19970997 Ver 1_Complete File_19990122

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
e??
D E N R
January 22, 1998
Onslow County
DWQProject # 970997
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Ms. Terri Potts
Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Court
North Topsail Beach, INC 28460
Dear Ms. Potts:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
bulldoze 12.2 mils of ocean for the purpose of restoring the emergency berm at North Topsail Beach, as
you described in your application dated November 24, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3112. In addition, you
should get anv other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but
not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except
as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed below.
1. This Certification shall expire one year after the date of issuance of the CAML A Permit or
approval of the monitoring plan, whichever is later. A new application for Certification
will then be required.
2. Beach bulldozing shall not occur between May 1 and November 15 to minimize impact to
aquatic life.
3. Excavation depth shall not exceed one foot in depth.
4. Written approval from DWQ is required for a monitoring plan to assess the impact of this
project on intertidal infauna abundance and diversity. An undisturbed reference site is required
in this plan. Results of the monitoring will be used to determine whether future bulldozing can
receive additional Certifications. Mr. Eric Fleek of the DWQ Central Office can be contacted
at 919-733-1786 for assistance in developing and reviewing this plan.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearinas, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
inc
, J
r. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
John Parker, DCM 970997.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Non-DischargeBranch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
January 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Eric Fleek
SUBJECT: North Topsail Beach Bulldozing/Berm Enhancement-401 Conditions

?., All \
66A
be- «?d dot.
To
?V?
._ . - -- ' -torough literature review I believe that the following
?)6112V 0. CftVkk PVVM4. -
F eertifiealion. Le
i occurring between May 1 through November 15 to
?ral) invertebrates.
)tin depth. v W
i increase in the prior authorized dimensions of the -V-"

cy, )LeacL
"LW( ?0,j
abundance and diversity is gathered at the project site.
bundance and diversity is gathered at an undisturbed
ail Inlet and New Topsail Inlet, or the beach between Rich
5 require prior approval by DWQ.

