity will be located
near properties owned by the respective applicants and some distance from the remaining public.
Depending on wind, surf and weather, noise levels should not significantly exceed ambient
conditions.
1
Proposed Changes. There are possible temporary elevations in noise levels locally resulting
from the proposed project.
Impacts. Considered to be insignificant.
1
M. Water Supply. The Town of Wrightsville Beach is serviced by a central public water
system which is supplied by a series of nine deep wells into the Pee Dee aquifer. The water
is aerated and chlorinated and is handled by the Public Works Department. Figure Eight Island
obtains its water from a privately operated central water system with six deep wells (+220') into
1 the Pee Dee aquifer. It is operated by the homeowners association.
Proposed Changes. This common dredging with beach nourishment activity is similar to
others and there are no proposed changes to adjacent water supply systems.
1 Impacts. No negative impacts are anticipated. Since Wrightsville Beach has an S" line
junction to a 12" water main right at the former public bath house site within a few feet of
the erosion escarpment, the town is very supportive of protecting its property with this permit
action.
1 N. Shellfish. Fish and Their Habitats.
Mason Greek and l?TMe Sound. As discussed above, the waters of Middle Sound near the
project site are classified as SA and SA ORW. These waters are open to shellfishing for
human consumption.
1 The current heavy shoaling and sedimentation within the run of Mason Creek and nearby
small tidal creeks has smothered a significant portion of the shellfish beds that have been
present within past years. According to State Marine Fisheries staff, current shellfish
populations are minimal. A recent shellfish survey has confirmed the low population levels
within the Mason Creek project area (Appendix 3). Clams will have been impacted by the
1 shoaling and sedimentation more so than any oyster populations which would likely be located
further into the small tidal creeks outside the run of Mason Creek. Indeed, local watermen
still utilize the small creeks at low tide by foot to harvest oysters by hand.
The proposed dredging project will be confined to the main run of Mason Creek avoiding the
1 small tidal creeks which hold current oyster populations. The clearing of Mason Creek will
remove the accumulated sand and encourage clam population regeneration along the adjoining
intertidal flats because of reduced future sand loading. The planned sediment/surge basin to
be excavated as part of the project will serve to trap sand before it can be transported into
Mason Creek. A much more stable intertidal and subtidal substrate will be available for
/ future clam populations.
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
17

1 The availability of the shellfish resource for public use has historically been highly valued.
Closure of shellfish areas due to poor water quality conditions has occurred within numerous
tidal creeks and coastal marsh areas in the region and is associated with rapid human
population growth along our waterways (Mallin, et. al., 1996). It has been demonstrated that
improved water circulation within tidal areas could improve overall water quality parameters
1 and as a result could potentially re-open shellfishing areas that were once closed for public
health considerations (Mallin et. el., 1996). The clearing of sand from Mason Creek and the
re-establishment of higher tidal flow conditions from Mason Inlet could have a positive
impact upon the maintenance of future water quality of Middle Sound and help assure the
availability of shellfish resources for the public.
1
Existing reduced flows of ocean water from Mason Inlet into the Middle Sound coastal marsh
as a result of extensive shoaling limits the area reached by eggs and larvae produced by
offshore spawning fish such as spot and croaker. Juvenile fish sampling has shown that the
numbers and diversity of young fish are greater within the marsh closer to Mason Inlet than
1 the AIWW within this area. (Burk, 1989). This correlates well with the observed reduced
tidal watershed of Mason Inlet mentioned earlier. It is logical to assume that the larger
coastal marsh area to be hydraulically serviced by Mason Inlet as proposed will increase the
ultimate numbers and diversity of juvenile fish within Middle Sound. This increase in
juvenile fish has positive recruitment ramifications for the subsequent adult populations as
1 well as for other fish species which prey upon these juveniles and adults inshore and offshore.
With increased function of nursery areas, benefits will be realized by public and commercial
fishermen as well.
Oceanfront Along the approximately 14,000 feet of proposed emergency beach rebuilding
1 site, sand dredged from Mason Creek, the sediment/surge basin area, and the relocated inlet
site will be deposited as shown on the enclosed cross sections (Figures 2 and 3). The
purpose of the beach rebuilding is to provide protection for the homes along the southern end
of Figure Eight Island. In this area, Hurricane Fran eroded the beach to the point that homes
are now threatened by even moderate storms such as "Northeasters".
1 Beach-suitable sand material will be transported to the deposition area by hydraulic pipeline
dredging. A fill confinement dike will be constructed to 10' msl to retain materials during
dewatering and to minimize siltation into the surf zones. After beach fill is completed at each
segment, natural wave action over several tide cycles will cause the material to repose at
slopes ranging from 15 to 20:1 above the intertidal zone and 20 to 30:1 within the intertidal
1 zone.
It is possible that fish within the surf zones can be impacted by heavy, sudden increased
sediment in the water which could interfere with respiration. However, the effects of
increased turbidity on fishes are inconclusive at this point (Hackney et. al., 1996). It is
1 apparent that more standardized and quantifiable research within the field need take place to
fully understand these surf zone impacts. Renourishment projects to date have been permitted
utilizing the methods of materials handling currently proposed. At this point, there are
several means of minimizing possible adverse impacts. Utilizing beach-suitable sand of
similar grainsize to the existing beach prevents altering substrate radically (Appendix 2).
1 This use of sediments with a grain size similar to the renourished beach limits potential
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
18

