15-05D Town of North Topsail Beach

1m
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
March 26, 2015
CERTIFIED MAIL 470110110 0000 99471577
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Town of North Topsail Beach
c/o Stuart Turille, Town Manager
2008 Loggerhead Ct.
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
RE: VIOLATION(S) OF CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.92-14
CAMA VIOLATION #15-05D
Dear Mr. Turille:
This letter is in reference to my letter dated February 27, 2015, and the Town's response from its
authorized agent, Coastal Planning and Engineering of NC, PC via e-mail on March 20, 2015, for
property located between 2276 & 2392 New River Inlet Road, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and
located in the Town of North Topsail Beach, in Onslow County, North Carolina.
Information gathered by me for the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) shows that the Town
of North Topsail Beach ("the Town") has violated the terms or conditions of CAMA/Dredge and Fill
State Permit No. 92-14 ("the Permit") which was issued to the Town by the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I
hereby request that the Town immediately CEASES AND DESISTS such violation(s) and complies
with the terms and conditions of the permit. If the terms and conditions of a permit are not complied
with, the permit becomes null and void from the date of its issuance.
On October 24, 2014, the Permit was issued to the Town for the installation of a sandbag revetment
within the project area. The sandbag revetment was authorized for dimensions measuring 6 feet in height
by 20 feet in base width. The Division amended or modified the Permit on November 26, 2014, pursuant
to the applicant's request, to allow for the installation of a larger sand bag revetment measuring 12 feet
in height (elevation according to NAVD88) by 45 feet in base width. In addition, the permit
modification authorized the installation of a "temporary construction containment tube," otherwise
referred to as a "geotube," which was to be installed at the seaward -most toe of the sandbag revetment
structure. A scour apron and "chock" tube was also authorized through this permit modificatiorl�E ID
MAR 3 0 1015
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net r7cw wr,° pIw
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Town of North Topsail Beach
March 26, 2015
Page 2 of 4
LI
authorization was granted with the terms that the scour apron and chock tube structures were to be
placed no further oceanward than the seaward -most toe of the temporary containment tube that was used
to construct the temporary sandbag revetment structure.
The Permit and its modifications were issued for major development in the Ocean Hazard and Inlet
Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC), adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes N.C.G.S. I I3A-118. The Permit included the following terms and
conditions(s):
1. Condition No. 11: "In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, the
authorized temporary construction containment tube used to assist in the safe
construction of the authorized temporary sandbag revetment shall be removed in its
entirety either immediately upon project completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever is
sooner. Additionally, should the Division of Coastal Management determine that the
temporary construction containment tubes are no longer needed or are no longer serving
their intended purpose of providing a safe work environment landward of the tubes, the
tubes shall be removed immediately upon written notification by the Division."
2. Condition No. 13: "The scour apron and chock tubes shall extend no further oceanward
than the oceanward toe of the temporary construction containment tube. All portions of
the scour apron and chock tubes located oceanward of the temporary sandbag revetment
shall be removed in their entirety at the same time as the associated temporary
construction containment tubes."
For the following reasons, the Town is in violation of the above terms and conditions(s) of said permit:
1. The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management received notification from the
Town's authorized agent, Coastal Planning and Engineering of NC, PC; via email on
February 24, 2015, indicating that the installation of the sand bag revetment associated
with the Permit was complete.
2. To date, as verified during a site visit on March 25, 2015, the temporary construction
containment tubes and the temporary scour apron and "chock" tubes used for
constructing the authorized sandbag revetment have not been removed.
To comply with the terms and condition(s) of the permit issued to the Town of North Topsail Beach, the
Town must:
1. Remove the temporary construction containment tubes and all portions of the scour apron
and chock tubes.
If the Town intends to cooperate with this request, the person authorized by the Town is requested to
please sign one of the attached Restoration Agreements and return it in the enclosed, self-addressed
envelope within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to comply with this request or respond
back to this office prior to the requested deadline with an acceptable schedule for compliance will be
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 284053845 RECEIVED
Phone: [phone]\ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncomtaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper MAR 3 0 2015
k0bWow lin c-rtV

Town of North Topsail Beach
March 26, 2015
Page 3 of 4
interpreted as a refusal or failure to cooperate and may result in a Notice of Continuing Violation, a
court injunction being sought ordering compliance, or other enforcement action.
A civil assessment of up to $10,000 plus investigative costs may be assessed against any violator. Each
day that the development described in this Notice is continued or repeated may constitute a separate
violation that is subject to an additional assessment up to $10,000.
The relevant statutes and regulations are available from this office, and I am willing to assist the Town
in complying with the requirements of these laws. A site inspection will be made in the near future to
determine whether this REQUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST has been complied with. I request that
you as Town Manager please contact me immediately at [phone] to discuss resolution of this
important matter.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Upon completion of the restoration as requested in the
Restoration Plan Agreement and to the satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management, the Town
will be notified as to the amount of the civil assessment for failure to comply with the terms, conditions,
or requirements of the permit.
Sincerely,
Debra D. Wilson
District Manager
cc (w/enc.): Braxton Davis, Director, DCM
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Christy Goebel, Assistant Attorney General
Tyler Crrm►bley, USACE
Brian Edes, Attorney for North Topsail Beach
RECEIVED
MAR ,10 70t5
DGr�+,nrti.,� CITY
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 2M05-3645
Phone: [phone]FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nocoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Town of North Topsail Beach
March 26, 2015
Page 4 of 4
RESTORATION PLAN
For
Town of North Topsail Beach Property
C/o Mr. Stuart Turille, Town Manager
CAMA Violation No. 15-05D
Property located between 2276 & 2392 New River Inlet Road, Onslow County
Remove the temporary construction containment tube and all portions of the scour apron and
chock tubes.
r
I, Mr. Stuart Turille, on behalf of the Town of North Topsail Beach, agree to complete this restoration to the
satisfaction of the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by April 26, 2015, or provide an explanation for
non-compliance and a reasonable request for time extension. When corrective actions are complete, I will
notify the DCM so the work can be inspected.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
It is the policy of the Coastal Resources Commission to assess a civil penalty plus investigative costs against all violations. The
amount assessed will depend upon several factors, including the nature and area of the resources that were affected and the
extent of the damage to them. If restoration is not undertaken orsatisfactorily completed, a substantially higher civil assessment
may be levied and an injunction may be sought to require restoration.
RECEIVED
MAR302615
prow,-�v,nu >rNs
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]FAX: [phone]ntemet www.nocoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

DCM ENFORCEMENT TRACKING REPORT
Violation Case No.—t��h
Permit No. 01 a —I
. I (if applicable)
Rep.
Initial Discovery Date
Respondent Name(s)
Address, v�f11-7
Phone
Discovery Method
a
activity permiAabIT? Yes ! No
Yes
CItY 2-- State .Zip —�2 n [ Ul v
Fax #/Email
Violation Type: Projeat Type: Authorizations Required: Site Visits, Respondent Site Visits Respondent
� ,present Present
No Permit .Private/Community Major CAMA r ,�
d �; J
Permit Condition Govt./Public Minor &F
Expired Permit t] CCommercial General TT
D Inconsistentw/ Rules Tier Level: I II III
El
Violation Location and Site Description
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
n','1I n ---V 0201'l A Dt 1vrJ,� to n-G
Subdivision
City - N 1 CZ_
Phone #
Adj. Wtr. Body
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
� \4JlVr Pov� r
NOV Date 3(011
CNOV Date
Penalty Assessment
Sent to Respondent Date
ZIP
River Basin
Initial Req. Comp. Date
Date Comp. Observed
_ _ ... ApP:7Perhiil
Rcvd. by Dist. Mgr. Date _
WiIlfuUlntent.
Assessment Extended Yes No
' V' .� +
�
Lat/Long
Shoreline Length -t
I
w�
SAV: Not Sure
Yes
No,�
Sandbags: Not Sure
0 No
PNA;
Yes
No
Adjacent
ORW:
Yes
Q
Adjacent
Grit. Hab.
Yes
No
Photos
1057)
Eems
Waiver Required
Yes
In DWQ Buffer Area
Yes
No
Specify DWQ Buffer 9 applicable:
Extension Granted Yes No
Restoration Letter
Acceptance Date
RECEIVED
MAR ,4 0 1015
R'bv.,.MYf'1
7J.0409 Ref.
Recomm. Assess.
DCM Assess.
$
$
.Total

Formal Assessments, Appeals and Reductions
Date Long Form Submitted
Date Formal CPA Submitted
Final Assessment $ Date
Attorney General's Office for Injunction or Formal Collection
Assessment Appealed: Yes No
Penalty modified
Date sent to AG Respondent not responsive to penalty/NOV '0 Injunction to complete restoration
Date Collection Letter Sent Date Demand Letter Sent
Violation Activities and Impacts
AECs Affected: Wetlands Impacted? Yes No If yes, which types:
CA^L, EW PTA ES PTS
<ff�PE / HHF IH UBA N/A SA DS CJ SY JR LS TY
PWS: FC: SS so SP IF BF 404
Other:
Restoration Required by the Respondent
Dimensions in excess
of permit/ unauthorized activities
Dimensions to restore
Final dimensions
allowed
Actually restored
OtV
NOTES:
Closing
Payment Received $ Date Date Case Closed

October 8, 2015 secretary
Town of North Topsail Beach
c/o Mt, Stuart Turille, Town Manager r
2008 Loggerhead.Courf .'
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
RE:. Payment of Civil penalty Assessment for, Violations of. the Coastal Area Management Act
and State Dredge & Fill law, Onslow County, CAMA Violation #1545D
Dear. Mr. Turille,
This letter will acknowledge receipt of the Town of North Topsail, Beach's check #40072, in the
amoum of $1;256.50, and dated 09/24/2015. Once the. amount of the check is credited to the
Department of Environmental Quality's account, this Civil Penalty case against the Town of North
Topsail Beach will be closed -
If you have any, further questions'concernmg this -matter, please contact me at (252.) 808=2808 ext
217.
Sincerely,::
Roy Brownlow
Compliance. Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
cc: Braxto iDavis, Director, DCM, Morehead City
Debra Wilson, District Manager, DCM, WIRO
Tara MacPherson, Field Specialist, DCM? WIRO
Christine:Goebel, DCM Counsel, NCDOJ
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Intemet:. www.nocoastalmanagament.net
- ._� ...-u., .....n.dt�.Cm�,ncr_M1lMein nail by mrorlad na,wr

&I'l A
OEM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 18, 2015
CERTIFIED MAIL 70091410 00015954 '0365
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Town of North Topsail Beach
c/o Mr. Stuart Turille, Town Manager
2008 Loggerhead Ct.
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
Re: Civil Penalty Assessment for Violations of the Coastal Area Management Act and
Dredge and'Fill Law, CM 15-05D, Onslow County
Dear Mr. Turille:
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(3), this letter is notice that the Division of Coastal
Management ("DCM") is assessing a Civil Penalty Assessment against the Town of North
Topsail Beach ("Town"). The Civil Penalty Assessment document is attached. Within twenty
(20) days of the date of receipt of this letter, the Town must do one of the. following:
(1) Pay the Civil Penalty Assessment; or
(2) File a written petition for a contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAR) appealing the penalty assessment.
PAYMENT
Payment of the penalty will close the matter and require no further action on your part. If
you choose this option, you should pay theassessment by a check or money order made payable
to the Department of Environment -and Natural Resources (or DENR). This check should be sent -
to:
Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue.
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

UNITED STATES4Q 9co I I First -Class Mail
C:r Postage & Fees Paid
NC 262 USPS
Permit No. G-10
• Sendet Me'as6 print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box
/97fLsn� - 20 I

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the Card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
-rWti o
C/0 44R. 5AIo,4- Tv2 lle
Z00'! Z-059er4.gea Cf
No2g 11W411- eeac4f clG
2�ry�D
Agent
C. Date of Delivep
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Ye:
If YES, enter delivery adds,# Wjj,: ❑ No
3.
SEP 2 3 Nh
E rCertifled Mail ❑ Express Mall
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Ex" Feel ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7009 1410 0001 5954 0365
(liansler from service Iabe1)
pS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt ozses-0z-M r sa

Postage 16
'a"'ed Fea
3 • ao
Ratum Receipt Fee
`�
p
R?P M
(Endorsement Required)
d D
est
R quimd)
SEP 18 10b
(Er mmeDM
Total Postage& Fe 1$ L_(.1 I tx►��AN^-lau
I
r n! To
T Tp�N..nia�+ ----------------------
� stree.
o,PowBox No. - ZXIY 1aYWl;ra
Clfy, SYere, nP+a
2T� r �R�li tiC- F'y&o