January 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Domey
FROM: Eric Fleek
SUBJECT: North Topsail Beach Bulldozing/Berm Enhancement-401 Conditions
Based on a review of the application and a thorough literature review I believe that the following
conditions should be required for the 401.
1) That the 401 expire one year from the date of eertifiaation.
2) That the beach bulldozing be prohibited from occurring between May 1 through November 15 to
minimize impacts to intertidal (and supralittoral) invertebrates.
3) That the excavation depth not exceed one foot in depth. ,??? WQ
4) That the new bulldozing does not result in an increase in the prior authorized dimensions of the
emergency beach berm.
5) That intertidal infaunal invertebrate pre/ post abundance and diversity is gathered at the project site.
6) Reference data regarding intertidal infauna abundance and diversity is gathered at an undisturbed
reference site (e.g., beach between Old Topsail Inlet and New Topsail Inlet, or the beach between Rich
Inlet and Old Topsail Inlet).
7) That the study design for condition #5 and #6 require prior approval by DWQ.
January 8, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Eric Flee
SUBJECT: N. Topsail Beach bulldozing/Dune Enhancement (ONSLOW, DWQ#970997)
After review of the application for this project for the Wetland/401 group, it is my recommendation that
this project application be formally placed on hold until such time as the technical concerns (attached) are
addressed either in the form of an EA or an EIS. A memorandum (dated 1/6/98) was sent to DCM
requesting that they require an environmental document for this project.
January 6, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: John DornY`rd
FROM: Eric Fleek !
SUBJECT: North Topsail Beach Dune Restoration/Bulldozing (DWQ#970997)
Based on a review of the application for dune enhancement/bulldozing on North Topsail Beach from the
Division of Coastal Management (received on November 24, 1997), the Wetlands/401 Group of the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) believes that this project should require an Environmental Impact
Statement or an Environmental Assessment before receiving a 401 Water Quality Certification. We believe
that this action is necessary for the following reasons:
1) This is a very large project when considered cumulatively. If all beach bulldozing permits are granted for
Topsail Island a total of more than 20 miles (essentially the entire shoreline) will be bulldozed. As a result
DWQ believes that the existing uses at this beach could be removed as many populations of invertebrates
crucial to commercial/recreationally important finfish and shellfish could be removed totally or otherwise
significantly impacted. In addition, the bulldozing and resultant invertebrate mortality along the entire
length of the strand will likely delay or preclude subsequent recruitment of this important invertebrate food
source back to the disturbed areas. The reason for this is that nearly all of the potential unaffected areas
which could serve as recruitment centers for disturbed areas would be absent. Furthermore, as the
application indicates, the current proposed activity is for enhancing the berm, which was originally
constructed last year. Since this permit is good for five years and the applicant has already conducted an
annual bulldozing frequency, DWQ believes that for these and other reasons an environmental document is
strongly warranted for this project. In partial support of this we offer the following:
Invertebrates important as prey items for commercially important fin/shellfish which are known to
be adversely impacted by beach renourishment and beach bulldozing projects include the Mole
Crab (Emerita talpoida) and the Coquina clam (Donax variabilis). E. talpoida and Donax
variabilis will likely be killed in all areas bulldozed. Those not killed initially will likely die due to
desiccation and or suffocation once removed to the supralittoral zone. In addition to these
"primary" impacts, an important secondary impact associated with beach bulldozing is that of
lowering the existing beach profile. Altering the natural slope of the beach has been demonstrated
to adversely effect both Donax and Emerita. For example, Mikkelson (1981) demonstrated
adverse impacts to Donax related to lowered beach profiles. A lowered beach profile is anticipated
for this project.
Recovery times for disturbed beaches with populations of Emerita talpoida range between one
month, two months and up to one year depending on the size class with smaller sizes having a
longer recovery time (Hayden and Dolan 1974, Reilly and Bellis 1983, Dolan and Donaghue
1993). In addition, Emertta and Donax both have been shown to exhibit sustained disruption of
recruitment for 1-2 years after disturbance on isolated beaches (Hackney et al. 1996). The fact that
nearly all of this beach strand is to be bulldozed this year effectively isolates this beach system, as
all potential for recruitment of these and other species will be removed. In addition, despite this
project occurring during the winter/early spring, the reproduction of Donax has been shown to
start in early March (Reilly and Bellis, 1978). Additionally, Emerita has a very short larval period
(approx. 28 days) and as a result has a limited dispersal range usually restricting recruitment to
areas only in the immediate vicinity of the disturbed sites (Rees 1959). Donax depends on specific
beach slopes for tidal migration (Mikkelson, 1981). Alterations in the beach's natural slope may
negatively impact the ability of Donax to tidally migrate and thereby further limit its recruitment
potential.
Emerita and Donax are important food sources for shorebirds, Portunid crabs (including, but not
limited to the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus), and many species of fmfish (McLachlan 1978,
McLachlan 1979, Wade 1967, Schneider 1982). In fact, gut analyses conducted in 7 species of
common surf zone fish (Menidia menidia (Silvesides), Menticirrhus spp. (Whiting), Paralichthys