1 adverse impacts (Hackney, et. al., 1996). Utilizing fill confinement dikes formed by sand
excavated upslope of the dike serves to allow dewatering and minimizes suspended sediments
entering the surf zone. It is planned that these means will be utilized during this proposed
project. Performing renourishment projects during seasonal periods of reduced biological
activity whenever possible also minimizes effects on larval organisms (Hackney et. al., 1996).
1
Pmposed Ganges. Proposed changes within Mason Creek and Middle Sound include the
short-term dredging operation and long-term conditions. Dredging within the run of Mason
Creek from the AIWW to its mouth will remove the extensive accumulation of sand now
impeding hydrologic flows. It is NC Marine Fisheries opinion that only a remnant amount
1 of clams now inhabit the project area and will be impacted by the work. This has been
confirmed by an actual survey (Appendix 3). No oysters were observed within the survey
plots but a few may exist which could also be impacted.
Long-term changes within Mason Creek and Middle Sound include the substantial increase
1 in tidal flushing provided by Mason Inlet. This increase in the influx of nearby ocean water
will expand the areas of the Middle Sound marshes reached by fish eggs, larvae and juveniles
produced offshore which will serve as productive Primary Nursery. These developing fish
will utilize the functional nursery habitat for protection from predators and for feeding. Since
the habitat will be more accessible to young fish, an increase in productivity in this nursery
1 is expected (Burk, 1989).
Following the project, a much more stable environment will exist for shellfish bed
development. Sediment loading within Mason Creek will be greatly reduced which will help
prevent shellfish burial and suffocation.
1 Changes on the oceanfront along the beach rebuilding area would include some degree of
short-term elevation in turbidity within the near-beach water. The effect on fishes here is not
totally understood as mentioned. Beach renourishment projects have not had known,
quantifiable impacts on surf zone fishes to date in this region.
1 After the rebuilding project is completed, the beachfront conditions within the surf zone
would quickly resume a pre-construction mode (Reilly and Bellis, 1978). Beach
renourishment projects are common in our region as the preferred method of beach
stabilization and it is apparent that surf zone fishes and invertebrates recover quite well
especially if similar sediment grainsize is utilized.
1
fmpwcty. Short-term dredging impacts within Mason Creek will be limited to the remnant
shellfish population and are considered insignificant. Direct dredging impacts to fish within
Mason Creek are also considered to be insignificant in light of their mobility, larger
predatory fish species will migrate into the deeper channels.
1
Overall, long-term impacts of the proposed project will be positive for fish populations as
well as shellfish habitat and shellfish quality within the Mason Creek and Middle Sound area.
Along the oceanfront, short-term turbidity of a limited nature (possibly replicating conditions
1 during storms) would have insignificant impacts upon fish.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 19
1
Q Ecology and Wildlife of Ocean/Inlet Zone.
Inlet Zone Ecology. It is safe to say Mason Inlet is not stationary in its natural condition.
It is one of two inlets that migrated nearly three miles from the early 1700s from the middle
section of Figure Eight to the Holiday Inn and has taken on many other names such as
"Broad", "Barren", "Moores", "Wrightsville" and "Queens" Inlets. There are many marsh
islands behind Figure Eight and Shell Island beaches which document that an inlet gorge has
migrated through the area before (Cleary, 1979). According to Brooks, 1988, Mason Inlet
is the third generation of inlets to migrate through the current area. The ebb tidal delta of
Mason Inlet consists of five major components which you can examine on the attached aerials
and morphological features maps. These zones consist of bare migrating sandy substrates.
1. Major ebb channel which you can see as the dominant channel on the attached photos;
2. Channel margin linear bars which illustrates its past migratory positions;
I The terminal lobe is the farthest ocean-ward distance of the ebb flow accumulation;
4. Marginal flood channels; and,
5. Swash bars.
These features are maintained by a balance of three hydrodynamic forces which include wave
action, flood currents, and ebb currents with the ebb flow being the dominant force in Mason
Inlet. The channel margin linear bars are built by the interaction of ebb currents and waves;
swash bars are the result of wave action coming from the northeast direction. The terminal
lobe and ebb channel are maintained by ebb currents coming from the eastern end of Mason
Creek, and the Figure Eight Channel. The marginal flood channels are a result of flood
currents which reflect off ever-changing sand spits and overwash fans caused by Hurricane
Fran.
Like most inlets, Mason Inlet interrupts normal littoral transport of sediment from Figure
Eight Island's long shore current to Shell Island beach areas. Prior to two years ago, it
appears Mason Inlet's off shore bars stored enough sand to allow predominant wind directions
to transport it across the inlet gorge by a process called "sand-bypassing". This is not simply
a matter of sand moving directly from longshore currents to the terminal lobes and bars and
then to the other side. Rather, it involves a re-working of the sediments influenced by tidal
currents over the entire area.
When studying migrating trends at Mason Inlet, several variables are involved as the sand
/ moves across the inlet; the most important to Shell Island is the supply of sediment. It
appears this supply has not been constant and the down drift shoreline has not been stable as
a result. Another factor involved in the by-passing of sediment transport is constancy of
wave action. The changes in wave patterns this past year with storm flooding has
dramatically changed this equilibrium of Mason Inlet. In addition, the increase in flow from
1 the deepening of the Figure Eight small boat channel is now greater than Mason Creek and
it appears to accelerate the rush of ebb tidal waters in a southerly direction (Figure 6).
Dune Foam dons: Because of the hurricanes last year, the dune field of Figure Eight has
been greatly eroded. It appears that between 40'-80' of frontal dune protection has been
1 removed from its previous location. Most of the beach structures along the front row of lots
En vironmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 20
1 are now nearly on the beach with spring high tidal waters washing near the foundations of
the 84 threatened structures.
The new proposed gorge at Mason Inlet has some young dune formations which are small
and irregular. Many have been flattened or overwashed and their present vegetative condition
1 is in the primary colonization phase with Sea rocket (Caldle harped), Sea shore elder (Iva
imbricata), Sea penny wort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), and American beachgrass (Ammophila
breviligulata) being the principal species. The dunes at the project site have shifted their
positions very frequently and old remnants of Sea oats (Uniola paniculata), Yucca (Yucca
filamentosa), Bitter panicum (Panicum amarum) and Saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens)
1 can be seen scattered about with their roots scoured out due to both wind and water erosion.
As you can visualize from the on-the-ground photos (attached) there are no stable primary
or frontal dunes in this zone. The vegetation that will be dredged is quite new and could be
relocated and transplanted by front-end loader behind new dunes to the north to help stabilize
1 new beach berm areas in the renounshment area once the project is complete. In this way
more stem and seed sources could be scattered around between existing small dune
hummocks.
At present there is a lack of sand for rapid duneland habitat formation within the Mason Inlet
1 sand spits and overwash fans and along the eroding beach of Figure Eight Island. Most of
the previous dune sand is out in the Mason Creek channel. At present the instability and
lack of nutrients and lack of soil moisture of the foreshore sand deposit washed by daily tides
make colonization by new plant life practically impossible. Tidal litter (detritus line) left
behind at the high water mark in strandlines, provides the niche for initiation of dune plant
growth such as Sea elder and Sea rocket. Aeolian transport of sand grains by wind energy
1 demands a physical barrier which must be present to reduce its threshold velocity. Often
rhizome fragments from the species noted above float along the trash line and help to re-
establish the new dune growth. This ruggedness is desirable for three threatened and
endangered species, namely, Piping plover, Seabeach amaranth and Loggerhead turtles. It
limits other animals greatly and only Ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrats) were found during a
1 recent field survey.
Ocean Beach Ecology. The ecology of the beach front with its exposed bars and spits which
will be affected by the dredge and fill project is made up of both sandy subtidal and intertidal
bottoms. These areas at Mason Inlet have been highly eroded and disturbed in recent
1 months. Organic matter in the sediment is generally less than in protected sandflats and
relative species diversity and abundance is also lower than backwater areas (Hackney, et. el.,
1996). The bottom substrates are composed of medium to fine sand with little organic
matter. The dominant animals likely to be found in these areas of low organic matter and
shifting substrates include (CaUianess sp.) hemichordates such as (Balanoglossis sp.), augers
1 (Terebra dislocate), moon snails (Polinices sp.); (Chaetopteris sp.), and clams (Mercenaria
sp.). These open beach zones represent one of the lowest diversity environments for
macrofauna.
Site-specific benthic studies in other inlet gorges indicate a variety of polychaete worms,
crustacean and bi-valve mollusks. The intertidal macrofa.una along the beaches are
.Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 21
/ composed of a number of invertebrate species such as mole crabs (Emerita talpoida) and
coquina clams (Donax spp.). Various species of polychaete worms, ghost crabs and
amphipods inhabit the beach berm deposition areas. According to Hackney, et. al. (1996),
mole crabs and coquinas represent the largest component of the total macrofaunal bio-mass
in North Carolina intertidal beaches. These species are then consumed by many shore birds
1 and important recreational fish species such as flounders, pompanos, mullets, and kingfish.
Several oceanic fish species utilize the surf zone as a juvenile nursery during development.
These include Florida pompano, Gulf kingfish, and White mullet. Offshore spawning
produces young which migrate into the surf zone for protection and feeding. In general,
these species inhabit the surf zone at a slightly differing time schedule between April and
1 October.
Most benthic fauna on open sandy beaches are infaunal,or burrowing forms including
meiofauna and macrofauna. Meiofauna are slightly smaller than sand grains on an open
beach and they reach their highest diversity in the beach environment (Levinton, 1982). The
i larger macrofaunal community in the swash zone is characterized by low density and
abundance due to very dynamic, ever changing wave climate conditions.
Shorebirds are most abundant during spring and fall when they are passing between more
southern wintering grounds and breeding sites farther north. At low tide, they feed on the
1 benthic fauna which is exposed on sand flats and spits and at high tide, they rest on the
exposed bars in and around the Mason Inlet tidal deltas. According to Parnell, 1988, Short-
billed Dowitchers, Yellowlegs, Dunlin and Black-bellied plovers are most abundant but
several other species are also present such as Killdeer, Sandpipers and Black skimmers.
Gulls and terns are present all year at Mason Inlet and along Figure Eight beach zones but
1 the species composition changes dramatically from summer to winter. In summer, Laughing
Gulls share dominance with several species of terns while in winter Herring and Ring-billed
gulls are most abundant (Parnell, 1988).
Eadan eMred S ies. As can be seen on the attached New Hanover County Chart
(Appendix 4), there are three threatened or endangered species in New Hanover County
1 which may be positively or negatively impacted by the proposed project. The Piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) is presently "threatened" and Mason Inlet is somewhat out
of its normal wintering range. According to Fussell (1990), there was one bird spotted
at Mason Inlet but it was during a cold winter period and may not be representative of
normal conditions. His conclusions on this area of sand habitat are included in Appendix
1 7. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) also has the threatened status and it has
been known to colonize (Fussell, 1996) around the spring high rack line on the supra
intertidal zone just north of the proposed inlet gorge. The third species is the Loggerhead
turtle (Caretta caretta) and it has widely utilized the Figure Eight Island upper beach front
for its seasonal nesting events. (Baker, 1996).
1. Log erg head turtle: Off the Carolina coast these turtles commonly occur at the
edge of the continental shelf when they forage around coral reefs, artificial reefs, and
boat wrecks. They feed on benthic invertebrates including mollusks, crustaceans and
sponges (Mortiman, 1982). They have also been found to eat fish, clams, oysters,
sponges, jellyfish, shrimp and crab when near shore.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 22
1 Research has shown that the turtle populations have greatly declined the last 20 years
due to loss of nesting habitat along the beachfront and by incidental drowning in
shrimp trawl nets. Dredging activities in the warmer months of the year could impact
the sub adults but this has not been well documented. It appears that the combination
of poorly placed nests coupled with unrestrained human use of beach by auto and foot
/ traffic has impacted this species greatly. Eroding steep beach escarpments, lights,
sand fences, and other physical barriers (debris) often cause the mature females to
select poor nesting sites at the dune toes which causes higher mortality rates.
1
2. Pi_ ning nlo?ver: Fussell (see Appendix 7).
3. Seabeach amaranth: Fussell (see Appendix 7).
Proiect Impacts.
1 1. Entrainment lmpacts. Most of the direct impacts to the estuarine nekton
invertebrates and benthic organisms will be by dredging and disposal operations.
Most free-swimming animals will get out of the way of the cutterhead but early
juvenile stages and larvae estuarine dependent species pose a particular concern
because of their limited powers of mobility. This physical limitation makes them
1 potentially more susceptible to entrainment by an operating dredge. Since there are
very high mortality rates caused by entrainment of these young organisms, it is
preferable that dredging operations be done at those rimes of least biological activity
when possible.
1 Most studies indicate that the primary organisms subject to entrainment by hydraulic
dredges during winter months are bottom-oriented fish larvae recruited to the area and
sessile shellfishes. According to various COE studies, the significance of
environmental impact is low. Reasons for the low levels of impact include (1) the
small volumes of water pumped by the dredge relative to the total amount of water
in the vicinity, thereby impacting a small fraction of the organisms; (2) the extremely
1 large numbers of larvae produced. by most estuarine-dependent species; and, (3) there
is normally an extremely high natural mortality rate for these entrained species.
According to Cushing (1988) entrainment by a dredge in times of low biological
activity poses little risk to these organism's populations. This hypothesis is reinforced
by an Army Corps study at Masonboro Inlet (COE, 1995) which estimated that the
1 amount of water intercepted by an operating dredge is less than two-tenths of one
percent of normal inlet flow.
2 Beach Fill Impacts: According to Hackney, et. al. (1996), the three taxa that best
represent the extent of beach fill impacts by loss or gain of their populations are as
1 follows:
Supralittoral: Ghost crabs (Ocypode);
Intertidal Stash Zone: Mole crabs (Emerita) and Coquina clams (Donax); and,
Subtidal. Benthic Zone (Polychaetes).
1
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 23
1 It is known that Coquina clams and Mole crab populations are impacted by beach fill
activities between May and September. Fine sediments and turbidity have also been
identified as killing Mole crabs and Coquina clams. They require moderate to flat
beach profiles for population recruitment. The use of a temporary berm along the
beach to temporarily retain dredge spoil and to sort spoil particle sizes can help to
1 avoid turbidity problems. The project is designed to thinly erode and flatten beach
profiles at the terminal end of the dredge pipe which lesson impacts on these macro
and melio-invertebrates affected by thick spoil. The thinning of the spoil should occur
during three to four weeks by normal tidal action to a 20 to 30:1 profile slope.
1 Compaction of deposited nourishment sediments by construction equipment could
present a physical barrier to burrowing and digging organisms along the beachfront.
Compaction testing can be performed along the length of the work area to determine
whether this has taken place to the degree that it may impact these animals. If it is
determined that it has, tractor tilling of the upper sediment layer to help alleviate this
1 condition would be performed.
3. Endangered species impacts: As discussed, one positive benefit of this project will
be to add approximately 1,300,000 cubic yards of beach suitable sand to the beach
surf zone thereby broadening it oceanward about 150' - 200' after about three weeks
1 of tidal cycles. The littoral drift will gain significant amounts of sand to enhance the
intertidal and supratidal unvegetated sand bars and shoals which serve as critical
habitat areas for both the Piping plover and Seabeach amaranth noted above. As
another positive benefit the beach restoration activity will have is to help flatten the
beach profile and eliminate the vertical erosion escarpment along the dune toe which
1 should help loggerhead turtle nest survivals. The Figure 8 Beach Homeowners
Association, Inc. has a dedicated turtle watch program which monitors all discovered
nests and assists young turtles back out to the sea. Any temporary escarpments
formed within the newly deposited beach sediments will be graded flat in coordination
with the turtle watch program. Nighttime lighting by construction equipment will be
used only for safety reasons so as to minimize the confusing effect on young turtle
1 hatchlings.
The new inlet will quickly assume a more natural profile through a shallowing-up
process and associated surface broadening. It is expected that the eventual inlet width
at high tide would approximate the old inlet width of 5-600'. The resulting swap of
1 inlet locations will net approximately the same low spit area which is important to the
Piping plover and Seabeach amaranth. Both species prefer low profile, exposed
settings with little dune development.
The enlarged spits and berms from the additional sand above the spring high tide
1 elevation should assist in accumulation of detrital material in the trash line and cause
primary colonization plants to gain a foothold. Conditions for Sea rocket, Seaside
elder and Seabeach amaranth should be at its peak in a few months to one year after
completion of the project. In studies conducted by the Army Corps at Masonboro
Inlet, the Seabeach amaranth population expanded ten-fold right after completion of
1 the inlet dredging project (COE, 1995).
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
24
0
P. Entrophication of Receiving Waters. The proposed project will not elevate the levels
of nutrients in the waters of Middle Sound or the Atlantic Ocean.
The resulting increased water exchange from Mason Inlet through Middle Sound would be
expected to have a positive effect on the dissipation of nutrient concentrations from mainland
1 sources and associated reinforcement of dissolved oxygen levels.
Proposed Changes. No elevation of nutrients will result from the proposed project.
Somewhat enhanced dilution of nutrients entering the Middle Sound areas from mainland
creeks is expected.
Impocls. Considered to be positive.
Q Cumulative Impgcts. The major cumulative impact of this project is that in order to
maintain the inlet gorge within a defined zone, it will require periodic dredging and beach
nourishment activities. Historically, other inlet/nourishment projects have required regular
maintenance. As an example, the "Rich Inlet Dredging/Nourishment Project" which recently
occurred at the north end of Figure Eight Island was permitted to a depth of -9 mlw and has had
similar spoil grain sizes pumped to the beach. It has been pumped less frequently due to the
present stability of Rich Inlet but its impacts are similar. If this project is permitted there will
be a joining up of the two beach nourishment activities which will stretch the entire length of
the island.
It is hoped that repeated renourishment will not be necessary but in most cases in order to keep
pace with the inherent erosion rate, a maintenance cycle of three to five years is anticipated.
One comparative beach renourishment study (Leonard, et. al., 1990) indicated that 88% of the
existing beach renourishment projects required renourishment within five years. Repeated
renourishment of upper beach and intertidal areas can cause direct cumulative impacts such as
sand compaction, sediment instability, more rapid littoral drift and shoaling patterns. It also will
cause periodic alteration of high beach and surf zone habitats. These areas have always been
characterized by having higher energy and lower primary productivity (Steele, 1968). It is also
known that surf zone habitats which are physically altered revert to pre-nourishment conditions
within one to five years (Pilkey, 1992).
The proposed inlet relocation project places the gorge in a location where it has stayed the
longest period of time which is presumed to be shaped based on inherent ebb tidal flow patterns.
The barren sandy spit and shoals south of the new inlet will be repeatedly replenished with
littoral drift sand on a periodic basis possibly causing some temporary indirect fisheries impacts
but helping to maintain bare habitat for two endangered species namely Piping plover and
Seabeach amaranth. Without renourishment, this spit, inlet shoal and overwash zone could be
heavily vegetated within three years with volunteer dune plants. Eventually, these important
bare sand habitats would be lost on either side of the gorge for an indefinite time until the next
major overwash event.
More importantly, if this project is permitted, it will cause direct cumulative positive impacts.
As was discussed earlier in this report, a six square mile estuarine resource area should be
improved by encouraging greater tidal flushing which, in turn, enhances primary productivity.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 25
/ It has been documented in both the Masonboro Inlet dredging project (COE, 1989) and the
Futch Creek study (Mallin, 1996) that healthy shellfish beds and primary nursery areas require
unobstructed exchange of clean brackish water. There is a strong inverse relationship between
coliform bacteria counts and salinity (Gotal, 1978). With the current condition of severe sand
coagulation in Mason Creek, this dredging event will result in positive direct hydraulic flushing
1 impacts outweighing the more temporary unquantifiable negative impacts. Since man is a higher
trophic user of these improved more navigable estuarine/ocean resources there will be indirect
positive benefits for commercial and sport fishermen.
Finally, this project greatly lessens the threat of imminent danger by erosion processes
1 undermining building foundations. By enhancing foundation integrity, this "soft" erosion control
project is consistent with the Commission's policy and rules which discourage less desirable
"hard" protection measures and indirectly helps to preserve the public beach for future
generations.
/ R. Mitigative Measures. An area of approximately 2.0 acres of Spartina alterniflora coastal
marsh will be impacted by the dredging of the run of Mason Creek. This impact is necessary
to produce beach renourishment material, fully restore the hydrologic flows once present and
to realize the full potential of benefits to nutrient exchange and productivity within the sound.
Navigation through the reopened creek will be enhanced by providing safe boating depths for
1 most craft at low tide conditions and sufficient two-way traffic width. The clogged creek and
proposed sediment/surge basin area will also serve as crucial sand material sources for the
emergency beach rebuilding effort. The sediment/surge basin capacity will be made adequate
to perform the designed function so as to effectively prevent sedimentation within Mason Creek.
The planned 200' width of the Mason Creek Channel will function to provide needed sand
volume for beach nourishment work. The other mentioned benefits will be maximized by
maintaining this width throughout the run of the creek. Any narrower areas along this run will
bottleneck hydrologic exchange and serve to limit related positive impacts.
The applicants propose to plant Spartina alterniBora (Cordgrass) within storm-damaged marsh
1 and overwash areas nearby as approved by DCM. Planting will be performed prior to Mason
Creek dredging to assure mitigation compliance as agreed. The dredge cut will stay waterward
of the angle of repose of non-impacted marsh areas to avoid undermining impacts.
In order to minimize possible impacts to the surf zone fish population near the beach rebuilding
1 area on Figure Eight Island, the applicants will utilize beach-suitable sand of similar grain size
to the existing beach to avoid substrate dissimilarity. The applicants will also utilize fill
confinement dikes which will allow piped sand to dewater and settle out within a temporary
retaining area. This will minimize potential sedimentation and turbidity effects to the adjacent
surf zone as much as possible. Any sediment areas determined to have been compacted to the
1 point of detriment to burrowing and digging organisms will be tractor tilled to loosen the upper
layer. The applicants will also flatten any escarpments that may form on the new beach material
through coordination with the local turtle watch program. The applicants propose to begin their
inlet relocation and emergency beach rebuilding project immediately upon approval due to the
emergency nature of the erosion threats. Consideration of this emergency status is sought with
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 26
1 regard to allowing the project to take place within the moratorium period, if necessary,
immediately following the date of approval.
VII. FINDINGS. The proposed emergency relocation of Mason Inlet and Beach Rebuilding
Project are not expected to negatively affect the quality of the estuarine and near shore ocean
1 environment significantly. Some of the project's environmental attributes include restoring hurricane
damaged coastal marshes by replanting marsh grass in overwash areas; improvements to tidal
flushing with associated positive impacts to dilution of upland nutrient loads and support of greater
marsh productivity levels; enhancing long-term benefits to shellfish, fish and their juvenile nursery
areas; improvement of public access, navigation, and recreational opportunities; and, maintenance
1 of necessary bare beach, flat sloped habitat for three threatened/endangered species noted above.
Therefore, given the emergency nature of the project, mitigation measures offered by the applicants
at private expense and the resulting lack of significant negative impacts which would accrue, the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted.
1 VIII. POINT OF CONTACT. Any comments or questions regarding this Environmental
Assessment should be sent to William Raney, 107-B North 2nd Street, Wilmington, North Carolina
28401.
Telephone [phone]
1 Fax [phone]
IIX SOURCES OF INFORMATION.
Century/von Oesen-Consulting Engineers. 1995. Mason Inlet Migration/Shell Island Erosion
1 Problem. For Shell Island Resort Homeowners Association.
North Carolina Administrative Code. Title 15A DEHNR, Chapter 7, Coastal Management.
1
1
1
NCDWQ, DEHNR, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape
Fear River Basin.
North Carolina Marine Fisheries, DEHNR, Wilmington Office, Personal Communications.
US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Endangered and Threatened
Species Information, by reference.
Wetland Training Institute. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation, 1987, Corps of Engineers Manual.
USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Administrative Code. Title 15A, EHNR-Departmental Rules Subchapter 1C.
Compliance with North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District Office, Personal
1 Communications.
Environmental Assessment DRAFT
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc. 27
L
1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Beaufort Office, Personal
Communications.
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington District Office and Morehead Office, Personal
Communications.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division, Environmental
Assessment Channel Realignment Maintenance Dredging. Masonboro Inlet. October 1995.
New Hanover County Planning Department, Personal Communications and County Land Use Plan.
Wrightsville Beach Planning Department, Personal Communications, and Land Use Plan.
Figure Eight Homeowners Association, Inc., Art Poineau Administrator, Figure Eight Island, North
Carolina.
Figure Eight Island, "Turtle Watch Program", Charlie Baker Coordinator at UNC-Wilmington.'
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
DRAFT
28
0
1
I ROBERT P. ANDREWS, JR.
CAROLINA BALDWN
BRUCE CAMERON
4 MARSHALL M. MILTON, III
ANNETTE G. ERNER
1 GRADY M. PROCTOR
BRUCE CAMERON
OUVER C. HUTAFF
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
INLET RELOCATION AND FILL AREA
DEED BOOK 1364, PAGE 717
DEED BOOK 1356, PAGE 1405
DEED BOOK 1805, PAGE 574 0
DEED BOOK 1150, PACE 780
DEED BOOK 460, PAGE 526
DEED BOOK 1356, PACE 1408
DEED BOOK 622, PACE 147

