19971036 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

DRAFT
(November 14, 1997)
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE DREDGING
AND
BEACH REBUILDING
Fiyy,R??'9?r" Iyj-
4 (i,?
FIGURE "8" BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Figure Eight Island • Wilmington, North Carolina
TMCENTURY)'von Oesen
CONSULTING ENGINEERS

7JJ?:'L•t `aVjlxi?wvi?
4%
,Q.+ • 1. / ,.?• f.. t ..?
FOR PERMITS TO DEVELOP IN NORTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL AREA
W WI _j 4 .040
?./+vSS..:-fir ,.:I'^6?t>•aJ
.
.l•? 1 ? yti 1• ? • t
a
COMPLETE THIS
FORM TO BEGIN
THE APPLICATION
PROCESS UNDER
THE LAWS LISTED
BELOW:
STATE
Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N.C.G.S.113A-118
Dredge and Fill
N.C.G.S.113-229
Water Quality Certification
N.C.G.S.143-215
Easements in Land
Covered by Water
N.C.G.S.146-6,146-12
FEDERAL
Construction, Dredging,
Filling, or Other Work in
Navigable Waters
Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899
Discharge Dredged or
Fill Material into any
Waters or Wetlands
Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
O
p
DIVISION OF
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROUNA
Dept. of Environment,
Heohh and Noturol
Resources
Forms DCM-MP-I-MP.6
Form DCM-N91-1 (November 14, 1997)
t
APPLICATION
' (To be completed by all applicants)
' b. City, town, community or landmark
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH/FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND
1. APPLICANT
' c. Street address or secondary road number
N/A
a. Landowner:
' Name FIGURE "8" BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN., INC. d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes k-' No
SHELL ISLAND FIGURE EIGHT
' Address 15 BRIDGE ROAD
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
City WILMINGTON State NC creek, sound, bay) ATLANTIC OCEAN/MASON INLET,
RICH INLET, MIDDLE SOUND
Zip 28405 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
' OF PROPOSED PROJECT
b. Authorized Agent:
' Name ART PO I NEAU a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
FIGURE "8" BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN., INC. building a home; motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
15 BRIDGE ROAD
Address MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF MASON INLET AND CREEK;
RICH INLET AND CREEK, AND BANKS CHANNEL TO IMPROVE
City WILMINGTON State NC NAVIGATION AND WATER FLOW AND TO PROVIDE FILL FOR
' BEACH REPAIR ON FIGURE "8" ISLAND AND ON SHELL
28405 [phone] ISLAND.
Zip Day Phone b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
' project, new work, or both? BOTH
Fax [phone]
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
' Use? PUBLIC
c. Project name (if any) CHANNEL MAINTENANCE DREDGING
AND BEACH REBUILDING d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
' construction and daily operations of proposed
NOTE: Permit wiU be issued in name of landmmer(s), andlor project. If more space is needed, please. attach
additional pages. SEE DETAILED PROJECT DESCR I PT I C
project name. IN ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
' PROJECT -
a. County NEW HANOVER

Form DCM-MP-1
' site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
' • 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.
Name SEE ATTACHED LIST
'
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
' Phone
e A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
' work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
NCDNRCD CAMA PERMIT #89-83 (4 APRIL 1984)
' #21-88 (20 JANUARY 1988)
#26-92 (25 NOVEMBER 1992)
#21-93 (16 FEB 1993) #2-90 (4 NOVEMBER 1996)
' • 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 m
' 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.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
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 to 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.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact;
grant permission to representatives of state and federa
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to t L
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in thi
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the day of _, 19
ART POINEAU
Print Name FIGURE "8" HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Signature
Landowner or Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your propose
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 t
space provided at the bottom of each form.

F
11

f',

i

r

(November 14, 1997)
DCM MP-1 APPLICATION
FIGURE "8" BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Figure Eight Island, North Carolina
Item 5, Continued
ROBERT P. ANDREWS, JR.
239 Sloan Street
Wallace, NC 28466
CAROLINA A. S. BALDWIN
2519 Middle Sound Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
BRUCE B. CAMERON
P. 0. Box 3649
Wilmington, NC 28406
[phone]
MARSHALL M. MILTON, III
2425 Middle Sound Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
P. 0. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480-0626
Attn: Anthony N. Caudle, Town Mgr.
[phone]
ANNETTE G. ERMER
202 Spartan Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
GRADY M. PROCTOR
2405 Middle Sound Loop Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
PABLO EGUTA
P. 0. Box 364127
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-4127
GEORGE HENRY HUTAFF
TRUST NO. 2
c/o David Ward, Attorney
Ward & Smith
1001 College Court, P. 0. Box 867
New Bern, NC 28560
SHELL ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSN.
P. 0. Box 31
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone]
Note: Figure "8" Island beachfront property owners will all be notified by notice published in their
HOA newsletter prior to commencement of any beach nourishment work.
1

Form DCM-MP-2
? EXCAVATION
? AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
' Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All'values to be given in feet.

DREDGING
(MLW) or (NWL)
EXISTING/
PROPOSED DEPTHS
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
BEACH.',
CONSTRUCTION
Average . Final
Etdsting Protect
T Anofh width DeDth Depth
SEE TACHEO ROJECT SKE TCHES
FOR CATION ND DIMENS ON OF
DREDGI NG AREA
VARIES
0' TO -9' MLW
-8.0'

22,000 VARIES
LF SEE P OJECT SKE CHES
FOR BE CH FILL P OFILES
(November 14, 1997)
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 1,165,000
b. Type of material to be excavated MED I UM TO
FINE SAND
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? ? Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards N/A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area F I GURE "8" BEACH AND/OR
SHELL ISLAND BEACH
b. Dimensions of disposal area SEE PERMIT APPI_ I CAT I O;
SKETCHES
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes ? No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? ?? Yes No
If yes, where? FIGURE "8" BEACH AND/OR SHELL
ISLAND BEACH
NOTE: SEE PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS AND
QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS USED FOR FILLING
OLD INLET AND BEACH FILL AREAS.
1
Form DChi-NIP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes ? No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
? Yes No
SEE NARRATIVE
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Source of infonwtion)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes ? No
Revised 03/95

If yes, I
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water INDETERMINATE '
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill TO SLOW EROS ION '
OPPOSITE SHELL ISLAND RESORT
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes No
if yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL.
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on sit
and erosion controlled? SAND DIKES
b. What type of construction equipment will. be us
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
HYDRAULIC DREDGE AND DOZERS, BACKHOE
c. Will wetlands be cr3ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? '" Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessee
environmental impacts. ALONG SHORE EDGE, BUT
CLEAR OF MARSH GRASS
FIGURE "8" HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date t

N
fp
W
U 2
O
= ae
AID
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY W13GE
MASON INLET O
G` (f - PROPOSED MASON PROPOSED BANKS
CREEK DREDGING e0 CHANNELDYREDGIN
375,000 CY NE C
rax BANKS CHANNEL
um ow
t ,
ROPOSED INLET DREDGING
140,000 CY ATLANTIC OCEAN
PROPOSED STOCKPILES (50,000 CY)
'- SHELL ISLAND

FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND DREDGING/BEACH REPAIR PLAN
SCALE: 1"=2000'
SCALE: 1 "-2000'
U)
W 0
W
r
n
o?
N
a
0
o ?
o U
0
z
a
J
N W.
.
2ZU
C7 a
Wz
z
W
?J
IW
z
zz
5m
a0
N
U
°zN
NQ
? cn
co W
W
?0
?M
0
O ?Ys
s
?Ilf

PROPOSED RICH
`INLET/CREEK DREDGING
310,000 CY
RESIDUAL OF
PERMIT 21-93
/-140,000 CYO
MCH INLET CREEK-.
Q/" MIDI
!At OOYIf
wa

R?% 111446?r
PROPOSED BEACH REPAIR
22,000 LF X 50 CYAF - 1,100,000 CY

PROPERTY OWNERS
ROBERT P, ANDREWS. Ji. DEED BOOK 1364, P+E 717 O
CAROLINA BALDIMN
BRUCE CAMERON DEED BCDN 1358. P GE 1408
MARSHALL M. MILTON, RI DEED BOOK 1805, GE 574
ANNETDE 0. ERMER DEED BOOK 1150, P CE 389
GRADY M. PROCTOR DEED BOOK 480. PAGE 528
BRUCE CAMERON DEED BOOK 1358. ACE 1408 SPOLI
OLIVER C. HUTAFF DEED BOOK 622, 147
I I
? I
L.
I
2200' X 200 TO -9 = 140,0001CY f3 x3. A2 +27
CRASS ww
x
I 4.7 2b
Mon
M
A ? 4,0 4
91 ?? S1 1 4 6 x 3. x.
® d © ?®J 1e........ _
oha7a°opab c
WIDE 10 i
MLw o. ..__.i.._
fI r
_...1._. .. - --------- _ _ ?Nt
° ? 1 IL VARIES_L
UNE 15 1?a v 1PLY,• " 4 I I
_6 5 2:1 APPROX. T?
?y SIDE SLOPE MASON CREEK
1
NOT TO SCALE ?
A` to to
CRASS &

%0 0
84' WIDE TO CLEAR
•? MARSH GRASS
001 'I
CRASS
#{
P
%,?\O _
I AL
Va I
I I 9?
MASONS CREEK DREDGING t
6000' X VARIES TO -9.0 = 375,000 CY
? ? ? 6RAS5
Al L u d -2&3
PROPOSED
STOCKPILE •A
,00
A
L
-5.2
® + -

or,
BEACH 4°9
?6 . • at
7
. a7
*
?? 4°0 ob •,? ?' at
x
"ILI a9
adiff „ . W. . 4°. ,... 7
9 x6.0 x
tax 6a T ,/4,
° b x 1 xa
4

o
• 6
0
1.3 s0 x
,,6 b At+t. ,
.
4
* 4b x27
9 ,'?. x
J
x0.1
"f
1'
i
q "?
4 ?
b
4
x
_
.
} •. y N xat
4• ," 1A x 6.1 -
: f MASON 1.1A x27
INLET x3.0

.u
S2 .32
xxr? x u
ORA"
Sf E 1
ISLANI
RE'
15
10
5
MLW 0
-5
-10
SIDE SLOPE
2' WIDE TO CLEAR
MARSH GRASS I
1 Ak J. AlL I
A ° ,° 1 4
20 ,,A lIL
2.1 +Is xI 0
1• x 2.1 . 27 " . 27 1• ry?
1A x26.2 +1i 2720 u90
.2's
21 x 27" 7 . 2.9
x 2.2 x 23 Y
x L 9xs? x 24 24
1? 6 -
I ?
x IA T( 2A xB26 " 1
IA xIS+1.7"1A
LW' al
-a2
a5S .LHW

400' = 1 B-zo
4, .
---•-
WIDE x%44 xSl .d,
-
--S / " a1 x &2
.a0 6A " a7 x 4A
"0.t 2.
77 .74 x a{ x a}

"

x 7.3 "SJ
x a! x7.9
SA
xd.i
x6.9 -6.2 z a7 • 7,1
. 7.9
7
" 7
x7.3 x a2.
z 73 -9.4
L&} ®
x a7 .
B,r?.QJ6 x 7A /
x a4 x e x 7.3
x as x 6.4
x a4 -9.3
x ae
x 52

x 6.2 z a9 x 7.3 . x9.2 x74
" x 7.9
" 9.0
x A5 x9A
J MA? DO(W. 21
x T.2
xa0 .a1 77 x7.0 .aS "7.6
"TA

. 74
x7A

.
1Sy z6.0 /

/
x 0.0 i
x 0.0 6'7 x d.1 x 7.0 x 6A
x $A x T.3 7
x a0
z 65 z a5
7.4
HW
ATLANTIC OCEAN

SECS
BANKS CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
8200' X 125' TO -9.0 = 200,000 CY
SEE SHEET 3
0 4 3 2 32 25
1 25 440
I-1 7 xT m 3i 26
° st n 33- 35 u 1 acs 4t 43 st ?
23
E8 D
,4&
08-112 08-107 8-1040
J
200' WIDE MASON INLET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED STOCKPILE
50,000 CY TOTAL FOR SCALE: 1" = 600'
BOTH STOCKPILES EIMATION DATUM MEAN LOW WATER
DATE SURVEYED OCTDEER 0 NG%VM ER 1998
AREA TO BE DREDGED
" `%ss f A AREA TO BE STOCKPILED
,4%1W MEAN HM WATER LINE
,4, W MEAN LOW WATER LINE
9-io40 SON. BORING OR SAMPLE LOCATION
N
Z ?
w Q
IJ
N N
r
N
aT
Q
o ?
W
w U
0
U
Z
Q
Z
a
Z LLI
a.
U
U?
z
z
V)
Q
z0
NQ
saN
GO W
LLI
Q: 0
?w
?0
x
ODW
b??

Y
c? c? y
2
J4
d?
-
b L AI)
INTRACOASTAL WA? TER
b
MASON i? WAY 0
PROPOSED MASON f"'? PROPOSED BANKS
CREEK DREDGING '0 CHANNEL DREDGING
375,000 CY 200,000 CY
d Q n
_ o
BANKS CHANNEL
uru? ,
ROPOSED INLET DREDGING
140,000 CY ATLANTIC OCEAN
PROPOSED STOCKPILES (50,000 CY)
SHELLISLAND

am

RICH INLET CRE
PROPOSED RICH
INLET/CREEK DREDGING
310,000 CY
RESIDUAL OF
PERMIT 21-93
`140,000 CY__

RIB,
lNzo-
PROPOSED BEACH REPAIR
22,000 LF X 50 CY/LF 1,100,000 CY

FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND DREDGING/BEACH REPAIR PLAN
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
p 7000 4" 8000
SCALE: 1 "2000'
04
Z
N
w 0
w
N
0
o ?
w U
0
z
Q
to w
p
2QU
?Z
WW
Wz
?J
(W
z
zz
Z
?a
aQ
N
U
00
QN
NQ
N
00 w
w
?0
0
9 Ell,
R
°s
R_