dentatus (Summer Flounder), Trachinotus carolinus (Pompano), Micropogon undulatus
(Croaker), Leiostomos xanthurus (Spot), and Caranx hippos (Cravelle Jack) revealed a near total
dependence on Emerita and Donax (Reilly and Bellis, 1978).
The absence of Donax from the beach for any extended period of time could result in serious
ecological consequences as Donax contributed up to an order of magnitude greater biomass than
any migrating consumer and up to 12% of the total available secondary productivity (Leber 1977).
As a result, any disruption in adult populations of these invertebrates may cause negative impacts
to surf zone fish which are highly dependent on them as food sources (as described below). Reilly
and Bellis (1978) go so far as to state: "Low secondary productivity resulted in a reduced
utilization of the nourished beach by migrating consumers of commercial and sport interest."
Traditional thinking regarded the surf zone as a continuous open habitat swept by waves and
currents, however it may actually operate as a self contained system (Ross 1983, Hackney et al.
1996). In support of this view it has been clearly demonstrated that many species of fish use the
surf-zone as a juvenile nursery area and that they often stay within the same -100m of beach for
periods of up to 27 days (Ross and Lancaster 1996). Specifically, individual Pompano
(Trachinotus carolinus) and Gulf Kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis) were found to inhabit an
individual-specific stretch of surf zone (Ross and Lancaster, 1996). The implications of these
results indicate that local disturbances could have significant impacts on the behavior and or
survival of juvenile fishes in these areas and that since they are restricted to a certain section of
beach it is important that their food sources not be disturbed several months prior to and during
their recruitment seasons (Ross and Lancaster, 1996).
The importance of surf zones for fish habitat has been largely underestimated (Bennett, 1989). In
fact, surf zone icthyofaunas hold similar numbers of species as those which inhabit estuaries
(Bennett, 1989) and are highly diverse (Moyle and Cech, 1988). A total of 102 fish species are
know to be caught from North Carolina beaches and piers (Hackney et al. 1996) and North
Carolina likely has the largest commercial surf zone harvest on the east coast (Hackney et al.
1996). Of the 102 fish species common to the surf zone, only two species have been studied in
regards to their strong juvenile dependence on specific stretches of surf zone for habitat and forage
(Ross and Lancaster, 1996). If the paradigm demonstrated in the Ross and Lancaster paper holds
for any of the other 102 species, the importance of the surf zone for commercial and recreational
fisheries could be extremely significant.
2) The Wetland/401 Group believes that beach bulldozing may not be an effective method for the
protection of oceanfront property and that it should not be considered re-nourishment. The Wetland/401
Group believes that this project may actually hasten the erosion of the beach. Furthermore, the longevity
and durability of this project will likely be such that this activity will need to be done on an annual basis for
repair purposes (as mentioned earlier, this current permit in question is requesting enhancement of a berm
constructed just last year). Since the CAMA permit (if issued) is good for 5 years, the applicant can (if they
desire, or unless prohibited by the CAMA permit) bulldoze as often as possible (excluding turtle nesting
seasons) for the duration of the 5 years. Again, this possibility of annual to semi-annual frequency (not to
mention the prior discussion regarding the length of the proposed project) may likely prove too much for
local invertebrate populations and their corresponding finfish/shellfish predators to overcome. We believe
that issues like this need to be addressed and discussed in an EA/EIS. Similarly, alternatives to bulldozing
should also be discussed. In further support of these views we offer the following:
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. in 1965 constructed a beach berm 14,000 ft. long, 25ft.wide, and 15
ft. above M.L.W. consisting of a total of 2,933,000 yd3 of material (Pearson and Riggs,
1981). This project was congressionally authorized and was intended to be a "long term"
beach stabilization and was supplemented by additional beach renourishment projects in
1966, and 1970 where a total of 1,697,000 yd3 of material was placed on Wrightsville Beach
(Pearson and Riggs, 1981). A later survey by the USACOE documented that the artificially
constructed beach berm was either totally eliminated or had resulted in a vertically scarped
berm (Pearson and Riggs, 1981). This vertically scraped berm was demonstrated to act as a
bulkhead which further promoted offshore transport of sediment from the beach during high
energy storm conditions (Pearson and Riggs, 1981).
In 1977 Sandy Hook NJ initiated an emergency beach berm project consisting of sand being
bulldozed into a high narrow ridge to function as a barrier to overwash and flooding (Leonard
et al. 1990). This beach berm resulted in the formation of a near vertical scarp which was
demonstrated to keep water and sediment in motion (Leonard et al. 1990). The result was the
transformation of the "attenuated foreshore into a continuous transport surface" (Leonard et
al. 1990). This "continuous transport surface" resulted in the fill being transported rapidly to
adjacent beaches where a beach downdrift from the fill gained over 30 feet in width (Leonard
et al. 1990). This rapid transport of artificially constructed beach berms may result in many
areas of the proposed berm to be removed faster than others and may therefore likely result in
future requests for further berm "enhancement". Pilkey and Ross (1989) have testified before
Congress that: "Predictions of replenished beach durability are always wrong."
• Kana and Svetlichny (1982) note that beach bulldozing is the "poor man's replenishment" and
that technically it is not actual replenishment since no new sand is added to the beach. In