SPOT tMAND
uat is
AL '
?14
T
CRASS &
-8
AREA OF COASTAL MARSH AL
I imp
GIN T X?
ACT 2.0 ACR S P
AL
?4t ?B- 1
MAS S CREEK DREDGING
4200 X 200' X TO EL. 9' = 320,0 Q CY B
A,
ol?u vi"
SEDIMENT/SURGE JASIN'BREDGING?
TO EL. 9 60,000 CY
4.4
4 4.0 .4
y;11 X01 ? 5A 1A '^ 4.1.6
R 36 6
allASS i'
x
Q%V *4 11 S3 4 *4p\\\
GRASS
44.6
15 1'
ae 101-...__.__..._.__._..._
pl A4 j
-5 -
-tot
200'
MASON CREEK.
SECTION A
NOT TO SCALE
TEMPORARY MATERIALS HOLDING AREA 2800'
15
10E -
r , 5
0_
.•'Ee -5?
1 1416 -10- 1
r
i Q
1 ++2++
+
V M: lL?71°
AREA TO BE FILLED
of
SCALE
15
01
-
?
5 -._... ...__
.......____ .
I

i -
------- --- ------
1
!E._._...
._.....,....
.___ ._.__..__4_.__L.

300'
FIGURE B ISLAND--NEW IET T
SECTION B
NOT TO SCALE
TEMPORARY MATERIALS HOLDING AREA
1
U
I
-u
A
200 1L
^
I` BANKS CHANNEL SECTION E
.? `Aa1 SCALE 1'-400' HORIZ
98-101 AL SECTION D 1'-40' VERT.
NOT TO SCALE
x1.9 .?' 2
?: f, -14 iy 11722iz'27"26x6x"OSEDIMENT/SURGE BASIN DREDGING BANKS CHANNEL Iv1AINTENANCIgW
18 K';x , e6x26x2 xy 220 TO EL, -9' = 170,000 CY DREDGING TO EL, -9`t10
Cy ;
k x 21 q2x 2A 2s AL 4400 X 200' 130,01 30 l ,o
19 =0
air's 5? ? ?Y? x L GHT G9 .i0 -
' -2 =.
4400 =7a , x v-11
" 24 x La a is
`y; F 2 1. oOr xy, i. + f?'28 x26"1r •3 _2.2 ? ',(-.J -gg
21.9'1.7"1.6 6
x .9 '?,?ii•9,
y
to a 0 X, iof 8-1096,. x-1. X `, 6 4 s 2 I *o.e ®B-11 4 I? s6
x?{{ a xxDa)? • ? /,?iCh,?`id. ? ®B-1 2 27 a 6t t r u x
s6 s7 41
°, B ?0 a.' X xi i`2' 6 st 33
z:0(OA '? ,? •2 ?. , -1.2 R 61 Clt 3 '?!
.0 3 , .h s9 ' , f,J6',6J; 2 0.2 23
Ily
Ak. `h O= 2100 - •2 " I ?eFl E e I AREA TO BE DREDGED
x -4.3 x Q1 " a7
'PPE
b 4b? ,r "x 44 ,2 " 3 x&5 " &0 i? ®AREA TO BE FILLED
e
7 x 4.6
+ ? 1 M 4.8 A 2.42
ISLAND 7 5.0 " 6' a6 x 3'7
1P " 2.A x & 3.7 x 7.9
a? s o> as a 7 " at " 7.4
? b ','"• i4 TEMPORARY MATERIAL HOLDING AREA
s y K:
1T541llEBEACHwxxr ?'^ 3+ + + + ++?+M1 :?7 x ::a.;- 4 y? x7.3
70a'g1 bb q:''"`,,6•,., .,A!,7:,.d :.}: sr..i...;,. " m x25.8.2 2 x9.4 a ',0Y
b
X. X(-? x 7.3
7.2 M ®
NOTE: DREDGED MATERIAL IN EXCESS TO F1L11NG REQUIREMENTS
20 -o c // //?' f /; / "ati/ -+ / x ?'?, L•q y e jl ?j 2 x e s x 6.e " &2 4 TO CLOSE OLD INLET CHANNEL TO BE PIPELINE TRANSPORTED
P,? 3 I q TO REFURBISH FIGURE 8 ISLAND 50UTH BEACH. (SEE FlG 4)
"% ,?EL +TtlA?IK X+ °i 7%/,%; [f /i%y' / .9 2 9.5 x 9.6
/ ?'. ??, /?/// r. ,/ ;?• ,'/ ?. ?.//,':/ y ?' y xa6 UM 8,WK 23, "r9 •?
a6e, X &O •.. .'Fr6.1'..'.:',,;).;5•.'`x' ''" s •6 x 7.9 r
{{. +v 27x
x )a'?. s ' 61fMPARY MATERI'I,,?, 74 x 6,, 9 x 9.3 FIGURE B/SHELL ISLAND COOPERATIVE
x 7.3 x 2 176 17 172 1 166 156 164
•?j' + O ?J ?.6.T, tr ^ ;•K",I'.:?'?.t:',°..?N(e,!'INri,. ti. l',i T 6.7 x 6.6 &
, y
:1n
-' ' .r. ., . .
,
„s
x28 x5 x6
? MASON INLET RELOCATION
x
x6.1, 7.4
t
r '
,.6 5
.. ?pr 27 RELOCATED
1?Ew MHW IN SITE PLAN
E x 29 x-ao112 ®B-107 8-104 x * ` 1470' X 300' X TO EL. -9' MLW
) 18 '
'ORARY MATERIALS I' MASON INLET INLET CLOSURE k 11 220,000 CY CENTURY/van Oesen.
HOLDING AREA " 11 [ CONSULTING ENGINEERS do PLANNERS
FILL REQ D 390,000 CY ATLANTIC OCEAN SCALE 1 =600 605 NORTH IWO STREET, WLMINGTON, N.C, 26402
PHONE [phone] FAIL [phone]
INLET RELOCATION AND FILL AREA PLAN DATE SURVEYED OCTOBER k NOVIDBER 1996 DATE 1/15/97 JOB 4 4576 FIGURE 2 OF 4
SCALE 1 "x800
25
EmEmw
EMERGENCY BEACH REBUILDING CROSS SECTIONS

1
1
1
1
1
.5

I-A 7 8
FILL CONFINE
MENT DIKE MATE
RIAL REQUIRED
0. FOR BUILDING DIKES SHALL B EXCAVATED

` FROM THE S AWARD SIDE OF THE PROPOSED
DIKE LINE
f .................. ............ _.. .............. .................. ........................... ......................... .......
1. 4 1 SUGGESTED ' AX. SLOPE

1

BEACH FIL

?
''"
4
SEAWARD TO
OF BERM
-'? ,?•' i':° ?, LOCATE tOFI DIKE
® APPROXIM ATE ELEV. 0

M
1/1 ro
kh 00
9j
?
I V?

I d
cV
I co

I
0
If
if
U+UU
WALKWAY
SCALE; 1"=40' HORIZONT
15' „VARIES v VARIES
BEACH 1FILL CROSS
+2.0 MHW
0.0 MSL
-1.9 MLLW
/INDICATES GROUND/
BOTTOM ELEVATION
3+00= INDICATES DIST. FROM
SECTION BASELINE 0+00
150'±
0
1
5
1
APPROXIMATE
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST. BLDG 0
1 FOUNDATION
II
Ir
APPROXIMA IE
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST. BLDG
FOUNDATION
+9.5 - -
- - - .51 1
:?,? f ,t j l,• •.r,3.V. iti il?.,t , f 4'11,.•,k `
:x•S'A^?.I
'1i ,, its"'r!•a ?:j4f?'?{r??t?i
' 1 wJ
Ir.. 4.1 .?:.?) Y,f Y7. ly,
• t}•.'r•rr 55/?.
.tr1 :•`•A"•
• "'`RN
/
' 15 TO 20
rt

}•} .S;
y

,
i4•"ti??1 +i?{ ll`? i' , ,.?.

.y? ire
M,}}
r
?;'?i.l%?"'' t'jr' hti
tl
°

{ a
y,
?t'>'i yAi'.
y
!P. Mit
'ii.

• +
7 .? P .a M, yi??
k „
?
? {'
"
'I'
? i
F i+ ,
,
p.??.I:k<V
?;Y.J. ,1.!' >•
5
3
F?
f
bw..? , (
.._......... .
q
?
i1rl,
•
. K•.rh.,J. .?,. . 1,.,.t .
ny r 7rLzr ,1• t;`Ci .!. Q •
rS : to . r.?,
')
• • ..__
9-!ji.yf. .......... .................. .................... .--._-------------- ........_. .........._........ .............._..._.._....__

?'
'
?i
?
.K4yapt. :x'•.t?"v I.
1. rf.t •
? ??•L
? t. tr
• ,?;t":11.1;.• L:'t,., v
%!i •iw,'ii?
t???:?:i
f
(
•
*'
,
]
1'?' y
r.%'•i?SJ
y? Hyl?rlSF ?.?
/r {.. I.. M •) .?
y.
? ?
y
??? li,1T
'
'l
{f'y' 1
lr
tll.
Yf
f ?•il
'
1
: ..

1.?•t
?
'
M
,•• ,(
,
r?/ f 419,(•{ If•{(
;. .`l ',frlJ, 1. •444 Y.
` h
,
.
?
I
I
{
t
1
,(r• 1'S•??I ,,.1(?{ t•rl Mi •x'/{
?'1,'x M?,.; .i •'ll 1?, 1••rN
:
? Mr I
r'1
•? .
??/::jt
,.
, ??rt
.ry.;;,,a<.?>?, f;,r?; !1
?;j:}
';,?;:?•. r t,a r Gr .
I 'fi rr(1 ., ; ?;. L 4; s• 20 TO 30

M tp N 00 `r It) 00
N d' p 0 i cV M)
+2.0 MHW
0.0 MSL
-1.9 MLLW
ANTICIPATED CHAuNGE AFTER 2SEVERAL TIDE0
CYCLES
SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZONTAL & 1"=4' VERTICAL
1+UO
'S SOUTH
& 1„=4' VERTICAL
100'
FIGURE 8/SHELL ISLAND COOPERATIVE
EMERGENCY MASON INLET RELOCATION
BEACH FILL CROSS SECTION 0 #5 SOUTH WALKWAY
CENTURY/von Desen
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS"
W "1M 1tM STRMT, iALMOTOK KC 26402
NOW-- [phone] FAX [phone]
DATE 1/15/97 doe # 4576 FIGURE 3 OF 4
1 30
IW 1/ARIGC VAO1rC 4An,
1
1
1
1
1
1
10'
1
1
APPROXIMATE
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST. BLDG
1 FOUNDATION 0
1
10
i
i
APPROXIMATE
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST, BLDG
FOUNDATION 0

r
EMERGENCY BEACH REBUILDING CROSS SECTIONS
16'
VARIES
100'
__------- ..____._._T._._. _____._._..._
I

V
{
r
,. sni . •.,
, ; •?. V, •1• lr t
?
• /, r
'
4"
+ y• :4.o.Yirf.:f
?ir4Y•rS,,,h,':?:' ? ('r'Jr
't'i.:f ^?'
?
?'
f'y;7,'. :;.1,.
't. r•7.y y??•" ytlr?i ''Ir7M
• tt? 11/
S
11
8.5
, ? 1 r+ra'¢,
'+ j': i.t
}r
u,
•

' t
r
1
Y7Y %
?,;?1;?
:°' ' 1
J?r.ii
S
';•
;'k4 ?t hr'% , 17
? r• 'r '
;?' • ; +b
:
?
+ r
Vt'
?
.i t
?. 'S.rT {'..J'+1 ?.
,?:?'i'•.• r
' ''? '".•"'?`.
'
?
?
° 4
N.
.?'???n,', rl< ?
°'' '" '??'`/s?''x'
•f•.. y}'t ,?. ?
?' ,
,?1•?
'?
•r ?f. .rsrr
r .,??a,r •,'.tr••y1.,.,
'•% ?t" ???' '? .l

?.
' FIL
CONFINEMENT D
IKE MATERIAL RE
UIRED
"'?u•i! ?a
?r".f.:
^
i ?
,'?
^5.r?
s1:9:twn'},r'
•{
' ,
.•:nSrv+,Lf h? Y,Yt
?71
?''"
+` r>:1 ^,..+ r.,Ar?.
'
'
"
R
,•
n
!
? ,i ^ • ' ?
! 1
t r
+.
:,??
'r j
r •?, •f'
d
r h
t
;
?X
< ,? ,
?
? .? ?
,1,
'
' FO
t I BUILDING DIKES SHALL BE EXCA VATED
y% .
• , .
?
fJ S t hp 7
lti
• ,.:? . s ? r;r+
.
C• Yr
'
' 1 t.. •w
r I
If,'1 •? L,K '?
} '• > y y b: J
r '1 Y
i
tl r
.
:,
t
1. i ..+: ?n1. 1:
t,? r ..', 1 , • r
. 1 1
•) ?
,
i
y
IY1} V t
MiJ''•,•,-
c% 4'. ;st r
,4
a r
i+•
•
Y
?' t FRO M THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THE PR OPOSED

I .
, w
,
. U,1; +••?'r.1 "y AI
_..•.,y4??r•, t.

,V
C. I My •1 r yu'
?*4 '6
•?;t'"?+'i:' t;;
r
1a1 .;. 1. t •,!".