04
°
)AIL
yyP ,It
?I1 \ MLW
101
s; . _ -
......
a...
..
.......
- - - - --------
5 L*
, -
F o
V '
5? P 2:1 APPROX. 200 \
OP SIDE SLOPE a
PG ?` SECTION A
NOT TO SCALE \
4 4 +
Art.
Wk ? G ?
RICH INLET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SCALE: t = 600
+
r?'?ta ? dk ?''
+ Z
ALL z
A
t *?a
? ZJ
', ka AL ok
A, X- 4 12 ,, a Z
PROPOSED RICH INLET DREDGING ,. 7 .° ?-
8000 LF X 200 TO 9.0 MLW = 310,000 C 2 0 7,
0.4
x -ii a;?o o. x - k to s a? F-
=4. x-44 X -aa x - + . ,ay0 7 i. 1I.5 ""1,A x10.7 x -at x-0677 %x X21 %
% - x -7.1 r .,?? • " 0.7 N -0.7 1
x x-4a 42 % -47 t G % 1.1 9 ..a7 x -f.7 -1.9 x
-1.3 ^ x -7.a +' x x -4p
x 44 N-;; + If,
k"-12 '? ?
x ,A OUTLINE OF PERMITTED DREDGE AREA x1.9 "x0.0.4 1.1
x -1.6 .bp "L x "aX x- -2.6
x_a.0 PER PERMIT NO. 21-93 .a4 " x 2a - 1A k'°?' #:? xaa .%= k'; ".? 27
x"x O7 ; 10.2 x 140,000 CY AIL "_,., :.? x '?° :1.0 "xaa: „ :aA .1.2 : DA K
0,3 x.,s
z -a7 X -a.l X- I.J _ x 0,2 x p X -0.a • .IO x Aae , x •10 ?ia7 % „-406 x?STaa " -0.7 V
N-a1 t x x0.1 xa, NNOS %a9 N0. a X0. -4.3 x ?,3
ilk % ' .p2.1 d` % 0.a N OA k 03 " O.a x 1.I M 0 x -43 M O
0.4 N -5.1 -A, ' =T:T . ! ##''?' -4 Xx3S xx -0.5 - W4 ;0,3 7 x? _'11 k 069 ?I
10 "%Ii i N• 064 N X 'R.44ts % t?.aa N
z-23 I -0.I * "x0.7 1.0 kI.2 Xa "A1 xiA x-&I ?
N 1.0 X 0.a 0.1
x 0.7 x -0.1 x Q0 xN .py " x 1.2 " tt x 0.3 X x-3.4 x Q
tYi. tx 1.7 X. J $ x«o°a :0.0 X ! 4 >1Q!? % Q7 "x ox • to x a, A „-? x 1.5 '- N
ak y0.7 y
I 2a x 23 x pj - 0.3 x 0. x 0.7 x 0.02 '"0 x 0.7 xX 19 x" 0.5 k ?Y' w , y} 00 X3 x 106 x N V4 QT N-
# x 0.a 0. 1.9 ? + 5?°"+a w
+. ) I TA N 1.1 x0.0 -.0.5
q N 064 %-0.4 x 064 + i
DD ,
x -,• -0.4 %0.2 "-0.Q x IA N ?,k -a4 W
k 1.1 NQ4 1 +4
* X {y • t.2 + ? +4 z ? x -4
dk Yk Ik ro Y % ? sk . io ,1 " 0. 4 0 " 106 x 134 "-0.2
x 0.! " Ga Nx00.a %% 60
f
i2 #- 16 # -1a '-7a 1d x1.7 x0.0 "0.3 x-AS x-I.0 ;
lk AL CA x
r N -I-3 x -2a A x 1.5 x 0.7 -0.2 ", , _ -? `. ? +i' s i ?+' Nhx -5,2 O
20
% xI.9 +_ x-2a ?-• %a7 %1I "Q9 x.,p rW
9 z
106 4 N-10 -20 xQ7 LL
z 106 x - x -{0 x -40 x -2a " 067 % W x _1.0 -1.81h A ryxA,4 ,, %7
ak X 40 -t.o _ x # -io : !,70 --2.0
19 I
x-3-
" 16 X -1.0 x-42 -43 • -Q9 0 N -S9 " - x _S/
4.9 -SO X -2a x -24 x _iI -
x-3.1 x-0.6 x - x -3
9
t.o
-5.0 V2 x • 'T.?,
-3.7
+.,1 + k -22 z -ia k .,7,3 _&o x-" x : 17 r -13 F - -21 N .? x jr
" -
ALL x I
ilk # #+ ? x-4,3 % -i9 % •51 _...a " 47 x -22 % -t.t
x x - N -2.5 • is
-26 % .21
+ - aD z
AL k -5.2 z -i0 x 3.2 -i0 2 • -0.ga? j a 9 % -7.7 0
x -1 1.6 1
L -S4 x-u %- .22 -41 x "-25 x_1b %0.4 14 M_, a z_7.7x - OYB
-N x-1.3 x-1.4 " 0.a z „-U 5
-K7 I -at "'11o it
# x 0 x -_10.19 ,,.T3. 0s -BOA -t•4 1Xa ' -a•8 z7
x -4.3
1E1. #+%- X -9 o x -4.0 %y x 0.,S ¦ ? % X _' N -5,0 xk -a,7 %-ox-11 ?i
# 11 •-LV T
z .0.1 -ao " x -1006 + 0.2 " r x -S.al x _aa -4.7 -400 x- •:' --Al z-10.5 x 1 x 064 %0.0 x x -- z- M4.7"--a
?• x0'0 x % xFj11.{ x-7• z-QA79 x" '
b 8d
Q.
#"?- 7 x 4 X-zate x_a. "-aa x- 1 R
x-a9 'a-"0. _ gr
# % .' •7.1 9 -aT "'7.0 ' -7.9 -1.a -aa x -706 -9.0 f..
% -74 x
AREA TO BE oREOCED -0.0 N -706 % -10 " -7.a
x-97
RICH INLET CREEK - -a7 ?1Q2 .-?a : Q; ?2 "-a, x ;? x.-7.5
9.5
x -10.1 -1IA %. N 7 N .10.2 -iQ5 J N -a7 7'3 x % x-
¦-• "10.5'.-1QS %-W, 7
r, y
x- 1Q9 .-A7 z - 7 x..aJ
"-,23 X .1,.2 a
x 10.a • -10.2 • -10.1 X I k -7.1
I::,?j?r r ## :- N -706 -11.3
_ -10.7
+1 AREA TO BE STOCKPILED , X_
1 k -13A x -125 x 11.5 x -1211.42 , • " a3 x
oa % z _bs x -12,.0 x .lit x -1i2 a -11.7 k N--1."0.n0 s?,2a z 1i•0 %'1 x . A ,.p4 12 -0.0 /? V it
VI MEAN HIGH WATER LINE - • .112 x -Ii4 1i2.1ia 7? ""'Ila x .11.J x -t2, ; :I x 10., " x '" , a
H x -1i9 x -1060 x -14.9 N _119 x .,2T II X .10.7 "" -a
AL y ' -17.2 x -129 N _14.1 % -10.2 •-14.1 x -140 x 110 .-Ile N _123 z z - " -9' 4
vW MEAN LOW WATER LINE X. , -u x Zia : -iii ;1aa # _149 x 1i9 ' .iii x -11.4 ; -Iaa : - xy-ya4y?
161 x -7.4 • -81 x -6I " 2y,...Nx 1.7 x
j X. ,.7 /
8-1040 SOIL BORING OR SAMPLE LOCATION x .tu ; 2.2
2.4

15' VARIES
10
APPROXIMATE-'
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST. BLDG 0
FOUNDATION
15'
It
of
10
II
5
APPROXIMATE'
SEAWARD EDGE
OF EXIST. BLDG 0
FOUNDA11ON
of
tC
1

Ns" ,W.y?. r ... •
11?' a'

R ? 1y
,.?•;,?'
1,, I ?I? j ? •i•

I??1'F't,,r IIt
,r t 1.?1;,? lf?
I
{
h
':
„•
(?'
!Y'! ?r {'j J j A=
t M.
IJSI• 7V ,t'J ,r•t
,ry4st?: ? r ,s;,•p;..r s,
'f •.,ii?'? w{: t ! vi'
1 { fy? 7 e
?•/???•y"1'?. {.. !t f•
yr,, y.?,,?.y, s?;,•,•r.
( t' try' i!?'r
'tw
i•y
11 '?1•r
i•
? ;
'I '?
'

•

t

ILL CONFINE

ENT DIKE MATE

IAL REQUIRED
f ;ir %: •
S
:
?
.
y
,, , ,,„? .?r r;,ls,r??
{ t . z .. : ate Ottj r•t ?'??, r
?'f w ?' rt'`
u'' S'
• {
,
> Irti.•' >?'?'?, N
y k
?1 t wS
? :?
?,} '
p• ? 5r • j { ( FOR BUILDING DIKES SHALL B EXCA ATED

?•,,
?. ,
d

? t 1 I ?I.t •q .r,

NI.
•., ,, 4tt:.:
?
.
Ja
?, ? 7; Ij
,I r N
, • YI ,f :; ,,}• s
}
f
'
'
n

1
?.,; 1 • •? • '? •
r ,~ r s
t
l
;

`? '• t
t. Ir t .

f
?
4?

t

'

F
SE

FROM THE A

ARD SIDE OF

HE PROPOSED
=S4•.;
•r..1,,? ?t,{asst t;+,•Y
j,j t..?+i1.r Ir•!.. .?, a.
s
. ??'M
.t
:4, ;4• •t •,
"?"xt`";+?v
?-
?rtrt-' ..,i
.
,?r• t•r,
.v,
rh;(11. tv , i
d 1:- t.,L' ?'?•I?:n"' :y
:
7'yy:?
Jr

.._-. DIKE LINE 4

_...... ----_._!
__

.__............_. ....... _ ._ .......

__..._.--.......-•----••-

y's;
, ,' ,, +??
!
?
ts;tt ?,.xt"?Mry,?•
r.
?ty3 ?'4 't`?,`'i'?;? ,
,
+,llr
%k'
•, 1
SUGGESTED
AX. SLOPE
?
?ti rl +r i'11 { {
r
'
' 1
r ?y `; ?r.?
r?7 }!'y7/1
?
`
i
• 'r
lr
n:t'l..',f'•.? ,1'.''', /
'
t
7 s
?;
'
'
r " M

.?
:/;5=
'q >!/
•' •.Y j
'
•7
,? 3 '?1,R,rf'
tffi: ?l
?
t,R'Jrf
•
L
'?: -•?t ?
,
r{
y
,55??,?,??¢r??•,RC},J,
>! 4.
•It
,Ir?\? 1? `'
'
'•'i?
I: I
A
.Y"
1 "?.t
'• ?,
i 7 ? 9
C 7
! 1 I
'f
1 1 t
,
r
,
>
?
`' .
?,
f
.
!
S ,
1 y
BEACH FILL ,t•Ib4.-? ?r`tI
:
?
!; r' ?•{ „ ,; !„
?
N .
s'?d;! ,s`s;"
•
4 i, , ,
'
SEAWARD TO
OF BERM
'
,t
'; S z
'rfr `?i LOCATE 01*
Q DIKE
,
® APPROX TE ELEV. 0
E j
. ? I

M
iA IO
?
? co
C
C
I
0+00
TYPICA
SCALE: 1 =40 1
:S VARIES
BEACH FILL CROSS
+2.0 MHW
0.0 MSL
-1.9 MLLW
INDICATES GROUND/
N °D BOTTOM ELEVATION
I I I
3+00= INDICATES DIST. FROM
SECTION- BASELINE 0+00
100'
150'±
I -?
9.5

• a t;t.
' -
'sifwu %?;`.,, t
?
- - - - --
+8.51
W;? r .,.V,! t a?ttN.),t
'f
`J }'T .;,,•?.I:'.?•r tt?t'r'M•?
+1;i'r FpM ?'?t3) 4
Kf "?'?•pJ{N')I•??l•A!,tf
k;«
?
f

15 TO
0
? I.I I
yu t
f
' ,
,
1' .,. i • 6.t'••• r?r?'
'
•
? .
t
•?:?
;:C
• d, rY v. ?.
1++
i•:
'
'
tl
h 2
tl,; I i I
?Ir)
11
?t?'"
.. 13 7`.,7a
•
,;
?,!•?.t •.? ?s•?! ?
? r.'?•.r,..t ;.'. t?? ,, •'?
,,l4>..t•
r.>',,?,
J
'• ?{
?
r? (. *
y
,y/
, r.i,
,
F r1 .'?tv°!'?r?7• • i't
:?.,•. ,Iw}. Yr
r,.t
• .?' ?r.
?r.,l`';?
...?i ?K'.?:.
(
• I i
? ? ?

.. ,
,
J ? h .
yy,} , A
t 'k+:,.:y?1?ari. t1 ,i
":a,'1NI •,t?
L
? ?
. 1,. a 1 ,Sjr
/,
f .t f(,ft?c'.•`y.•,Y? •,?r?:
"
{?
?
?
'
•?????•
t ,.
tj!7.rt
7.
+.}'•, lr.rti.1
...._
?,?
t
? ;
;
_.._......? -...._._....._..

_

._.._.-_-._

..__...-.......--..-._._
„
?
?lis , li ' '
•?•r,'1%,•>'t?a
,c'r'a %
1
.t•
j
/
',? • ?• E 4 ?
J =s. k; i,,..x?,,.
•1? ` ! ,Rif i? A I
. SJ ?
J
.i
t` ?' _' JyN? `'SiSt
?t4'fiJr•4J? t 4• r•tr
0.
t
s i?
r
•;+ I
I

Zc?.,i:
,
?, ?
?M k Safi try 4; s f
;?4 ?.
{y1'?y ;•
l't= . ;
,
j
t
•
;s •,,•,i>'•,;• _?'+,!' t ?
,;.".?'kti.Sx.
•
'i ? ?
,?"
i
4•;0, .f
t t
,
k
' ?
,
y A
i
?
' .
i I ? i
,r?jo',
±
!
1''
t t? ~? ?
'' 1
*w ?5.,
y {?
t7 /
. a'S ? / tlf
!
?:r,f
.
x? .
• ; :'
, :,;, ,;,:s"

t;•t/ .
• t.t ?•,; 20 TO 30
Wat

•4?
J .`rl .??d 11;?:yy
I. . A,t=?:r ,?• ? ? fit{,

.

M
tfI 1o
? to to
O d N
G ? d
? lq
'?
+2.0 MHW
0.0 MSL
-1,9 MLLW
u+uu ANTICIPATED CHANGE AFTER SEVERAL TIDE CYCLES.
SCALE: lu=40' HORIZONTAL & 1'=4' VERTICAL
N
W O
n
W
F-
o
a ?
o?
w
c U
rn
F
rn
w
N
N
O
v
x
a
w
m
a
U
U
ZN
N Q
-N
00 w
w
?w
?. _
g Ell
a ?