addition, in certain instances beach berms have been shown to erode away in times ranging as
short as several weeks to four months (Leonarad et al. 1990).
Again, due to this project's size (12.2 miles) and the combined effects of beach bulldozing requests from
Surf City (6 miles) and Topsail Beach (remainder of the island) the Wetland/401 Group believes that the
adverse impacts to invertebrate prey crucial to commercially and recreationally important surfzone fmfish
and shellfish on Topsail Island may be significant. Impacts including: initial mortality {mechanical 1,
secondary impacts {desiccation, smothering and suffocation, and the alteration of the beach profile), and
the disruption of essentially the entire available habitat will likely cause this strand to be recruitment
limited for Emerita and Donax for many seasons. Further, the changes in beachforms and the formation of
scarps associated with beach berms may actually hasten erosion. These aforementioned factors combined
with the ephemeral nature of beach berms and their lack of effectiveness in the protection of oceanfront
property compels us to request that you approach The Division of Coastal Management to require an
environmental document for this project. If there are any questions regarding this matter please feel free to
contact Mr. Eric Fleek at 733-1786 or via e-mail: eric [e-mail] .
Cc: Dennis Ramsey, Joanne Steenhuis
Literature Cited
Bennett, B.A. 1989. The fish community of a moderately exposed beach on the southwestern Cape Coast of
South Africa and an assessment of this habitat as a nursery for juvenile fish. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 28:
293-305.
Dolan, R. amd C. Donoghue. 1993. Monitoring and analysis of 1992 beach nourishment placed on Pea
Island, North Carolina. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina.
Hackney, C.T., M.H. Posey, S.W. Ross, and A.R. 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. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 11 lpp.
Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment on distribution of Emertia talpoida, the
common mole crab. Journal of the Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering division ASCE
100:WW2. Pp. 123-132.
Kana, T.W., and M., Svetlichny. 1982. Artificial manipulation of beach profiles. Coastal Engineering, pp.
903-922.
Leber, K.M. 1977. Seasonal community dynamics of macrobenthos on a high energy sandy beach in North
Carolina. Master's Thesis, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. 89pp.
Leonard, L., T.D. Clayton, and O.H. Pilkey. 1990. An analysis of replenished beach design parameters on
U.S. East Coast Barrier Islands. Journal of Coastal Research. 6(1): 15-36.
McLachlan, A. 1979. Growth and production of Donax sodidus, on an open sandy beach in Algoa Bay. S.
Afr. J. Zool. 14:61-66.
McLachlan, A. 1983. Sandy beach ecology-A review. Pp. 321-380. In: McLachlan, A. and T. Erasmus
(eds.), Sandy beaches as ecosystems. Developments in Hydrobiology 19. Dr. W. Junk. Publ., Boston.
Mikkelson, P.S. 1981. A comparison of two Florida populations of the Coquina Clam, Donax variabilis. I.
Intertidal Density, Distribution and Migration. Veliger 23:230-238.
Moyle, P.B., and J.J. Cech, Jr. 1988. Fishes an introduction to Icthyology. 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. 559 pp.
Pearson, D.R., and S. R. Riggs. 1981. Relationship of surface sediments on the lower forebeach and
nearshore shelf to beach nourishment at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Shore and Beach Journal.
Vol. 49. Pp 26-31.
Pilkey, O.H. and K. Dixon. 1989. "Testimony of Orrin H. Pilkey, Jr. before the Environment, Energy, and
National Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations." April 28,
1989.
Rees, G.H. 1959. Larval development of the sand crab Emerti talpoida (Say) in the laboratory. Biological
Bulletin 117:356-370.
Reilly, F.J., and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of beach nourishment with dredged
materials on the intertidal zone. Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources Technical Report No. 4.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Wilmington District. 107 pp.
Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1983. The ecological impact of beach nourishment with dredged materials on
the intertidal zone at Bogue banks, N.C. Misc. Report No. 83-3. USACOE Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Ft. Beloved Va. 125pp.
Ross, S.T. 1983. A review of Surf Zone Ichthyofaunas in the Gulf of Mexico. Proc. N. Gulf of Mexico Est.
Barrier Islands Res. Conf. Biloxi, MS.
Ross, S.W. and J.E. Lancaster. 1996. Movements of juvenile fish using surf zone nursery habitats and the
relationship of movements to beach nourishment along a North Carolina beach: pilot project. Final
Report Submitted to NOAA Office of Coastal resource Management and the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Wilmington District) for National Oceanic an Atmospheric Administration Award No.
NA570Z0318.
Schneider, D. 1982. Predation by Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria interpres) on a polymorphic clam (Donax
variabilis) at Sanibel Island, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32: 341-344.
Wade, B.A. 1967. Studies on the biology of the West Indian beach clam, Donax denticulatus. Bulletin of
Marine Science 17:1. Pp. 149-174.
To: John Dorney
Environmental Sciences Branch
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
REVIEWER: STEENHUIS? ?' V V
ACTING WQ SUPERVISOR: SHIVER- S S
DATE: November 21, 1997
WETLAND INFORMATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACKING
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO.: 970997 COUNTY: Onslow
PROJECT NAME: North Topsail Beach - emergency berm enhancement
PROJECT TYPE: Beach Bulldozing PERMIT TYPE: CAMA
COE #: N/A DOT#: N/A
RCD FROM CDA: DCM DATE FROM CDA: November 10, 1997
REG OFFICE: WiRO RIVER AND SUB BASIN#: 030624
*STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: Atlantic Ocean
CLASS: SB STREAM INDEX #: 99-(3)