'J`A.'%:,';i;yw?p % ?'''
{ r
7
r
•
I?' ,•..
-f . ,°sv??
.,? Z:'•,r;;:':,,::_,+

i"

d ...... _...... _._.DIK
._

INE
._

._ .............:.............
;t:H• :?Z •5 ?.,•?S,lw?,?!?y?l( ?tf
, ni;'' '• •? ,f ?;,? •?'?,I j t ; •`, • Y t

r t,' 1+,?1' ;i?
' 1 •a??{y'S ?
+'
I?I'
ff*.; tr' y1''
• SU
?} GESTED MAX. SL PE
'
•
• r
,
;
'
.t 5•.
'.'.r{ t:• ' T r:7
ti
( !'fl ?.?;(ri
N'N• =1'Y ls,
. r
.
,
M +2.0 MHW

BEACH F
I
LL

;+• i?Ly
Y
•
1'a '? :

;,.a; ?:;.s,? ,•?? :+?
.
:
.
t?
;
;ar
;?
r y` ?
SE
W
ARD TOE OF BE

RM
.
, s
a
4,
;
2
i
,
,h
tr: , LO
S ATE (L OF DIKE
:?s? }4 r?'
®A PPROXIMATE ELE V. 0 0.0 MSL

-1.9 MLLW

d
rG r
•t N
cV t,
O
O 'O
I N
M O
M 11
?'
WALKWAY
1Q' II A nI r•
I+uu
2 SOUTH
k 1,=4' VERTICAL
nI
Ir
/INDICATES GROgND/
BOTTOM ELEVATION
4+)0---INDICATES DIST. FROM
BASELINE 0+00
vnlsl ?..: IV V 1JV : L
_.._..... ....................... _.. ..... _..... ..... _....... _..............
+9.5 .............. _............ _....... _..
? ?_.........__._... __ __.._..._..._._. _ _......... _._. .........

r
'•
T''?i+f't?
t
•
d _
•f?•
'• I
?a?
.
v.
:,. {t1; . t,.rv
},>;?. % ta
: ??. ?^., 2•tY r+,sl
r' ? fw
j
'1++ 1'11
> 11.., ar.«,.;In:°•1j
'Sv :•..
•.? ?
??•?( v'r.
?, •fi,
:; 11n „
r
,
•1'`? h {1 '•(f'/ ^t.:l•'r.i!r., •,}.(",f••r,T•
: J?r I: iri'• f7•,1•J•1 I?r t.n ?. ?4. ,;t/., tr 4.
?15t:?:
?, ,1s•.,: {,?4. ',fir

t•.,'1:'.
;T...:

5 TO 20

I ,
`•'i'J,?,°r'.?,'{•
;M1iT
.
,.k rr
1
r 'r
'
1'
r

• r ?ry•,
r
1,,
rt
J`
'
?

I

?,
;
-,
.
r
•?
M •A
r p
4.1,4 S? S<" 1 ' +,I•rl• /• Y J'rr a?' IS { ?:.
Y
,
{
Y,
, T
.
•7 I ••
1
•y.
„ I„ 7 .,?,J. i
v . ,
?
i
?•
.

Y
r

l
_ ........... ................. r..,.. ..., v. y.,.. , . !
;;?Y,;4ar r ?1; L F4 +? ?i ?4'tr".'
.. ?
y'r
r
S
.'
1 ,
: .
•
t
.
''1?;I'(• ,1r.S;4;'e.
'
1
'
? ,
.. ri 1• . ..................
_..........................
....................................
.......................................
„; ?
,?
?y
.
.
.l;.i)a
S
"y ' L;
,1:?c
t.i t• ? r
',t• >'?i•
. ,1.!s'ri1rY'ti• t•r,:?'
•,t i:'!',Fr?,r I
'i•?•
i'
t
:
' r
..;?;,i,,2r?ri.+k.?,
1'
`.
r ,,ti?I,Mrt j,r •,
:1
.:
t'
'''
?
;
•
t st
dt
4;?+ h' ?:?
;t i
,R r{j
d.?,:
•+:
< '
r • r 'c r' ?'
f
+2.0 MHW
'c
k' T
3
, 20
O
0
:',,, Y r..;•1 t '• ,u:'r+? i -? 1 0 MSL
0
.

}., 1:: x,"/ ?,•, i -1
9 MLLW
.

.f r N
?c; O ? ') M
o I SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZONTAL & 1"=4' VERTICA[-J+uu
ANTICIPATED CHANGE AFTER SEVERAL TID3+00
E
BEACH FILL CROSS SECTION
4+00
FIGURE 8/SHELL ISLAND COOPERATIVE
EMERGENCY MASON INLET RELOCATION
BEACH FILL CROSS SECTION 0 #2 SOUTH WALKWAY
CENTURY/von Oesen
CONSULTING ENGINEERS do PLANNERS"
808 NORTH THIRD STRM. W ANNGTON. N.O. 2840:
PHONE [phone] FAN: [phone]
DATE 1/15/97 JOB #4576 FIGURE 4 OF 4
31
I
1
1
0
Z
1 a
J
=
U U)
Q ?
w =
m CD
1 `
}
U
Z w

w ?

1 cr 0
w
? Q
W w
1 ? Q
w
? U
O
z
n
o

co
w
oc
1
1

s
i
LL
O
O
O
N
T
W
Q
U
32
DREDGE AND FILL AERIAL OVERLAY
1
1
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
OLD RUN OF MASON CREEK
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE DREDGING
PROPOSED DREDGING
SED,/SURGE BASIN
r
1
n 1 Wes" ?
,t
PROPOSED
(STOCKPILE 5
1
1
1
r ?a
SLOPE ` 11 DIKE TOP +10,
SLOPE
Nap eaoes3. 1bwx.u" \ Z????M
PROPOSED STOCKPILE
OLD INLET TO BE CLOSE
N
1
P11010 COURTESY OF U.S. APW.Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WMINGTON DISTRICT
1
PROPOSED DREDGING
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
PROPOSED RELOCATED INLET
W_j
z
O
H
U U*)
w}
cn a
QJ
a
m3
ACCESS CAUSEWAY

z
O
~N
U
? QI
QJ
a
m?
SCALE: 1"=1000'
FIGURE 8/SHELL ISLAND COOPERATIVE
MASON INLET RELOCATION
SITE PLAN
CENTURY/von Oesen
Tm, CONSULTING ENGINEERS k PLANNERS
805 NORTH THIRD STREET, WILWINGT011, N.C. 284,02
*SEE FIGURES 2, 3, AND 4 FOR PNONC [phone] FAX: [phone]
PROPOSED DREDGING AREA DETAILS DATE 1/15/97 Boa 9 4576 FIGURE 1 OF 4
33
PROPOSED BEACH
REBUILDING 14,000± LF
rEQioFxr UPON =A. ANOUNT
SAO AVAIIIBIE Af1IIt
mir aO%1RE/ m_o"n0N)
a// ,? y

Y?
1

2
y ht
r
1
I
i
,ti
MASON INLET COMPOSITE
1 (BROOKS)
Aerial Photograph Composite, Mason Inlet.
A) 1938, B) 1954, C) 1962, D) 1971, E) 1979 and F) 1985.
0
1

1
i
1
/
1

1- 35
H-0 14 YSHE, TER
_T I
y LOCATION MAP
'-----'-l- M E-,`7- -
'sFelEee_`.F?? ?y -- _-
\
°Cr FSMdr `KG 11 NMm'? ?.f?\\Cf?F `??°'? ! -_ ' _ - _ _ ??._ - -- - - ?•- _ -_- -_ _ ? - ? -
117
i k f S Y \
Its
'`\ qnx m 270 y`a ??--_ - \-` ^ . I? i_ ?• _ _
10 ?y i 1_ IF ro of ,
lkil:
KP ,. 133 ? u '"l uooRErowx Ro 9' ? :. - - ? _"' ? ? . - ? ?, l •I ? ' _ ?\ %?
s ERRdRC Ro ?\ ,? ? _?.t ? `^ ? . ?-. `knoll T u..aaw.
P P `Vti? _ M6nrro\. Cs _ y: i _ \ Shelley - /`
17
l - - `40 - ??_N"'OU I+ \•T `? 1 =r_ _ /\\ 210 @ ?.
.E,'°e- IkPn:n11?,\
117' - - -'v "?.?__ _ 210 3 `Q< \?-, _ •?; TOr ` 4f, \\; `C? .c°4
733 -? _ T `-`•. ?? I -I %o°°? '?_ _i 4 ',./%'
`,1?` ?'j `a yi'_ naon F ! _- ?i 1- xOiE? SxE? Po1 `RO - ( _ •{ Hamgs -d A- _ \ "'?
-_.. 1 - - * o <.r ; D gp
--- _j Y-
,' 'Castle ?-__ ?- _ \ 7(1\/ ` -
HaynP ROEIr yrF "r £\ _-- i _'?OOEE- .f. - ?l\ //.
ORE t
<?? ,?/ / •C? SY goers qV-1 •^--?Cr _ o.? ?--y-- /`? ? -- ?? 4 - \\ ??/h J;.
sF? -- \ " V ? 132 1 s?
??? rccE RC a P\ / \ _ / - -
I c? eE.
El 17
\ \ T? - Munaywala , / / l ? KvYlan1 9F ?'?'- /
1FYY,, NEIIOn ?. / a? ?' av . " 1 /?11-$vLLE Ro - f \ ? T ?, ?; q ^ ??? ? .,.e•
La e
cxaowwlE Kr n is\boro
SN10R LiRFR
r (_•T \\ ,p.. -. 1 .yam ?i? cam.
1 71T
T - sk ax z \ 133 _ r' _.Kings
?- _? Cwermonal y ?C"dO?
?.. ? 1 O / u !r ml ?u r'M 4 ?"? -?i:. ,'? P ?? `/ ••",JtJ ? ?? I1:
? ? ?? q ?' ii l? tl ? ? 1 132 \%??? Ef "• 1 , ?" t?':? / }ti? / ??` - / •
3 [? ixeESSM?I._.? -Windgo`eLe?// ..g I ll ??lrlerr
.r
U.S.S. North Ca x 5. "'_ i' '-?Y °a ?;?r?J u !/ / -
71
?< S I T E
]!?? A lb dN y; i 7d /
1 I ' '?' I MMOWC"?/ C
7
F, G Cl n' I - 1W'sni erk"'d / >ror , /Johnnie Mercer
` T* ?. I \ 1 `?\, i- j •I. Mow rr.RR rY 7fi L /'til rEan 1 "? Fishing Pier
A A? 'r1.1 3 ' 421\WN'e? II,, ?16 Oceanic Pier -
1? ITinkFu S° n ' 1 SCALE 1 =2.4 MILES
lz ? z In,e1 bono
Pined
KRklrp
/ (I t 3o,rn,da.. 01 132
NorlljCamb-
Chgend \\???` t,• ? _^' 'NalipnaI Esn/arine
V G A?? P I % _ ReYparch-Reserve _
41. (n S P _
34.?
2.3 SEP
9
H. FRAN 09
Ulm
O
PROPOSED INLET LOCATIl
rn
5
Up
vw
SCALE
,ON CREEK DREDGING
TIDAL MARSHEXISTING INLET 9123196
FRAN VERWASH OF MARSH
QWK:1 I lQl AlUn Pg:qf)PT

0
COMPARISON PHOTOS
FROM SHELL ISLAND ROOF
DECEMBER 1995
1
1
1
1
1
I
0
I
1
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
0
33'
NOVEMBER 1996
COMPARISON PHOTOS
1
FROM SHELL ISLAND ROOF
DECEMBER 1995
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
LAND MANAGEMENT CROUP, INC.
3 `l
1
NOVEMBER 1996
VIEW NORTH OF MASON INLET
1

0

r
0
1
0
I
FROM SHELL ISLAND
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
yo
0
VIEW NORTH OF MASON INLET
FROM SHELL ISLAND
0
I
0
0
r
0
0
I
I
yo
EMERGENCY SAND DOZING
' AT SHELL ISLAND
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

A.
y/
0
ERODED ESCARPMENT AND DESTROYED
PUBLIC ACCESS AT SHELL ISLAND
0
r
0
0
i
0
0
I
I
yz
0
SHELL ISLAND RESORT
FROM NORTH. NORTHWEST
p

I
0
0
. it
r

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
y3
p
DAMAGED MARSH FROM
HURRICANE FRAN OVERWASH

r
0

I
0
0
I
yq
0
FIGURE EIGHT VIEW NORTH FROM
SPIT AREA, OVERWASH DAMAGE
0
0
0
1

JC.

0

VIEWS WEST AND EAST
ACROSS SOUTHERN SPIT
1
1
p
t r
! Y ? ?' + h I 1 ,J
! J r , ? ?, rl + yl
lF f S -, t
? 11 w_? 1 }?'? tt?•Ivt ?y
11 ? ? pp 3
,k? 1 ,l?F is 4' ? } `'- '?'f -x+ •?.
?t y ? r
tf i Y r $t ? +?? ?,t
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
y6
0
0
0
0
0
0
If
0
It
II
1
VIEWS SOUTH OF DAMAGED
FIGURE EIGHT BEACHFRONT
i
"Mom
-
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
y?
0
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
VIEWS NORTH OF DAMAGED
FIGURE EIGHT BEACHFRONT
xrJ
r.

3, _ r

-...
i: ?
_ ...cam. ..
j ?

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
y?
0
0
0
0
p

1
VIEWS EAST AND WEST AT PROPOSED
INLET LOCATION ON SPIT
1. ?C
X ?

.. ? . ram... _ <.
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
y?
0
VIEWS WEST AND EAST OF CLOGGED WEST END
OF MASON CREEK, LOW TIDE
0
1
1
0

I?
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
,j O

tPG- ,, w r r ; _ , •r^.!? _ . '?yF ".s{ "3 'q?- f " {!"'t ;vSrn ,?iE - i 'S.
law
??...,:-?-^r-w-?."?? .? rte,,. .... _ ?`"'?-` `"?"'"' ? ,...?