0

(November 14, 1997)
PROPOSED INLET AND SMALL BOAT CHANNEL
MAINTENANCE DREDGING/BEACH REBUILDING PROJECT
Rich Inlet/Mason Inlet/Figure Eight Beach
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The advent of Hurricanes Fran and Bertha in the fall of 1996 and the long-term
relentless southward migration of the Mason Inlet channel have resulted in serious problems
for property owners on both Figure Eight Island and at the Shell Island Resort development.
The southward movement of the Mason Inlet channel has reached a point that the Shell
Island development properties are in . imminent danger of the building itself being
undermined by erosion processes. (A public bathhouse/change facility owned by the Town
of Wrightsville Beach and part of a public parking area and a portion of the main road to the
north end of the beach have already been lost). Efforts to provide temporary relief from this
situation by use of sandbags and/or geotextile filled tubes have not proven successful to date.
Hurricane Fran also caused serious damage to Figure Eight Beach homeowners'
properties and a beach fill berm and dune project constructed in 1992 was also completely
eroded away by Hurricane Fran. (It has been determined that without this protective berm
and dune system, many Figure Eight Beach oceanfront properties would have been destroyed
entirely or that damage would have been much more severe than was the case).
Additionally, the tidal surge from Hurricane Fran pushed a great deal of sand from
beach areas and Rich and Mason Inlet areas back into the estuarine system, blocking small
1

boat navigation channels and tidal creeks and water exchanges between the ocean, Middle
Sound, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) areas.
Finally, prior studies of the inlet migration problem and a water exchange/quality
problem indicated that the most practical solution to these combined problems would be to
relocate the Mason Inlet channel back northward approximately 4,000 feet to its "historical
alignment" with Mason Creek and its connection to the AIWW. Beach-suitable materials
excavated from the inlet and channel areas would be used to fully restore the Figure Eight
Beach berm and dune system and the north end of Shell Island beach, as appropriate. Efforts
are continuing to implement this major undertaking, but have not progressed to the point of
facilitating implementation at the present time. Thus, an interim solution is proposed in the
following sections until the full inlet relocation project can be undertaken. The project
proposed is intended to provide the best solution at this time for the interests of both the
Figure "8" Homeowners Association and the Shell Island Resort.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the foregoing summary of the situation, it is proposed that several mutually
complimentary actions be taken to provide relief for the conditions described. These various
actions are:
(1) Mason Inlet: Deepen the north side of the inlet channel, just below the mean
high water line (MHWL) on the north side of the inlet to encourage primary
channel flows through the inlet to this newly deepened section and away from
its present primary thrust to the south side of the inlet.
2

n

C

C

F-1
L
?l

C

H

0
0

To provide a buffer source for this erosion process, a large stockpile of dredge
sand will be placed at the eastern end of the existing tubes and a smaller
stockpile (because of limited area) at the western end, more or less wrapping
around the street end.
(2) Rich Inlet: Perform maintenance dredging of the existing small boat channel
from the Rich Inlet vicinity westward to its connections with the AIWW. (This
entire channel area was badly shoaled when the Hurricane Fran flood surge
pushed material from the beach and northern spit area into the channel areas).
Material excavated during this maintenance dredging will be used to reconstruct
the dune and berm system on the northern half of Figure Eight Beach.
(3) Mason Creek: The almost completely shoaled Mason Creek channel will be
re-excavated to its nominal historical width and depth from the AIWW to
connect with the newly excavated channel on the north side of Mason Inlet
(described above).
(4) Middle Sound Small Boat Channel (Banks Channel): Maintenance dredging
will be performed throughout most of the length of this existing channel to
provide small boat access from the back (west) side of Figure Eight Island to the
AIWW through the existing natural creek area just south of the Figure Eight
Beach bridge and causeway.
(5) Figure Fight Beach Reconstruction: The majority of the materials excavated
during the above described operations will be used to reconstruct the beach berm
3
and dune system that existed prior to Hurricane Fran. Standard beach
nourishment/reconstruction procedures will be used to accomplish this task.
Details concerning each of these proposed actions are summarized in the following
paragraphs:
Mason Inlet Area
The continuing southward thrust of the main channel flows through the inlet seriously
threaten structures and amenities at the north end of Wrightsville Beach. Excavation of an
improved channel (to -9.0 feet MLW) on the north side of the inlet will encourage the present
primary channel flows away from the north shoulder of Wrightsville Beach or at least
diminish the erosional thrust of the existing channel against the bluff on the Wrightsville
Beach side. To enhance this intended diversion of channel flows away from the temporary
geotextile tube protective barrier, it is proposed that 50,000 cubic yards of sand from the
Mason Creek and the repositioned Mason Inlet throat dredging operation be hydraulically
placed on the north end of Wrightsville Beach at both the east and west ends of the sand tube
barrier. The plan for making the sand deposits on both ends of the sand tubes is to build a
U-shaped confinement dike with an open end toward the inlet channel. The discharge will
be directed toward the open end and will build a delta which will gradually move waterward
and elevate itself while still being confined on all sides except the discharge end. This
method will apply to both stockpiles. In no case will the discharge sand or water flow
directly into the over washed marsh area to the west of the work site. This procedure will
follow the same general method which has been traditionally used for beach strand
nourishment in which the fill is confined by side dikes (or natural berm) and the discharge
4

0

n
is directed to the open end where the sand delta is formed as the discharge water runs
seaward. It is recognized that this material will still be vulnerable to the erosive currents that
flow through the inlet and it is unknown how long the material will remain on site. This fill
area around the sand tube structure is designed to obstruct the deepest part of the current inlet
channel so as to promote the establishment of the newly dredged channel throat as the main
area of tidal volume exchange. The placement of sand near the sand tube structure will also
serve as a temporary buffer for the eroding shoreline. Nourishment of the northern beach in
front of the Shell Island project can also be accomplished at the same time. Here, the
separation of actual inlet frontage and ocean frontage is vague. However, nourishment work
will not be performed beyond the southern limits of the Shell Island Resort.
Again, there is no allusion or suggestion that this limited channel relocation will
provide a long-term solution to the erosion problem on the north end of Wrightsville Beach.
It is felt, however that diversion of the primary flows in this case from the south side to the
north side of the inlet will provide at least temporary relief for the serious erosion problem
that now exists on the north end of Wrightsville Beach. The primary work in this portion of
the project will be done by hydraulic pipeline dredge.
A limited amount of maintenance dredging was done in the Rich Inlet area in
December 1996, after Hurricane Fran. However, this work was limited in scope in that it was
performed against a previously authorized channel maintenance dredging permit (No. 21-93).
Work done under this authorization was insufficient to completely restore the Rich Inlet
access channel to its historical dimensions and requests to expand the permit scope to the
5
F1
degree that would allow complete restoration at that time were not approved. The material
excavated during this late 1996 operation was placed on the north end of Figure Eight Beach
for a partial dune and berm reconstruction effort. The Rich Inlet area maintenance dredging
request included in this application is intended to complete the dredging of the area approved
in permit No. 21-93, supply sand material for the beach rebuilding project and to enhance
safe navigation of the Rich Inlet area by excavating a 200-foot wide channel from the
confluence of Butler Creek and Nixon Creek (approximately 2,500 feet from the AIWW)
through Rich Inlet Creek behind Rich Inlet to the mouth of Green Channel. The proposed
dredging depth is -9.0 feet MLW (same as former permitting). The planned 200-foot
construction width is designed to allow for the anticipated sloughing of side slopes which
will result in a somewhat narrower and shallower navigation channel through time. 'the
resulting channel cross section dimensions are largely unquantifiable. However, enhanced
channel navigability will be preserved longer in this dynamic area behind Rich Inlet with a
wider initial dredging profile. Though not designed to extend navigational improvements
through the inlet, the proposed work will improve boating access to the inlet throat area from
the ARM and the back side of Hutaff Island. Recreational boaters frequently move through
the area behind the north end of Figure Eight Island and Hutaff Island and this area is
frequently populated by day visitors that pull up to the back island beaches to enjoy fishing,
picnicking, and assorted water sports. This area is known for its shifting sand shoals and the
enhancement of navigation here is in the public interest. The material excavated during this
operation will again be used to restore the northern end dune and berm system to its full pre-
storm dimensions on Figure Eight beach. All work done in this case will be performed by
6

FL

I

J

C
C

hydraulic pipeline dredge. No work is to be performed on Hutaff Island and no impact from
excavation is anticipated other than improved access on the island since the edge of the
dredging limits will be over 200 feet from the shoreline.
Mason Creek Channel Restoration

I I

n
L'
I

?7
F
As previously mentioned, for all practical purposes Mason Creek is entirely shoaled
closed by normal shoaling processes and the large quantity of material that was pushed into
the Middle Sound area during the Hurricane Fran flood surge. Aerial photography included
in the attached environmental assessment graphically depicts the blockage to water
circulation in Mason Creek. The purpose of this segment of the project is three fold; to
provide sand material for beach rebuilding, to improve the diminished tidal flushing from
Mason Inlet through Middle Sound, and to restore navigability through Mason Creek. It is
proposed that the restored channel range in width from a minimum of 82 feet wide (to avoid
areas of Spartina alterniflora which have intruded into the creek) to a maximum width of 400
feet along the sand shoal behind the spit. This wider area of the channel is not designed for
navigational purposes but is intended to slow hydraulic flows which could effect the adjacent
tighter bends of the channel. The proposed channel work will flare out to meet the existing
AIWW channel to the west. This is intended to encourage ebb flows into Mason Creek,
provide a safer turning area for boat traffic in and about of the creek and to help delay the
accumulation of sediments from restored flows during rising tides. The restored channel will
extend from the AIWW and be connected with the newly excavated channel on the north side
of Mason Inlet. Prior testing in the fall of 1996 has shown that the materials to be excavated
here are beach-suitable and they will be transported by hydraulic pipeline dredge to be used
7

in reconstruction of the dune and berm system on the south end of Figure Eight Beach. As
stated previously, some of the excavated material from both this portion of the project and
the Mason Inlet dredging will be transported to the Shell Island inlet/ocean frontage. All
work done in this case will be by hydraulic pipeline dredge and in order to reduce sloughing
particularly in areas near marsh grass, a 21 side slope will be utilized. Experience has '
shown that this precaution is generally sufficient to avoid unintentional coastal marsh '
impacts.
Middle Sound Small Boat Channel Access
The Hurricane Fran tidal surge pushed a portion of the beach and other high ground '
sandy areas on Figure Eight Island westward into the small boat navigation channel on the 1
west or back side of Figure Eight Beach proper. Maintenance dredging was last performed
on this channel during 1993, but the channel shoaling mentioned above has made it unsafe '
for navigation and, in some instances, prohibits small boat access to homeowners' docking '
facilities. This channel will be excavated to, -9.0 feet MLW x 125 feet to clear major shoals
that have developed behind the island within the formerly permitted area only. Materials
excavated during this portion of the project will be transported by hydraulic pipeline dredge '
across the island at selected locations to be used in the beach building project described '
previously. '
The southward extension of this channel maintenance dredging will be terminated
approximately 200 feet south of the small boat lagoonal area at the south end of the Figure ,
Eight Island development. Material will be left in place from this point to the area that will '
be dredged connecting Mason Creek and the Mason Inlet new channel area to interrupt tidal
8

flows through this channel so as not to increase additional flows in the Mason Inlet discharge
channel.

I

11
u

Figure Eight Beach Reconstruction
As was previously mentioned, the very adequate dune and berm nourishment project
that resulted from the 1992 dredging operation described above was completely obliterated
by Hurricanes Bertha and Fran and their accompanying tidal surges. In the immediate
aftermath of Hurricane Fran, a large-scale effort was made to push up a continuous, but
relatively low elevation small berm along the entire beachfront area to protect already
damaged building support systems from nominal daily tidal wave run up. This berm will
serve as a landward side anchor for the proposed dune and berm restoration project proposed
herein. The restored dune will be constructed to an elevation of approximately +9.5 feet and
will be approximately 150 to 175 feet wide from the aforementioned landward berm to a dike
that will be constructed on the ocean side during the beach fill operation. The dike will be
constructed as beach reconstruction commences and will extend northward (or southward,
as the case may be ) of the fill as it progresses along the beach area. Prior experience has
shown that a fill placed in this manner will very quickly assume a natural angle of repose,
complimenting the shape of the berm and dune area and significantly widening the entire
upper beach as natural beach conditions are attained throughout the beachfront. Approximate
configurations of the dune and berm areas during construction and after periods following
several tidal cycles are shown on the sketches appended to the permit application. Sampling
and testing of sand materials to be excavated from Mason Inlet, Mason Creek, and the
southern portion of Banks Channel during 1995 have shown that they are "beach suitable"
9

and compatible with the in-situ beach sand (see sample tests hereinafter). Sampling and I
analysis of sand in the Rich Inlet Creek area during 1992 also showed suitable material for '
beach nourishment (see sample tests hereinafter). Sampling from both years were taken
following many non-hurricane years which gives a realistic presentation of underlying
-sediments -prior to the massive overwash events. of 1996 (Bertha and Fran). Logic dictates
that a large component of the sediments located within the remaining portions of Banks ,
Channel and Rich Inlet Creek that were not sampled in 1992 and 1995 are composed of
hurricane-over washed sand from the surface of Figure Eight Island and the southern end of '
Hutaff Island. If this material came from the beach, it is beach-suitable. The project will ,
place 1,100,000 cubic yards of nourishment material along the length of the eroded
beachfront and will not exceed a maximum of 50 cubic yards per linear foot of shoreline.
Dredging Operations '
As previously mentioned, all material excavations are to be done by hydraulic pipeline '
dredge. All materials excavated will be pumped to selected beach locations to reconstruct ,
the beach sections as described above. Pipeline corridors will be established to insure that
no marsh areas or sensitive vegetation will be crossed in any case during the operation. All
dredging will be done during the winter season (November 16th to March 15th) when '
biological activities in both the sound and beach areas will be at a minimum. During beach '
reconstruction operations, dredge effluent will be diverted along the oceanward dike,
extending a minimum 150 to 200 feet ahead of the dredge pipe discharge area. '

10
?

0
i
n

1

0

u

The applicant would like the opportunity to periodically maintain the dredging areas
as needed and as authorized including re-establishing the inlet channel in the most northerly
location within the inlet mouth.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
It is felt that, in general, the environmental impacts resulting from the work proposed
in this project will be relatively minimal in that all work will be done during the winter
season when biological activities area at a minimum and the controls established for said
work will be carefully monitored throughout the project. Inlet or estuarine tidal bottom areas
that will be disturbed during dredging operations have been previously dredged during
channel maintenance operations or are located in areas that are subject to maximum tidal or
current fluctuations from "mixing" flows occasioned by twice-daily tidal actions. Studies
of aerial photographs taken before the 1996 hurricane season and those taken after the advent
of Hurricane Fran clearly show that natural sound areas and their related tidal creeks are
badly shoaled as a result of sand materials transported into the area by the storm surge. It is
felt that the re-opening of the various sound creek areas proposed will help to re-establish the
water exchange processes throughout the sound areas and result in improved water quality
throughout these areas.
Environmental factors are discussed in greater detail in the environmental assessment
report submitted with this application.
11

C

0

F
G'
0

fl

t
SOIL SAMPLE
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
MASON INLET AND CREEK
New Hanover County, N.C.
CONTENTS
See Location Plan included herein
1. Mason Creek Soil Tech Engineering Report (Samples B 1-B 16) dated
December 16, 1996
2. Mason Creek and Banks Channel Soil Tech Engineering Report (Samples
B 101-B 112) dated December 13, 1996
3. Samples from beach strand (Samples BB-1 - BB-2)
4. Soil Tech Engineer Report (Samples BS 1, BS2, DS 1-DS3) Summer 1992
Lft
A

n

C

n

1

ry)
w

L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7650 MARKET STREE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 2840
momy.. ENGINEERING December 16, 1996
OFFICE: 910-686-911
FAX: [phone]
Century/Von Oesen
Post Office Drawer 2087
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Attention: 'Mr. C. E. Davis
Reference: Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover. County, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Dear Mr. Davis:
Soil Tech Engineering, Inc. has recently obtained samples of the proposed drec
material from Mason's Inlet and access channel in New Hanover County, North Carolina. - The purpc
for obtaining these samples was to determine the characteristics bf the in-place sediment..
Sediment samples were obtained from fifteen designated locations within the inlet <
access channel leading to the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. At each designated location, samples w
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 accorda
with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure entitled, ASTM D-422, "Part
Size Analysis of Soils."