*OPEN OR CLOSED: N/A D

F
WL IMPACT: N/A WL TYPE: N/A

C
%
WL REQUESTED: N/A WL ACR EST: N/A
WL SCORE: N/A
MITIGATION: N/A MITIGATION TYPE: N/A
MITIGATION SIZE: N/A RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: ISSUE
STORMWATER PLAN REQ' D:
IF YES, DATE APPROVED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Town of North Topsail Beach is applying for a Major Modification and
renewal of their CAMA Major Permit #1-94. The proposed modification would allow for beach bulldozing
along a 12.2 miles of beach within its jurisdiction for the purpose of enhancing the emergency berm
constructed last year.
WATER QUALITY CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D: Yes
IF YES, TYPE: General Certification #3112 for CAMA Major Permits
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED: N/A
TO BE PERMITTED BY: N/A
IF BY DWQ, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE: N/A
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL - WATER: N/A WETLAND: N/A
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? N/A
DREDGING
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS
OF RESOURCE? N/A
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? N/A
. -??
.,?;?,,
.1 ; ..
to '
? .,;.
970997.nov
Page Two
MARINA
ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: N/A MARINA SERVICES: N/A
OXYGEN IN BASIN: N/A CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS: N/A
(ATTACH A MARINA USE ATTAINABILITY EVAL.)
RECOM1yWNDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS: That the project be done
in such a manner so as to not cause turbidity outside the immediate construction area to exceed
25 NTU.
That the project certification include the following conditions:
1. The newly enhanced Dunes be planted with appropriate beach grasses for stabilization
2. Sand fencing is to be installed to promote the natural buildup of wind-blown beach sand to
further enhance and stabilize the dune line
3. The Town realizes that this is not considered to be an acceptable yearly practice due to the
overall negative impact to the beach ecosystem. (It would be difficult for the macro fauna
to re-establish themselves on a yearly basis, thus causing a major impact to the ecosystem.
The additional sand that will be pushed up into the dune line will be taken out of the beach
"system" and may cause additional impacts of sand starvation down the beach not
anticipated in this project.)
cc: Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office Files
DCM- Janet M. Russell
John Parker