Artified Mail Provides:
I A mailing receipt
i A unique Identifier for your mailplece
I A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
mporfant Reminders:
i Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority Maly
i Certified Mail is notavailable for any class of international mail.
r NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mall. Fa
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
r For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete antl attach a Returr
Receipt (PS Form 3611) to the article and add applicable postage to cover the
fee. Endorse mailpiece'Retum Receipt Requested'. To receive a fee waiver for
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS® postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is
required.
i For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee of
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with IN
endorsement 'Restricted Delivery'.
i If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt Is desired, please present the arti.
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mai
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
MPORTANT., Save this receipt and present it when making an Inquiry.
IS Form 3600, August 2006 (Reverse) PSN 7530-02-000-9047

Town of North Topsail Beach
C/o Stuart Turille, Town Manager
September 18, 2015
The Town may request a contested case hearing to challenge DCM's factual findings and
legal conclusions regarding the assessment. If the Town files a contested case petition, it must be
in writing and in the form prescribed by N.C.G.S. § 150B-23. File the original petition and one
copy with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-6700. Any questions about filing a petition may be directed to the OAH
Clerk by telephoning (919) 733=0926. The Town must serve DENR by mailing a copy of the
petition to:
Sam M.Hays
DENR General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
The Town should also serve DCM by mailing a copy'of the petition to:
Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue '
Morehead City, NC 28557
Your attention to this important matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Braxton C.. Davis
Director, DCM
Attachment: Civil Penalty Assessment Document
cc: Roy Brownlow, Compliance Coordinator, DCM
Debra Wilson, District Manager, Wilmington, DCM
Christine Goebel, DCM Counsel, NC DOJ
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

A.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
IN THE MATTER OF:
TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH
FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
THE COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT
ACT, N.C.G.S. § 113A-100 et seq.
WON
THE STATE DREDGE AND FILL ACT,
N.C.G.S. § 113-229 etseq.
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
RESOURCES COMMISSION
CM 15-05D
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to the Coastal Area Management Act ("CAMA"), North Carolina General
Statutes (N.C.G.S.) § 113A-126(d), and the authority vested in me by the Coastal Resources
Commission ("CRC") pursuant to Rule 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 7J
.0409(f)(1), I, Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management ("DCM"), North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR" ), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Town of North Topsail Beach is a public corporation in North Carolina and is a legal entity.
B. The subject property is located at the north end of North Topsail Beach and includes the ocean
beach waterward of the first line of stable natural vegetation from just north of the Topsail Reef
condominiums. to the northernmost house on New River Inlet Road. There are 39 parcels of land
with 20 duplex structures along this stretch of the beach ("Site"), in Onslow County, North
Carolina. The Town holds easements to these properties for the purposes of implementing beach
nourishment projects.
C. The Site is located within the Ocean Erodible, High -Hazard Flood and Inlet Hazard Areas of
Environmental Concern as they are defined by ISA NCAC 7H .0304 (1-3).
D. On October 24, 2014, DCM issued CAMA/Dredge and Fill Emergency Major Permit No. 92-14
(herein after the "Permit") to the Town authorizing development of a sandbag revetment for
temporary erosion control at the Site with approval conditioned on compliance with the CRC's
Page 1 of 6

rules limiting the size of sandbag structures. While the Town had submitted a revised Major
Permit application on or about October 3, 2014 that was in process at the time, at the Town's
request, the DENR Secretary authorized use of the CAMA Emergency Permit authority due to
site conditions and erosion observed during an October 21, 2014 site visit.
E. On November 7, 2014, the Town submitted a variance petition and request for an expedited
hearing seeking a variance in order to install larger sandbags than allowed by rule, and proposed
a "base width of 45 feet and a height sufficient to achieve an elevation of +12.0 ft. NAVD" as
well as a variance in order to place the sandbags up to 45 feet waterward of the structures being
protected.
F. On November 19, 2014, the Commission heard the Town's variance petition and granted the
variance through a November 24, 2014 written Final Agency Decision.
G. On November 24, 2014, the Town's authorized agent first requested that the Town be allowed to
use a temporary geotextile containment tube to stabilize the project area in order to provide a
safer work environment while installing the sandbags and to stabilize the area around the
foundations of the houses at the Site. Through discussions with DCM Staff, it was agreed that
these were only allowed as a temporary, construction method, were not to be part of the sandbag
structure's design, and were to be removed immediately following sandbag revetment
construction along with the proposed scour apron and chock tubes associated with the geotextile
tube.
H. Specifically, through an email dated November 26, 2014, sent by the Town's agent Ken Willson
to DCM at 2:51 am, Mr. Willson states that "As discussed yesterday, we would still agree to
remove the sand tube upon completion of the project or 6 months, whatever is less. We would
also remove the chock bags at that time. We would also agree to remove the scour apron
seaward of the seaward toe of the sand bag revetment after the temporary containment tube is
removed." Also, through an email dated November 25, 2014, sent by Town Manager Stuart
Turille to DCM at 2:59 pm, Mr. Turille states that "It is the Town's intention to remove this
temporary measure [temporary geotextile tube containment] upon completion of the project."
I. On November 26, 2014, CAMA/Dredge and Fill Emergency Major Permit No. 92-14 was
amended ("Amended Permit"). Condition 11 on the Amended permit required that the
"temporary sandbag revetment shall be removed in its entirety either immediately upon project
completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever was sooner. Additionally, should the Division of
Coastal Management determine that the temporary construction contaimnent tubes are no longer
needed or are no longer serving their intended purpose of providing a safe work environment
landward of the tubes, the tubes shall be removed immediately upon written notification by the
Division." The Town accepted and signed this Amended Permit, returning a copy to DCM.
J. The authorized larger sandbag structure and temporary containment tubes were placed during the
period of December 13, 2104 and February 24, 2015, when DCM received notification from the
Town's authorized agent that the authorized development, the installation of the sandbag
revetment authorized by the Permit, was substantially complete.
Page 2 of 6

K. On February 27, 2015, DCM sent a letter to the Town's manager notifying the Town that it
needed to remove the temporary geotextile tube within 30 days.
L. On March 5, 2015, the Town's authorized agent requested that they be allowed to seek a permit
modification in order to keep the geotextile tubes for the duration of the sandbag permit. On
March 12, 2015, DCM responded that such a request was inappropriate given that the request
was incomplete and was an enforcement matter. On March 20, 2015, the Town responded by
again requesting to keep the geotextile tubes.
M. On March 10, 2015 and March 25, 2015, Debra Wilson, DCM Wilmington District Manager and
Jason Dail, DCM Field Representative visited the site for compliance visits.
N. On March 26, 2015, DCM issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to the Town as the geotextile
tube had not been removed. The associated restoration plan required removal of the geotextile
tube as required by the Permit.
0. On April 24, 2015, DCM issued a revised restoration plan to the Town associated with the NOV,
indicating that it could either remove the geotextile tube or could proceed through the permit
modification/denial/variance process in time to be heard at the CRC's July 2015 meeting, in
order to seek a variance to keep the tubes for some period of time.
P. On -May 4, 2015, the Town signed the NOV revised restoration plan, indicating they planned to
seek a variance at the CRC's July 2015 meeting, and returned a copy to DCM.
Q. On May 1, 2015, the Town submitted a revised. major modification request, which was denied by
DCM on June 2, 2015 as the geotextile tubes are inconsistent with the CRC's rules at 15A
NCAC 7H .0308(a)(2)(K) and (L) which regulate the size of sandbags and which prohibit the use
of anchoring devices.
R. On July 16, 2015, the CRC heard the Town's request for a variance seeking to keep the
geotextile tubes "remain in place until the Onslow maintenance navigation and disposal of
material along the north end of North Topsail Beach can occur, or until March 31, 2016." At the
variance hearing, the CRC ultimately granted the variance, and conditioned it to allow the
temporary construction containment tubes to be removed "when the Onslow County channel
maintenance/beach disposal project is complete, or by June 30, 2016, whichever comes first."
S. On August 14, 2105, the CRC issued its written Final Agency Decision granting the variance
heard on July 16, 2015.
T. On August 29, 2015, DCM issued CAMA/Dredge and Fill Emergency Major Permit No. 92-14
as Amended by the 2015 variance order ("Permit Amended by Variance"). Also on this date,
DCM determined that restoration was complete.
U. The Ocean Erodible, High -Hazard Flood, and Inlet Hazard Areas are Areas of Environmental
Concern set forth as designated by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) in Rules at 15A
NCAC 7H .0301, .0302, and .0303 respectively, were affected by the geotextile tube
Page 3 ofi6

development.
V. The placement of the geotextile tubes constitute "development" as that term is defined in the at
N.C.G,S. § 113A-103(5)a. "Development" as defined in N.C.G.S. § 113A-103(5)(a) which
includes "construction ... of a structure," "filling," and "alteration of the shore, bank, or bottom
of the Atlantic Ocean." The development which occurred on the Site is "major development" as
defined in N.C.G.S. § 113A-118(d) because the placement of the geotextile tubes also required a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Division of Water Resources, and a Dredge and Fill Permit from DCM.
W. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-118, the placement and retention of the geotextile tubes are
"development," as defined by N.C.G.S. § 113A-103(5)a., within a designated AEC, and requires
CAMA major permit and Dredge and Fill permit authorization.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. A civil penalty may be assessed against the -Town pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113A-126 and
15A NCAC 7J .0409.
B. The retention of the geotextile tubes, following notice to the Town's on February 27,
2015 of the completion of the sandbag installations project (and therefore moving beyond the
authorized use of the tubes as a temporary construction method), until the July 16, 2015 CRC
Variance Hearing, could not have been permitted) under the CAMA and the rules adopted
thereunder, or of the State Dredge and Fill Law and the rules adopted thereunder. Specifically,
the non -temporary, continued use of the geotextile tubes, scour apron and chock tubes exceeded
their authorization under the Amended Permit by:
(1) the continued use of the tubes as a non -temporary, non -construction method,
erosion control structure contrary to N.C.G.S. § 113A-115.1(b),
(2) by remaining on Site and not used in a non -temporary manner contrary to
N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(1)(a) and Condition 11 of the Amended Permit by
failing "to act in accordance with the terms,'conditions, or requirements of such
permit" when the tubes remained past the project completion date,
(3) by exceeding the size limits for sandbags found at 15A NCAC 7H
.0308(a)(2)(K) which requires that "Sandbags used to construct temporary erosion
control structures shall be tan in color and three to five feet wide and seven to 15
feet long when measured flat" which is contrary to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(1)(a)
and Condition 3 of the Amended Permit, and
(4) by the non -temporary use of the chock tubes contrary to 15A NCAC 7H
.0308(a)(2)(L) which prohibits the use of "soldier pilings and other types of
devices to anchor sandbags" which is contrary to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(1)(a)
and Condition 5 of the Amended Permit.
Page 4 of 6

C. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(F) and 15A NCAC 7J. 0409(g)(4)(D)(ii), the
Town's violation was willful and intentional in that the Town "received written instructions from
one of the Commission's delegates that the proposed development was not permissible under the
Commission's rules, or received a denial of a permit application for the proposed activity, and
subsequently undertook the development without a permit." This is supported by the statements
made by the Town's agent Ken Willson through an email to DCM dated November 26, 2014 at
2:51 am, and by the statements made by the Town Manager Stuart Turille through an email to
DCM dated November 25, 2015 at 2:59 pm, each confirming that the geotextile tubes were
temporary measure and would be removed upon completion of the project. This is also supported
by Condition 11 on the amended permit, which was signed by the Town and required that the
"temporary sandbag revetment shall be removed in its entirety either immediately upon project
completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever was sooner. Additionally, should the Division of
Coastal Management determine that the temporary construction containment tubes are no longer
needed or are no longer serving their intended purpose of providing a safe work environment
landward of the tubes, the tubes shall be removed immediately upon written notification by the
Division.",
IIl. DECISIONS
A. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d) and 15A NCAC 71 0409, and with the authority
delegated to me by the CRC, I Braxton C. Davis, Director of the Division of Coastal
Management do hereby assess a civil penalty against the Town of North Topsail Beach. In
making this determination, I have reviewed the facts of this case, the Enforcement Forms
provided to me by DCM Staff, discussion in DCM's review of this case, as well as the applicable
statutes and rules governing civil penalty assessments. In determining the amount of this
penalty, I have considered the penalty amount recommended through the Commission's rules at
15A NCAC 7J .0409. Also, I have found, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(F) and 15A
NCAC 7J. 0409(g)(4)(D)(ii), that the violation was willful and intentional in that the Town
"received written instructions from one of the Commission's delegates that the proposed
development was not permissible under the Commission's rules, or received a denial of a permit
application for the proposed activity, and subsequently undertook the development without a
permit." Finally, I have considered the penalty outlined by the rules, the fact that it was a willful
and intentional violation and that 15A NCAC 7J. 0409(g)(4)(D)(ii) suggests doubling the penalty
with a minimum penalty of $2,000.00 and maximum penalty of $10,000.00. However, once I
applied the statutory criteria found at N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(4), including but not limited to
the extent of harm to natural resources, the resulting effect on natural resources and public
access, and the duration of the violation, I find that a lesser penalty is more appropriate based on
the facts of this case. Based on all of the foregoing, I assess a civil penalty against the Town of
North Topsail Beach in the amount of $1,000.00.
B. Also, Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(4a) and 15A NCAC 7J .0409(d), I hereby assess
the Town with the reasonable costs of investigation of these violations, in the amount of $256.50.
This is based on 9.5 hours of DCM staff time related to this enforcement case, not including time
spent on the restoration plan steps (modification permit review and variance hearing
preparation), at a rate of $27 per hour. This amount meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 7J
.0409(d), in that it does not exceed 50% of the penalty amount ($1,000.00).
Page 5 of 6