Mason's Inlet Sampling
' New Hanover County, North Carolina
Page Two
' Attached please find a description of the subsurface conditions, the results of of
.;..laboratory testing and a sketch of the locations sampled.-If you have any questions, please contact us.
' Very truly yours,
SOIL TECH ENGINEERING
Parks A. Downing, Jr.
' Manager
James Pate, P.E.
CARO
00
PADjr:JP/tlc r . , •r .....,•
;FUsrgyl?
EAL
784a12-16
4480
' ''•Fl'CI N4.. `? ? -
Attachments `
cSC•Y' ,

Soil Descriptions
Mason's Inlet
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location Depth Description . ,
B-1 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-2 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-; 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-4 0-4' Gray Fine to Medium SAND .
4-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
B-5 0-6' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
6-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
B-6 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
8-10' Dark Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
B-7 0-4' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
4-6' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
6-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
8-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
B-8 0-2' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
2-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells

Location D=-th Description
B-9 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-10 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
1 ' SAND
di
M
Fi
G
B-11 0-10 um
e
ne to
ray

B-12 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND

B-13 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
8-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
' ' SAND
di
M
i
B-14 0-8 um
e
ne to
Gray F
' 8-10' Dark Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND
' B-16 0-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND

1 ?

Atlantic
Intercoastal
Waterway

O B-3 i^ 0 B-2
f.
0 1 B-5
I?
'B-1 0
19 B-1 I )B-9
a -12
3-16
B-14
--

Atlantic ocean ® Denotes location of sedierent
sampling Mason's Inlet
.f,,.., u?nnvor rru rntm . NC

Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2
0'
0
2 0'
0-4
2 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0'
Depth: -
. .
.
Percent PassinZ, By Wei ht
Sieve Size 2
99 2
99 98.8 98.8 99.6 99.1 98.9 99.5
#10 - 2.Omm 99.9 . .
920 -.850mm 99.8 98.4 98.3 96.6 98.2 99.2 98.3 98.4 98.8
#30 -.600mm 99.8 97.5 98.0 95.7 97.8 99.0 98.2 98.2 98.6
#40 -.425mm 99.4 96.4 97.3 94.1 97.3 98.5 98.0 97.8 98.3
#50 -.300 mm 92.2 80.8 72.4 82.4 78.1 96.3 96.3 93.2 94.3
#80 - .180mm 15.4 10.5 10.7 9.6 8.1 19.4 18.8 4.4 10.8
#100 -.150mm 6.5 4.4 3.9 2.4 3.5
7.0
6.2
2.6
4.5
#140 -.106mm 1.9 1.3 1.6 0.3 1.6 2.3 1.4 0.9 -1.5
#200 -.075mm 1.6 1.1 1.4 0.2 1.3 1.8 1.1 0.9 1.3
Soil Gray Gray Gray Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine G a to Gray
Fine to
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to • to to Medium
SAND Fine to to
Medium... Medium Medium Medium SAND SAND SAND SAND
SAND SAND SAND SAND
with
Shells ;
B-2
8.0-10.0'
99.6
99.4
99.3
99.0
93.4
8.7
3.6
2.9
2.5
Gray
Fine to
Medium
SAND

Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4
0'
0
2 0'
0-4
2 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0'
Depth: -
. .
.
Percent Passim, By Weight

eveSize
Si _
5
94
3
99
97.6
97.9
95.9
98.5
94.2
87.4
56.6
#10 - 2.0mm 99.6 . .
#20 - .850mm 99.2 91.8 98.2 95.8 95.4 95.8 96.9 91.8 83.3 49.3
#30 -.600mm 99.0 90.6 97.8 95.1 94.6 95.4 95.6 90.8 82.0 47.8
#40 -.425mm 96.5 88.9 96.9 94.2 93.5 93.1 92.9 88.3 80.5 46.1
950 - .300mm 96.5 72.6 88.0 87.7 81.6 81.6 78.1 73.5 70.5 37.6
1/80 - .180mm 17.4 5.4 23.2 8.5 8.4 12.0 7.9 9.1 8.3 6.6
#100 - .150mm 5.7 2.6 7.1 3.8 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.8 4.1 3.1
# 140 - . I 06mm 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.4 - 0.6 0.5
#200 -.075mm 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.8 .
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
Soil Gray Gray Gray Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray
Fine to Gray
Fine to Gray
Fine to
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to to to Medium
SAND Fine to to
Medium Medium Medium Medium SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
SAND SAND SAND SAND with with
Shells Shells
S
Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-5 B-5 B-5 B-5 B-5 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6
Depth: 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0'
Percent Passim, By Weieht
Sieve Size

#10 - 2.Omm
99.5
98.5
99.3
95.1
96.2
99.8
99.4
97.1
99.4 86
.8
920 -.850mm 99.1 97.1 98.4 91.4 93.9 99.1 98.1 94.8 96.9 79.7
#30 - .600mm 98.7 96.4 97.4 89.9 93.1 98.2 97.5 93.8 96.1 78.0
940 -.425mm 96.7 94.7 92.1 85.6 89.6 95.5 96.5 91.7 94.6 76.7
#50 -.300mm 76.6 78.2 46.0 52.7 18.5 76.9 72.5 57.7 53.6 71.2
#80 -.180mm 6.0 8.0 3.0 3.8 8.1 8.6 6.5 3.8 3.4 28.1
# 100 - .150mm 2.7 3.0 1.0 1.4 8.0 2.8 2.3 1.6 1.6 24.6
# 140 -.106mm 0.6 02 0.1 0.2 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 ' 0.2 17.9
9200 -.075mm 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.05 16.6
Soil Gray Gray Gray Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray Gray
Fi
t Dark
Gra
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to to to Medium MFine to
m
di to
Medium Fine to
Medium ne
o
Medium y
Silty Fine
Medium Medium Medium Medium SAND u
e
SAND SAND SAND SAND to
SAND SAND SAND SAND Medium
SAND

Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-7 B-7 B-7 B-7 B-7 B-8
Depth: 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0'
Sieve Size
910 - 2.Omm 99.4 99.3 95.3
#20 -.850mm 98.8 98.3 91.7
#30 -.600mm 97.9 97.2 91.1
440 -.425mm 94.8 93.5 87.9
950 -.300mm 67.0 52.9 67.4
#80 - .180mm 5.6 3.7 6.7
#100 -.150mm 2.1 1.3 3.4
#140 -.106mm 0.3 0.1 0.5
#200 -.075mm 0.2 0.1 0.2
Soil Gray Gray Gray
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to
Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND
B-8 B-8 B-8
2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0'
Percent Passin g. By Weigh
98.1 88.5 99.3 96.2 83.3 91.5
95.8 84.4 98.2 93.8 73.5 89.1
94.5 83.0 97.6 92.5 70.0 87.8
92.1 81.4 96.8 89.8 65.7 86.1
70.2 66.2 75.1 67.1 40.5 73.4
7.0 6.7 8.3 5.4 1.8 9.0
2.9 3.6 4.6 1.8 0.4 3.9
0.5 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.1 -1.0
0.3 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.7
Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray Gray
to to Medium Fine to to Fine to Fine to
Medium SAND Medium Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
B-8
8.0-10.0'
87.4
81.5
79.4
76.3
45.1
2.7
1.1
0.2
0.1
Gray
Fine to
Medium
SAND
t
Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-9 B-9 B-9 B-9 B-9 B-10
Depth: 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0'
Sieve Size
#10 - 2.0mm 99.9 99.9 99.9
920 -.850mm 99.8 99.8 99.8
#30 - .600mm 99.8 99.7 99.7
440 -.425mm 97.9 99.5 99.6
#50 -.300mm 97.6 86.2 97.1
#80 -.180mm 11.9 7.6 12.6
9100 -.150mm 5.2 3.8 5.8
#140 -.106mm 1.1 1.5 1.9
##200 - .075mm 0.9 1.4 1.8
Soil Gray Gray Gray
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to
Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND
B-10 B-10 B-10
2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0'
Percent Passi m Rv Weilit
100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 98.5 99.9
99.9 99.8 100.0 99.2 97.9 99.6
99.8 99.7 100.0 98.9 97.5 99.2
99.6 99.6 99.9 98.3 96.8 98.6
91.8 96.9 99.3 93.8 92.8 95.0
7.8 14.6 13.7 10.3 15.4 13.5
3.4 5.4 6.7 4.2 6.5 5.8
1.2 0.8 1.6 1.4 1.5 - 1.5
1.1 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray Gray
to to Medium Fine to Jo Fine to Fine to
Medium SAND Medium Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
B-10
8.0-10.0'
99.7
98.9
98.5
91.8
11.5
5.2
3.8
1.6
1.5
Gray
Fine to
Medium
SAND
rr r r? rr r rr rr r? rr r r r r¦r r rr r r r r
Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 13-12
Depth: 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0'
Sieve Size
# 10 - 2.0mm 99.6 99.3 98.5
#20 -.850mm 98.7 98.3 97.5
#30 -.600mm 97.9 97.6 97.0
#40 -.425mm 96.4 96.3 95.9
#50 -.300mm 84.1 86.3 89.1
#80 - .180mm 15.8 12.3 11.4
#100 -.150mm 6.7 5.8 4.9
#140 -.106mm 1.7 1.5 1.7
#200 -.075mm 1.4 1.2 1.5
Soil Gray Gray Gray
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to
Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND
B-12 B-12 B-12
2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0'
Percent Passin g, By Weieht
98.2 99.3 97.1 97.0 98.6 99.9
96.5 94.1 94.2 93.8 96.9 98.8
95.5 91.5 92.9 92.6 96.2 98.1
94:0 89.0 82.5 90.8 95.3 87.0
87.6 78.8 82.4 62.5 90.1 86.9
15.5 16.2 16.6 8.4 12.5 12.7
6.9 6.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 -4.9
1.3 1.4 0.9 2.3 1.5 1.0
1.0 1.1 0.6 2.1 1.1 0.8
Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray Gray
to to Medium Fine to to Fine to Fine to
Medium SAND Medium Medium Medium Medium
SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
B-12
8.0-10.0'
99.3
97.4
96.6
95.7
89.4
12.9
5.3
1.4
1.1
Gray
Fine to
Medium
SAND
r r? rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr ?r rr rr r? rr it r? it
Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
Location: B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-14 B-14 B-14 B-14 B-14
Depth: 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0' 0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0'
Percent Passi m Ry Weight
Sieve Size 6
99 5
65 99.9 99.8 98.6 98.4 88.5
910 - 2.0mm 99.9 99.8 99.9 . .
920 -.850mm 99.9 99.6 99.9 98.9 54.2 99.8 99.7 98.2 96.5 87.0
#30 - .600mm 99.8 99.5 99.8 98.7 52.1 99.7 99.6 98.0 96.4 86.5
#40 -.425mm 99.6 72.7 99.7 98.4 51.0 99.6 99.4 97.3 96.2 86.1
#50 -.300mm 98.0 71.5 98.3 95.6 48.4 98.8 77.9 55.4 94.6 85.5
#80 -.180mm 16.0 8.6 14.5 11.6 11.7 19.7 14.2 10.7 26.0 71.5
#100 -.150mm 5.9 4.1 6.2 3.8 3.6 8.7 5.4 6.4 17.6 60.0
##140 - .106mm 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.5 3.5 -8.0 37.5
#200 - .075mm 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.6
1.4
1.3
3.3
6.7
31.6
Soil Gray Gray Gray Gray Fine Gray Fine Gray Gray Fine Gray Gray
to
Fi Dark
Gray
Description: Fine to Fine to Fine to to to Medium Fine to
m
di
M to
Medium Fine to
Medium ne
Medium
Silty Fine
Medium Medium Medium Medium SAND u
e
SAND SAND SAND
SAND SAND SAND SAND Medium
SAND
r? ? ?¦ ? r . ? r ?r ¦r ? ? i r r? r ? . r
i
Location:
Depth:
Sieve Size
#10 - 2.Omm
#20 -.850mm
#30 -.600mm
#40 - .425mm
#50 -.300mm
#80 -.180mm
#100 -.150mm
#140 -.106mm
#200 -.075mm
Soil Description:
Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet
Wilmington, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
B-16 B-16 B-16 B-16 B-16
0-2.0' 2.0-4.0' 4.0-6.0' 6.0-8.0' 8.0-10.0'
Percent Passing, By Weig ht
98.9 99.2 98.8 99.1 100.0
97.9 98.3 97.9 98.1 99.9
97.7 97.9 97.6 97.1 99.8
97.2 97.1 97.0 93.6 99.3
93.6 73.0 91.5 73.4 94.4
10.4 5.3 9.6 4.9 10.2
5.5 3.2 4.6 1.5 4.1
0.9 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.4
0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.1
Gray Fine to Gray Fine to Gray Fine to Gray Fine to Gray Fine to
Medium Medium Medium Medium SAND Medium SAND
SAND SAND SAND

SAMPLES BIOI- BI 12

7650 MARKET STREET
M? y WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
.- ?••/ ENGINEERING December 13, 1996
OFFICE: 910-686-9114
FAX: [phone]
Century/Von Oesen
Post Office Drawer 2087
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Attention: Mr. C. E. Davis
Reference: Grain Size Analysis
Mason's Inlet Sampling
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Job No. 794-95
Dear Mr. Davis:
Soil Tech Engineering, Inc. has recently obtained samples of the proposed dreda?
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 - inle
behind Figure Eight Island and on the barrier sand island. At each designated location, samples w•er
obtained at specified intervals'to a depth of eight to ten feet below the existing sediment subgrade.
Once received in our laboratory each sample was tested for gradation in accordant
with the American Society for Testing and-Materials (ASTM) procedure entitled, ASTM D-422, "Panic!
Size Analysis of Soils."

Mason's Inlet Sampling*
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Page Two
' Attached please find a description of the subsurface conditions, the resultsof our
-laboratory testing and a sketch of the locations sampled. ' If you have any questions; please contact us.
Verytruly yours,
-SOIL TECH ENGINEERRiG
Parks A. Downing, Jr.
Manager
caR011
.,,, .
. ? -James Pate P.E. EAL
8J
PADjr:JP/tlc ` 44
' 784a12-13
',//i1/J11131?1'
' Attachments

' Soil Descriptions
Mason's Inlet
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Job No. 784-95
' Location Depth Description
B-101 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND

B-102 04. Gray Fine to Medium SAND
' S
4-8 hells
Gray Fine to Medium SAND with

B-103 0-4 Gray Fine to Medium SAND
' 4-6' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
6-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND

B-104 04 Gray Fine to Medium SAND
' ll
i
h Sh
4-6 e
s
t
Gray Fine to Medium SAND w
' 6-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
1 B-105 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-106 04' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
4-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
'
8-10 Gray Fine to Medium SAND

B-107 0-6 Gray Fine to Medium SAND
' 6-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
' B-108 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND

Location Depth Description
B-109 0-2' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
2-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells
B-110 0-6' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
6-8' Dark Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND
B-111 0-8' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
B-112 0-2' Gray Fine to Medium SAND
2-10' Gray Fine to Medium SAND with Shells

0 v

I
V
L9
Z
el
? C
A
U
C
tit
r-
G
C
C
N
4-
11
fU?
O
C

o c
A
00 M N ?O (? v1 '

?D t?
c? O
C% l?
oo v,
00 00
r-
rn '?
vl vl
M 'Ct
M t: O
++ C!)
0
C
E A
o It N N C% ?z

'?-?
?f v;
G1
00 00
00 (-z
CA --
00
t? N
M
O
O
(7 to
f`.1 O G=,
A
O ?
O O C\ C\ G, Co M M N ?.