0
VIEWS EAST OF MID AND EASTERN
PORTIONS OF MASON CREEK, LOW TIDE
1

I

0
0
I

,yNY.h p""??°?`Uie f'43,'+•Y??hk? ---?C.,,r?,.,?? `;;,?t ?; Cgn i""`•

VIEW WEST OF MASON CREEK,
' BOTTOM, MID TIDE
0
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
III

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
sz

Its

? ?? _.. _.T - ?+?'?a"?--r,m.7Ai?..--c?y.,?? ., ....,,,+w;i?q?p??? - i""'?+e.g_x

0
VIEWS WEST AT EAST END OF
' MASON CREEK, MID TIDE

r
0
0

'?=?P ,-.??'?.,,.;s?-_ `•--'--?=?,;,, : ?' ?: --..` z -3++??= =?_-fie- ...z'? _ _
wow.`'ff;seP?`?;..-4-T--'.c:Xr?,.=,r-°.?.actm•-.±?acR-,-v..w?. n -a-,a -.,,__,-Mr-•-a..: .. _
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
S3
0
VIEWS SOUTH FROM MASON CREEK
' MOUTH TO INLET THROAT
I
0
I
I
0
I

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
F?m

SL-?
0
7ML

ss
MASON INLET DATE UNKNOWN
MASON INLET 3/13/62
r
.5?
MASON INLET 1966
r

s?
0
MASON INLET 5/7/70
r
A ,7
r
b

Y
31 0.E yf ,
?
?
?
a {.
?
-7Y

.f ae i1 I Fi 1,

X4 r t '

dLi,

r
0
1. r
1 111
?r 1
1}11
?f
! 1
r 1r
1-1
j # is
1/ i 7 BFI# r j
t 1 1 ?'!t P c?
1 1.
r ,
MASON INLET 11/6/72
r
MY
W
I
- 1

eX ? a? ?'? ? ksy

"80800"luffi, r%'

Co
0
MASON INLET 7/14/76
0
L )_l .
MASON INLET 6/22/80
Cz
MASON INLET 10/16/82
r
r d'
a{y? ? ?cR, ..
! M
d

,
s 1 9L Fq ?' Ilk i
^y
,

x

Y 1,yt:,

? i

a - , v .,,?f h

a
F' T V?
j' file
?i
-tCy? J
r

0
ti
vY
LL? ?
` tl
ti
aw •-
?dv
fps x r a'
All
W
?3

i
MASON INLET 5/27/85

1
rd
1
1 ¦
1 ,W.,

1s
? 1
1 I

65
0
t
0

1
0
I
R
MF
x M yDi i

4 ?Jr

7L ;
'??f
I? ? L x r
d

.I
14,
l ~Y.:t
-r? I-` I

1 rp
r1
-

`
1 m

1 Fii l \
r?
•ti

MASON INLET 6/22/94

7v..

?:;y ,k? ? ?t
?I./
MASON INLET 11/9/95

1

"j
Y.?

i
ti
L'b. .
y'.

2.3 S E
04
L5000C
9
d-VOVf1 Y/9f O'llN1'
H. FRAN
0
G

1 APPENDIX 1
LITERATURE CITED
1
Brooks, W.B., 1988. A historic and morphological study of Mason and Rich Inlets, North Carolina
Master Thesis at UNC-Wilmington.
Broome, S.W., E. Seneca and W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1982. Building and Stabilizing Coastal Dunes
with Vegetation. Pub. UNC Sea Grant 85-05.
Brown, D. et. al. 1976, Ecological Determinations of Coastal Area Management, Sea Grant SG-76-
05.
Burk, S. W. 1989. A Survey of Fish Larvae Present in the Southern Marsh of Figure Eight Island
During March-April, 1989. UNC-Wilmington.
1 Cleary, W.J. and Hosier, P.E., 1979. Geomorphology, Washover History and Inlet Zonation, Etc.
Academic Press, New York, New York. p.237-262.
Corps of Engineers, 1995. Environmental Assessment of Channel Realignment Maintenance
Dredging of Masonboro Inlet, Wilmington, North Carolina.
1 Fussell, J.O. III. 1990. Census of Piping Plovers Wintering on the North Carolina Coast, 1989-
1990. For North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Non-game and Endangered Wildlife
Program.
1 Godfrey, P.J. 1976. Barrier Island Ecology of Cape Lookout National Seashore and Vicinity, North
Carolina.
Goyal, S.M. et. al., 1978. Occurrences and Disruption of Bacterial Indicators in Canal
Communities along the Texas Coast. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34:139-149.
1 Hackney, C.T., M. Posey, S. Ross, and A. Norris. 1996. A Review and Synthesis of Data on Surf
Zone Fishes and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from Beach
Renourishment. For Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
1 Hayes, M.O. et. al., 1976, Ecological Determinants of Coastal Area Management, Sea Grant Pub.
SG-76-05.
I
1
Hancock, T. E. 1995. Ecology of the Threatened Species Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pummilus
rafinesque). MS Thesis University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Leonard, L. et. al. 1990. Comparison of Beach Renourishment on the US Atlantic, Pacific, and
Golf Coasts. J. Coastal Res., SI 6:127-140.
Levinton, J.S. 1902. Marine Ecology. Practice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 526.
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
1 70
1 Mallin, A.M., L. Cahoon, J. Manock, J. Merritt, M. Posey, R. Sizemore, T. Alphin, K. Williams
and E. Hubertz. 1996. Water Quality in New Hanover County Tidal Creeks. For New
Hanover County, the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy, UNC-Wilmington.
Morrimen, J. 1982. Feeding Ecology of Sea Turtles, Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles
1 Smithsonian Institute, Press, Washington, DC.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd Edition, W.B. Sanders Co. Press. Philadelphia,
PA.
1 Parnel, J.F. 1988. Birds Associated with the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy Tidal Marsh
Complex, a Recon Report.
Pilkey, O.H. 1992. Another View of Beachfill Performance. Shore and Beach 60(2):20-25.
1 Reilly, F. J., Jr. and Bellis, V. J. 1978. A Study of the Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment
with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone.
US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. High and Low Water Predictions
of North and South America.
1

1

I
1
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA. Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
0 71
1
C
APPENDIX 2
SOIL SAMPLE

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
1
MASON INLET AND CREEK
' New Hanover County, N. C.
1
CONTENTS

1. Soil Tech Engineering Report (Samples B 1-B 16)
dated December 11, 1996
2. Soil Tech Engineering Report (Samples B 101-B 111)
dated December 12, 1996
See Location Plan included herein and location on
Permit Application Drawing Sheet 2 of 4
I
1
3. Samples from beach strand prior to hurricane
0 -7z

0

w
a
a
73
1
7650 MARKET STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
1
1
1
CenturyNon Oesen
Post Office Drawer 2087
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
1 Attention: Mr. C. A. Davis
December 11, 1995 OFFICE: 910-686-9114
FAX: [phone]
Reference: Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover County, North Carolina
1 Job No. 784-95
Dear Mr. Davis:
Soil Tech Engineering, Inc. has recently obtained samples of the proposed dredge
1 material from Mason's Inlet and access channel in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The purpose
for obtaining these samples was to determine the characteristics of the in-place sediment.
Sediment samples were obtained from fifteen designated locations within the inlet and
access channel leading to the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. At each designated location, samples were
1 obtained at specified intervals to a depth of ten feet below the existing sediment subgrade.
Once received in our laboratory each sample was tested for gradation in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTNf) procedure entitled, ASTM D-422, "Particle
Size Analysis of Soils."
1
1
0 7q
1
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover County, North Carolina
1 Page Two
1 Attached please find a description of the subsurface conditions, the results of our
laboratory testing and a sketch of the locations sampled. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
1 SOIL TECH ENGINEERING
1 Parks A. Downing, Jr.
Manager
1 - CARO
James Pate, P.E. ;C3 14,
?•
t -
PADjr:JP/tlc 4480
r FyCiN?ti°;
/ 784a12-11 S C .pa?`????•
Attachments
1
1
1
0 7.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
Intracoastal Waterway
cB-3 0B-2 CS-1

C3 -o
C 3-S 1
1
Licht Grass
I
1
1
CB-11 B-1o
-----------
3-13
Grass /
- Der.otcs l nl c - C?a^^c

Grass
Grass 0 3 -15 -1 4
p-.. , .. _,
Grass
Sod
T=71 1 , C=4 4
S INLET SA.MFL r VG
VEIJ HAVC`/B:; COUNT'! . VO 76
O f)Pnntps lcratinn of ;Pdirpnt zamnlina
B-4
GRASS
,a 3-7
-na vn 7A,1 _0?
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
o ?
0
i'
110
1:1,
M
O
'I r 0 z
O 'L7
z
N
? C\ O\ O\ Q\ M
0 ?D V't v Q
tY?
C7 Ls
L 00 O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ 0 M N N .

C
l 0? O
k!1
00
\O
M
M
00 O ?
O 'm
? (:? 00' 06 00
M
t?
C7 L
L? ?D O\ O\ F F O V -- ,
E

N O O\ N 00 (`1 O
'D
O 00 00 00 t? Mr
'
' ? O\ ?
CJ
W F F O\ O\ V? ,t N O O Lt,

O C
E Q
-- r- ?. O M 00 z

E

C-1 O N O ? M 'IT O
.
z N "a
i
L? C?
o
rn
?
rn
ON 00
rn
N
C7 w V]
C
_
L

F„? L 00
v? O r
' O 00
00 N
w 00
t- M
t- --
00
-
kr,
11O
M c z
?' O
_ W 00 O\ G1 O\ ON t- 00 M - C?
z ci
c ct
? ? o
.
a,
w ?
L o
r
?, Go 110 W)
N
t7
M
N
N Q
3 ?Q ?D nU, O? rn O\ a\ 00 ON N O O C7
E
O
N
M
O
M
d
C? O
P
cC a r?

as
?
a
rn
rn
?
°
M
-= O
(5 w
2
0
Ii N IT v) IZI• 00 V1 0
RT3 u
pa ac ? a rn 00 ° -- C7 w 3 v
o ? Ca
O 00 00 Nl- N ?t 03 a)
_
' N C,\ rn 6 O,
l N ^
O O\ rn O` O
l a\
E E E E E
E O O O O ? O O
C
p N
N O
N
00 O
110 N
",T O
M 00
^

CZ
U

> i

O
i

O
i

O

O
i

O
i

00

O
O

O
?f

C
?.
U
O 0
0 r?
cr
1
77
1
1
0
1

1

P

o E
M ?O t? Q? cc O 'O
I O O% I?
I I0
l V1
C7 G
CA 00 C\ C
N 0
, O? 00 -- ?- -- t.

O
c,
00
-
O
ON
r O
03 a)
IT
C rn ? 00 0 0
o
C7 w c¢i?
a rn 0
0 00
?
0 110 C? N M -- N 0
cz O 'O
1
o
o
7 k
x v C, c^ rn c rn - .
C
a?
w ?p
0 00 110 00 v,

M 't7 Q
a?
L-
1
C\
C\
C\
G'\
\0
00
v
.
N
N
U U
?
C'q O
I
o
a
CN
C\
0
0
°
o
o Q
C7 w vn
c
L
0
0
0
0

.? t
v E
c v
a ° w

t
Q M _
1 = o` IT "0 1/ 1 ?0
'n
O
00 z
rn
N C z C 00 tj C\ rn cl, O\ 00 00 M -- O

c
E

CJ

• a) ?lc 00
Lf) -
V') N
't

0
In

m
00 ?•

3 ?O v C" o\ a\ G1 0
0 00 O O CJ V1

0 0E

M
N
00
cl?
O P
co 0
rn ? ? rn o N 2

O O
?i vl 00 \?O O, \0
M
G
C\
C?
?
0 000
r- d
v,
N N C U

M
I
CA
o
?
?
C\
C\
C\
-
o
C7 w v?
E c E E E
E c
' o \0 v,

O

O
N

5
C-i o
00 o
?0 V
?
?t O
° O

-
00 Ln

I O

1

1 o

0.

•
L
U t
U
U
O
O
C-1
O
rn
O
O
O
SO
O
?t
O

78"
1
1
0
1
r
1
1
p

1
o E
o
?'
O
r
rn
v,
00
W)

N

00

IO

v, ? ? Q
U Q
c
a1 0o rn
rn 00
o` 00
rn .-•
rn r.
'- M ^ ?.
C7 W > v?
° O
00
O.
N
?O
O
?n O E
(1> 'n

GC
rn
rn
rn
rn
o\
to
^
N O
C7 W; rn
O O
O^ V1 O\ V1 00 00 I O

as p
v
o
rn
rn
a
rn vl V1

^

- _ ¢¢

C7 fi, va
a?
E
Q
a O% N M 00 M Z

L? °
C`1 C1
CN Ci
G? 00
G1 00
C, M
U\ O N M:

° O
O O
O O
C)
M
h O
O
_ No 0 0 0 C, rn C7 w v?

o
i -?

a?
Q c?

t 0000 O,
O: 00
Orn r-
Q\ \C
6 O\
?O \C
00
1n m z
?. O Q
Q z c 00 ti o?\ rn o\ rn O\ o o C7 ., rn
?y?z N
ti
E

c? Q
z
C
° C? 00 ? 00 _ >
Q
3
0 0 ? Q
Q C71, 00 t-- ct
v
;
c? p
v ON ? ? rn CN oo
v; C,
^ 00 L c
C7 w v?
0 0 ?, Q

C ?i
° O?
C\ 00
C\ [-
C1 vl
O\ N
,p
ICI
00
?
? N Z'+
C
N a\ C\ Q\ C\ 00 [- M - -- W V]
O ? Q
?
O
N O?
O\ 00
O\ 00
O\ Ol\
t? ?O ON
r
N
C.1 T
C
t? o rn a\ rn O\ ? v, - o C7 w v?

E E E E E
E E E E E o ?o c
E
O o
kn o
O
N o
O O
00 W', O_ r
C o
O N (-l oo M ^ ?' C]
C? ..
_ i
O i
O
O
O
O O
O O
'IT C
O v

a cl
4t m
:v-
?t V) 00
::Nk
x
V] Q

0 7c1
1
1
1
1
I
1
0
1
1
1
o E
C5
i
M
cf
?O
I-
r}'
ON
Ca 0
00 rn o rn rn 00
0
vM;
-
C7 ti v?

N 0

6

C?

oo

_

O

C\

? 0

a?

W O
?o 6
rn 00
ON 00
rn C-
00 116
00 N O
rr O
?- 00
o t C
C7 w

0
110
C?
N
M 0 Q
cd v

q O
v 00
C? ?
C? \16
C? Vl
rn O
C? N N V1
- -- ?. C
V tz
a?
c E
o, w p
N Ii O 00 .O 00 t1r)

Cl
N
c?
o
00
?
r
(-1 Q
?

~ O
N N C\ v1 'cT ?D
N
C',
10 O
c v
C
R p [? -S N N N ?10 \ v?
C7 fs
C W C` ON o0 00 - ?o O O .
L O G

O
o .. M v? O oo N c?
N z O 00 C\ Cl\ rn 00 r- - V]
N
'"" o a C

u* "" 00 u N V, V, O 110 ? ?

3
p O
)
001
ON
Cl
C\

00
kn
C,

0 0
00 r- a
rn o - v
v?
C7 w
0 0 Q
^ IT

Q M M ? M M M

`-'

00

v1
C`1
cli O ?
C
?1 N rn o C\ C\ 00 kn
.? o
i N
W o

[ E E [L E
O E .^^_. r
E C C v'? O ° C ? O
G
N O
C 1 v?
00 O N O 00 O
cC
v
GL ?