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Topsail Beach Dune Restoration
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Town Limits of North Topsail Beach, Onslow County
Photo Index - 1995: 28-367 through 28-378
State Plane Coordinates - N/A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - Numerous
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - October 23, 1997
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -Town Of North Topsail Beach
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation,,-'
1
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Ocean Hazard
(C) Water Dependent: N/A
(D) Intended Use: Provide Protection For Existing Structures,
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A?
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Emergency Berm
Planned - Enhanced Berm
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 2'-5'/year M fiat i ?n?
Source - DCM Erosion Rate Maps VV
(
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(C) Other Bulldozing
Ocean Beach 12.2 Miles
(D) Total Area Disturbed: Approximately 148 Acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: N/A
(F) Water Classification: SB Open: N/A
8. PROJECT SUNEVIARY: The Town Of North Topsail Beach is applying for a Major'
Modification and renewal of their CAMA Major Permit #1-94. The proposed modification
would allow for beach bulldozing along the 12.2 miles of beach within its jurisdiction for the
purpose of enhancing the emergency berm constructed last year.
• .b
NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH DUNE RESTORATION
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Town of North Topsail Beach is located on Topsail Island, a barrier island separating the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway and the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. North Topsail Beach shares this island
with two other towns, Surf City and Topsail Beach. North Topsail Beach lies within Onslow County.
Topsail Island experienced wide spread damage during Hurricanes Bertha and Fran in 1996. Severe
beach erosion resulted in the loss ~of 307,,to 75' of frontal dune mass, The Town Of North Topsail
Beach requested and received endorsement from Federal Emergency Management Agency to construct
an emergency berm along the oceanfront. This berm was constructed out of bulldozed sand, pushed
landward from the wet sand beach. The emergency berm was designed to provide protection from a
five-year storm event. A random cross-section of this structure today approximates a 5' high structure
with a base width of 35' - 40'. The berm was constructed landward of the intertidal area as far as was
feasible. In areas with surviving dune remnants, the emergency berm was pushed against the erosion
escarpment.
By submittal of this application, the Town of North Topsail Beach is proposing a renewal of and major
modification to an existing Major CAMA Permit, #1-94. The existing Major Permit allows for the
expedient approval of beach bulldozing as requested by individual property owners. The permit was
issued on January 6, 1994 and expires on December 31, 1997. The proposed modification being
requested would allow the Town of North Topsail Beach to hire a private contractor to bulldoze the
entire 12.2 miles of ocean beach within the North Topsail Beach jurisdictional limits. The pushed-up,
sand would be used to enhance the existing emergency berm constructed last year. The height and
width of the berm would be increased as a result of the proposed work. Most areas of the beach are
evidencing a buildup of sand from the past Spring and Summer seasons. Any bulldozing activity
authorized would be limited to a total excavation depth of one foot (1') as provided for under T15A:
07H.1805, Specific Conditions.
10. ANTICIPATED E%IPACTS
The proposed beach bulldozing will result in the lowering of the existing beach profile. The area of
disturbance will be approximately 148 acres of intertidal and dry sand ocean beach. Creatures who
inhabit the intertidal zone will likely be adversely affected by the proposed work. A requirement that
the work be carried out during the Winter months will result in less impact to plants and animals who
utilize this environment during the Spring, Summer and Fall.
Additional protection will be afforded to existing roads, homes and infrastructure that are presently
threatened from the beach erosion.
Janet M. Russell / November 12, 1997 / Wilmington
'- Form' DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT t 1JoLT H 70PSA jL- 8epc"tl
-? -\
Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner:
S.' _ 109
f (' tL IJJI
Name -•,, ;? , ;; ; d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
s? 1 -
., urisdiction? X Yes No
41JOASTAL
Address
City
Zip Day Phone
Fax
State
b. Authorizer) Agent:
Name OWO Of:- 1 09-t H VS+'a (L 09CA
Address Zoo'K (x7G?eYC N? CT'
City N . 1d R I & PCO State NC
Zip ZY 4 U Day Phone L, O? 3Z-B- 31 SG
Fax (9 10) 32i -- 4sso
c. Project name (if any) /J/ A
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County C PSL_bv?'
e. Name of body of wa er nearest project (e.g., river,
creek, sound, bay) _ ATLAPj T) C OCR 14Aj
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or fillin activities.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? ? 6T-IA
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? PLka 1_?C_
Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. +41S PtZ,0,j&--r-r Wt L.(,
4-2f w _L &- A T)AfL_ ('1PtLS+V" -TO Cnreo?pAss
i He EAA7_(12c )2.z MILi-S r(-? NT6. j4L-AVL1
L"Ouu(PMce JT 3uL??Zc?2s L'L) C'L !S? ?cst1D.
Pr( 0_J CL ?-'LC- 6 SU,PEr-111S670 i3y L PDI A-r-6
W tL,L- G0t3PDz-t-t To PU AsP?-?7S &C
5u13 C0 a:Q -it (L '7H. I?6o or CA-?-tR-
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract PM W . IZ. Z FUZES
b. Size of individual lot(s) 3? +0 '75
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL N/a
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
3L--ACf4 SA00
e. Vegetation on tract No O C
f. Man-made features now on tract SDrLC
C?oSS LUAL_ KS
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
2-S. e -S, & tc), 0--6-, 2-2_0, p,- 1, a-2-, Cua-s
Cu.2-( o
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? ,?_ Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance cerrif:cate, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? Yes K_ No
If yes, by whom? Iv/A
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Yes J? No
Coastal (marsh) NO Other ju O
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? - fk
(Attach documentation, if available)