CII
O
O
C\
N
N
00
-- (U
?+

CQ N
O e;
rn C;
rn c
rn 00
rn r-:
c\ .- tn N O
cn
O
P-1 -W VC\ c
t~ ? o a
V1
N C?
??+ O •-'
p 0
C
CCi\
C
G\ n
; C,
V %0
O .a.
V
c C\ \ v C O En

ti

16
O G-'• C? 00 00 00 N C`t C` d- %- QQQ
G <r a\ c\ c c\ 0., r-Z --, o o V cn
c E

C) ?i C\ 00 M O v1
CI-

W O
C11 06
0,, ?
C% ?
C\ r-:
0\ 6
r- W
oo r-
M
^- N
•-- ?
C7 2 V]
E

rr
~ N
O
rn G1
rn
c
C1 ?p
c .-.
-- v)
NT M
-- t
. Q
C7 .O to
E E E O
E G ° -
O O
kn O
C; u1
N O
C> O
0
0 O
'. t
O V
N N 0
0 ? N M 00
co
C cri
0
O.
N
O
O CD
O 0 C>
O
. "Ir
t -r': 000
k - 0
r-7 A t
Cn

O O M M ?O 00 \O y 'C3
C? 00 ON G?\ G?1 ONO
vi N
C-i 'Ct
O M
O
v1
00
r
?O
O E
>+ O
O
C\
C\
C\
ON
00 M
G; M
to cs
C"i O`
-- C2 0 ra
C7 ts, Cn

?f
O O

•--

00

•-

I?

N
O E
O
06

G1

00

0000

\ C\ [? N

C'i O

C'i
C
a w ? U)

3 ?

O o
vi
GO
O
M
O
00 E
>' y "a

p O
C-i
? C;N
rn
C\
C\
0000
r M
cli
-- C\
o w O `u
CA
E
tr N G1 00 00 n .-, o •
O 'C
2
?1 0 C\ rn C;\
C?
cz 0
C7
C.
? O
`
tii •? ?O ?O 00 00 M M 4) 'L7 ,?
w : Pa 06 ON O\ G1 C\ C\ -- o C7 w ? • 3 . CIO
t 00
z
O
O

?
C ??

O O

O

0

N

a,
'

0 O

4-

C;3
.r cn
? p ? ?o
O` vi .
? ter
rn oo
00 C?
r rt
? -
? ?•,
M C7 w ? ? • 3 to
C7 ' c

p C1+ V 1 N v, 00 ? ?
C4 ?r c\ ° o 00

M o E
O Q
O V- N - 00 r-

m O
cv C?
C, CT 6 00 \p V:
- O
i v1 r- (U
7 +-
•3 '
rn ON rn c\ \10 d cl -- C.
u, rn co

0
0 c
E
Q c
• • c`i G1 00 l? ?D M d ?' 's O r'
?4 o rn rn C\ rn o t7 ° 3 v

E
E
E
E
E E E E o

O
O
W)
O
O C)
Ln %0
O N
r-

O O

N vl

00 O

\0 N

V O

m co
•-+
--
O
?-
N
O
• N
i
i O
F, v,
O
O
O
O
O
C) O
O O
IT O
O A
h 4k ZZ 5? -?..? C

CA n

o

O O
O
M
N
?p
M
G1 ° ?
't7
cC .?
.C
N
C? 06 COT ON C\ C\ 00 Cf\
00 ?p .- N
? ?
V
V)
C7 G= 3 v
. M . ,
r- 00 V• C\ 00 N r
cl;
G
c
°
W
=
C1
C7 E .'
3 U)

10 o
- a Q
^

a1 O ?0
G? c?
00 t-?
co v1
co
n ,- •
•- G?
vi ?t
?i oo
- ti . Q/1
C7 w CIO .?
3 C/1
a

?

?O

I?

A o ?
n
i
O M
6 06 M
00 t-? %6 N N N N ? C
GU cv o\ ON CT CA 00 %0 M .- .- C7 w t? 3 t?
E

•y?,
O
M
N
N
Cr
O
O :3 N

U?
as
o
3
rn
°G;
o
c?
G\ ,-
o
c? CIO +
3En
r
'
MM
F+-i

N C> 0
ti y V? 00 %q M GD U "C3
r. c ti C%
G1 00
C\ co
G1 co
C, ?t
CT n
Vl `n V C 0

ti
U
10

W O Cr
C\ 00
G, 00
G\ 00
G\ \O
C\ ^
W) M
V' V'
--
-?
C7 w
V
a

O
v
V
00
G\
C\
00 A
°
~ O Cr V.? \O v1 00 rl N N O y
CA N C\ G\ CT C? 00 r M

a
? y
N N ? tt
'
C)
0\
rn
G
c
rn N
CT M M
r- .O
•-- C
t7

O
E t; E E E E O \0 v1

O O
v, O
O to
N O
O O
GO vl O
^• r-
C
U

0 N C i oo
C) C) a
ct!
(U O_ O
C14 O O
-q- O
Ln O
00 O_ 'IT O

it

E
00 =1
O N o0 %C
??

q O
`O
CT
rn
C?
rn
rn N
h 7 .?
N O
CV r
C7 !-.
00 O O
E Q
00 ?t O ?n O ,
>+ ^C3

q O
v
ON
C\
C\
C\
CN _ (V O C O d

00 o

O

N

N p E

O 't7 7

O
06

c

C\ NI:

?

o _

ri

o a-

C7 w C4
a?
c E
O
C Q` [? M O r
Q
r Z

q ?
O
O\
G1 c;
C\
CT
00
00
?D
vi
cf
C7

C O O
O V-4
6? U G1 q 00 CT O\ C.1 G1 ON
. ,
M
O

oo
n O ? q
«
N i~ Z C l?
6 4
-
2
V2 H [ Z
0
8
• in
?
G1
M
?t
N
.
O -o

C\
co
co
00
r- O
00 \D ?O t >~ QQ

O o v
O
N
G,
M
•-+
N ?
-
ON rn ON C\ oo - C
C7 w c)
o'
? Q
co ? N n cz Z
? O
C-i ?
C\ ?
ON C\
C\ G1
C\ V'
C\ ?
C\ O
tn [? M ? ? O
Ln
y
O

Co
_
N
-
O?
v1
O
N
Z
q O C\ ON C\ C\ U ?p r+ O C7

O ?
O O
kn O
O to
N O
O O
00 •-- O ?-
N N 00 V M • - U

U
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
d O
O Q

p
a
A N

.
tit M lzt to 00 -
.-- cli

W

C Q
?
O cN 00 t-- to zr; 0 t-- M -» •? >, z
'
CA
?O CT
0\ G;
G1 G:
C (0?
O 00
GIN 116
N et
N N
N Ci
N M.
Q O
CA

O

O
ON cc t` 10 r- B
T %
G O O G? C1 v1 .-- M M rCZ
C7 O t/?
O

Ni C% G1 00 r"
'
p O
i Ct\ G'i c1
. C\ 00 N
r t-- to N V O
r rn G1 C
, C', C N
•.•
.?

0
0 .?
4Q

~
CV C>\ n %0 N 00

O Cn
Cr O;
G1
C% CT
Cn ?O
GIN ."
M "" O o
O
O
i. ^?
O
V C d c

H C 00 0 1 = 00 Vl r- O 'L7

N C Z
O
?
O
O
r
N
O
?
N
O
M
l r

`

°Cz
•?, C 00 00. r- ? - v O O V
to
" ? cc o

?

CD o

O a?

U

V1

CIO

01

N

%O

ter

-
0 (? ^
z ?
'CS
U
? ' i ?^ N M '-+ O N t
? C, r- a
L
t Cr\ 00 00 00 r- M O O to
U

O O

V .^
N C/I
? O O •- ?p ?' r ,?

6 O
ri '-+
oo CV
r- O
F, CT
\.o p
Z t?
vi M
C'i 00
C; r-
C; ?
0
a?
O
=

O
O a
O
00 r? %6 kf? CV t? t? c
O ON ON ON O\ C1 N O O O C/]
E E E
C O
E E E E E O kO v1 C

O
O
0
vi
C) .
O N 00 G U

O U
N
cV 0
0
i
• 0 C
U R U N en 14zr V) CO CO 0 C'j
a Q 4k ? ` :It :k :;1- 0
r-
C? C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
g, 41 U c4
O 'tP
H C)
zo
? GO
1-4
r

O C_
N y
r

O
Q
O
C
'?
m 0o 00 vi ri cV C7
V2 '
3 v?

o
R? ?o Cn G1 ° a0 - c? V cn 3 v

0
N
--•
N
C11 r-

c? M
rn
C\
00
r vl
d
M
o
3
?

N
° o

~ 0 t? N ?O O N C? >, ' 7 Q

14
ri
ON
rn
rn
rn
00
%6 O
IIR

.?

C7 w

3

N
N Cn tr1 O M CO A «p P?
I?+
L4 O Cn C?T
CA (:)?
CA CO
CT .-
CT d
c'i O
N C)\
O O C7 •?
CC-0 Vt
. M
M
?
E
.. CA v

V Cn r- t? V) 'O 00 N

rn
Ch
C
C\
060 1 \-6 O o0
. - . .

..."
(7 V]
O
O
L
O
O
= p CT C, C\
O CA
CN (:;1
C\ rn
G\ c, 00
\-O
tn ri L

C
O
4-
I
r. O O

G1 %lO ON >1
y ^O

N Cn
C'i C,
O\ CT
G1 CA
O1 06
ON ' CT
00 M
r- o0
<F' 00
V' c N
C) I
C/)
y
.-+
O o E Q
•

!

N C1 CA 00 t- N M
y 'O
c'

?
O
CT
CT
C?
C3i
CT
G1
Cn
00
CT
O
N
CV
-+
oo
?i
N
h r
_ N
L O
C7
? W
E E E c
O
E E E O O ko

O

O

C)

W)

0

O

W)

(D N

p
C.

O
N n
oo O
\?o N O
m CO V
N to

U O O O O O O O V? O A

0
Q >
O •- Cpl M Nr to 00 .-, .--. N
O
c

f!

N

1
con
W
con

r Samples Taken from Beach Strand
Prior to Hurricane Fran
r
(Samples from mid-tide level)
i
r % 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)
1
BB-1
' 2,500' South of causeway 99.9 98.3 78.2 30.8 0.1
BB-2
6,300' South of causeway 100.0 99.9 90.0 37.5 1.3
r
r .
r
r .
r
r
r -
r
r ? .
0.24 Fine to Medium Sand
0.20 Fine Sand
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V%
N

C/1
w
a

M
i
Q
I
i
A

SAMPLES TAKEN IN RICH INLET
i AND FROM BEACH STRAND
SUMMER 1992
i
Test borings and sand samples were taken in the proposed dredge area at Rich Inlet
' and also on the beach strand to determine compatibility as shown on Sheets 1 and 2.
Sampling and testing were done by an independent geotechnical agent with samples
extracted from the near-bottom area with a second sample taken from the soil column near
i the maximum depth of proposed excavation (to -9 feet MLW). A grain size analysis of the
materials sampled is attached hereto.
' There is reasonable compatibility between the insitu beach sand and that to be
excavated from the sound areas behind the island. Most notably, the percentages of material
' ranging between .180 and .260 millimeters (mm) (sieve sizes Nos. 80 and 50, respectively)
are certainly useful for placement on the beach. Both the borrow material and the natural
beach sand contain a slightly higher percentage of "fines" (material passing the No. 200
sieve) than is considered ideal. A grain size distribution analysis reveals a median grain size
ranging from 0.25 to 0.27 mm, which is considered suitable for beach renourishment. (Note
beach sand sample #2 is an anomaly that reveals an average grain size of only 0.17 mm on
analysis).
0

E

'
Grain Size Analysis
Figure Eight Island
' Wilmington, North Carolina
--
__-_-___.S?CM-P-E:E? _-. TLiKE21-`[:u: =511MMER=-1?.Z
r---- Beach ---j ?-- Dredge
Location: DS_-U-2 __ Qj`•-tt3-
'
Sieve Size

'
, By Weiqht
Percent Passim
' tt4 99.9 99.7 99.6 100.0 99.7

X10 99.9 99.6 98.0 99.9 99.5
' 7
1 99
5 2
99
n30 99.8 .
.
99.5 9 .
n40 99.8 99.4 94.7 99.6 98.9
*50 65.4 95.2 90.0 98.9 87.4
-Tar 80 18.0 57.5 27.9 13.9 12.7
n100 14.7 48.5 •15.9 10.3 6.2
U
,200 13.1 3.6 10.6 6.8 2.9
' Percent Moisture: 11.0 21.8 15.3 22.1. 24.7

' Soil Description: SAND SAND SAND SAND
h with with
i SAND
with
with w
t
Shells Shells Shells Shells Shells

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-nr l?n,
BS?1
n
s
194
DS-1
DS-2
z
PROPOSED 200' WIDE CHANNEL WIDENING
Z
i
IN
BS-2
OF DREDGE AREA
D IN PERMIT 21-93
Rim
RICH INLET SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
scnLe. ,"=,ooo
SAMPLE LEGEND
BEACH AREA: BS-1
DREDGE AREA: DS-1
SAMPLES TAKEN IN SUMMER 1992
1000
SCALE: 1"=1000'
NCDEHNR WIRO
:State
aepai
Heal't!
Divisio
Fax:[phone]
if Ncirth Carolina
rhent: of Environment,
.and ;Natural Resources
of Coastal Management
Nov 21 '97 16:17 P.02
A F ; eN.
James A. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Roger NSchecter,;Pirector
Mr. W. A?. Raney, Jr
Wessell ?i Raney, L.LY,
Attorney :at Law '
107- gb Attorney M :at
second street
P. O: Box 1049'
Wilml"m NC 25402
Dear Nix. Ranev,
October 31, 1997
olvlsfot4 OF
Stiff of the-bivisior has,-completed•..it first stage, preliminary review of the draft
,iun nW assessment submitted on-behalf of the Figure Eight Beach Idorneovvners
iati . The issues listed below and the attached comments frora Jim Gregson of th,e
ngton office must be addressed in the appropriate section of the revised document.
• Wi1X the Mason.Inlet channel provide safe passage across the ocean bar?
j':•vhat depth? Under appropriate authority is any navigational maker .
i> sullation planned?
• T e document places considerable emphasis on benefits to Shell Island
anji . public recreation due to nouri.shmeiit of 50,000 cu. yards on the north
eix of Wrightsville. Beach. Won't this really be very short lived?
• What is the estimated time requixed for "the beach benthic community to •
recover? Percentage of recovery at several•intervals, e.g., 1 year, 2 years, etc.
• 'The Rich:Inlet bat' channel crosses the inlet from south to north, Does it'pro-
viJe navigation.directly to the ocean. Please explain. Discuss possible
ad4rse effects to TIutaff Island.
•, A ditional justification for small craft channels ranging from 200' - 400':
'The AIWW is less than 200'.
.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, Borth Carolina' 276117687 Tolophone g19-733-229n
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled /10% Pose-Consurraer P•pet
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 16:18 P.03
A Raney, Jr.
Page.2
October 3 1997
• The Division is aware of preliminary information from an ongoing independent
stuidy that suggests the Banks Channel excavation of a few years ago was an
im ortatat factor. in the southern movement of Mason Inlet. The document
mit contain discussion on ,this and other possible adverse im acts that the
pro 0sal May cause to befall Shell Wand. l'
Do not hesitate to contact me or other sfaff should y011 wi5h to dlSCUSS the is s raised.
We look f award :to moving expeditiously to the next phase of tlae review.
Very sincerely,
Jo R. parker, r.
Majo Permits Processing Coordinator
Wirlaw
cc. Rog r Scher-ter "
•Charl.os Jones
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone]
:.State; of North.-.Carolina
Department. of .Environment,
He8hWana Nsitural Resources
Wilinirigton: Regional Office
Division.of Coastal Management
James H. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Wayrie McDe?vitt, Secretary.
'Roger N. Schecter, Director.
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker
FROM: Jim Gregso
THROUGH: Bob Stroud
SUBJECT-
The.feil