> '
C '
C '
O ?
O '
O '
O O
O C
,1' C
O U

O
O Q N M
4t -F
:;t Ln 00 N Q
i:n
0 RIO

1
1
i
I
1
0
I

1
o E
0 0 ? q
z

W
00
0
00
0
r--
1
M
r v
C7 Gi ¢
V]
0 0 0000 00 10 ,
O

°O

IT

v,

",T

N

?o
'

o O E
..
c, =v
U
?D 00
Q? O? O? \0
Q? 'It
Q? 10
N t-- 00 ?O

O p Q
N O M cc 0 z

a 00 00 00 r-? v1 O N N ?t C
h d
C/?
Q C+? C\ Q\ V1 \O M M (3r

E Q
00 r- z 'IT C?
O C C\ C\ ; ? - C7
Ca u -

N O? 00 r- z 00 ? u

x i Q\
l Q\ 00
-
o
-
-
C7 w
v?

c o C\ c
? rn rn C\
?
o
•
o
L ?
E
N

c C ""

??
t 00

M

v1

N

-

O

[?

W

Z

f-

N ^ '?
GA
00
?O
v1
Ul
v 1 00
M .
O .
O
p
°'
G

00 4) z Q\ r- `7 ? 'O
j L? ?O
all
Q?
00
G?
00
p?
06
C\
kn
C\ 00 O
O
C7
V]
i
E
M-+ O rn rn 00 r- M Vl O
m 0
O O? Q? O\ O, 00 N N O
V C Q\ J C,
E
O
?i 00 \-D vl [? v1 O
N
O G G? Q\ N -- - O ?. G
L N Q O? [? t- 00 ,1- N ?^ Lr. uo

00 ?O O O c t
2
C'i O O?
O1
G
00
?D -

C7

v?
L? O o rn a? rn - r. w
E E
E c c

O
O
Ln
O
O CD z
O
O

O
N
00
z
'I-
° 00

.-
O
CL
N

G
C)
U
O
O
O
O
O
CD C)
O CD
IT 0
O
?
// r
1
C/.
1 ?'1

1
1
1
0

I
o
0 c ?
o w o
O' 00 M V N _ _ cz b
6 C" C,
O
00
c q ?

t p c
N?z o w?
N 00 r-
o b
r- ° ?

_ y

0
O
I

I
M N
?p O
? N
CQ o

c

N

N

O
N
O
O
V)
00
O
Z?t E
O
O
"o
O
ZVZ E
V')
N
?
O
It E
O
O
M
O
:V;.- E
O
00

O
:it E

--

O

.+ E
O

?7

O

O

N O
¢
?-

Q

cn
cr
S??

1
rm?

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

rm?
O
w
n
1
7650 MARKET STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
1
1
1
CenturyNon Oesen
Post Office Drawer 2087
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
/ Attention: Mr. C. A. Davis
December 12, 1995 OFFICE: 910-686-9114
FAX: [phone]
Reference: Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover County, North Carolina
1 Job No. 784-95
Dear Mr. Davis:
Soil Tech Engineering, Inc. has recently obtained samples of the proposed dredge
/ material from Mason's Inlet and behind Figure Eight Island in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
The purpose for obtaining these samples was to determine the characteristics of the in-place sediment.
Sediment samples were obtained from twelve designated locations within the inlet
behind Figure Eight Island and on the barrier sand island. At each designated location, samples were
/ obtained at specified intervals to a depth of eight feet below the existing sediment subgrade.
Once received in our laboratory each sample was tested for gradation in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure entitled, ASTM D-422, "Particle
Size Analysis of Soils."
1
1
Fq
1
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover County, North Carolina
1 Pale Two
1
1
1
1
Attached please find a description of the subsurface conditions, the results of our
laboratory testing and a sketch of the locations sampled. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
SOEL TECH ENGINEERING
Parks A. Downing, Jr.
Manager
C?OJ
James Pate, P.E.
cS S ; ri:.?9 -
PADjr:JP/tlc
1 784a12-12
Attachments
1
1
1
oll# ll111???f???
R5
1 1
1 1
r
1
r
r _
r
r
1
1
y
4-) C r

.L LLI

m )

I

J

0
1

1
m
M
O j
I m
1./
N
O CD
m
6 y
o
m m
CD_
m ?
m
C
O
U
C
C
l
u
Z
i

?
o
U
?
6?l
C
•--? > Im

C t
?}
2 p
Z

V,
4-
0
0
g
Q? &,(?,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u E
c -
N ° w ? Q

W ?O C rn 00 00 r- rn t C7 V1
? o m M
(U
C

1 O

V)

c,

C,

00

00

00

r-

00

-
00

"
r-
N
D

?
o

o

O O Q
c/1
C7
M ?.
aU
C
N O Q
O\ oo
rn [-
rn M
00
M
M
N CZ
Q
W N c? rn C', rn ?,c M -- C7 vn
E

N
Ql, V1 N 00
W O
C\
O
\
cl,
C\
C-1
C
00
C?
r-
?

?,c

M

O

C? cn

O
?? U ? c

?- t 00 0 o? - o Z
rn O
Z
N O
?
rn
rn
l
C Q?
i ° ?p cr L. O
C7
C
O W ?D G
? a
l V N O O vn

C\ C\00 ? ON00 ? r- O O ?:? C/)

?E
o w ?

?i
rn
00
M
O
V, ?

c
C
CA O
N 00
G'\ r-
rn r--
rn r-
C? Ql,
r- 00
00 I-
M "t
-- N ?
C7 vn
E
N

? O [? Vl ti' N ? ? ? ? z

CA
O C,
c. ?
al, ?
Q\ ?
C? ?
C, M

r - L Q
O
C7 0 v?

E E c E E o
C O p V, n
C O O Vl O O Vl O
o O N O 00 -- -- o
O N N 00 Ic ":I- M - V)
O O O Q
O O O O O O O_ V O

0 F`7
1
1
? o
o ?
0

r
? o
o
°
L v
0

1

0

o a?
E

00 o r, O 00 z

q
cv
?
?
?
CN
0000
r-
ri
o U
C7 0 cn
a? E

"°z
_
p o C\ C\ Cl\ rn o C7 ° vi

u to
C C w rf M ° = v?
Q ?"
W) L 00

O r OD 00 O 00 rn C, 00 _
>
'a
u
C
N z
O g? O
' = C, C, 16
C? tn
C\ "RZI"
C\ 00
00 D\
I-? N
?D
?t M
M ?
U' En Ln
?y cz

[
kn 00 V- r- 'r 1--
°
V (1. ?0
G O
C\ 00
00 v)
0 [--
r- r- O
- "" c7
V 4
?F cn Ln
0 l

t7 N -- 00 r-

Ra O
N G\
C? C?
C\ C7\
O\ 00
C\ "o
? "o
? O
N v? L
C7 V] 3

w
Ln
_
° ? 00 ? 1.0 M ? v
:? z

c?a
° O?
? C?
C Oll
ol 6
C t?
C\ N
o
\ c7 M
o L., O Q ,
C7
v) 3
) l . . .?

r r- _

E
O
° O ?O ?n
O N O 0
0 O
N 00 \O d' M -+

U
O O O O O O O O 'V O
4t Z* ? 4t =t V]

0
1
1

1

I
1
1

0
E .C
c C 3
C) 0? z
rl- 00 IT C. 00 ry
q ?O C\ C? ON C? 00 -• "D N C? .. v1 V1
C_ E
o u, "o en ^ o v, R z
C? 00 0 ONO i° - v V ^ C7 ° 3 v?
C? , c
a?
c E

'T \c rf) kn

csa

c-i
o

rn
?
?
?
00
o
M
N
N O

C? 0 ++

3 v
E
c .? a?
O O M N N ON O O
..
? C

ee ~
q N
o O C-1
rn O
C\ 00
C\ \10
C,\ .-.
^ [?
?t
^ v1
o L-
0
C7
c
.
i O
C, c
4 0
c
t 00 Q 0
q
V'1
00
?D
M
00 -?
-a

4.) H
N C Z ^

q
O
?
C?
00
,
00
00

W

-,

- CZ V
Z D C1 O
\ C\ C\ C\ ) M • •
+? C
O
ACC ? CD C a.
rh C

3
a -- M Vl M V
O QQ

q
?t 6
C\ 06
C71 00
C? 00
rn 110
C,
?n
v
^
^
C7 va
\
O ?
C

I 00 C? Cl, 00

q O
N Q\
C\
C\
C\
CN 00
00 1`
1\ kn
M N
^ O
--
C7 O cn
O E
C O

O C? 00 00 1- ? N M M
q O a\ C` C? C? C? a\ ^ - C7 O va
E E o
E E E E E
E
O
O
0 O v,
O N 0
0 O
O N N 00 M -: i

U O O O O O O O V O _
a N t k C/)0
- _
C!?
0
0
1
0
0

1
i
0

1
a? E
c
00 0
00 (2)

C?
O
1
o ?
C?
rn ?
00
C? N
w
C\ 00
?
C\ ?
ct
C\
N
r-
V
Itr

q
O
-i ce
L Q
0
1 c c
E
?-
00 o

00

l

O

Ln

O
C
'G z
C', o

00 E
o
o o ? ? N N z

N 06
CI, v,
(ON 4
C? M
C\ Vl
w
M 00 O
•- C?
O L r4) Q'
V
E
00 C.)
O

C

O

rn

CN

CN

(0\

00

00

110
O
V,
C,
,Zr Q

v)

? O
cc
kn V
4.)
c c w 4 ° =

Q Y--I L 00
to O
O

O
a
[--
C,
-
m
\,p
ZT
N

O

110

IC
>' 'O
Z
CC 4)
N C Z O W)
Q1 r
_
00 kn
00 00 r tt) 00 .tT M r
rA
r.n
o
? a? Q
3 o N C, M r. Cl _ >?z
CZ U
W ?r rn rn ? 00 N V C?
a? 2
o G:;, -ts
00 r- W) N ? e z
O C\
l C; ol? C; cr O l? M
Q
L-
o
l
C ?

N ^- C\ vi O N z
i
ON
CN
C\
C\
Q\
?O
^-
O
C7 V]
` O
E E E E C O ?
O C
kn O
O v?
N O
C O
00 - [
C ?-

'O .? V] ?
O i
O i
O ?
O ?
O i
O O
O O
'V' O
O Q
U O
N
M
W'1
00
-+
N _
O
U:
0 C7O
1
1

0

i

1
u
c

Co C? 00 r- V, O t? M Z
CA ?O Q\ C? C\ Cl, N N N N C7 uo
C
C E

?D ON 00 c- 110 r- 'O
6 C\ C\ C\ W) 00

a?
E D
a, C? 00 r- ^ z
C? N C Cl C% C1 -- -- O ;? cn
. \ V ?

00
'
L N
o C,
C? C\
C\ C,
C\ C,
C? c
ON
M C,
o C,
o C Q
C7 ..,
•

i .01
s

c .rv
Q " L ? ?
?
a'
oo
?n
? w ?A
N C z

O

?Q °

1
6
01
O
C
N
0
O
o
6
t-
N
t--
O
-,
M
'n

O

O
N Q
1 C ? 0 0 .

? r- o

3
i
O y

a V, 00 rn N ?D ct
r'-
C?
[? 'o
4J
CA V` 000 -
00 00 .?
r M O O v

rn ° w y)
° `r O o
co
'
a1 °
N -
00 N O C\ O r- M
N 00
O rl-
O O 3

C ?
w ?
oc C) 110

F+•I
O C\
C\
Cll 110
C\ V1
C? cV
C? [?
N
O
O
O L C
C7 ?. cn
C
E

E

c
E E E E
C
O O tr? O O O r-
O V-) C f`l
' O 00 ^ ^ O L
O N N 00 ? d M - t i i O

U C O O O O O O O V O
,
.-a Q N :It 4t Z;t 4t -;t Z?t 7t ztt Cn

l)
0
0

0

0

1
E
c c 3

kn 00

W
?O 00
rn M
C\
rn
rn
00
?-
C
V
C7

C

N O
00
N
[?
t?
M ?"' ? Q
cc '? rZ cn
° C\\ o a\ C? 0 r m C7 ° 3 v
as ?
c E

c
o°O\
cc\
CN
rn m
V) 0
`O
N N
C7 ° C +-
3 v

c ,c u

N ON V, O M 00 O Q\ V `
.'
.,-O
Ca O rn O\ c-, c, rn N N O O .
-
C7 v? 3
G
•
L '? O
c l
?n
A
00 .? 00 al rn r- r- V1 oo N 00
N c z O CQ ?O c rn C? C;,\
Ol\ c7N
C\ C,
rn w
C? "D ^ C7 v?
yCz

o N
•? a p
ti C?. ?

o a
N
W (5, c\ C', C', \D V, - C7 C/]

O •-

-, O LL •O
y
\C \10 IT C?
° Q\ rn & rn w
0 M 00
4 00
? L Q
C7 ° v?
q c?i a\ O` C\ CN ON 0 r-
r
c ?
c +
c Q
^-+ O O\ Q\ 00 V- N M - cs
i
CG
O
rn
O\
C%
Q
C\
N
--
4
-
[7
E E
O
E E E E E
E O p '-
O O V, O O O
O O N O 00
.
. C
. L-
U
c
N N 00 \O ',I- M ' ! ' M

cC
+-
O
O
O
O
O
C o
O O
? C
C p
N m TT V) 00

0 9?-
1
1 Samples Taken from Beach Strand
Prior to Hurricane Fran
1
(Samples from mid-tide level)
1 % by Weight Passing Standard Sieve Size Median Grain Size
#10 #40 #60 #80 #200
Sample (1.00) (1.25) (2.00) (2.50) (3.75) (mm)
BB-1
1 2,500' South of causeway 99.9 98.3 78.2 30.8 0.1 0.24 Fine to Medium Sand
BB-2
6,300' South of causeway 100.0 99.9 90.0 37.5 1.3 0.20 Fine Sand
1
1