C. The total amount of this Civil Penalty Assessment is $1,256.50. Pursuant to N.C.G.S.
§ 113A-126(5), the clear proceeds of penalties assessed shall be remitted to the Civil Penalty and
Forfeiture Fund in accordance with N.C.G.S. § I I5C-457.2.
D. I hereby direct that this Civil Penalty Assessment be served on the Town as provided in
N.C.G.S. § 113A-126(d)(3).
E. I hereby put on notice that I reserve the right to initiate further enforcement action against
the Town and its authorized agents, for any violations which may occur or have occurred since
July 16, 2015.
9/g/7
Date
Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Page 6 of 6

DCM ENFORCEMENT REQUEST
(USE WHEN INJUNCTION OR FORMAL ASSESSMENT REQUESTED)
CAMA CASE # 15-OSD
[Circle One] INJUNCTION PENALTY CRIMINAL
1. Consultant or LPO & Locality: Town of North Topsail Beach c/o Mr. Stuart Turille
2. Violator's Name: Town of North Topsail Beach
Mailing Address: 2008 Loggerhead Court North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
Home Phone: [phone]
3. Project Location (County, State Road, Waterbody, etc.): 2276 - 2392 New River Inlet
Road adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean
4. Owner's Name, Address, Phone # [if different]: See Above
5. Attach Copy of Deed. See Easement Agreement in Permit File.
6. Type of Violation: [Circle One] MAJOR RMIT CONDITION
Program: [Circle One] CAMA D&F LAMA and D&F
If CAMA Major, list other required permits, etc. If Permit Condition, give Permit #
and attach copy. State Permit No. 92-14 (Amended per CRC Variance on November 26,
2014 and Major Modification per CRC Variance on August 29, 2015) (Attachments A and
B)
7. Describe nature of development under G.S.113-A-103(5) or of unauthorized activity
under permit. Development consisted of the installation of a scour apron and chock tubes
oceanward of the temporary sandbag revetment. The temporary containment tube (Geotube)
was to be "removed in its entirety either immediately upon project completion, or by May 21,
2015, whichever is sooner". (See Condition No. 11 of State Permit No. 92-14 issued as
"Amended by CRC Variance" on November 26, 2014)
8. Area(s) of Environmental Concern Involved:
(A) Coastal Wetlands: [Circle]
Smooth Cordgrass [SA]
Salt Grass (DS)
Sawgrass (CJ)
Salt Reed Grass (SY)
Glasswort (SS)
Cattail (TY)
Wind or Lunar Tides
Black Needlerush [JR]
Sea Lavender [LS]
Salt Meadow Grass [SP]
Bullrush [SC]
Other

Flooded: Regularly or Irregularly
Sq. Ft.: Excavated Filled Restored
(B) Estuarine Waters: [sq. ft.]
Excavated Filled Restored Other _
Primary Nursery Area? [Circle] YES NO
(C) Public Trust Area: [sq. ft.]
Excavated Filled Restored Other _
Primary Nursery Area? [Circle] YES NO
(D) Estuarine Shoreline [sq. ft.]
Excavated Restored None Other
(E) Ocean Hazard: [Describe]
Sq. Ft. Impacted: 29,000 so. ft.
9. Details of how DCM first learned of violation: The North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) received notification from the consultant (Coastal Planning and
Engineering of NC, PC) via email on February 24, 2015, that the installation of the sand bag
revetment associated with CAMA Major Permit 92-14 was complete. (Attachment Q. On
February 27, 2015 DCM sent a Compliance Action Plan to your consultant requesting an
action plan for removal of the geotextile containment tube (Attachment D). On March 5,
2015 and March 20, 2015 DCM received correspondence from your consultant requesting
modification to the existing permit to extend the time the sand tubes can remain in place until
at least March 31, 2015 or upon completion of the Onslow County channel maintenance
activities. (Attachments E & F)
10. Details of first DCM inspection: Compliance site visits were conducted by Debra Wilson,
District Manager, and Jason Dail, Field Representative, on March 10, 2015, March 25, 2015
and May 15, 2015 regarding this case.
11. Attach copy of Notice of Violation and Postal Receipt Card or Sheriffs Return. [Same
if a Continuing Notice of Violation.] (Attachment G)
12. Restoration Required? [Circle YE NO
[If Yes, attach copy of Restoration Request and give restoration deadline if different from
one in Request and explain.]
The original restoration plan for removal restoration request for removal of the
containment tube was sent on March 26, 2015 with an April 26, 2015 restoration deadline
(Attachment H). A revised restoration plan (Attachment I) was sent on April 24, 2015
with a requirement to remove the geotextile containment tubes within 10 days or "submit
a CAMA Major Modification application that is complete to the satisfaction of the DCM
seeking to modify Permit 92-14 to allow the temporary construction containment tubes,

chock tubes and scour aprons to remain until the completion of the planned Onslow
County shallow -draft navigation project or March 31, 2016, whichever is sooner.
Following the anticipated denial of the modification request, and no later than June 3,
2015, the Town will submit a variance petition package that satisfies the requirements of
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). The Town and DCM will work diligently to
agree on a set of stipulated facts no later than June 17, 2015. The Town will seek a
variance from the CRC at its July 15-16, 2015 meeting. If such variance request is denied
by the CRC, or the variance request submitted by the Town is not heard at the July 15-16,
2015 CRC meeting, the aforementioned structures shall be removed by July 31, 2015".
This restoration plan was signed by Mr. Stuart Turille on behalf on the Town of North
Topsail Beach on May 4, 2015 (Attachment J).
13. Date DCM determined restoration was complete: On August 29, 2015 a Major
Modification was issued by CRC Variance for State permit No. 92-14. Condition No. I
states "In keeping with the Variance granted by the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) on July 16, 2015, and the CRC Variance Order signed by the CRC Chairman on
August 14, 2015, the temporary construction containment (geotextile) tubes shall be
removed when the Onslow County channel maintenance/beach disposal project is
complete, or by June 30, 2016, whichever comes first". (See Attachment B and
Attachment K)
14. Would the project have been allowed had a Permit been applied for? [Circle] YES NO
[If NO, cite the provisions in the CAMA, Dredge and Fill Law, CRC's Rules, Local Lan
Use Plan, etc., which would have been violated]
The project was permitted under State Permit No. 92-14 (Amended by CRC Variance on
November 26, 2014), with the following permit condition:
(11) "In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, the authorized temporary
construction containment tube used to assist in the safe construction of the authorized
temporary sand bag revetment shall be removed in its entirety either immediately upon
project completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever is sooner. Additionally, should the
Division of Coastal Management determine that the temporary construction containment
tubes are no longer needed, or are no longer serving their intended purpose of providing a
safe work environment landward of the tubes, the tube shall be removed immediately upon
written notification by the Division".
Was not permittable. However as part of the restoration agreement. As part of the restoration
plan for this violation it was later authorized by CRC Variance/

15. Recommended penalty amount?
Cite the specific Rule of the CRC in 710409 and explain why the penalty should be
assessed under it. [If the violation was willful and intentional or continuing, describe the
base penalty here and then any increased or additional penalty below.]
The recommended penalty amount against the Town is $10,000 for violation of the terms and
conditions of the Permit in violation of G.S. § 113A-120(b) and for not removing the
temporary geotextile containment tubes, scour apron and chock tubes within the period
specified by the Permit conditions thus exceeding the variance of conditions and size
limitations set forth in NCGS 113A-115.1(b) and CRC rules 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(K).
In determining the amount of this penalty, I have considered the factors as required under the
CAMA in N.C.G.S.
The amount of the penalty is in accordance with 15A NCAC 7J .0409(g)(4)(B) which
addresses violations of major permit conditions involving development that could not
have been permitted under the Commission's rules at the time the notice of violation is
issued. The rule provides a penalty equal to the relevant CAMA permit application fee
($250), plus a penalty pursuant to Schedule A of this Rule ($20,000), plus investigative
costs ($256.50). The violation affected an area measuring approximately 1450 ft. in
length by 20 ft. in width for a total of 29,000 sq. ft. The violation affected more than one
area of environmental concern (AEC) so the penalties for both Public Trust Areas
($10,000) and Ocean Hazard Areas ($10,000) are combined. The amount would also be
doubled in accordance with 15A NCAC 7J .0409(g)(6)(D)(ii), which addresses willful
and intentional violations, however the Rule states that the doubled penalties shall not
exceed 10,000 or be less than $2,000 for each separate violation. Therefore, the total
penalty amount is $10,000.
Investigative costs were calculated as follows:
9.5 hours of staff time x $27/hr. = $256.50
According to 15A NCAC 07J .0409 (d) "For a major development violation, investigative
costs shall not exceed one-half of the amount of the civil penalty assessed or two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), whichever is less.
The total recommended penalty amount is $10,000 based on the rules, however staff did
not change the recommendation based on the statutory criteria. During an enforcement
meeting the factors of this case can be discussed, as they apply to the statutory criteria,
with the Director prior to final assessment.
16. If the violator was a contractor, attach copies of the previous Notices of Violation
showing development in the same AECs and payment of any penalties.
[See 7J.0409(0(4)(G) and explain what the daily amount should be based on the CRC's

rules.]
The Town of North Topsail Beach is responsible for all permit conditions of State Permit No.
92-14.
17. If the violation was willful, describe why, pursuant to 7J.0409(f)(4)(E) or (5)(E), and
attach any supporting documents.
The violation was considered willful due to explicit agreements made by the permittee to
remove the temporary geotextile containment tube upon project completion. (See attached
emails dated 11/25/14 and 11/26/14)
18. If daily penalties are recommended, give the dates on which they should begin and end
under 7J.0409(f)(4)(G) and explain what the daily amount should be based on the
CRC's rules.
Daily penalties are not recommended based on the permittee's timely response to the
Compliance Action Plan Request. (See Attachments E & F)
19. Are there any reasons for increasing or decreasing the penalties or for remitting them
under the CRC's rules? [Circle] YES NO
Statutory criteria may provide a reason for the Director to decrease the penalty.
20. Provide any other information or attach any other documents, which will help the
Attorney General's office or the Director to understand the violation.
(See Case Notes, Variance Request — Attachments L & M)
21. If this form is not appropriate for a particular violation, write a narrative Enforcement
Request, or, supplement this form as necessary.
22. All Enforcement Requests should be sent to the Attorney General's Office within six (6)
months of when the violation was discovered if no restoration was required, or, when the
restoration was completed. If an injunction was requester!, supplement the Injunction
Request within six (6) months of the mate the res-tor was complete.
SUBMITTED BY: Tara MacPherson
TITLE: Field Specialist, DCM
DATE: �� 7
DATE REVIEWED BY DISTRICT MANAGER:
DATE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR REVIEWED:

Case Name: Town of North Topsail Beach, Use of Geotextile tube past deadline to remove
Case Number: 15-05D
County/Regional Office: Onslow/W i RO
WORKSHEET
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FOR CAMA/D&F VIOLATIONS
(Criteria: NCGS 113A-126(d)(4); 15A NCAC 7J.0409(g))
Penalty calculated pursuant to 15A NCAC 71.0409(g): $10,000.00 (See DCM Long Form)
A. Degree and extent of harm, including but not limited to, harm to the natural resources of
the State, tothe public health, or to private ropejty resulting from the violation. P� L.ekd 411& oiezrie gs[ +1C. -ih 19 wat Jl�acnd /,t�,.. a �a.elo.Dwe 1
q�teAx �.1 Le.l 'l �ar9¢f ✓ Sid S�r ici�rC1.
B. The Duration and Gravity of the Violation: 1 I
�{loM t=fk�euf, w�--v1"L 57 'r <�"r�twcThS� tov� �ywr�� jkur'ti`c{.wa .
C. The effect on water quality, coastal resources, or public trust uses;
D. The
j cost A rectifying the damage; I}/
E. The amount of mo ey saved fby noncompliance; J I
�-(�E..t
Jenora f 7 u �� Cons }%a► .tSv I+� M� �YC O Sa«c 61s'
F. Whether the violation was committed wi fullv or into�entiontally "
V101" ift, "J'S' W F 6e 1-\e.J2. f C.'V •'+W \•j �.+i l+l"g) N� Cwd
G. The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with the programs over
which the Commission has regulatory authority (CAMA/D&F);
H. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
$27/hour x 9.5 Hours = $256.50 investigative costs
Final Penalty Assessed/ Mc) + $ p! S& SOinvestigative costs = $ c� %. S73