Nov 21 '97 16 : 18 P.04
OIL.
October 28, 1997
:Draft Environmental Assessment
Proposed Channel Maintenance Dredging and Beach Rebuilding. Project
Figure Eight Beach Homeowners Association, Inc.
New 'Hanover County
reviewed the Subject Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 7, 1.997,
i preliminary corhfhents are provided:
The emergency inlet relocation and beach rebuilding project proposed in the fall of
996. had two proponents, Figure Eight Beach Homeowners Association, Inc and
the Shell lsland Resort Homeowner Association. This joint venture was10 serve as
a solution to erosion problems faced by both proponents. The current proposal,
while.still intending to provide s temporary solution to the problems faced by-both
original proponents, is being submitted solely by the Figure Eight Island Beach
Homeowners Association, Inc. with the primary emphasis being'the renourishment
of Figure Fight Beach. The project will be totally privately funded.
he current broposal consists of three distinotly separate actlons: 1) Th e excavation
f a channel: in Mason Creek and the deepening of the north side -of the Mason Inlet
hannel to .encourage flow away from south side of the Inlet: 2) Mrtaintenance
redging in the small boat channe[behind Figure Eight Island from the west side of
le island to the AIWW. 3) The excavation of a channel in the vicinity of Rich Inlet
om the mouth of Green Channel to the confluence of Butler: Creek -arid Nixon
hannel as well as the completion of the dredging of the area in Rich Inlet approved
Permit Number 21-93. The EA iestimates that the construction of these projects
ill provide material for the placement of 1,100,000 cubic yards of beach quality
and Along the Figure Eight Island Beach and 60,000 cubic yards on the north end
Wrightsville Reach.
127 C2rdigal Drive Extension; Wilmington, N.C. 2840 3845 . Telephone [phone] + rox 910,350-2004
An Equal Opportunity ?firmative Action Employer
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 16:19 P.05
:John parker Memo
:October, 20, 1997
Page- Two
The Altemative Analysis section of the EA discusses four alternatives to address the
ero-9ion problem at the north end of Wrightsville Beach, however, the EA fails to
discuss any altematives relating to main purpose of the EA, which is to address the
environmental impacts associated with the channel maintenance and beach
rebuilding' project at Figure Eight Island Beach. Specifically, tfle EA:-should discuss
alternative sources of sand for beach reconstruction, such as the pumping of. Corps
disposal areas or the potential :for the use of offshore borroww areas.
With the exception of the Mason. Inlet and-Mason Creek dredging proposals, the EA
describes'the proposed dredgin® in the Middle Sound smalt boat channel and in the
140 Inlet'area-as maintenance dredging, A cursory review, of past permit actions
at Figure Eight Island by this division indicates that the scope of all three current
dredging proposals exceeds that which we have permitted in- the past. Specifically,
Permit Number 26-92 issued on February 27, 1992 and subsequent modifications
to this permit issued on May 13, 1992 and November 25, 1992, authorized the
maintenance of- Middle Sound Channel (Banks Channel) at' 1:25' wide to 4. MLW
deep, extending from Mason Inlet Channel 11,050 feet north to the confluence of
the "natural creek" connecting Banks Channel to the AIWW. Also approved was an
800' section at the junction of AkW. Dredging In the "natural Creek" was originally
part: of the. proposal, however, :as a result of comments from the National Marine
Fisheries Service objecting to the "conversion of previously undisturbed shallow
water habitat to deep channel bottom the Figure Eight Oeach Homeowners
Association, Inc. amended the; application by eliminating entirely the proposed
dredging of the "natural creek". The EA proposal for the Middle Sound Channel
dredging includes the areas permitted under 26-92 as well as the."natural creek
areen: All areas would be dredged to 200' wide X -9' MLW (75' Wider than approved
under 26-92). Permit Number 89-83 authorized the construction of achannel 4650'
Iong.X'200-4.p0'. wide X -6 MLW deep extending from the mouth of Rich Inlet to the
junction of Nixon Channel including a 200' X 300' boat basin. The dredging of this
area, proposed in the EA would include a channel 8000' long X 2W wide X -9' :MLW
deep as well as, an area authorized under Permit #21-93. Soundings in this-area
indicate that there are areas adjacent to the proposed channel as deep as -17'
ML.W and are -10' to -14' MLW deep adjacent to much or the project length. It
appears that existing water depths in this area do not present a navigational
problem. For this reason, both the Rich Inlet and Banks, Channel dredging
proposals appear to be inconsistent with 15A NCAC 7H .0208>(b)(1)(D).
The, EA states that 50,000 cubic yards-of material from the Mason Inlet area
dredging will ba ;placed on the north end of Wrightsville Beach; at both the east and
west ends of the existing sand tube barrier and that this material will,. be bulldozed
.into the inlet at low slack tide. The EA does not address :haw the proposed
.stockpiled material, especially the stockpile on the west side of North Lumina
Avenue, will be contained on hiftround during hydraulic placement of the material
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 16:20 P.06
4ohn Parker Memo
October 28,;1997
Page Three
of
an
+ As
ln1E
a rT
W
any
Altt
it at
pre:
am
in this area; There is currently very little highground remaining adjacent to the
of North Lumina Avenue and coastal wetlands start at the west end
road.; It would be very difficult, W not impassible, de f of the
hydraulic dredge in this area to contain the discharge impacting coastal wetlands. rom a
00ton VI. F. page 11, states "that sampling and testing of sand materials
.he
: in all
of
he proposed; dredging areas have shown, that they are beach suitable" ad
test results: are in n that
Appendix 2. Appendix 2 only contains grain size analysis
MITI Mason; Inlet and Mason Creek and a small segment of the southern
Ianks;Channel. end of
action Vll. C., page 15, states that "the proposed Bred in will
redging or. fill of any marsh areas" 9 g not involve the
Maintenance,. sheet 2 of 5, indicates that a poertianit?f Phthe an, Mason n$j Inlet Channel
an area of alight grass". Conversations with Land ManaoeritentGro9up? will ?icate that Inc.
the'knks of kli0t gr'ass': as shown on the plan is not ac and that
proposed charynel .ali curate
gnment will Ia ndeed avoid all wetland vegetation.
es not indicate the distance the channel cut Will be from the The EA
rsh
ss. bredge cuts are to be made with 2:1 side slopes and as th s? dredge ?uks
sin a natural, angle of rQpase? si9n?cant sloughing will likely occur in these area: s
high hydraulic flows. It is unclear whether an adequate boffer exists in these As to prevent marsh grass loss during and a
. 9 fray dredging.
exprIessed by several review agencies during the review of the
t dredging EA, the unknowns associated With such a pro previous Mason
necessity
onitvring PrPgraM -be an essential posal
element to such a
iity project, not only mte that
im pravement perspective (which has been a major t. water
1ronmenta! 'documents) but also from a shoreline response erspectboth
Hugh we accept tl't the EA should not describe a finalized monitorin p ve.
otild at least address the key issues that will need to be studied and
should
ant a draft of tlins of a monitoring program and should include a sta and s
ynitori.ng program will be part of the proposal t that
cc: Charles jai
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 1535 P.01
State of orth. Carolina
i Department Of Environme ?t Health and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James E: Hunt,Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary..
FAX COVER SHEET
Date:: j
To:
?
CO:
FAX #i
a1/77
C
No. Of Pages:
From:
C(J:
FA.X#: Pl'
r 1.
S:
7 Cardinal Drive EYtensloir, Wilmington, N.t. 25405.3845 Telephone [phone] FU [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A- rmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
' LTI.RMAI
C:) FE F1
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
Date Z 3
FAX TO: "11 1) C/VI I FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Y( M ( S f2 L-(2- x w f GV 5 G/

Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
December 1, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: John Domeyp?
FROM: Eric Fleek L?l`
SUBJECT: Figure 8 Island Beach Renourishm'ent/Channel Relocation and Dredging EA
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the Figure 8 Island Dredging and Channel Relocation EA.
Based on this review DWQ offers the following comments:
1) Page 5 of the EA, states: "estuarine productivity levels may have been impaired with reduced -nutrient
exchange taking place because of the shoaling/sedimentation 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." RESPONSE: The
removal of the "shoaling/sedimentation actions" in Mason's Creek (and the purported
improvement in "the functioning of the inlet and connecting estuarine channel") will not
improve or significantly alter "estuarine productivity levels" because estuaries and salt marshes
do not derive most nutrients from oceanic waters. Rather these systems are driven almost totally
by riverine/terrigenous nutrient input. Therefore, an increase in the hydraulic connectivity of
Masons' Creek with the inlet (by dredging Mason's Creek and relocating Mason Inlet) will not
increase primary productivity since the main nutrient input to this system is not oceanic. In
addition, it is stated that "water quality within the sound may have deteriorated". Based on
personal knowledge, observations, and discussion with the Wilmington Regional office staff of
the DWQ, the water quality in and around Mason's Creek is not compromised,.and no data to
the contrary have been presented in this EA. Therefore, increasing the hydraulic functioning of
the inlet and connecting estuarine channels by dredging/relocation will not likely have any
beneficial water quality benefits since water quality in these areas is not degraded.
2) Page 7 of the EA states: "Other losses that would be attributed to the no-build alternative include the
loss of the opportunity to realize the many potential environmental benefits resulting from the opening
of Mason Creek to more complete tidal flushing from a near ocean source". RESPONSE: Again,
DWQ does not recognize a degraded water quality condition in Mason Creek. For instance,
levels of Dissolved Oxygen level and Fecal Coliform counts do not violate water quality
standards. Therefore, the need to "improve" on a situation that is already acceptable is not
important and the need for dredging for this purpose is not demonstrated.
3) With regard to dredging activities, the EA mentions on page 17 that "overall long-term impacts on the
estuarine resources of Middle Sound are considered to be positive in light of the enhanced tidal
exchange of near oceanic waters through Mason Inlet and the potential beneficial effects to organisms
from this flushing". RESPONSE: Here again no data are presented in the EA that demonstrate
an ongoing water quality problem in Middle Sound or adverse impacts to Spartina marsh or
other organisms as a result of decreased "tidal exchange of near oceanic waters". Therefore, the
need for dredging to enhance water quality has not been demonstrated.
Figure 8 Island EA Comments
Page 2
4) Page 17 of the EA states that the "sediment accumulation" condition in Mason Creek could eventually
cause the low tidalmarsh along Mason Creek to be gradually replaced with "irregularly flooded marsh
which has diminished tidal amplitudes, lower salinities and less direct detrital importance". Further, "it
is possible the existing saltmarsh zonation patterns and organism communities would gradually change
with lowered salinities if the dredging were not initiated." RESPONSE: DWQ believes that evidence
for these aforementioned conditions have not been presented in this EA. No evidence exists
supporting reduced salintities in salt marshes in and around Mason Creek. In fact, on page 21 of
the EA it is noted that salinities in Mason Creek are already 27 ppt to 35 ppt despite the large
accumulation of sediments. On page 18 the EA states categorically that "at this time sediment
accumulation has not engendered the obvious proliferation of higher marsh species within the
main run of Mason Creek". No data are presented to support dredging of Mason Creek to attain
the desired effects purported in the EA. Furthermore, the close proximity of both Masonboro
Inlet and Rich Inlet would seem to prevent any salinity lowering in or near Mason Creek.
5) A brief mention on page 18 regarding SAVs notes that there is "no indication that submerged aquatic
vegetation exists within Mason Creek's drainage area". RESPONSE: DWQ requests information on
when (year and season) during which this survey was conducted. If sampling was conducted
shortly after Hurricane Fran, SAV may indeed have been absent from the sampling area.
However, subsequent recruitment may have taken place since Fran.
6) On page 18 it is noted that "It is possible that following channel excavation, some marsh edge may
erode along Mason Creek due to increased''flows. This process would be similar to the natural
vegetated bank loss occurring within the small tidal creeks nearby at present which are responding to
the post-overwash conditions produced by Hurricane Fran. This potential secondary impact at present
is not quantifiable and would be similar to the losses that occur naturally". RESPONSE: The EA
again provides no data demonstrating that loss of salt marsh as a result of channel excavation
and increased hydrodynamic flows will be "similar" to the present losses associated with post-
overwash conditions. Without supporting data documenting current levels of salt marsh loss or
data quantifying salt marsh loss in similar channels after dredging, the EA has not demonstrated
that dredging-related impacts would not be significant. In addition, any impacts to saltwater
wetlands may require compensatory mitigation (NCAC 15A 2H. 0500).
7) On page 19 the EA states that "this project should improve public bottom conditions by enhancing
flushing causing better primary productivity in public marshes and shellfish area". RESPONSE: The
EA presents no supporting data to demonstrate that salt marsh or shellfish areas are primary
productive-limited as a result of accumulated sediment in channels or the southward migration
of mason Inlet. To claim this benefit from dredging, some data demonstrating existing
degradation must be provided.
8) On page 22 the EA cites Dr. Mike Mallin (UNCW) notes that a study which he is conducting has
documented that salinities midway up Futch Creek have remained at a "higher level (30-35 ppt) since
the removal of the accumulated sand bar." RESPONSE: Current levels of salinity in Mason Creek
as reported by the EA are already between 27ppt and 35 ppt despite the accumulated sand.
DWQ believes that removing this sand will not appreciably raise the salinity levels here.
9) Page 11 of the EA notes that there will be an excavation of Mason Inlet to an improved dimension of -
9.0' mlw. This improved excavation (along with the proposed dredging of Mason Creek to reduce
accumulated sediment) are proposed to increase flushing and connectivity with oceanic waters.
RESPONSE: Carey (1997) has demonstrated the conversion of salt marsh to unvegetated
subtidal flats by increased inundation and water impoundment due to increased oceanic
connectivity. DWQ is concerned that this process (combined with data from Hackney and
Cleary 1987) may result in a degradation of salt marshes in this area.
Figure 8 Island EA Comments
Page 3
10) Pages 5, 7, 11, 17, and 19 of the EA mention some of the possible beneficial aspects that dredging
will engender. As detailed above, DWQ believes these benefits are likely either non-existent or non-
significant. Further direct impacts associated with dredging include takings of endangered species
(despite adhering to dredging windows), increases of turbidity and suspended sediment levels,
dissolved oxygen sags and a large array of associated deleterious biotic impacts (Kaplan et al. 1974,
McCauley et al. 1977, Morton 1977, Kiorbee et al. 1981, Bricelj et al. 1984, Poiner and Kennedy 1984,
Van Dolah et al. 1984, Bonvvini et al. 1985, White and Dagg 1989, Lin et al. 1992, Wainwright et al.
1992, Wulff et al. 1997).
11) This EA is proposing the removal of approximately 1.1 million yd3 of sand material for beach
renourishment. Hackney and Cleary (1987) demonstrated deleterious salt marsh impacts associated
with sand removal for beach renourishment near Rich's Inlet, N.C. and have suggested adverse
impacts to salt marshes near Topsail Inlet upon the removal of 776,899 m3 of material. The
following data are taken from Hackney and Cleary (1987):
1) North Carolina salt marshes have large quantities of sand available to them through inlets.
Historical data show that marshes disappear when this sediment source is eliminated. As the
current and predicted relative sea level (RSL) increases, the removal of large quantities of sand for
beach renourishment on developed barrier islands may significantly hasten the drowning and
disappearance of large areas of salt marsh in the lagoons of southeastern North Carolina.
2) "Tidal wetlands must accumulate materials to maintain themselves in the intertidal zone and do so
with allocthonous inputs of sediments (riverine or marine origin) or autochthonous additions
(plant and animal debris). During storm events as much as 17cm of sediment can be added during
a short time (Schubel and Hirschberg, 1978). Salt marshes along the southeastern coast of North
Carolina receive almost no sediment from rivers (Yelverton and Hackney, 1986) and these
systems are and have been demonstrated to be dependent on marine sources of sediment.
3) Specifically, a marsh near Rich's Inlet contained only 10% organic matter in the top 20cm of
sediment indicating that marine sands are much more important than autochthonous production to
the natural maintenance of the marsh relative to sea level rise. Further, several shallow cores from
marshes located away from inlet influences showed that 80% of the upper Im of sediment is
composed of materials greater than 63um in size suggesting that fine, muddy sediments (e.g.,
those from rivers) are volumetrically unimportant (Cleary and Hosier, 1979).
4) In summary, Hackney and Cleary (1987) state "Lagoons which have no riverine sediments must
depend exclusively on the transport of marine sands into the lagoons. Human activities along the
southeastern North Carolina coast are disrupting the transport of sand into these lagoons. Many
inlets are maintained for recreational and commercial boat traffic by dredging and sand stored in
inlet systems is regarded as a resource for beach renourishment on developed barrier islands".
Therefore, "as the rate of sea level rise increase, however, so does the probability that sand
removal will hasten marsh submergence."
If there are any questions regarding these comments please feel free to call at [phone]
Literature Cited
Bonvivini Pagliai, A.M., A.M. Cognetti Varriale, R. Crema, M. Curini Galletti, and R. Vandini Zunarelli.
1985. Environmental impact of extensive dredging in a coastal marine area. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16:483-
488.
Bricelj, V.M., R.E. Malouf, and C.de. Quillfeldt. 1984. Growth of juvenile Mercenaria mercenaria and the
effect of resuspended bottom sediments. Marine Biology 84:167-173.
Carey, W.L. 1997. Evolution of the Grecos Canal/Inlet system and its impacts on adjacent wetlands,
Milford Neck, Delaware: A paradigm for effects of sea-levicel rise on development and demise of a
coastal marsh. Proceedings from The Estuarine Research Federation. P. 29.
Clearly, W.J. and P.E. Hosier. 1979. Geomorphology, washover history and inlet zonation: Cape Lookout to
bird Island, North Carolina. Pages 237-271, In: Barrier Islands, Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of
Mexico, S.P. Leatherman, ed. Academic press, NY.
Hackney, C.T. and W.J. Cleary. 1987. Saltmarsh loss in southeastern North Carolina lagoons: Importance of
sea level rise and inlet dredging. Journal of Coastal Research, 3(1): 92-97.
Kaplan, E, J. Welker, and M.G. Kraus. 1974. Some effects of dredging on populations of macrobenthic
organisms. Fishery Buletin 72(2): 445-479.
Kiorboe, T., F. Mohlenburg, and O. Nor. 1981. Effect of suspended bottom material on growth and energetic
in Mytilus edulis. Marine Biology 61:282-288.
Lin, H.P., G. Charmantieer, P. Thuet, and J.P. Trilles. 1992. Effects of turbidity on survival, osmoregulation
and gill Na+ K+ ATPase in juvenile shrimp Penaeus japonicas. Marine Ecology Progress Series
90:31-37.
McCauley, J.E., R.A. Parr, and D.R. Hancock. 1977. Benthic infauna and maintenance dredging: A case
study. Water Research 11:233-242.
Morton, J.W. 1977. Ecological effects of dredging and dredge spoil disposal: A literature review. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. Tech. Pap. 94. 33p.
Poiner, I., and R. Kennedy. 1984. Complex patterns of change in the macrobenthos of a large sandbank
following dredging. I: Community analysis. Marine Biology 78: 335-352.
Schubel, J.R. and D.J. Hirschberg. 1978. Estuarine graveyards, climatic changes and the importance of the
estuarine environment. Pages 285-303, In: Estuarine Interactions, M.L. Wiley, ed. Academic press,
New York.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open-water disposal on
benthic macroin vertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries 7:28-37.
Wainwright, T.C., D.A. Armstrong, P.A. Dinnel, J.M. Orensanz, and K.A. McGraw. 1992. Predicting effects
of dredging on a crab population: an equivalent adult loss approach. Fisheries Bulletin 90:171-182.
White, J.R., and M.J. Dagg. 1989. Effects of suspended sediments on eg production of the Calanoid copepod
Arcatia tonsa. Marine Biology 102:315-319.
Wulff, A., K. sundback, C. Nilsson, L. carlson, and B. Jonsson. 1997. Effect of sediment on the
microbenthic community of shallow-water sandy sedijment. Estuaries Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 547-558.
Yelverton, G.F. and Hackney, C.T. 1986. Flux of dissolved organic carbon and pore water through the
substrate of a Spartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 222:
225-267.
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone]
State' Of.'North Carolirra ,
Department;of .fnAronmen't,
He iidthahd hfaturail Res`vurces
Wilm.ir?g.toh Regional Off1ce
Division' of Coastal: Management
James B. Hutt, r., Governor
Wayne M617evitt, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Nov 21 '97 15:36 P.04
ilirliili , '• ' .
J°
October 28, 1997
MEMORAND
TO:, John Parker
FROM: Jim Greg
THROUGH' Bob Stroud
SURJECT' ' raft Environmental Assessment.'
I?roposed Channel Maintenance Dredging and Beach Rebuildirig,Project
lgure Eighf:Reach Homeowners 'Association, Inc.
ew Hanover County
h have r?viewed the. Subject Draft Environr'nental Assessment (EA) dated October 7, 1997.
The following preliminary comments are provided:
• The emergency inlet relocation and beach rebuilding project proposed in the fall of
1996 had two .proponents, Figure: Eight Beach Homeowners Association, Inc and
tie Shell Island Resort Homeowner Association. This joint venture was to serve as
solution to erosion, problems faced by both proponents. Thwcurrent proposal,
While still intending to provide a temporary solution to the problems faced by both
original proponents, is being submitted solely by the Figure Eight Island Beach
I?orneowners Association, Inc. with the primary emphasis being the renourishment
ol• Figure Eight Beach. The project will be totally privately funded.
ie current proposal consists of three distinctly separate actions: 1) The excavation
a channei.in•Mason Creek and the deepening of the north side of.the Mason Inlet
?anriel to encourage flow away from south side of the infet.'. 2) Maintenance
edging in the small boat channel.behind Figure Eight Island from the west side of
a island to the AIVIJK. 3) The excavation of a channel in the vicinity of Rich Inlet
)m the mouth of Green Channel to the confluence of Butler'Creak and Nixon
ennel as well as the completion of the dredging of the area in Rich Inlet approved
Permit Number.21-93. The EA estimates that the construction of these projects
11 provide material for the placement of 1,100,000 cubic yards of beach quality
nd along the Figure Eight Island Seach and 550,000 cubic yards: on the north end
Wrightsville Beach.
, i.
127 Cardinal Drive E)itension; Wilmington, N_C_ 28405,3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fa
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
I:
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 1537 P.05
John P6rk6r !,Memo
Odtober 28', 1997
Page Two
The Alternative Analysis section of the EA discusses four altematuves to address the
erosion problem at the north end of Wrightsville Beach, however, the EA fails to
discuss any.alt natives relating to'main purpose of the EA, which is to address the
environmental impacts associated with the channel maintenance and beach
rebuilding project-at Figure Eight lsland Beach. Specifically, the EA should discuss
alternative sources of sand for beach reconstruction, such as the•pumping of Corps
• isposal areas or the potential fo'r the use of offshore borrow areas.
• 1Mith the exception. of the Masan Inlet and Mason Creek dredging?proposals, the EA
escribes the proposed dredging-in the Middles Sound small boat channel and in the
• ich Inlet area as maintenance d11•edging. A cursory review•of past permit actions
it Figure Eight Island Eby this Division indicates that the scope of all threw current
dredging proposals exceeds that:which we have permitted in the past. 'Specific-ally,
Permit Number 26-92 issued on February 27, 1992 and subsequent modifications
to this permit issued on May 13, 1992 and November 25, 1992, authorized the
aintenance of Middle Sound Channel (Banks Channel) at 125' wide to -9' MLW
Jeep,. extending. from Mason Inlet Channel 11,050 feet north to the confluence of
the "natural creep' connecting Banks Channel to the AIWW. Also approved was an
00' section at the junction of AIWVV. Dredging in the "natural Creek" was originally
art of the proposal, however, as a result of comments from the National Marine
ishedes Service objecting to the "conversion of previously undisturbed shallow
(water habitat to deep channel .bottom", the Figure Eight Beach Homeowners
Association, Inc. •arriended the application by eliminating entirely the proposed
c$redgna of,the natural creek .:The EA proposal for the Middle Sound Channel
redg:ing includes the areas permitted under 26-92 as well as,the "natural creek
rea"...All areas would be dredged to 20C wide X -9 MLW (76 -wider than approved
nder:20-92), Permit Number 89.0 authorized the construction of•a channel 4650'
Qng X'200-4w wide X -6 MLW deep extending from the mouth of. Rich Inlet to. the
function of Nixon Channel including a 200' X 300' boat basin. The dredging of-this
area proposed in-Ahe EA would include a channel 8000' long X 20.0' wide X -9' MLW
deep as well as an area authorized under Permit #21-93. Soundings in this area
indicate that there are-areas adjacent to the proposed channel ,as deep as -17'
LW and are -10' to -14' MLW deep adjacent to much or the. project length. It
ppears that existing water depths in this area do not present a navigational
roblem. For this .reason, both the Rich Inlet and Banks Channel dredging
proposals appear to be inconsistent with 15A NCAC 7H .0208 (b)(1)(D),
• The EA states that 50,000 cubic yards of material from the;.Mason Inlet area
dredging will be placed on the north end of Wrightsville Reach,, at-both the east'and
est ends of the existing sand tube barrier and that this material will be bulldozed
into the inlet at. Iow slack tide, : The EA does not address how the proposed
(stockpiled material, especially the stockpile on the west side; of North Luri)ina
;Avenue, wilfbe contained on high, ground during hydraulic placement of the material
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 1538 P.06
John Parker Memo
October.28j 1,997
Page',Threa
nFthis area. Them is currently very little highground remaining adjocerlt'to the end
r North Lumina Avenue and coastal wetlands start at,the we6tern, shoulder of the
road. It would be very, difficult, if not impossible, to contain the: discharge from a
Ifiydraulic dredge.in this area without impacting coastal wetlands. .
• section VI. F., page 1:1, states "that sampling and testing of sand.materials in all of
6 proposed dredging areas have shown that they are beach suitable" and that
jam•ple•test Osuits are in Appendix-2. Appendix 2 only contains.grain size analysis
%orn Mason. Inlet and Mason Creek and a small segment of the southern end of
anks Chanel-
• ectioh VI 1. C., page 15, states that "the proposed dredging. will. not involve the
'redging or fill of any marsh areas". The Site Plan, Mason Inlet Channel
aintenance, sheet 2 of 5, indicates that a portion of the channel dredging will. be
i an art:,
rse of "light grass!'. Conversations with Land Management Group, Inc.
i . irate that the limits,. of "light grass" as shown on the plan is not accurate and that
t?ne proposed channel alignment will indeed avoid all wetland vegetation. The FA
dues not indicate the distance the channel cut will be from the edge of the marsh
grass. , Dredge cuts are to be made with 2:1 side slopes and as the dredge cuts
aitain a natural angle of°repose, significant sloughing will likely occur in -these areas
f high hydraulic'flows. It is unclear whether an adequate buffer exists in these
Ireas to prevent marsh grass loss during and after dredging.
s expressed by several review agencies during the review of:the previous Mason
alet dredging E AF the unknowns associated with such a proposal necessitate that
monitoring program, be an essential element to such a project, not only from water
uality improvement ;perspective (which has been a major point of both
nvironmental documents) but also from a shoreline response perspective.
Jthough we accopt that the FA should not describe a finalized monitoring program,
should at :least address the key issues that will need to be studied and should
resent a draft outline of a monitoring program and should include a statement that
monitoring' program will be part 'of the proposal.
cc: Charlei Jones
NCDEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 1536 P.02
$tat . of North C.eroiina r ..
Departm nt of Environment,
H041th a d Nsturat .Resources
Divisidmo Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E> Wayne MgDevitt, Secretary
Roger N._ Ototer, • Director October 31, 1997
.f l; I
I?
J`
r^???v I`1V ti 4 s1007
Mr. W. A. ey, Jr. DIVTS ON. CF
Wessell & IRIaney, L.L.P., i"?OASTsc:L' Nil'?hli?G tr` r
Attomeys atiLaw
107-B North Second Street
P, 0. Box 1D49
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr.: ey:
StatF? ,• of tM-Division has.-wmpleted,a& first stage, preliminary review of the draft
evi.vironme al-assessment subutitted on behalf tithe Figure Eight Beach Homeowners,
Association.: The .issues listed below and the attached comments from Jim Gregsotr of the
NVilmingto :office must be addressed in the apptopriate section of the revised docum=ent.
wit. the Mason Irrl,et channel provide safe passage across the ocean bar? .
To what depth? Under appropriate authority is any navigational maker
mst lation planned?
The document places considerable emphasis- on benefits to Shell Island
and public;recreatioa due to nourishment of 50,000 du.'yards on the north'
end of Wrightsville. Beach. Won't this really be very short lived?
• Whit is the estimated tirne required for the beach benthic conununity to
recover? Percentage of-recovery at several intervals, e.g., I year, 2 years, ;etc.
• The Rich I-Wet bar channel crosses the inlet from south to north. Does it pro-
vide :navig4tion directly to, the ocean. Please explain. Discu=ss possible
adverse effects to Hutaff island. '.
• Ad itional justification for small craft channels ranging from 200' - 400'. .
The AT WW is less than 2001.
I
P 7
? t(q
Pro. $o 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina::27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An quai oppb(tvn4 Affirrno[Ive Action employer 5076 Reayclad 1 1 D% Pans-Consumer Paper
cA
NCDF--HNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Nov 21 '97 1536 P.03
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr. _ ..
Page 2,
Ootobcr 31, 1997
• The Division is aware of preliminary information from an ongoing independent .
A ud k that suggests the $anks Channel excavation of a few years ago was an
imp ant factor in the southern movement of Mason Inlet. The document-
z:nust? contain discussion on -this and other,`possible adverse impacts that the
prop :sal. may cause to befall Shell Wand..
DO' r? hesitate to contact me or other staff should you wish to discuss the issues raised.
We look €or? and to moving expeditiously to the inext phase of the :review,
Very sincerely,
Jo R. Parker, r.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
W.jt/aw
cc: Ito
Ch
`~_1A13Q
Enclosure
r Schcoter
lies Jones
..--
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-13 NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WII,NUNGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
JOHN C. WESSELL, III
WnsiAM A. RANEY, JR.
November 14, 1997
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
Parker Lincoln Building, Section F
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
E-MAILWANDRQ WIIWINGTON.NE T
Re: Figure Eight Beach Channel Maintenance
and Beach Rebuilding Project
Dear John:
Enclosed are three draft Environmental Assessments (EAs) and
three draft Permit Applications for the above-referenced project. I am
forwarding eight copies of these documents to Melba McGhee directly as
we discussed. I understand that you will send a cover letter to Melba
that you normally send to her when you handle all the copies.
Figure 118" has been diligently working on this proposal ever
since it learned that it was going to be unable to secure the necessary
property rights to perform the project that was proposed in the fall of
1996 involving the relocation of Mason Inlet. A critical need still
exists at Figure Eight to restore the ocean beach to provide some
protection from winter storms or possible hurricanes in the summer of
1998. We are asking that the departmental review of the draft EA be
conducted quickly enough to allow the preparation of a final EA/FONSI
by the November 26 deadline for publication in the December 5 edition
of the Environmental Bulletin. We understand that this timeframe is
much quicker than is normal for a departmental review and decision on
an EA. However, we would hope that the fact that a proposal very
similar to this was reviewed by these agencies last year will enable
the process to move very quickly.
In order to expedite the review process and to enable the
applicant to make any necessary changes in the documents prior to
November 26, the applicant may wish to request a meeting of the review
agencies and decision makers for a verbal discussion of the issues,
comments and suggestions in order to avoid the several days that would
be required for transmission of written materials.
4.
Mr. John Parker
November 14, 1997
Page Two
We submit that a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI)
is appropriate in this case. We recognize that neither the current
draft nor any future draft will likely answer all possible questions.
However, we hope that the Department will allow the resolution of such
questions to be achieved through the public review process for the EA
and through the CAMA permit decision making process. We believe that
the draft EA will provide a sufficient basis for an intelligent
discussion of the issues by all public and private interests that wish
to have input into the decision making process. We understand and
acknowledge that a FONSI is not a determination that a CAMA permit or
other permits will or should be issued.
As we discussed, I am providing eight copies of the current
draft directly to Melba McGhee. In addition, copies are being provided
by hand delivery or by Federal Express to the following persons for
their information:
1. Charles Jones - Federal Express
2. Bob Stroud/Jim Gregson - hand delivery
3. Jeff Richter - hand delivery
4. U.S. EPA - Federal Express
5. National Marine Fisheries Service - Federal Express
6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Express
Also enclosed with each copy will be a letter from Steve
Morrison of Land Management Group in which he indicates the paragraphs
where changes have been made in response to the DCM in-house review.
I will be contacting you and others early next week to
further discuss review procedures and possible timeframes.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.J
WAR:ktw
Enclosures
WAR\ENVIRON\R96-233.C53
CC: Ms. Melba McGhee