1
1
0 93
1
APPENDIX 3
SHELLFISH SURVEY OF MASON CREEK
AND STILLING BASIN AREAS WITHIN PROPOSED DREDGING AREA
0 performed by: Land Management Group, Inc.
INTRODUCTION:
On January 16, 1997, a Shellfish Survey was conducted in the intertidal sand bottom of Mason Creek
0 extending from the AIWW to the back Inlet shoals. The meter square sample plots were raked with
a standard clam rake and the number of clams was noted.
A total of 22 sample plots were chosen at a relatively even spacing down the course of the proposed
Mason Creek channel and then randomly within the proposed stilling basin. Two (2) clams and no
oysters were collected during the sampling procedure. Some oysters were noted up in the natural
tidal creeks but none were noted within the proposed dredging alignment sample plots.
MARINE FISHERIES EQUATION FOR SHELLFISH DENSITY:
As was noted within the text, the Marine Fisheries staff felt that there was little harvestable shellfish
resource left within the run of Mason Creek. Their formula requires that a natural site must exceed
10 bushels to the acre before it is considered a natural shellfish bed. The calculations are as follows
for
Clams: 4,000 clams/10 bushels divided by 4,046 m2/acre = 0.99
clams/m2 rounded off to 1.0 clams/m2
Conversely this means I clam/m2 = 10 bushels of clams per acre
Oysters: 3,000 oysters/10 bushels divided by 4,046 m2/acre = 0.75
oysters/m2 = 10 bushels oysters/acre
1
Therefore, we divide the number of clams collected by the number of samples and multiply by 10.
2 clams divided by 22 samples = 0.09 clams/m2 x 10 = 9 bushels of clams per acre. You
then add the densities for both species to find the total estimated shellfish density:
1
0.0 bushels/acre oysters
+ 0.9 bushels/acre clams
= 0.9 bushels/acre shellfish within the sampling area
Therefore, with less than 1 bushel/acre of shellfish resource to be impacted, it is not considered to
be a natural shellfish bed and of little significance.
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island Resort HOA, Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
C) `1
MASON CREEK SHELLFISH SURVEY
.SAMPLE POINT LOCATIONS
0
0
I
1
I
0

X191
h
i NOTE* 15 & #16 HAD 1 CLAM EACH
If $4 AND ALL OTHERS HAD NO CLAM
` OR OYSTERS
SHELLFISH YIELD = 1 BU/AC.
1-13 Y r 12?
r ,
it
V,
Yt -V , f N
°lyFO , 04 _ (- u,

0
?T 6
5
2?
4 x
F ,7 . 2
22
PROPOSED INLET CHANNEL--* 1 ?
1/15/97
\ II
SCALE:1 "=600'
PREPARED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
0 9S
MASON CREEK TO AIWW
r
r
r
r
r
I
r
r
r
r
r
r
SHELLFISH SAMPLE PLOT
}

Nw.
?6
SAMPLE PLOTS ON SHOAL
1
TOTAL SHELLFISH IN 22 PLOTS
1

1
1

1

1
All,
-•.an'??%?' W.'ir r ?^ rvTX?'w P.B.as?.v'.ti?I?iL "'_
r
" .?. _ .•r^S^ t} ?i`.?` i. Mt ?. { tr• rA?^^•'l } ,, jl+w?,yy1yl-t
L t ?w
i
97
NEW HANOVER COUNTY APPENDIX 4
Endangered and Threatened Soecies. The L.S. Fish and Wildlife Set-?,ice and The
1 NatLonal Marine Fisheries Service has provided the following list of animal and plant species
which could be present in the area of the proposed project:
MANC? L-?LS
1 Eastern cougar ( Felis concolor)
Finback whale (Balaenoprera phYsahts)
Humpback whale (lleJaprera novaeangliae)
Right whale (Fubaleana clactahs)
Sei whale (Balaenoprera borealis)
1 Sperm whale (Ph}-serer catodon)
West Indian manatee (Tnchechus manatus)
BIRD S
1 Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius)
Bald eagle (Hahaeerus leucocephalus)
] Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Roseate tern (Sterna doituallii)
1 Wood stork (_Wycrer a amer Cana)
REPTILES
1
/
American alligator (_-?lligaror mississippiensis)
Green sea turtle (Celonia inydas;J
Hawksbill sea turtle (Et-ermochelys imbr,•cara)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (LepidochelVs coriacea)
Leatherback sea tur<le (DermochelYs conacea)
> Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta car•erta)
FISHES
Shormose sturgeon (Aci,oenser brem-osrnrni)
1
1
PLANTS
Cooley's meadow-rue (Thalicrnun coole,,-i)
Rouen-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia aspendaefolia)
> Seabeach amaranth (Aniaranthus pumilis)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
ThreatenediSA*
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
* The American alligator is listed as threatened only under similarity of appearance Section
7 consultation is not required.
0 Cl S
0
APPENDIX 5
Table Temporal presence and major recruitment periods of surf zone (A) invertebrates and
(B) fishes of the South Atlantic Bight
A. Invertebrates Month
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Donax variablis p P P P +' +R +R + + P P P
Ocvpode quadrata* p p p p p pR pR PR pR p p p

Orchestoidea roc
Talorchestia** ? ? p p p p p p p p p ?
Polychaetes*** P P PR +R +R +R +R +R +R + P P
Emeriia talpoidea p p p p + + + +R +R + pR pR
*peak abundance period not certain
* *peak abundance and peak recruitment not certain
* * *recnuitment and abundance patterns vary between species

B. Fishes* Month
J F M A M J J A S O N D

.'Inchoa hepsetus p p + + + + p p

.4nchoa mitchilli p p p p + + + + p p p
.1lembras martinica p p + + + p p + + p p
Trachinotus carohnus R R + + + + p p

Leiostomus xanthunts R R R R p p p p p + + p
Menticinhus americanus p p p + + p
U littoralis p p p p R R R + + + p p

Alugil cephahis p + R R p p p p p + + p
M. curema R R + + + D D U
Some abundanc6seasonality data may be inaccurate due to sampling variability or lack of data
0
p - present
+ - period of peak abundance
R - period of recruitment
TABLE FROM A REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS OF DATA ON
SURF ZONE FISHES AND INVERTEBRATES IN THE
SOUTH ATLANTIC BIGHT AND THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS FROM BEACH RENOURISHMENT
HACKNEY ET. AL. 1996
0 C/1?7
1

`r r
A
a 0'
APPENDIX 6
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
1
1
1
December 13, 1996
Steve Morrison
Environmental Consultant
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 2840
Re: Request for information concerning the
preparation of environmental assessment for the
relocation of Mason's Inlet, New Hanover
County
Dear Mr. Morrison:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
At your request, members of our Underwater Archaeology Unit reviewed the
proposed relocation of Mason's Inlet. Historically there has been an inlet in the
/ general project location. It has been known as Mason's Inlet, Queen's Inlet, and
Barren Inlet.
In the Underwater Archaeology Unit's shipwreck research files there are references
to two vessels lost in the inlet: The Ca/dwe//, a schooner lost in 1848, and The
Marea, a gasoline-powered freight boat lost in 1926. In 1993, staff members
/ inspected the remains of a wooden sailing ship, 0002MA1, in Mason's Inlet
approximately two hundred yards north of the Shell Island resort. Other unrecorded
shipwrecks may exist in the project area.
A review of historical records indicates that Mason's Inlet was shallow and seldom
used for navigation. In addition, the inlet has been very unstable and prone to
1 riiove iaNiui'y north and... south bct`.".'esn Shell Island and Finurp Flnht Island- It
appears that during the nineteenth century the inlet was most often in its current
location.
Based on this information, the proposed excavation of the inlet approximately
3,500 feet north of the Shell Island resort occurs in an area that holds only low to
1 moderate potential for containing submerged cultural remains. We, therefore,
recommend that no underwater archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with the dredging portion of the project.
The closure of the existing inlet may affect shipwreck site 0002MA1. While in the
long term this may benefit the site by covering it with protective sands, we are
/ concerned about the methods which may be used to close the inlet. In some
cases, construction activities may disturb or destroy historic shipwreck remains.
We, therefore, recommend that we be provided with detailed plans for closure as
1
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
100
g0,
1 Steve Morrison
December 13, 1996, Page 2
they become available. Staff members will attempt to pinpoint the present location
1 and nature of site 0002MAI to assist project engineers in avoiding damage to the
shipwreck.
We would like to notify you that this project should be undertaken with extreme
caution, both during excavation of the new inlet alignment and in-filling of the
current alignment. If during construction submerged materials are encountered,
work should move to another area and our Underwater Archaeology Unit be
1 contacted immediately (910-458-9042). A staff member will be sent to make an
assessment of the remains and determine the proper course of action.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
1
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
1 Srrycerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
1 DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick, North Carolina Department of Transportation
1
1
1
1
0 101
1
1
1
APPENDIX 7
Cents about Piping Plover, Beach A=3ranth, and
other Declining Species on
1
1
1

south spit of Figure 6 Island
9 Deer, 1996
by John Fussell, Consulting Biologist
Report for Land Management Group
1
1
0 f oz
1
/
F.?X 9194732130 ISL N-D PEL RMACF P02
Introduction
The Shell Island Resort Homeowners Association and the
Figure 8 Island Homeowners Association have proposed that Mason
1 inlet be relocated about 3500' north of its present (early
DecemAex 1996) location and, in conjunction with this relocation
effort, that dredged material be deposited along a portion of the
ocean beach of Figure 8 Island. This proposal is in response
primarily to 1) the steady southward migration of Mason Inlet and
2) the significant erosion along the ocean beaches of the area
1 that occurred when Hurricane Fran hit this section of coast on 5
September 1996• As of early December 1996, the inlet has
migrated to within 150' of the Shell Island. Resort condominiums
and is continuing to migrate southward toward this structure. As
a result of the erosion resulting from Hurricane Fran, many
oceanfront structures on Figure 8 Island have become much more
vulnerable to storm events because there is now little or no berm
1 or dune development between the structures and the ocean. Also
planned in conjunction with the relocation project are 1) the
filling in of the present inlet, 2) the deepening of Howe creek.
from the Atlantic Intracoastal waterway to the vicinity of the
proposed inlet location, and 3) the removal by dredging of an
area of intertidal sandflats associated with the mouth of Howe
Creek.
1
within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project--i.e
on the barrier spit at the south end of Figure 8 Island, certain
rare/declining plait and bird species are known to occur, and
there is the potential for these to be negatively iwpacted lay the
proposed project- These species include two Federally listed
1 species--beach amaranth (Threatened) and piping plover
{Threatened), plus four additional ground-nesting birds that,
although not Federally listed, are vulnerable to disturbance or
habitat alterations. These four are the Wilson's plover and
three colonial species--least tern, ccumon tern, and black
skimmer. This report briefly discusses 1) general status and
habitat requirements of these species, Z) known staLUS of tlhese?
1 species in the immediate project vicinity, 3) potential threats
to these species posed by the project, and 4) means by which
these threats may be lessened or mitigated.
1
0
1
03
12/10/96 09:24 TX/RX N0.2040 P.002 E8
I
F:kX 9194732130 ISL.:11ND PH.URL_ (C
2
1
1
1
r
1
1
General Statue/Habitat Requirements of Rare/Declining Species
Occurring within Project Area
Beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). Federal status: Threatened;
State status: Threatened.
Beach amaranth is an annual herb that occurs on beaches, loaner
for dunes, and overwash flats. In North Carolina at least, it is
most common on overwash flats on accreting ends of barrier
islands (Neakley 1986). The range of this species has contractled
dramatically. It once occurred from maesaehusetts SOUthwdrd to
South Carolina, but is now limited to the Carolinas except for
one population on Long Island.
Beach amaranth generally grows in the wrack zone of the spring
high tide line, where it is a sand-binding pioneer. However, as
dunes develop withi-n an area, the habitat becomes unsuitable fQF
the species- Thus, beach amaranth is dependent on habitat that
15 G1-azzs1tory in nature, newly accrete S1Les tnaz Esc
continually be recreated by natural forces such as inlet
migration and overwash. The decline in the species is due at
least in part to inlet and barrier island stabilization projectp.
However, this species is also very sensitive to URV traffic and
heavy foot traffic.
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Federal status: Threatened.;
State status: Threatened.
This small shorebird breeds in the northern Great Plains, at a
few sites bordering the northern Great Lakes, and along the
Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia south to North Carolina (rarely
Harry County, South Carolina). Piping plovers winter from North
Carolina southward along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts to Texas
and nortxlern Mexico, and on sorne islands in the Caribbean. The
species has suffered dramatic declines during this century,
although intensive management efforts have resulted in partial
recovery at a few sites in the last decade. North Carolina is
the only state where birds both regularly breed and overwinter.
Along the Atlantic coast, suitable breeding habitat for piping
plovers is similaz- iu many ways to habitat that is suitable for
beach amaranth. Birds typically nest at sparsely vegetated sites
with little dune development, often adjacent to inlets- Again,
such areas are transitory habitat, dependent on forces such as
inlet migration and overwashes for renewal. In the southern
portion of trio range, including North Carolina, nesting is tar
more likely to occur at sites where intertidal or other wet
mudflats/sandflats are contiguous with suitable nesting habitat
(Loegering and Fraser 1995, Fussell, pers. obs.)_ In North
Carolina, this species has never been reported nesting on dredged
material islands- Piping plovers are sensitive to disturbance
from humans and to predation by numerous mammalian and avian
P00
1 I o'-1
12/110/96 09:24 TX/RX :10.2040 P.003
7,
.
I
FAX [phone] I51-0-D PEL RLkCY
1 predators, including dogs and cats. Cverwintering birds fend
primarily on extensive intertidal flats adjacent to inlets. In
North Carolina, suitable resting/roosting habitat appears to be
as important for wintering plovers as is feeding habitat.
Roasting/resting birds are found primarily on sparsely vegetated
above-tidal flats having little dune development and vegetation`
1 cover, habitat similar to that preferred for nesting, and also
dependent on natural forces for renewal.
Wilson's plover (Charadrius wiisonia). Not Federally or state
lisped. However, is considered to be a State "Watch List"
species, categories ill and WS, indicating that it is known co b4--
1 aeclining and that there are threats to its habitat.
This coastal species breeds along the coast from A4aryland
southward. In winter, it occurs primarily from the Gulf Coast
and Flortda Southward. In North Carolina, this species breeds
primarily from Portsmouth island southward. Wilson's plovers
breed mostly on barrier islands and on dredged material islands
1 within the estuaries. Wilson's plovers often breed at sites
having similar habitat to those preferred by piping plovers;
however Wilson's plovers utilize a broader range of habitat
structure than. do piping plovers--they frequently nest where
there is a moderate arcurt of vegetative cover. Nevertheless,
they too certainly benefit from natural forces like inlet
migration and storm overwashes. Likewise, they are sensitive to
1 human disturbance (although not as sensitive as plping plovers in
=hat they utilize sites with moderate vegetation cover) and do
best where mammalian predator populations are low.
Colonial species--least tern (Sterna antiZlarum) , common tern
(Sccrna hirundo), and black ski=ner (_Rynchops niger). The black
sXirrmer iS State listed--special concern. The least tern is
Considered to be a state -Hatch List" species, categories W1 and
W5, indicating that it is known to be declining and that there
are threats to its hat3itat.
These three colonial species, connon nesting associates, are
discussed together. A11 three are predominantly coastal Species.
/ The two terns winter south of North Carolina; the skirmner winters
from North Carolina south. In North Carolina, these three
species breed primarily on barrier islands and on dredged-
material islands within the estuaries. on the barrier isla-nds,
nesting habitat of least terns and black skimmers is quite
Similar to that of piping plovers, i.e. areas with very little
1 vegetation or dune development. However, they do not require
that wet flats lie contiguous with their nesting areas. Thus
they frequently nest at sites well removed from the vicinity of
inlets. Common terns often nest in the same areas an4 in the
same habitat as least terns and black skimmers. However, they
often utilize sites having more vegetation cover than the other
two species. Birds of all three species nesting on barrier
1
1
PO .1
IoS
12/10/96 09:24 TX/RX N0.2040 P.004 M