DCM ENFORCEMENT REQUEST
(USE WHEN INJUNCTION OR FORMAL ASSESSMENT REQUESTED)
CAMA CASE # 15-65D
[Circle One] INJUNCTION PENALTY CRIMINAL
Consultant or LPO & Locality: Town of North Topsail Beach c/o Mr. Stuart Turille
2. Violator's Name: Town of North Topsail Beach
Mailing Address: 2008 Loggerhead Court North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
Home Phone: [phone]
3. Project Location (County, State Road, Waterbody, etc.): 2276 - 2392 New River Inlet
Road adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean
4. Owner's Name, Address, Phone # [if different]: See Above
5. Attach Copy.of Deed. See Easement Agreement.in Permit File.
6. Type of Violation: [Circle One] MAJOR IT CONDITION
Program: '[Circle One] CAMA D&F CAMA and D&F
If CAMA Major, list other required permits, etc. If Permit Condition, give Permit #
and attach copy. State Permit No. 92-14 (Amended per CRC Variance. on November 26,
2014 and Major Modification per CRC Variance on August 29, 2015) (Attachments A and
B)
7. Describe nature of development under G.S.113-A-103(5) or of unauthorized activity
under permit: Development consisted of the installation of a scour apron and chock tubes
oceanward of the temporary sandbag revetment. The temporary containment tube (Geotube)
was to be "removed in its entirety either immediately upon project completion, or by May 21,
2015, whichever is sooner". (See Condition No. 11 of State Permit No. 92-14 issued as
"Amended by CRC Variance" on November 26, 2014)
8. Area(s) of Environmental Concern Involved:
(A) Coastal Wetlands: [Circle]
Smooth Coidgrass [SA]
Salt Grass (DS)
Sawgrass (CJ)
Salt Reed Grass (SY)
Glasswort (SS)
Cattail (TY)
Wind or Lunar Tides
Black Needlemsh [JR]
Sea Lavender[LS]
Salt Meadow Grass [SP]
Bullrush [SC]
Other

Flooded: Regularly or Irregularly
Sq. Ft.: Excavated Filled Restored
(B) Estuarine Waters: [sq. ft.]
Excavated Filled IRestored Other _
Primary Nursery Area? [Circle] YES NO
(C) Public Trust Area: [sq. ft.]
Excavated Filled. Restored Other _
Primary Nursery Area? [Circle] YES NO
(D) Estuarine Shoreline [sq. ft.]
Excavated Restored None Other
(E) Ocean Hazard: [Describe]
Sq. Ft. Impacted: 29,000 sq. ft.
9. Details of how DCM first learned of violation: The North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) received notification from the consultant (Coastal Planning and
Engineering of NC, PC) via email on February 24, 2015, that the installation of the sand bag
revetment associated with CAMA Major Permit 92-14 was complete. (Attachment Q. On
February 27, 2015 DCM sent a Compliance Action Plan to your consultant requesting an
action plan for removal of the geotextile containment: tube (Attachment D). On March 5,
2015 and March 20, 2015 DCM received correspondence from your consultant requesting
modification to the existing permit to extend the time the sand tubes can remain in place until
at least March 31, 2015 or upon completion of the Onslow County channel maintenance
activities. (Attachments E & F)
10. Details of first DCM inspection: Compliance site visits were conducted by Debra Wilson,
District Manager, and Jason Dail, Field Representative, on March 10, 2015, March 25, 2015
and May 15, 2015 regarding this case.
11. Attach copy of Notice.of Violation and Postal Receipt Card or Sheriffs Return, [Same
if a Continuing Notice of Violation.] (Attachment G)
12. Restoration Required? [Circle](YES NO
[If Yes, attach copy of Restoration Request and give restoration deadline if different from
one in Request and explain.]
The original restoration plan for removal restoration request for removal of the
containment tube was sent on March 26, 2015 with an April 26, 2015 restoration deadline
(Attachment H). A revised restoration plan (Attachment I) was sent on April 24, 2015
with a requirement to remove the geotextile containment tubes within 10 days or "submit
a CAMA Major Modification application that is complete to the satisfaction of the DCM
seeking to modify Permit 92-14 to allow the temporary construction containment tubes,

chock tubes and scour aprons to remain until the completion of the planned Onslow
County shallow -draft navigation project or March 31, 2016, whichever is sooner.
Following the anticipated denial of the modification request, and no later than June 3,
2015, the Town will submit a variance petition package that satisfies the requirements of
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). The Town and DCM will work diligently to
agree on a set of stipulated facts no later than June 17, 2015. The Town will seek a
variance from the CRC at its July 15-16, 2015 meeting. If such variance request is denied
by the CRC, or the variance request submitted by the Town is not heard at the July 15-16,
2015 CRC meeting, the aforementioned structures shall be removed by July 31, 2015".
This restoration plan was signed by Mr. Stuart Turille on behalf on the Town of North
Topsail Beach on May 4, 2015 (Attachment J).
13. Date DCM determined restoration was complete: On August 29, 2015 a Major
Modification was issued by CRC Variance for State permit No. 92-14. Condition No. I
states "In keeping with the Variance granted by the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) on July 16, 2015, and the CRC Variance Order signed by the CRC Chairman on
August 14, 2015, the temporary construction containment (geotextile) tubes shall be
removed when the Onslow County channel maintenance/beach disposal project is
complete, or by June 30, 2016, whichever comes first". (See Attachment B and
Attachment Kt
14. Would the project have been allowed had a Permit been applied for? [Circle] YES NO
[If NO, cite the provisions in the LAMA, Dredge and Fill Law, CRCs Rules, Local Land
Use Plan, etc., which would have been violated]
The project was permitted under State Permit No. 92-14 (Amended by CRC Variance on
November 26, 2014), with the following permit condition:
(11) "In accordance with commitments made by the pennittee, the.authorized temporary
construction containment tube used to assist in the safe construction of the authorized
temporary sand bag revetment shall be removed in its entirety either immediately upon
project completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever is sooner. Additionally, should the
Division of Coastal Management determine that the temporary construction containment
tubes are no longer needed, or are no longer serving their intended purpose of providing a
safe work environment landward of the tubes, the tube shall be removed immediately upon
written notification by the Division".
Was not permittable. However as part of the restoration agreement. As part of the restoration
plan for this violation it was later authorized by CRC Variance/

15. Recommended penalty amount?
Cite the specific Rule of the CRC in 710409 and explain why the penalty should be
assessed under it. [If the violation was willful and intentional or continuing, describe the
base penalty here and then any increased or additional penalty below.]
The recommended penalty amount against the Town is $10,000 for violation of the terms and
conditions of the Permit in violation of G.S. § 113A420(b) arid for not removing the
temporary geotextile containment tubes, scour apron and chock tubes within the period
specified, by the Permit conditions thus exceeding the variance of conditions and size
limitations set forth in NCGS 113A-115.1(b) and CRC rules 15A NCAC 07H ,0308(a)(K).
In determining the amount of this penalty, I have considered the factors as required under the
CAMA in N.C.G.S.
The amount of the penalty is in accordance with 15A NCAC 71.0409(g)(4)(B) which
addresses violations of major permit conditions involving development that could not.
have been permitted under the Commission's rules at the time the notice of violation is
issued. The rule provides a penalty equal to the relevant CAMApermit application fee
($250), plus a penalty pursuant to Schedule A of this Rule ($20,000), plus investigative
costs ($256.50). The violation affected an area measuring approximately 1450 ft. in
length by 20 ft. in width for a total of 29,000 sq. ft. The violation affected more than one
area of environmental concern (AEC) so.the penalties forboth Public Trust Areas
($10,000) and Ocean Hazard Areas ($10,000). are combined. The amount would also be
doubled in accordance with 15A NCAC 7J .0409(g)(6)(1))(ii), which addresses willful
and intentional violations, however the Rule states that the doubled penalties shall not
exceed 10,000 or be less than $2,000 for each separate violation. Therefore, the total
penalty amount is $10,000.
Investigative costs were calculated as follows:
9.5 hours of staff time x $27/hr. _ $256.50
According to 15A NCAC 07J .0409 (d) "For a major development violation, investigative
costs shall not exceed one-half of the amount of the civil penalty assessed or two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), whichever is less.
The total recommended penalty amount is $10,000 based on the rules, however staff did
not change the recommendation based on the statutory criteria. During an enforcement
meeting the factors of this case can be discussed, as they apply to the statutory criteria,
with the Director prior to final assessment.
16. If the violator was a contractor, attach copies of the previous Notices of Violation
showing development in the same AECs and payment of any penalties.
[See 7J.0409(0(4)(G) and explain what the daily amount should be based on the CRC's

rules.]
The Town of North Topsail Beach is responsible for all pen -nit conditions of State Permit No.
92-14,
17. If the violation was willful, describe why, pursuant to 7J.0409(f)(4)(E) or (5)(E), and
attach any supporting documents.
The violation was considered willful due to explicit agreements made by the permittee to
remove the temporary geotextile contaimnent tube upon project completion. (See attached
emails dated 11/25/14 and 11/26/14)
18. If daily penalties are recommended, give the dates on which they should begin and end
under, 710409(f)(4)(G) and explain what the daily amount should be based on the
CRC's rules.
Daily penalties are not recommended based on, the permittee's timely response to the
Compliance Action Plan Request. (See Attachments EA F)
19. Are there any reasons for increasing or decreasing the penalties or for remitting them
under the CRC's rules? -[Circle) YES NO
Statutory criteria may provide a reason for the Director to decrease the penalty.
20. Provide any other information or attach any other documents, which will help the
Attorney General's office or the Director to understand the violation.
(See Case Notes, Variance Request —Attachments L & M)
21. If this form is not appropriate for a particular violation, write a narrative Enforcement
Request, or, supplement this form as necessary.
22. All Enforcement Requests should be sent to the Attorney General's Office within six (6)
months of when the violation was discovered if no restoration was required, or, when the
restoration was completed. If an injunction was requested, supplement the Injunction
Request within sic (6) months of the date the restor was complete.
SUBMITTED BY: Tara MacPhersonl.;G%/
TITLE: Field Specialist, DCM
DATE: N17/!
DATE REVIEWED BY DISTRICT MANAGER: ( �S
DATE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR REVIEWED: 1L q Il7/l7

Case Name: Town of North Topsail Beach, Use of Geotextile tube past deadline to remove
Case Number: 15-05D
County/Regional Office: Onslow/WiRO
WORKSHEET
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FOR CAMA/D&F VIOLATIONS
(Criteria: NCGS 113A-126(d)(4); 15A NCAC 7J,0409(g))
Penalty calculated pursuant to 15A NCAC 7J.0409(g): $10 000.00 (See DCM Long Form)
A.
L7
Degree and extent of harm, including but not limited to, harm to the natural resources of
the State, to the public health, orr to private jprope ty resulting from the violation.
�. 0''4L -AIJ k- �02 waf 1�11, cj vJAh, R c6eLf,,,-z-+ �Mfsl-'e
at' ' t�,x Q - Ar a /aft. S-OL-A�) siy'xe"re .
The Duration and Gravity of the Violation: 11 g
600 ^ f. I S� "f'
C. The effect on water quality, coastal resources, or public trust uses; y[_
J,o./ -j','r, . @@ a eA ova-,-AJ--g•� SisP ) ✓ek'` sA,
etr �teil.�.at gcu-sr el,, cwn lag1e w �d�: vi��ilcfi 1
D. The ��:Sdif������rectifying the dam6fage; I..'l
E. The amount of mo ey saved by noncompliance; • ➢ + p 9
SIZI- d S1,` Csi.� ,,fis i�t VA54 ' �(s�IDc�a�R(S�enJ/eol i�
tfPtivara'�y gv�osts 'i1 v"�
F. Whether the violation was committed wwi" u ly or intentional)
;� �J
G. The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with the programs over
which the Commission has regulatory authority (CAMA/D&F);
!"8 f"u'r recce,-U
H. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
$27/hour x 9.5 Hours = $256.50 investigative costs
Final Penalty Assessed:*irk + $ ate. Sa investigative costs = $ 07 �• S�

COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE [phone] FAx
Match 5, 2015
Ms. Debra Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RE: Compliance Action Plan — Regarding "Geotube" located between 2276 & 2392 New River Inlet Road.
Dear Ms. Wilson,
This letter is in response to your request for an action plan regarding the removal of the "Geotube" located
between 2276 and 2392 New River Inlet Road, dated February 27, 2015. As you are aware, the permit issued by the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) on November 26, 2014, permitted the applicant, the
Town of North Topsail Beach, to use a temporary containment tube for construction of the project. Due to
continued rapid deterioration of the project area leading up to construction, the Town requested the design
modification to use a temporary geotextile containment tube to stabilize the project area. The stated purpose of the
containment tube was two -fold. 1) The containment tube would allow for a safer work environment landward of
the tube to expedite the installation of the sand bag revetment; and 2) The containment tube would stabilize the
chronic erosion threatening both the foundations of the houses and the property between the landward side of the
houses and the road.
Mobilization of equipment to the project area began on December 9, 2014. In order to allow for construction of the
sand bag revetment, a geotextile containment tube was filled in place on top of a scour apron seaward of the proposed
sand bag revetment location. The fast containment tube was placed on December 13, 2014 (Figure 1). The IOth tube
was placed on December 22, 2014 (Figure 2). The original plan was to extend the tube south along the shoreline and
terminate in a shore parallel orientation 50 ft. north of the Topsail Reef revetment. However, during the installation
of the tube, the contractors and engineer observed high velocities of water flowing out of the protected area during
ebbing tides. If such flows were channeled toward the Topsail Reef revetment, there would be a high probability of
scour to occur around the base of the Topsail Reef return wall. The contractor and CPE-NC agreed to turn the
southern end of the geotube landward and tie into high ground prior to shutting down for the Christmas break in
order to avoid such a scenario. Figure 2 shows the orientation of the southernmost temporary containment tube after
installation.
The containment tube worked as designed providing temporary protection to the work area and preventing further
loss of sand from the project area during the construction of the sand bag revetment. The nominal dimension of the
temporary containment tube is 30 ft. in circumference. The tubes achieved variable heights of approximately 3 to 5 ft.
and a width of 12 ft. Individual tubes range in length from 100 to 150 ft.
The contractor returned to the project site on December 28th, 2014 and began laying the base layer of the sand bag
revetment in the vicinity of 2378 New River Inlet Road on the northern end of the project area. On January 14th, the
contractor cut through the southernmost temporary containment tube in order to construct the sand bag revetment.
Over the course of the following two weeks the southernmost containment tube deflated and the remains of the
southem-most tube, scour apron, and chock tube were removed. Construction of the sand bag revetment extending
approximately 1,500 ft. north from the Topsail Reef was substantially completed on February 25, 2015. As of the date
of this letter approximately, 1,350 ft. of the containment tube is still in place fronting the revetment from 2378 to
2290 New River Inlet Road.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 • PHONE: [phone] • FAX [phone]
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Figure 2. Southem-most temporary containment tube installed December 22, 2014.
As you indicated in your letter, Condition 11 of CAMA Major Permit 492-14 states:
In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, the authorized temporary construction containment
tube used to assist in the safe construction of the authorized temporary sand bag revetment shall be removed
in its entirety either immediately upon project completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever is sooner.
Additionally, should the Division of Coastal Management determine that the temporary construction
containment tubes are no longer needed or are no longer serving their intended purpose of providing a safe
work environment landward of the tubes, the tubes shall be removed immediately upon written notification
by the Division.
The Town acknowledges the temporary containment tube was permitted for construction purposes only and was not
intended to be a lasting feature of the sand bag revetment. The Town signed the permit with the intent to comply
with all conditions of the Permit.
Significant accretion of sand has occurred along the southern portions of containment tube throughout the last month
of construction. Approximately 1,000 ft. of the southern portion of the containment tube has been partially or
completely covered with sand (Figure 3). Given the amount of burial that has taken place, the excavation and
removal of the tube at this point would likely be detrimental to the integrity of the sand bag revetment.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 • PHONE: [phone] • FAX [phone]
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Courtesy of Mike Capuano)
Likewise, in those portions of the revetment where the tube is still exposed, the tube is clearly providing scout
protection to the sand bag revetment. In my professional opinion, the removal of the partially buried and exposed
sand tube will result in rapid scour along the toe of the sand bag revetment located in these areas which will in turn
lead to the failure of the sand bag revetment.
Observations made during the construction process indicate the tubes have not had any noticeable adverse impact to
adjacent shorelines as compared to revetments composed of only sand bags. Therefore, allowing the sand tube to
remain for the duration of the time allowed for the sand bag revetment would not have any greater negative impact on
adjacent properties than the impacts associated with the sand bag revetment itself.
The intent of the channel realignment project constructed by the Town of North Topsail Beach between December
2012 and February 2013 under CAMA Major Permit #79-10 was to induce reconfiguration of the ebb delta by
redistributing material from the north side of the delta to the south side. A build-up of material on the south side of
the ebb tide delta would provide a higher degree of wave sheltering to the north end of North Topsail Beach which
should eventually lead to a reduction in shoreline erosion rates immediately south of the inlet in the short term and
possibly some widening of the beach in the long term Figure 4 shows a schematic diagram of the expected ebb shoal
reconfiguration. Engineering documents associated with the permitting and design of the project stated that
predictions of the actual time for the shoreline between stations 1140+00 (area from between Buildings #5 and #6 0£
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, INC 28409 • PHONE: [phone] • FAX [phone]
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Topsail Reef] and 1160+00 (south shoulder of New River Inlet) to respond to the new channel cannot be made with
a high degree of certainty; however, significant accretion should occur within 5 years with full recovery occurring
within 15 years following the channel relocation (CPE-NC, 2009). These projections were based on the
implementation of a channel maintenance program that would maintain the channel in the preferred location.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram showing the intended reconfiguration of the ebb tide delta as a result of the channel realignment
project (Photo from October 2003).
The Town of North Topsail Beach is committed to establishing and maintaining a healthy beach along the north end
of the Island. The Town has also shown a commitment to protect New River Inlet Road to allow the ocean front
property owners as well as those property owners along Oyster Lane, Port Dr., River Drive, and the Beach Club to
continue to have access to their property. This commitment was clearly demonstrated by the Town undertaking the
Sand Bag Revetment project.
The Town continues to monitor the channel realignment project closely. Monitoring data over the past 2 years
suggests that the ebb shoal is reconfiguring to a preferred alignment as designed; however as stated in the engineering
documents, this process will take time.
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 • PHONE: [phone] • FAX [phone]
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

The commitments to remove the sand tubes in accordance with the permit conditions were made in good faith and
based on the belief the sand bag revetment alone would be able to provide the degree of protection, needed to
preserve the area until the inlet channel relocation project begins to produce measurable positive impacts on the area.
However, the rapidly changing conditions along the north end of North Topsail Beach and the accelerated rate of loss
of material from the area has made it abundantly clear that the sand bag revetment alone will not be able to protect
the homes or the roads in this area for a sufficient amount of time to allow for gradual recovery of the shoreline
associated with the channel realignment project.
For all of the reasons stated above, the Town of North Topsail Beach is requesting a permit modification to allow the
sand tubes to remain in place for the duration of the permit as stated in Condition 4 and Condition 7 of CAMA Major
Permit #92-14 governing the time limits of the sand bags.
Please contact me at 910.791.9494 (office) or 910.264.2166 (cell) or Mr. Ken Willson at 910.443.4471 (cell) should you
have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Tom Jarrett, P.E.
Project Engineer
Cc:
Ken Willson (CPE-NC)
Stuart Tutille (North Topsail Beach)
Braxton Davis (Div. of Coastal Management)
DougHuggett (Div. of Coastal Management)
Jonathan Howell (Div. of Coastal Management)
Jason Dail (Div. of Coastal Management)
4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 • PHONE: [phone] • FAX [phone]
COASTAL PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.

Permit Class Permit Number
MODIFICATIONFMAJOR 92-14
(by CRC Variance) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
for
X Major Devzlopmentin an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Exc'avation,ind/or filling pursuant,to NCGS 113-229
Issued to: Town ,of North Topsail Beach, 200$ Loggerhead,Court, North Topsail Beach; NC 28460
Authorizing development in: Onslow County at Atlantic Ocean from 2276 to 2382 New River
Inlet Road as requested in the permittee's'appl'ioation dated:
This permit, issued on Aneust29, 2015 - is subject to compliance with the applidation`(where consistent
with the permit), all'applicable regulations,,speeial conditions and notes set forth, below. Any violation of.these terms may +.
be subjecrto fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause thepormit.to, be null and void.
z
1} 1n keeping with the Variance: granted by the Coastal Resources Cammissioh (CRC) on July 16, 2015
`and the CRC variance Order signed.bythe CRC Chairman on August 14, 2015, the temporary
construction containment (geotextile) tubes shall beremoved when th ,'Onslow County channel
maintenance/beach disposal;project is.epmplete cr by Jtmd, 30, 2016, whichever comes first.,
2) This Major Modification shall be attached to the original ofCAMA`Permit No, 92'-14, which was
amended by CRCrvariance on 11/26/14, as well as the Minor''Modiftcat on of 12/31/14, and copies.of
all documents shall, be readilyavailable on site when a Division representative inspects•the ;projeet for €
compliance.
j
(See attached,sheetfor Additional Conditions)i
1
i
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or Signed by the authority of the Secretaryof DENR and rthe
other quallfied,persons within twenty (2d) days of the issuing _ Chairman„oI the Coastal kesaurcea Commission;
date.
k t
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
_ Rraxtot . Davis, Director €
`Any maintenance Work or project modification notoovered 7 .
hereunder requires further Division<approvah rvtsion of Coastal Management
All work'mustcease: when the permit expires:on This permitand its conditions are �herebyaccepted.
December 31, 2018
! In issuing this permit, the State of North 'Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with'the North Carolina Coastal -
Management Program. Signature of Permittee
„

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IROY COOPER.
ATTORNEY GENCRAL
Stuart Turille, Town Manager
Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Court
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
11.0. Box 629
RAI.CIon, NC'27602
August 14, 2015
Re: Variance Request CRC-VR-15-05
Dear Mr. Turille:
RI?rLY'rn: NIARY L. I A CASSE
t' VPIaONMEN7'AI. Dn7sa)x
"Iltt: [phone]
F-Ax: [phone]
tnhlrasse 11cdoj.gol.
Cerii/ied Mail/Return Receipt Requested
and
Electronically:
[e-mail]
At its July 15, 2015 meeting, the Coastal Resources Commission granted, subject to
conditions, Petitioner Town of North Topsail Beach's request for a variance to extend the time
temporary geotextile tubes may remain on the beach. Attached is a copy of the Final Agency
Decision signed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. Following receipt of
this decision, you must submit all application to DCM for a major modification of amended
CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14 issued on November 26, 2014 to conform to the terms of the
variance.
If for some reason you do not agree to the terms of the variance as granted, you have the
right to appeal the Coastal Resources Commission's decision by filing a petition for judicial
review in Superior Court within thirty days after receiving the Commission's Decision. The
procedure for petitioning for judicial review is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. $150B-43 et seq. A copy of the judicial review petition must be served on the
Coastal Resources Commission's agent f'or service of process at the following address:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
If you choose to file a petition for judicial review, 1 request that you also serve a copy on
me at the address listed in the letterhead. Let me know if you have any questions.
]SI'a
ry Tr ours
e
Deputy Attorney General and
Counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission

Stuart Turille, Town Manager
August 14, 2015
Page 2
cc: Frank D. Gorham, III electronically
Brian E. Edes, Esq., US Mail and electronically
Christine A. Goebel, Esq., electronically
Braxton Davis, electronically
Angela Willis, electronically

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
IN THE MATTER OF: )
PETITION FOR VARIANCE )
BY TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH )
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CRC-VR-15-05
FINAL AGENCY DECISION
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
July 16, 2015 in Beaufort, North Carolina pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-120.1 and 15A
NCAC 7J .0700, et seq. Assistant Attorney General Christine A. Goebel, Esq. appeared for the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management
(hereinafter "DCM") and Attorney Brian E. Edes appeared on behalf of Petitioner Town of
North Topsail Beach.
Upon consideration of the record documents and the arguments of the parties, the
Commission adopts the following:
STIPULATED FACTS
1. The Petitioner in this case is the Town of North Topsail Beach ("Petitioner" or
"Town"). The Town is represented by the Town's attorney, Brian E. Edes, Esq.
2. The site at issue in this case is located at the north end of North Topsail Beach,
and includes the beach waterward of the first line of stable natural vegetation from just north of
the Topsail Reef condominiums to the northernmost house on New River Inlet Road. There are
39 parcels of land with 20 duplexes structures (which include 40 residences) along this stretch of
the beach (hereinafter the "Site"). At the time the 20 structures were constructed, they were
1