5?? inc.
&U4tan/ME%
At C)F m AW 2522
'Wddm 4ny&n, ?lroWA Vatd as 28402
3d' - s1-o-45,2-0009
RoAed Y. #"d
John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
Dear John,
9,a& 94
11/14/97 -T A."'A 4 qh
3805 W/a er ?i!!e Awme
9rdmmy an, M Y8403
The Draft Environmental Assessment for the project proposed by the Figure 8 Beach HOA has
been revised to reflect the comments and concerns which we received from both you and Jim
Gregson. The project itself has also been modified. Specifically, The proposed maintenance
dredging for Banks Channel now avoids the area not formerly permitted as a result of review
comments by NMFS in the "natural creek" section just south of the Figure Eight bridge road. The
width of the planned channel dredging has also been reduced to 125' to match the earlier
permitting.
In order to assist you in reviewing portions of the EA which contain additional information
pertaining to comments by you and Jim Gregson, I have listed the relevant EA section and page
numbers with the corresponding bulleted paragraph numbers within your 10/31 letter and Jim
Gregson's 10/28 letter. I trust this will helpful as a reference.
Parker 10/31 letter:
Paragraph # EA location
1 VI, J, pg 10
2 VI, J, pg 11
3 VII, N, pg 27
4 VI, J, pg 12
5 VI, J, pg 12&13
6 V, A, pg 4 and VI, J, pg I I
S

Gregson 10/28 letter:
Paragraph# EA location
3 VI, F,G,H&I,pg8
4 VI, J, pg 12, 13 & Figure 3
5 VI, J, pg 11
6 VI, J, pg 14 & Appendix 2
7 VII, C, pg 18 & Figure 2
8 VII, R,pg35
Please call me or Bill Raney with any questions you may have regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Steve Morris
Environmental Consultant

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director October 31, 1997
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr.
Wessell & Raney, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
107-B North Second Street
P. O. Box 1049
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Raney:
Staff of the Division has completed a first stage, preliminary review of the draft
environmental assessment submitted on behalf of the Figure Eight Beach Homeowners
Association. The issues listed below and the attached comments from Jim Gregson of the
Wilmington office must be addressed in the appropriate section of the revised document.
• Will the Mason Inlet channel provide safe passage across the ocean bar?
To what depth? Under appropriate authority is any navigational maker
installation planned?
64) • The document places considerable emphasis on benefits to Shell Island
and public recreation due to nourishment of 50,000 cu. yards on the north
end of Wrightsville Beach. Won't this really be very short lived?
GI) What is the estimated time required for the beach benthic community to
recover? Percentage of recovery at several intervals, e.g., 1 year, 2 years, etc.
V The Rich Inlet bar channel crosses the inlet from south to north. Does it pro-
vide navigation directly to the ocean. Please explain. Discuss possible
adverse effects to Hutaff Island.
• Additional justification for small craft channels ranging from 200' - 400'.
The AIWW is less than 200'.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled / 10% Post-Consumer Paper

Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr.
Page 2
October 31, 1997
(o The Division is aware of preliminary information from an ongoing independent
study that suggests the Banks Channel excavation of a few years ago was an
important factor in the southern movement of Mason Inlet. The document
must contain discussion on this and other possible adverse impacts that the
proposal may cause to befall Shell Island.
Do not hesitate to contact me or other staff should you wish to discuss the issues raised.
We look forward to moving expeditiously to the next phase of the review.
Very sincerely,
Jo R. Parker, r.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
JRP:jr/aw
cc: Roger Schecter
Charles Jones
Bob Stroud
Enclosure
IVI.,LLi i1 VI\ WWI\U un ?1v.J,wcvv-r
teite of North Caroliina;
Oppartment' of tn:viron:ment,
Health arid' Naturad- Resources
Wi-Imington Regional Office
Diivi.sio,n of Coastal `Managem'ent
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne. McDevitt, Secretary
Roger N:.. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Park
FROM: Jim Gregs
THROUGH: Bob.Strou
SUBJECT

I;
octobe? 28, 1997
a
Draft Environmental,
Proposed Channel, Maintenance
Figure Eight
New Hanover County
ing and Beach Rebuilding: Project
ciation, Inc,
a
I have reviewed the Subject.Draft Environ:nental Assessment (EA) dated October 7, 1997.
The'following preliminary comments are prove .ed,
• The,emergency inlet relocation an V:bsach rebuilding project proposed in the: fall of
19% had .two proponents, Figure Eight Beach Homeowners Association, Inc and
the Shell Island Resort Homeown r•.Association. This joint venture was.to serve..as
a: solution to erosion problems fa , d by both proponents. The current proposal,
whiles still intending to provide a t mporary solution to the problems faced by both
original proponents, is being submitted solely by the Figure Eight Island Beach
Homeowners Association, Inc. with the primary emphasis being the renourishment
of Figure Eight Beach. The projelct will be totally privately funded.
• The current proposal. consists of three distinctly separate actions; 1) The. excavation
of.a channel in Mason Creek and. t' a deepening of the north side of the Mason Inlet
channel to encourage flow awac:from south side of the inlet. 2) Maintenance
dredging in the small. boat channel behind Figure Eight island from the west side of
the island to the. AIWW. 3) The e ?cavation of a channel in the vicinity of Rich Inlet
from.. the mouth of Green Chann?eI to the confluence of Butler Creek and Nixon
Channel as well as.the completion of the dredging of.the area in Rich Inlet approved
in Permit Number 21-93. The EA estimates that the construction of these projects
Will provide material for the pla ment of 1,100, 000 cubic yards of beach quality
sand along the Figure Eight Island i each and 50 000 cubic yards on the north end
of Wrightsville Beach.
127 Cardinal Drive'E'xtension, Wilmingtpn, N.C. 28405-3845 a Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
NI,ULI-NK WiKU t aX ;,JiWJ ULUU4

U Ly f, U
Jahn Parker Memo
October 28, 1997
Page Two
The Aftemative Analysis, section f olfth,e EA discusses four alternatives to address the
erosion problem at the north end: of Wrightsville Beach, however, the EA fails to
discuss any alternatives relating t9 main purpose of the EA, which is to address the
environmental impacts associated with the channel maintenance and beach
rebuilding project at Figure Eight Island Beach. Specifically, the EA should discuss
aftemative sources of sand for belch reconstruction, such as the pumping of Corps
disposal areas or.the potential fob the use of offshore borrow areas.
?., 0 With.the exception of the Mason Ir
describes the proposed dredging. i
Rich. Inlet area as. maintenance d
at Figure Eight. Island by this Div
dredging proposals exceeds that v
Permit Number 26-92 .issued on F
to this :permit issued on May 13
maintenance of Middle Sound Cl
deep, extending from Mason Inle
the "natural creeW'.connecting Bar
80.0' section at the junction of AIW
part of the proposal,, however, at
Fisheries Service objecting to the
water habitat to deep channel
Association, Inc. amended the
dredging of the "natural creek",
dredging includes, the areas perr
area". All areas would be dredged
under 26-92). Permit Number 89-
long X 200-40.0' wide X -6M LW di
junction of Nixon Channel includin
area proposed in the EA would inc
deep as well as an area autho
let and Mason Creek dredging: proposals, the EA
i the Middle Sound small boat channel and.in the
edging. A cursory review of, past permit actions
pion indicates that the scope of all three current
hich we have permitted in the past. Specifically,
ebruary 27, 1992 and subsequent modifications
1992 and. November 25, 1992, authorized the
annel (Banks Channel) at 1.2:5' wide to -9'! MLW
;:Channel 11,050 feet north to the confluence of
cs Channel to the AIWW. Also approved was an
V. Dredging in the "natural Creek" was originally
a result of comments from the National Marine
),"conversion of previously.undisturbed shallow
)ottom", the F=igure Eight Beach Homeowners
pplication by eliminating entirely the proposed
the EA proposal for the Middle Sound; Channel
pitted under 26-92 as well as the "natural creek
to 200' wide X -9' MLW (75' wider than approved
33 authorized the construction of a channel 4650'
yep extending from the mouth of Rich Inlet to the
).'a 200'X 300' boat basin. The dredging of this
ude a channel 8000' long X 200' wide X -9' MLW
rd under Permit #21-93. Soundings in this area

indicate that there are areas aajaden.t to the proposed channel as deep as -17'
MLW and are -10'' to -14' MLW d.e.ep adjacent to much or the project length. It
appears that existing water depths in this area do not present a navigational
problem. For this reason, both the Rich Inlet and Banks Channel dredging
proposals appear to be inconsist nt with 15A NCAC 7H .0208 (b)(1)(0).
• The, EA states that 50,000 cubic.yards of material from the Mason. Inlet. area
dredging will be placed on the nortf end of Wrightsville Beach, at both the east and
west.ends of the existing sand tubp..barrier and that this material will be bulldozed
into the inlet at low slack tide. IT-he EA does not address how the proposed
stockpiled material,, especially ihe? stockpile on the west side of North Lumina
Avenue; will be contained on highground during hydraulic placement of the material
.? NCPEHNR WIRO Fax:[phone] Oct 29 '97 14:24 P.04
John Parker Memo
October 28, 1997,
Page Three
in this area, There is currently very:l.ittle highground remaining adjacent to the end
of North Lumina Avenue and coastal wetlands start at the western shoulder of the
" road. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to contain the discharge from a
hydraulic dredge in this area without impacting coastal wetlands.
• SectionNI. F., page 11, states "tha sampling and testing of sand materials in all of
the .proposed dredging areas ha "e shown that they are beach suitable" and that
sample.test results .are in. Append' 2, Appendix 2 only contains grain size analysis
from Mason Inlet and Mason Creek and a small segment of the southern end of
Banks Channel.
• Section VII. C., page 15, states tkat "the proposed dredging: will not involve the
dredging or fill of any marsh srpas.. The Site Plan, Mason Inlet Channel
Maintenance, sheet 2 of 5, indicates that a portion of the channel dredging will be
in. an area of "light grass". Coni ersations with Land Management Group,. Inc.
indicate that the limits of light grass," as shown on the plan is not accurate and that
the-proposed channel alignment "ill indeed avoid all wetland vegetation. The EA
does not indicate the distance the channel cut will be from the edge of the rn-arsh
grass. Dredge cuts are to be ma?e with 2:1 side slopes and as the dredge cuts
attain. a natural angle of repose, significant sloughing will likely occur in these areas
of high hydraulic flows. It is uncl1ar whether an adequate buffer exists in these
areas to prevent marsh grass losslduring and after dredging.
• As expressed by several review ag noes during the review of the previous Mason
Inlet dredging EA, the unknowns associated with such a proposal necessitate that
a monitoring. program be an essentil?:element to such a project, not only from water
quality improvement perspectives (which has been a major point of both
environmental documents) but also from a shoreline response perspective.
Although,we accept that the EA should not describe a finalized monitoring program.,
it should.: at least address the key issues that will need to be studied and should
present a. draft outline of a monitoring program and should include a statement.that
a monitoring program will be part of the proposal.
cc: Charles Jones