FAa 9194732130 ISLAND PELUR AC`i POS
4
island sites can benefit from inlet migration and storm overwash,
which recreate suitable nesting habitat. Spoil deposition can
similarly create suitable nesting habitat. These colonial
species are also sizbject to disturbance from humans and
predators. Overall, it is wiich easier to protect nesting
populations of these colonial species than it is to protect
nesting populations of the noncolonial plovers.
Status of RarQ/Declining Skies within the Irm-Tediate Project
Area
1
Beach amaranth.
I do not know of any published reports regarding this species
within the irmted=ate project area, i.e. the barrier spit. During
a 1989 survey for breeding piping plovers, I recorded the
presence of this species, but did not record any numbers. Derr
Carter, who has also surveyed the area for piping plovers,
reports Vaat he has seen beach amaranth on the barrier spit
during several years (pers. ccm.). Based on the extent of
auitabIe habitat, it is likely that the spit supports a
substantial population of the species, at least during some
years. Because most of the spit was overwashed during r%--ricariie
Fran, it is likely that there will be a significant increase in
the amaranth population of the spit in 1997, unless needs were
removed from the area.
Piping p1cver.
There are no published records of piping plovers breeding in the
project area. However, Walker Golder, National Audubon Society',
informs me that he observed a pair of birds present on the spit
one recent surmier, probably 1993 (pers. com. ) . These birds were
performing distraction displays, strongly indicative of nesting.
There are two records of wintering birds in the project area.
One individual was observed during the winter of 1989-1990
(FLiZsell 1990). During the 1996 U.S. Piste and Wildlife Service;
International Piping Plover Census, 6 individuals were recorded'
on Figure 8 Island; two of these birds were on the spit in the
project area (Derb Carter, pers. ccwn.) . Carter informs me that'
he has seen 1-3 birds here each winter since 1989--1990. It
should be pointed out that the wintering population of the state
declined abruptly in the winter 1989-1990, apparently due to
mortality associated with the snowstorm and severe cold of that
winter, and that the population has remained depressed since twat
time, although it is slowly rebounding. Thus this site probably
has the potential to support more birds than it has, even if
habitat were to remain the same. Derb Carter also reports seeing
birds at this site regularly during the migrations; no counts acre
available at this time. Plovers seen at this site typically
roost/rest on the barrier spit and feed both on the spit and on
I OG
12/ 10/96 09:24 TX;RX ;v0.2040 P.005
F.kX 9194752130 ISLA-N-D PHA-R -kCY P06
/
5
the intertidal flats at the mouth of Howe Creek. Because of the
overwash associated with Hurricane Fran, this site now prov:;des.
better piping plover breeding and pointer habit than at any other
time in the recent past.
Note. Figure 8 Island is identified in the Piping Plover Revistd
1 Recovery Plan as "essential wintering habitat". it is assured
that this includes the spits at both the north and south ends of
the island.
Wilson's Plover.
1 During the 1989 breeding census of piping plovers (Fussell 1991),
I also censused Wilson's plovers at many sites. Ctn the barrier
spit at the south end of Figure 8 Island, I estimated 48 WiISC12'S
plpvers, a substantial population. Most of these birds exhibited
behavior suggestive of nesting, such as distraction displays. In
the 1996 breeding season, John Cecil, a UNC-Wilmington graduate
student, estimated 15-20 birds present, and he found rive nests
1 (pers, com,). As a result of storm overwash during Hurricane
Fran, habitat for this species has improved.
Colonial species--least tern, ccwmTton tern, and black skimmer.
These species are discussed together. There are no published
1 reports of breeding numbers at this site in recent years. In the
1989 piping plover breeding survey (Fussell 1991), I estimated
250 least terns, 10 common terns, and 10 black skimmers that
exhibited nesting behavior, and I observe a few least tern nests
(Fussell, unpub. notes). John Cecil reports that about i5o least
terns were present in 1996, and that some nesting occurred.
Walker Golder, National Audubon Society, reports that a least
1 tern colony i9 present at this site during most years, and that
typically 9tlaer colonial species are present.
In stmmmary,
1 1. This area supports a small wintering population of piping
plovers, from 1-3 birds each winter beginning in
1989-1990. However, the populaticn of the site during
this period would probably have been higher if not for the
snowstorm and severe weather that occurred in 1989-1990.
1 2. The immediate project area also supports a few piping plovers
during the migrations.
3. There is one record suggesting nesting by piping plovers in
the immediate project area. This record has not been
published.
1
1 (07
1-1 /10/96 09:21 TX/RX \0.2040 P.006
F1.S 9194732130 ISLA_"M PER-MA-C`i P07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
G
a Beach amaranth is known to occur at this Bite, but no
specific informaticr. is availa'nle .
5 _ In recent years, this site has SI.Inorte a SU_tS:.aV_tia1
breeding population of Wilson's plovers.
6. I7uriSlg moo` years, t:riere is a least tern breedinq color_y in
the immediate project. During at least soS'.'e vears, this
includes black ski==ers, coTm=n terns, and c-erhaps other
species.
-7. There is no in-4c=-atior, about breeding success for any of
the above bird species at this site.
8. For beach amaranth and all bird SU2ciczs, habitat G?alit;
Within the irmned to project area is i=rovec' as cci=a-ed
?washi n
to recent nears, as a result of severe ov_ r S dvrinc
Hurricane Fran.
Potential Threats to the Above Sbecies Posed by the Proposers
Pr'oj err-
'? the above species share
First it should ba Str2S5eG tL.a?-; Y.?? taL needs, and
I'1 1V CCTrunc C?1draLL?==5L1C5 1=1 CeY?a-S O?
,,,
potential threats to them tiircuFtout their ra=ge are siLttlla?,
aithouch there are some ?-? anL d'tf=erer_ces :.11 of these
?-??-` _
Species are generally dependent on disturbances 7-tat create new-1v
is a in the case of beach
deposited s-abstrate "_ nesting n at least
in I3oz-th Ca p, _-- ,crtant Gust- _ ction =s t2iat,
naranth? How ??_, an wo federali_, listed species--piping
rclir:a, t: e t ?e teach as=- ant. --are largely reGtr, c`.ed to sips w?,L_A---e
plover and b_a__-
this happens result of natural forces--inlet cc.=arat? on a.:.d
as a
overwashes. They have received little b-enefi it frc_?n dredged
material deposition, especially if ycu consider secondarf
rS . Cn the other hand, t~e WilsonI s plover and the thee
cold _
colonial species have often beneLlttedasromndthegshorttte?.
deposition and similar projects, at
in the case of the piping clover, it should be restressed
in many
suitable wintering habitat is similar respects to
habitat, and is also dependent on natural forces for
breeding
eneWal
r _ .
In addi.ticr_ to habitat considerations, all the above spec=es
in scmewbat varying degrees, to human dist-rbar_ce .
are sensitive,
Beach amaranth may be destroyed by heavy foot traffic and ORV
traffic. All the above bird species are sensitive to human
ing. In our area, this is probably mast
disturbance when nest
true of the piping plover, because the chicks feed primarily on
wet flats. People regularly visit the barrier spit in the
project area by means of boat, but human visitation across most
1
12;'10'96 09:21 7 R:i x`0.2040 °.00
1 ofr
IM
FAX 91947 0°_100 ISLAYD PELAML.3CY P08
/
7
/ of the spit is relatively light, because of the controlled access
on to Figure 8 Island. In contrast, there is far more human us*
of t7ae shorelines on the south side of the current inlet
location.
All of the above bird species are also sensitive to
1 predation pressures. Within the project area, feral cats are
reported to be cox-icon on Figure 8 Island (Derb Carter, pers.
CM. , John Cecil, pers. com. ) .
In such a dynamic environment, predicting the overall
effects of particular projects on the above species, especially
the two Federally listed species, can be extremely difficult.
Short-term effects may be quite easy to predict. However, Ior_5-
term effects are difficult to predict and may be cruite different
from short-term effects. For instance, deposition of dredged
material may tettpararily greatly improve quality of nesting
substrate for the bird species; however, deposition of this
material may lead to islanc widening that prevents future
overwashes, thus leading to subsequent degradation/ loss of
habitat.
However, it should also be stressed that at many coastal
sites, the type and rate of natural disturbances are much roduced
from "natural" levels, as a result of human manipulations of
/ adjacent areas. For instance, the deepening and stabilization of
one inlet could lead to a reduced tidal flow in a smaller
adjacent inlet, resulting in the eventual filling in of the
inlet.,
Potential Threats to Rare Species
/ 1. Initially, this project will physically remove a section
of the spit and a section of habitat suitable for beach
amaranth, for nesting birds in the breeding season, and
for roosting/resting piping plovers in pointer and
migrations,
2. in addition to habitat loss, the carrying out of the project
Could result in destruction of beach amaranth plants and
could disrupt bird nesting it carried out during the ne?stizzg
season.
3. The removal of intertidal flats west of the barrier spit
will lead to the loss, at least temporarily, of a major
/ feeding area of piping plovers.
4. The relocation of the inlet northward will probably lead to
greatly increased human visitation of the portion of the
Spit lying south of the new inlet location.
5. If future dredging of the inlet leads to relative stability,
1
1 109
1`_/10/96 09:24 TX/R: NO.2040 P.008
1
F_A-1 91941-32130 ISI-LtiTD PEAR-MACY P09
8
1 i.e. the inlet occupying nearly the same location for
several years, then habitat suitable for piping plovers
and beach amaranth is likely to gradually deteriorate.
Other Considerations
1 1. It is assumed that after the inlet is relocated it will
begin to resume a southward migration. If so, high quality
habitat is likely to be recreated, and this will be on the
north aide of the inlet, where human disturbance is lightest.
2. If the lack of human intervention eventually results in the
1 inlet filling in, then habitat suitable for the above species
will eventually deteriorate, although Curing t?ze period that
the inlet is filling in, habitat will be very good.
3. If the lack of human intervention eventually results in the
inlet filling in, then the area will becccne subject to much
more visitation pressure, which will be especially harmful
1 to beach amaranth and piping plovers.
means by which These Threats May Be Lessened or Mitigated
1. if this project is carried out, it should be done in
the winter mvllths, and accomplished before 15 March to
1 lessen i=acts to beach amaranth and nesting birds.
2. The project should reduce the amount of intertidal flats
west of the spit that are removed, or avoid this area
altogether, to avoid destruction of important piping plover
feeding habitat.
/ 3. The project should not lead to any dune stabilization
projects such as construction of sand fences, dune grass
plantings, etc.
4. The project should not lead to efforts to maintain the newly
created inlet in the same position.
1
5. The greatest good that could come from a project such as this
wQU1d be the recognition of a permanent "inlet migration
zone" within the barrier spit, an area protected by legal
restrictions. It would be desirable if a permanent easement
to the State Wildlife Resources Commission, Audubon society,
1 or other conservation organization were established.
5. Mitigation for this project that involves similar lands
elsewhere in the vicinity should be considc=ed. Pcr
instance, public acquisition of Lea Island and Hutaff Island
as a nature preserve where small inlets could be allowed to
migrate without affecting developed areas would be very
1
1 Flo
12/10/96 09:2 TX/RX N0.2040 P.009
FA.Y 9194732130 ISL ND PH.iRACF P10
1
9
1
desirable. Piping plovers and beach amaranth occ-r in these
areas and nesting by pjp?-ng plovers was observed i='i 1995
during the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International
Piping Plover Census.
1 Bibliography
Fussell, John- 1990. Census of Piping Plovers Wintering on the
North Carolina Coast, 1989-1990. Report to the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Conmission.
1 Fussell, John. 1991. Census of the North Carolina Breeding
Population cf Piping Plovers. Re-vort to the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Co=Li.ssi.on.
Loerering, J.F- and J.D. Fraser. 1995. Factors Affecting Piping
Plover Chick Survival in Different Brood-Rearing Habitate.
1 Journal of Wildlife Management 59:646-655.
U.S_ Fisk and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover (Charadrius
melodus) Atlantic Coast Revised Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, ReSion 5, Hadley, Massachusetts.
ley, Alan_ 1986. Summary of Information on Seabeach
1 Amaranth (Amaranthus pu.-nilus) NCDHMR, Natural Aeri.tage
Program, Raleigh.
1
1
1
1
1 rr?
TX,%RX N0.2040 P. 13 I j
APPENDIX 8
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Federal. Review of the CAMA Major Development Permit application by federal agencies is
coordinated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps will review the application for
1 compliance with section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 which covers construction,
dredging, filling and other work in navigable waters. The Corps will also review the
application for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which covers the discharge
of dredged or fill material into any waters or wetlands.
Distribution of applications is handled by the Corps to the Environmental Protection Agency,
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service for their review and
comment. Comments from these agencies are received and considered by the Corps prior to
any permit issuance.
State. The Division of Coastal Management coordinates the review process for all relevant
state agencies. State authorizations required include the Coastal Area Management Act; Dredge
and Fill Act; Water Quality Certification; and Easement in Public Trust Areas.
Application copies are distributed by DCM to State agencies which include the Divisions of
Water Quality, Land Quality, Water Resources, Marine Fisheries, Environmental Health,
Archives and History and Community Assistance, as well as the Wildlife Resources
Commission, the Department of Administration and Department of Transportation. DCM
receives comments from these state agencies for consideration prior to any permit issuance.
North Camlina Env}lvnawntal Policy Act. The proposed project involves the use of public
lands below mean high water and, therefore, requires compliance with the NCEPA. The
Environmental Assessment is being submitted as documentation for such compliance. Based
on the assessment of impacts by the proposed project, a FONSI will be issued or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required prior to permit issuance.

r
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA Inc.
112-
b
APPENDIX 9
NOTIFICATION
Riparian Landowners. As required, all riparian landowners will receive copies of the
CAMA Major Development Permit application materials. Copies are sent by certified mail.
/ Riparian landowners have 30 days in which to submit written comments to DCM.
Public Notice. DCM will issue a notice of application for a CAMA Major Development
Permit in the local newspaper as part of their review process.
1 Environmental Assessment Submittal. This EA is being submitted to Mr. John Parker of
the Division of Coastal Management Office in Raleigh, North Carolina for circulation to
commenting agencies.
The CAMA Major Development Permit application will be submitted to the Division of
1 Coastal Management District Office in Wilmington, North Carolina and to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch at the District Office in Wilmington, North Carolina.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Environmental Assessment
Shell Island HOA. Inc. and Figure 8 Beach HOA, Inc.
0 1/3