"second row" homes. The Site is described in the Project Narrative section of the stipulated
i
exhibits, and in other portions of the stipulated exhibits. The Town holds easements on these
oceanfront parcels in order to use the property for the purpose of implementing beach
nourishment projects.
3. The Site is located within the Ocean Erodible, High -Hazard Flood and Inlet
Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC).
4. The long-term average annual erosion rate at the Site is 2-feet per year. The Site is
entirely within the Inlet Hazard AEC which uses the rate for the adjacent ocean hazard area per
15A NCAC 7H .0310(a)(1). DCM agreed with Petitioner that this Site experienced accelerated
erosion in the 12-15 months before the November 2014 variance hearing.
5. According to the Town's Project Engineer, Tom Jarrett, P.E. of Coastal Planning
& Engineering (CP&E), one of the unique features of the area is the influence of the New River
Inlet, or more specifically, the ebb tide delta of the inlet, on sediment transport along the
shoreline. This is demonstrated by the photo shown in Exhibit 15'in which incoming waves from
the southeast are refracted around the ebb tide delta resulting in a change in sediment transport
direction (as indicated by the arrows) just south of New River Inlet. The area in which the
direction of sediment transport changes as a result of wave refraction is commonly referred to as
a nodal zone. In general, the nodal zone is characterized by the net movement of material away
from or out of the zone. While a nodal zone will generally always exist adjacent to a tidal inlet,
the influence of the nodal zone on the shoreline of North Topsail Beach is enhanced due to the
absence of significant shoal accumulations on the south side of the inlet. The absence of shoal
material south of the inlet is one of the issues the channel relocation project was designed to
PJ

address, i.e., the purpose of moving the channel was to encourage the reconfiguration of the
inlet's ebb tide delta through the redistribution of shoal material from the north side of the inlet
to the south side. In support of this fact, Mr. Jarrett provided portions of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the North Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project prepared in
December of 2009 (hereinafter "FEIS").
History of the Site
6. The north end of the Town has a history of erosion. Detailed information about
the history of erosion and past beach nourishment projects was provided to the Commission in
Appendix B of the FEIS. Mr. Jarrett also prepared a summary of the nourishment projects which
were completed between 2002 and 2011 (hereinafter "Jarrett Erosion History Report").
7. According to the FEIS, the erosion of the shoreline south of New River Inlet has
been a persistent problem since around 1984 when the bar channel of New River Inlet shifted its
alignment toward Onslow Beach. Prior to 1984, the north end of North Topsail Beach was
accreting at an average rate of 6.1 feet per year. Following the change in channel position and
orientation, the north end began to erode at an average rate of 5.3 feet per year. Most of the
accelerated erosion was attributed to the north end's increased exposure to wave energy. That is,
prior to the channel shift, the south side of the ebb tide delta provided a breakwater effect with
waves breaking relatively far offshore. With the loss of the south side delta, more wave energy
was transmitted directly to the shoreline. This, combined with the development of flood channels
running close to and parallel to the north end, greatly increased sediment transport rates to the
north.
8. Since 1993, and despite the use of sandbag structures in some places, 11
3

residential structures, all of which were located seaward of the existing 20 structures at the Site,
were either removed or lost to erosion.
The Town's Inlet Management Plan/FEIS
9. Beginning in 2006, the Town hired CP&E to develop an Inlet Management Plan
for the New River Inlet (hereinafter "Inlet Management Plan.") This Inlet Management Plan was
completed in December 2009 and memorialized in the FEIS publication. The entire Inlet
Management Plan is covered by the Department of the Army permit SAW 2005-00344 dated
May 16, 2001. CAMA Major Permit No. 79-10 was issued on July 21, 2010 authorizing Phase I
of the Inlet Management'Plan. The October 12, 2012 modification authorized a change to the
beach fill density, the amount of material to be removed from the ocean bar channel, and
removed a previously permitted upland disposal site. This CAMA permit was further modified
on September 26, 2013 and authorized Phase 5 of the Inlet Management Plan to be developed
during the 2014-15 dredging window, an increase in beach fill densities, and allowed Phase 5 to
take place before Phases 2-4 if necessary.
10. Phase l of the Inlet Management Plan was completed in February 2013 and
included the repositioning of the New River Inlet ocean bar channel to a more central location
between the south end of Onslow Beach and the north end of North Topsail Beach. The material
removed during the repositioning of the channel was used as beach fill along 7,730 feet of
shoreline south of New River Inlet.
11. The Town's purpose in moving the ocean bar channel of New River Inlet, as
stated in the FEIS, was to induce sand accumulation on the south side of the inlet's ebb tide
delta. Based on the documented historic behavior of the inlet, the Town believed that moving the
4

channel to a more central position with an alignment approximately perpendicular to the adjacent
shorelines would result in accretion of the shoreline south of the inlet. According to Dr. William
Cleary's letter, the FEIS estimated that the time required for the new channel to have a positive
impact on the shoreline was three to four years.
12. According to Mr. Jarrett, the behavior of the shoreline on the north end of North
Topsail Beach is tied to the position and alignment of the main bar channel of New River Inlet.
Morphological studies of New River Inlet, reported in the FEIS, describe the relationship
between the position and alignment of the channel and the response of the shorelines on both
sides of the inlet. The FEIS also identified a position and alignment of the bar channel that would
provide a beneficial impact on the north end shoreline. Based on the FEIS, the Town of North
Topsail Beach elected to artificially move the channel to the preferred position and alignment
indicated by the morphological studies.
13. The construction of Phase 1 moved the mean high water (MHW) shoreline an
average of 272 feet seaward of the pre -project MHW shoreline in the area between Building No.
1 of Topsail Reef and the south shoulder of New River Inlet (baseline stations 1149+00 to
1160+00). Based on an August 2014 beach profile survey by Gahagan & Bryant, the MHW
shoreline north of Topsail Reef had receded between 200 and 250 feet since completion of Phase
1, which is equivalent to rates of between 130 feet per year and 167 feet per year. Visual
inspections of the beach show it has continued to erode since the August 2014 survey and the
MHW shoreline has returned to essentially its pre -project position. According to Mr. Jarrett,
while the rate of loss of the fill placed during Phase 1 of the management plan has been higher
than anticipated, the loss is comparable to losses experienced from previous fills created by the
61

USACE through disposal of navigation maintenance material removed during maintenance of
the AIWW and portions of the channel passing through Cedar Bush Cut from the AIWW to the
inlet.
14. According to Mr. Jarrett, based on the documented history of shoreline changes
along the north end of North Topsail Beach, the recent acceleration in the rate of shoreline
change is not related to the channel relocation project. See, Jarrett Erosion History Report.
Instead, Mr. Jarrett states that much of the accelerated erosion can be attributed to the unnatural
shoreline configuration created by the beach fill, i.e., the conditions that were causing the north
end to erode prior to relocating the channel, such as the absence of a significant shoal on the
south side of the inlet and the presence of flood channels, still persist. Mr. Jarrett states these
conditions will continue to exist until such time the newly aligned channel effects the predicted
changes in the ebb tide delta of New River Inlet. Until that time, waves will continue to impact
the area in such a way as to cause accelerated sediment transport from the north end to New
River Inlet.
15. According to the "Year 2 Post -Construction Physical Monitoring Report" dated
October 2014 and prepared by CP&E ("Monitoring Report"), monitoring of the inlet has
demonstrated some of the expected results are taking place with sand accumulating on the south
side of the inlet. However, the rate of build-up, as predicted, has been relatively slow. As a
result, the north end of North Topsail Beach has continued to experience high rates of erosion.
As of August 2014, most of the fill placed north of the Topsail Reef Condominiums in February
2013 has been lost.
16. The FEIS stated the periodic maintenance of the ocean bar channel would be
0

necessary at approximately four-year intervals in order to keep the channel in its preferred
position and alignment. Material removed to maintain the channel is to be used to provide
periodic nourishment of the North Topsail Beach shoreline including the shoreline nourished
during Phase 1.
17. The USACE permit allows maintenance of the channel to be accomplished once
every four years providing one of two channel maintenance thresholds are met. One channel
threshold is associated with shoaling of the channel and the second is based on the position and
alignment of the channel. Following Phase I's completion in February 2013, the Town is not
permitted to maintain the channel until the 2016/2017 environmental dredge window.
18. Based on site photographs taken in late September 2014, the final remnants of the
artificial .dune which was part of the Phase I project and was evident in August 7, 2014 photos,
has completely eroded.
19. In addition to the threat to homes, flooding of the area has increased with flood
waters spilling on to New River Inlet Road and side streets at least four times in late-2014 during
high tides.
Larger Sandbag Revetment CAMA Permit Process
20. Beginning in the early summer of 2014, Town and its agents contacted DCM and
inquired about possible options for protecting homes at the Site from erosion taking place
following Phase I. DCM issued a modification to permit No. 191-05 on August 14, 2014
authorizing sand from an upland source to be placed at the Site. This permit was originally
issued on December.5, 2005 following Hurricane Ophelia and authorized dune reconstruction at
the Site. The Town has not undertaken the work authorized by the modified permit.
7

21. On or about August 15, 2014, the Town, with help from its CP&E consultants
Tom Jarrett and Ken Willson, submitted a CAMA Major Permit Application seeking to install
approximately 1,450 linear feet of geotextile tubes (7.5 feet tall and 45 feet circumference) at the
Site. This permit application was deemed complete (except for the receipt of all of the easement
agreements) by DCM on August 27, 2014, and was sent to the resource agencies for comment as
part of the CAMA Major Permit process. Because the proposed geotextile tube was inconsistent
with the Commission's rules limiting the size of sandbags used for temporary erosion control,
DCM planned to deny this permit application after the public notice period ended on September
19, 2014. The Town indicated it planned to seek a variance from this denial.
22. On September 18, 2014, DCM received a request from the Town that the initial
geotextile tubes proposal be modified by adding 35,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of sand in a "sand
bench" to raise the elevation of the beach at the Site to approximately 6 feet in elevation, and to
place the geotextile tube on top of the "sand bench." DCM determined that the significant
changes and increased scope of the modified project required a new application for a CAMA
permit from the Town, including new notice of the modified project to the public and adjacent
neighbors, and new review by the resource agencies.
23. Following discussions between the Town, its agents, DCM and other resource
agencies, the Town submitted its proposal with a final sandbag design on September 26, 2014.
On October 3, 2015, DCM determined the new CAMA Major Permit application was complete.
On October 2, 2014, DCM retired the Town's initial application following receipt of the new
application fora CAMA Major Permit based on the modified design.
24. The final design requested permission to install sandbags at the Site from the
3

existing larger sandbag revetment at Building No. 1 of Topsail Reef extending north
approximately 1,450 feet parallel to the existing shoreline. A 50-foot return wall would extend
landward from the north end of the sand bag structure just north of the home located at 2378
New River Inlet Road. A plan view of the sand bag revetment and a typical cross-section view of
proposed revetment were provided to the Commission in the stipulated exhibits. The proposed
borrow site for the sand needed to fill the proposed sandbags is an area of approximately five
acres on the point, just north of the Site, also called "the spit."
25. Topsail Reef received two variances from the Commission in July 2012 and
October 2014 to construct a revetment just south of the Site similar to the larger size sandbag
structure proposed by the Town.
26. The proposed sandbag revetment would follow an alignment roughly parallel to the
seaward -most support piles of the threatened residential structures with the landward toe of the
revetment positioned as close as practical to the front support piles of the structures. In this
regard, the authorized temporary erosion control structure would be located no more than 45 feet
waterward of the waterward most pilings of those buildings controlling the alignment of the
temporary -erosion control structure from 2304 New River Inlet Rd. to the northern terminus of
the temporary erosion control structure, namely those structures at: 2304 New River Inlet Road,
2314 New River Inlet Road, 2354 New River Inlet Road, 2362 New River Inlet Road, 2368 New
River Inlet Road, and 2378 New River Inlet Road. No portion of the temporary erosion control
structure between 2304 New River Road and the southern terminus of the temporary erosion
control structure will be located more than 115 feet waterward of the waterward most piling of
each building.
17