m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface noff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial Effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
ti ?R
1?,
J L j
OC T 2 3 1997 5. ADDITIONAL. 3 ? I ' ",
TIQN
i L iV! rRnt=?`? I
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to th e affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.020' ) for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject tb conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
Name ?Z < <? Gib t?-0 L1 ST I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
Address grant permission to representatives of state and federal
Phone review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connects in with evaluating information related to this
Name W permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
Address 1 roje6t
Phone =5U t1CT 2 3 14 7
==?
Name DIVISION, , 4 further certify that the information provided in this
Address COASTAL MAID AG1 ?q on is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
k AJ r)C Cfl-r- p ?p??2M c 7 # I- q q
This is the day of 0J6 19
Print Name ) &---ZL21 y'/ 7s
Signature JV'ftr foa
Imudowner or Authorized Agent
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03195
,
• ?? E .-III i .? I ? j
I::ar. i o 1 ?a?
• ? ?,: ? I. ? Ili::, , '?• ? -_._ j ?•I f'
j I i` ' I ! w'm - - • `!'.. ' I \` d it? 3? .
00
' EIH'8i1 I ` u \\\JJJ - , Si
'I I C 1 ??_ I \ \ li ? •
I i i .??? I `\ I J
?® z \ l?
1 il'^;j r m- I ?. Id ti z
-j 0
)1 Iii.. I• , H O_ , '?1 .??• I H
• ? 6 r. I
10,
I I ? v VJ
l i_I i ?"'=1j lid 2z
! j n i I 3 u 7
I tj j ;e a I ?I ? 1 I
CY
7 I I1
I
fig!
If I
1 ??i ? ? ? 1• pk I I ) '- ;his:
I 11.E 1 ' ? I
? q i'1? 1{ I I 1
1 ( ;I kit: i r i ?r? I I I .
illi ? 'il•? ..r r ;
li it ' I I I I ?.
1' ; 1 •a ;Iliil y ? '
lilil'"' i ;
Jillll? 1 ? ? H I ? I
,;1..i:l , t• 1 illy I ?d? ? Ij r I j ? ? I ?
04

i

•1'
n? OCi 2 j
? 1997
DIVISICN OF
COASTAL N1A14AGEMENT
r i ..

October 23, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Eric Fleek
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI-Ocean Isle Beach Erosion Control/Wave Protection
DWQ has reviewed the aforementioned project. The 401 WQ Certification should contain the following
conditions:
1) Grain size analysis and geotecnical data from the borrow area(s) was taken in May of 1994. DWQ
believes that new data on the grain size characteristics of the borrow site should be made before any
material from this area is deposited on the beach.
2 _ material from the borrow site(s) which is <90 % sand should not be placed on the beach.
---
3) After the first and second growing season an evaluation measuring percent cover of the planted
American Beachgrass and Sea Oats should be made. In addition, a reference (un-disturbed) dune
system should be established and measured for percent cover of American Beaclhgrass and Sea Oats.
The percent cover at the reference site and the experimental (created dunes) site should be compared. If
the percent cover at the experimental site is not similar (e.g. within 20%) of the percent cover of these
two plants at the control (reference site) then additional plantings should be required at the
experimental sites to achieve the 20% similarity of coverage.

r inn ?
1
?I
r
? I1
I ?
./,/1,/ /,
h i
I!i I

I

\\ I ?f - i

?-'?- ?
r . I?
.
i! 111; r
i

C
a
4
n
4
LLJ
LL. w
o C7;
Z ¢I
cry c?
> J
O ¢?