27. As part of the CAMA Major Permit Application process, adjacent neighbors and
the public were given notice of the Town's CAMA permit application including the final design
for the sandbag revetment through publication in the Star News on October 8, 2014. DCM staff
received only one comment —an objection from the adjacent riparian property owner of Topsail
Reef, which was later withdrawn. -
28. Also as part of the CAMA Major Permit application process, the Town's
application, Field Report, and other materials were sent to resource agencies for comment. Of the
agencies responding, the DCM Fisheries Specialist raised concerns about the impact of the
project on the surf zone habitat. DCM did not deem these concerns sufficient to support permit
denial.
29. On October 21, 2014, DCM staff conducted a site visit of the subject area and
determined that "site conditions [had] deteriorated and emergency action is warranted".
Consequently, at the Town's request, the DENR Secretary authorized the issuance of an
Emergency CAMA Major Permit, which allows DCM discretion to suspend public notice,
adjacent riparian notice, and the normal agency coordination process. Once the emergency
permit authority was activated for the Site, DCM coordination with federal agencies was halted.
30. On October 24, 2014, DCM issued CAMA Emergency Major Permit 92-14 to the
Town, authorizing its final design, but conditioning this approval on compliance with the
Commission's rules limiting the size of sandbag structures to a base width of 20 feet and a height
of 6 feet.
31. The Town stipulated that its "final" design proposal was inconsistent with the
Commission's rules limiting the size of sandbag structures.
10

32. On November 7, 2014, DCM received the Town's 2014 variance petition. The
Town also requested an expedited hearing before the Commission's scheduled December
meeting.
33. The tax value of the structures at the Site and their lots total about $9 million, and
their loss from the tax base would reduce the annual tax revenue of the Town by $35,388 based
on the proposed 2015 tax rate of $0.3932 per $100.
34. The proposed larger sand bag revetment in the 2014 variance request was
intended to protect the 20 threatened residential structures for at least two and a half years or
until such time the beach fill provided under Phase I of the North Topsail Beach shoreline/inlet
management plan can be renourished. In addition, the Town is committed to managing the north
end shoreline by maintaining the preferred position and alignment of the New River Inlet ocean
bar channel and using the material removed to maintain the channel to nourish the northern 7.25
miles of its ocean shoreline. Both the channel maintenance program and periodic nourishment
are intended to maintain and/or preserve the dune and beach system in as near a natural state as
possible.
35. On October 15, 2014, the Town's Board of Aldermen passed resolution 2014-13
which allowed for a special assessment to be imposed pursuant to NCGS 160A-238, in order to
fund the larger sandbag structure proposed in this variance, with 50 percent of the total cost
(which was estimated to be approximately $2.3 million for the total project) paid by the 39
parcel -owners identified in the resolution based on oceanfront frontage. This assessment
resolution was the subject of a public hearing on November 6; 2014. On November 6, 2014, the
Town passed resolution 2014-16 confirming the assessment. Draft meeting minutes reflect the
it

five public comments received. On November 14, 2014, the Town issued a Notice of Special
Meeting scheduled for November 19, 2014 to receive recommendations on the selection of a
contractor for this sandbag project. The Town Board passed the resolution, and is now waiting to
tally the final costs of the project before starting the assessment process.
36. In its November 2014 variance request, the Town sought a variance of conditions
1 and 2 of CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14. Specifically:
The Town is requesting a variance to condition 1 in that the Town
proposes to construct a temporary erosion control structure with a
base width of 45 feet and a height sufficient to achieve an elevation
of+12.0 ft. NAVD.
The Town is requesting a variance to condition 2 in that the Town
proposes that no portion of the authorized temporary erosion
control structure shall be located more than 45. feet waterward of
the waterward most pilings of those buildings controlling the
alignment of the temporary erosion control structure from 2304
New River Inlet Rd. to the northern terminus of the temporary
erosion control structure, namely those structures at: 2304 New
River Inlet Rd., 2314 New River Inlet Rd., 2354 New River Inlet
Rd., 2362 New River Inlet Rd., 2368'New River Inlet Rd., and
2378 New River Inlet Rd. No portion of the temporary erosion
control structure between 2304 New River Road and the southern
terminus of the temporary erosion control structure will be located
more than 115 feet waterward of the waterward most piling of each
building.
November 2014 Variance Hearing
37. At an expedited hearing on November 19, 2014, the Commission heard the
Town's 2014 Variance Petition for larger sandbags than allowed by law. The Commission voted
to grant the Town's request for a variance and allow it to install sandbags larger than those
allowed by rule, up to a base width of 45 feet and an elevation of +12.0 ft. NAVD. The
Commission also granted the Town's request to go waterward by as much as 115 feet from the
12

waterward pilings. On November 24, 2014, the Commission issued a written Final Agency
Decision granting the Town's request.
38. An additional 275 linear feet of sandbags authorized in the traditional 6 foot by 20
foot configuration were added to CAMA Major Permit No., 92-14 through a minor modification
in order to protect additional properties to the north of the originally permitted larger sandbag
structure.
Geotextile Tubes as Construction Method Modification Request
39. On November 24, 2014, Town consultant Tom Jarrett called DCM with a request
to further modify CAMA Major Permit No: 92-14 in order to down -scale the size of the sandbag
structure from the 45 feet by +12.0 ft. NAVD allowed by the Commission, to a smaller structure.
DCM Staff confirmed to the Town that a smaller structure, within the limits set by the variance,
was allowable.
40. Later on November 24, 2014, DCM received another call from the Town's agent
with a request to allow the use of a temporary geotextile containment tube to stabilize the project
area while the larger sandbag structure was being installed. This was the first time the Town
raised this proposal.
41. In a series of emails and a report during the November 24-26, 2015 period, the
Town formalized its request to use the geotextile tubes as a temporary construction method, and
made a commitment to remove them following the installation of the approved sandbag
revetment. This request also showed the reduction,in size of the proposed sandbag structure, now
proposed with an elevation of 7.5 feet - 9.0 feet above grade instead of the elevation of +12.0
feet NAVD proposed and granted by variance.
13

42. The Town's stated purpose for using the geotextile tube was two -fold: I The tube
would allow for a safer work environment landward of the tube to expedite the installation of the
sandbag revetment; and 2) The tube would stabilize the area around the foundations of the
houses and the property between the landward side of the houses and the road. In discussions
with DCM Staff, the Town confirmed that these geotextile tubes were to be used as a temporary,
construction method only, were not to be part of the sandbag structure's design, and were to be
removed immediately following construction of the sandbag revetment, along with the scour
apron and chock tubes, which were also inconsistent with the Commission's rules
43. The permit issued by DCM on November 26, 2014, permitted the Town to use a
temporary geotextile tube for construction purposes during sandbag installation.
44. Condition 11 of CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14 as amended on November 26,
2014, states:
In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, the
authorized temporary construction containment tube used to assist
in the safe construction of the authorized temporary sand bag
revetment shall be removed in its entirety either immediately upon
project completion, or by May 21, 2015, whichever is sooner.
Additionally, should the Division of Coastal Management
determine that the temporary construction containment tubes are
no longer needed or are no longer serving their intended purpose of
providing a safe work environment landward of the tubes, the
tubes shall be removed immediately upon written notification by
the Division.
45. The temporary geotextile tube was permitted for construction purposes only and
was not originally intended to be a lasting feature of the sand bag revetment. Both the Town and
the Town's consultant agreed to this in writing.
14

d
Construction of the Sandbag Revetment
46. Mobilization of equipment to the project area began on December 9, 2014.
47. A geotextile tube was filled in place on top of a scour apron seaward of the
proposed sand bag revetment location. The first tube was placed December 13, 2014 (Project
Narrative Figure 1). The tenth tube was placed December 22, 2014 (Project Narrative Figure 2).
48. The original plan was to extend the tube south along the shoreline and terminate
in a shore parallel orientation 50 feet north of the Topsail Reef sandbag revetment.
49. During the installation of the tube, the contractors and engineer observed high
velocities of water flowing out of the protected area during ebbing tides. If such flows were
channeled toward the Topsail Reef revetment, there would be a high probability of scour
occurring around the base of the Topsail Reef return wall. The contractor and CPE-NC agreed to
turn the southern end of the tube landward and tie into high ground in order to avoid such a
scenario. Figure 2 on the Project Narrative shows the orientation of the southernmost tube after
installation.
50. The geotextile tube worked as designed providing temporary protection to the
work area and preventing further loss of sand from the project area during the construction of the
sandbag revetment. The nominal dimension of the temporary tube is 30 feet in circumference.
The tubes achieved variable heights of approximately 3 to 5 feet and a width of 12 feet.
Individual tubes range in length from 100 to 150 feet.
51. Following a break over the Christmas holiday, the contractor returned to the
project site on December 28, 2014 and began laying the base layer of the sand bag revetment in
the vicinity of 2378 New River Inlet Road on the northern end of the project area.
15

52. On January 14, 2015, the contractor cut through the southernmost temporary tube
in order to construct the sand bag revetment. Over the course of the following two weeks the
southernmost tube deflated and the remains of the southem-most tube, scour apron, and chock
tube were removed.
53. Construction of the sand bag revetment extending approximately 1,500 feet north
from Topsail Reef was substantially completed on February 25, 2015. Approximately, 1,350 feet
of the tube is still in place fronting the revetment from 2378 to 2290 New River Inlet Road. On
February 24, 2015, the Town's authorized agent sent DCM an email indicating that construction
on the sand bag revetment was complete.
54. Beginning around December 1, 2014 work on Phase 5 of the Town's project
began to place a 14 feet + NAVD by 25 foot wide dune with a 45 foot wide berm waterward of
the dune at the western -most portion of the Town's larger project area. That sand was dredged
from an offshore borrow site approximately one half to one and one half miles offshore from the
northern extent of Phase 5. The dredging operations for Phase 5 ended on Saturday, June 20,
2015 and demobilization efforts are underway now. The Town's consultant CP&E plans to do a
survey of Phase 5 in July.
Request to keep the Geotextile Tube and Notice of Violation
55. On February 27, 2015, DCM sent a letter to the Town Manager notifying the
Town that it needed to begin removing the geotextile tube.
56. On March 5, 2015, CPE-NC sent a letter to DCM requesting further modification
to CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14 as modified on November 26, 2014, allowing the geotextile
tube to remain for the duration of the permit.
16

57. On March 12, 2015, DCM's Major Permit Manager Doug Huggett responded to
the request via email indicating a modification to allow these structures to remain would be
inappropriate given that this was now a permit compliance issue, and that the request was.
incomplete.
58. On March 20, 2015 the Town's authorized agent from CP&E responded to DCM's
request to remove the geotextile tube.
59. On March 26, 2015, DCM issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Town as the
construction of the sand bag revetment was complete but the Town had not removed the
temporary geotextile tube. DCM also issued a proposed restoration plan requiring. removal of the
geotextile tubes.
60. On April 24, 2015, DCM issued a revised restoration plan to the Town, indicating
that it could either remove the geotextile tubes as promised, or could proceed to seek a variance
from the Commission during with the upcoming July 15, 2015 meeting for permission to keep
the geotextile tubes in place for some period of time.
61. On May 4, 2015, the Town signed and returned the revised restoration agreement,
indicating that they wished to proceed with the variance process at the Commission's July 15,
2015 meeting.
Application for Major Modification to CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14
62. Pursuant to the revised restoration plan, on May 1, 2015 the Town sent a revised
major modification request, which DCM accepted as complete, seeking to retain the geotextile
tubes as a part of its temporary erosion control structures. Section 8a of the modification request
states that the tubes would "...remain in place until the Onslow maintenance navigation and
17

disposal of material along the north end of North Topsail Beach can, occur, or until March 31,
2016."
63. As part of the CAMA Major Permit Modification Application process, adjacent
neighbors and the public were given notice of the Town's CAMA permit application through
publication in the Star News on May 11, 2014. No comments were received.
64. Also as part of the CAMA Major Permit Modification application process, the
Town's application, Field Report, and other materials were sent to resource agencies for
comment. Of those agencies responding, the DCM Fisheries Specialist raised concerns regarding
the proposal due to concerns about surf zone habitat, though DCM did not deem these concerns
sufficient to support permit denial. Comments were also received from the Wildlife Resources
Commission, raising concerns about the project.
65. On June 2, 2015, DCM denied the Town's request because the geotextile tube
design was inconsistent with the Commission's rules regarding temporary erosion control devices
found at 15A NCAC 7H. 0308(a)(2)(K) and (L) which regulate the size of sandbags and prohibit
the use of anchoring devices for sandbags.
Onslow County's Proposed Shallow -Draft Inlet Navigation Project
66. Onslow County, in cooperation with the Town, is in the process of seeking non-
federal permits that will allow the County to maintain authorized federal navigation channels in
the vicinity of North Topsail Beach including the channel through Cedar Bush Cut, the southern
portion of New River, and sections of the AIW W where these channels meet. In accordance with
the permit request, the material removed to maintain the channels would be deposited along
portions of the north end of North Topsail Beach including the area immediately fronting the
It.]

sand bag revetment. The application for this project was accepted as complete on June 4, 2015
by DCM, with the exception of the signed certified mail receipts, and is currently being
circulated for comment through the CAMA major permit process. Tom Jarrett projects that
between 65,000 and I10,000 cubic yards of sediment will be deposited from this project on
about 3,000 feet of shoreline along the extreme North End of North Topsail Beach.
67. Onslow County hopes to have the permits in time to perform the maintenance
dredging during the upcoming environmental dredging window, which runs from November 16,
2015 to March 31, 2016.
68. A cost estimate was developed for construction of the Onslow County project
including development of bidding documents and contractor coordination, dredge mobilization,
cost to pump sand to beach, and construction observations. The cost to implement this alternative
is estimated at $1,694,500. The state, county, and North Topsail Beach have shared the
permitting costs and there are verbal commitments by all three entities to share the cost of
construction as well. Based on the project plan, the Town would be responsible for 25 percent of
the total cost ($423,625.00).
The Town's Consultant's Reports
69. In a March 18, 2015 letter from CP&E to DCM, Tom Jarrett opines that the
geotextile tube along the north end of the sand bag revetment continues to provide vital scour
protection and its removal prior to the placement of the navigation maintenance material could
result in dramatic failure of a portion of the sand bag revetment. According to a March 5, 2015
letter from CP&E to DCM, significant accretion of sand has occurred along the southern portions
of geotextile tube throughout the last month of construction. Approximately 1,000 feet of the
19

southern portion of the containment tube has been partially or completely covered with sand.
According to Mr. Jarrett, given the amount of burial that has taken place, the excavation and
removal of the geotextile tube at this point would likely be detrimental to the integrity of the
sand bag revetment.
70. In addition, according to Mr. Jarrett, the tubes have not had any noticeable
adverse impact on the adjacent shorelines based on a comparison to revetments composed of
only sand bags. Mr. Jarrett further opines that allowing the geotextile tube to remain until March
31, 2016 or the completion of Onslow County's channel maintenance/beach disposal activities,
whichever is later, would not have any greater, negative impact on adjacent properties than the
impacts associated with the sand bag revetment itself. See March 5, 2015 letter from CP&E to
DCM.
71. In Mr. Jarrett's opinion, the rapidly changing conditions along the north end of
North Topsail Beach and the accelerated rate of material lost has made it abundantly clear that
the sand bag revetment alone will most likely not be able to protect the homes or the roads in this
area for a sufficient amount of time to allow for gradual recovery of the shoreline associated with
the channel realignment project. See March 5, 2015 Letter from CP&E to DCM.
72. The Year 2 Post -Construction Physical Monitoring Report (included as a
stipulated exhibit provided to the Commission) suggests that the ebb shoal is reconfiguring to a
preferred alignment as designed; however as stated in the engineering documents, this process
will take time.
73. The commitments by the Town to remove the sand tubes in accordance with the
permit conditions were based on the Town's Consultant's belief that the sand bag revetment
20

alone would be able to provide the degree of protection needed to preserve the area until the inlet
channel relocation project begins to produce measurable positive impacts on the area. In spite of
this request for a permit modification to extend the time allowed for the geotextile tube to remain
in place, the Town remains committed to removing the geotextile tubes once the channel
maintenance activities are completed and the area exhibits signs of continued
recovery/stabilization.
74. The stated purpose of the channel realignment project constructed by the Town
between December 2012 and February 2013 under CAMA Major Permit No. 79-10 was to
induce reconfiguration of the ebb delta by redistributing material from the north side of the delta
to the south side.
75. According to the Town's consultants, a build-up of material on the south side of
the ebb tide delta would provide a higher degree of wave sheltering to the north end of North
Topsail Beach which should eventually lead to a reduction in shoreline erosion rates immediately
south of the inlet in the short term and possibly some widening of the beach in the long term.
76. According to the Town's consultants, the actual time for the shoreline between
stations 1140+00 (area from between Topsail Reef Buildings Nos. 5 and 6) and 1160+00 (south
shoulder of New River Inlet) to respond to the new channel cannot be made with a high degree
of certainty; however, significant accretion should occur within five years with full recovery
occurring within 15 years following the channel relocation.
77. Representatives of the Town state that the Town is committed to establishing and
maintaining a healthy beach along the north end of the Island. The Town contends that it has also
shown a commitment to protect New River Inlet Road to allow the ocean front property owners
21

as well as those property owners along Oyster Lane, Port Drive, River Drive, and the Beach Club
to continue to have access to their property, as shown by the Sand Bag Revetment project.
A History of the Commission's Examination of the Use of Geotextile Tubes
78. At the September 16, 2010 Commission meeting, DCM Staff presented
information to the Commission about the use of geotextile tubes for temporary erosion control,
following Spencer Rogers' presentation at the July 2010 Commission meeting suggesting their
use as another method of temporary erosion control.
79. At the 2010 presentation, Staff raised public safety concerns about the geotextile
tubes stability, ability to roll; and their difficulty to climb when uncovered. Due to these
concerns, Staff recommended against rulemaking to allow geotextile tubes. Following this
presentation, the Commission took no action to initiate rulemaking regarding geotextile tubes.
80. At the April 29, 2015 Commission meeting, DCM Staff presented a PowerPoint
similar to that used in 2010, and raised the same public safety concerns about geotextile tubes,
and again recommended against rulemaking to allow the use of geotextile tubes as another
method of temporary erosion control.
The Town's Variance Request
81. The Town is requesting a variance from 15A NCAC 7H. 0308(a)(2)(K) and (L),
as noted in the June 2, 2015 CAMA major modification denial, in order to keep the geotextile
tubes in place as a part of the temporary erosion control sandbag structures until March 31, 2016
or the completion of Onslow County's channel maintenance/beach disposal activities, whichever
is later.
22

STIPULATED EXHIBITS
Included with the Petition and the Staff Recommendation for the Commission's review
were the following Stipulated Exhibits:
• All Exhibits for CRC-VR-14-16, as well as the following new exhibits:
• Major Permit Modification Application submitted by the Town to the DCM, May 1, 2015,
together will all forms, attachments and appendices.
• Correspondence from the DCM to the Town, dated February 27, 2015.
• Correspondence from Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. to DCM,
March 5, 2015
• Correspondence from Coastal Planning and Eng of NC, Inc. to DCM, March 18, 2015
• June 25, 2015 Statement of Tom Jarrett, P.E.
• Updated PowerPoint with aerial and ground level site photographs
• CRC's November 24, 2014 Final Agency Decision granting 2014 Variance petition
• Modification to CAMA Major Permit #92-14 authorizing "regular" sized bags, north end
• Email chain from November 24-26, 2014 regarding the geotextile tube request, including
commitments to remove
• Report from Town re use of geotextile tubes and new proposed size of sandbag structure
• Permit #92-14 as Amended on November 26, 2014
• Project Narrative from Town
• Correspondence from DCM to Town on March 12, 2015.
• March 20, 2015 response from Town to DCM
• March 26, 2015 NOV and restoration plan
• April 24, 2015 revised restoration plan
• May 4, 2015 signed copy of revised restoration plan
23

• Comments from permit review process from DCM Fisheries Specialist and WRC
DCM Field Report for modification request
June 2, 2015 DCM Denial letter
• 2010 PowerPoint re: geotextile tubes by DCM to CRC
2015 PowerPoint re: geotextile tubes by DCM to CRC
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper.
3. Petitioner has met the requirements in N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1(a) and 15 NCAC
07J .0703(1) which must be found before a variance can be granted as set forth below.
A. Strict application of Ocean Hazard Rules will cause unnecessary
hardships.
The Commission's rules relating to the Ocean Erodible, High -Hazard Flood and Inlet
Hazard Areas of Environmental Concern set forth at 15A NCAC 7H .0301, .0302 and .0303 are
designed to prevent danger to life, property and prevent encroachment of permanent structures
on public beach areas. In addition, 15A NCAC 7H .0308 limits the use of erosion control
structures to protect property by requiring temporary placement for a short period of time in
order to minimize the loss of resources to erosion, while still protecting the public's right to use
and enjoy the beach.
The conditions in amended CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14 required the Town to remove
the temporary containment geotextile tube immediately upon completion of the sandbag
revetment or by May 21, 2015, whichever came first. The Town received a NOV based on its
24

failure to comply with the terms of the permit. Without the variance, the Town would be required
to come into compliance with its permit and remove the temporary containment geotextile tubes.
In its request for a variance, the Town stated that it completed Phase 1 of its multifaceted
inlet and shoreline management plan in February 2013 which included repositioning the New
River Inlet ocean bar channel. The material removed during this process was used as beach fill
along 7,730 feet of shoreline south of New River Inlet. By August 2014, all of the fill material
placed north of Topsail Reef had been lost. In response to the emergency situation created by the
rapid deterioration of the fill, the Town applied for a permit to construct a sandbag revetment
along approximately 1500 feet of shoreline north of Topsail Reef. DCM issued amended CAMA
Major Permit No. 92-14 on November 26, 2014 pursuant to a variance the Commission granted
the Town. The permit allowed the Town to use a temporary sand filled containment tube to
provide protection to the area during installation of the sandbag revetment. The conditions of the
permit required the temporary containment tube to be removed immediately upon completion of
the sandbag revetment or by May 21, 2015, whichever occurred sooner. The sandbag revetment
was essentially completed on February 25, 2015. However, in violation of the permit condition,
approximately 1,350 feet of the containment tube are still in place fronting the revetment from
2378 to 2290 New River Inlet Road.
The Town has provided information from its consultant Mr. Jarrett concluding that along
portions of the revetment where the geotextile tube is exposed, the tube is providing scour
protection to the sand bag revetment. Mr. Jarrett also opined that the premature removal of the
partially buried and exposed geotextile tube will likely result in rapid scour along the toe of the
sand bag revetment leading to the failure of the, sand bag revetment and possible destruction of
25

the 20 residential structures located between Topsail Reef and New River Inlet.
The Town provided information to the Commission that the tax value of these structures
and their lots total roughly $9 million. If these properties are lost from the tax base, the Town's
annual tax revenue of North Topsail Beach would be reduced by approximately by $35,388
based on the proposed 2015 tax rate of $0.3932 per $100. In addition, the loss of these 20
structures could have a secondary impact on the assessed value of other structures in the area.
In addition to the potential loss of the 20 residential structures, the deteriorated condition
of the shoreline on the north end of town has resulted in frequent episodes of wave over -washing
of the beach berm and flooding of New River Inlet Road and connecting side streets. Continued
recession of the shoreline could eventually undermine New River Inlet Road and cut off access
to homes on the north end of town.
Onslow County, in cooperation with the Town, is in the process of seeking non-federal
permits that will allow the County to maintain authorized federal navigation channels in the
vicinity of North Topsail Beach. In accordance with the permit request, the material removed to
maintain the channels would be deposited along portions of the north end of North Topsail
Beach including the area immediately fronting the sand bag revetment. The application for this
project was accepted as complete on June 4, 2015 by DCM, with the exception of the signed
certified mail receipts, and is currently being circulated for comment through the CAMA major
permit process. Tom Jarrett projects that between 65,000 and 110,000 cubic yards of sediment
will be deposited from this project on about 3,000 feet of shoreline along the extreme North End
of North Topsail Beach. Onslow County hopes to have the permits in time to perform the
maintenance dredging during the upcoming environmental dredging window, which runs from
Mi

November 16, 2015 to March 31, 2016.
The Commission affirmatively finds that strict application of the Rules would cause
Petitioner unnecessary hardship insofar as requiring the Town to remove the geotextile tubes
prior to the upcoming beach nourishment (planned for the 2015/2016 environmental dredging
window) may cause damage to the 20 houses currently protected by the geotextile tubes without
measurable improvement to the shoreline system. For these reasons, the Commission
affirmatively finds that Petitioner has met the first factor without which a variance cannot be
granted.
B. Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship results from conditions
peculiar to Petitioner's property.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship
results from conditions peculiar to the property. Specifically, the Site is located within the Inlet
Hazard AEC for the New River Inlet and is influenced. by the dynamic inlet processes. The
behavior of the shoreline on the north end of North Topsail Beach is imminently tied to the
position and alignment of the main bar channel of New River Inlet as shown by morphological
studies of New River Inlet reported in the project EIS. The studies also identified a position and
alignment of the bar channel that would provide a beneficial impact on the north end shoreline.
Based on these studies, the Town of North Topsail Beach elected to artificially move the channel
to the preferred position and alignment indicated by the morphological studies. The Town
implemented Phase I of the channel realignment project channel and repositioning the channel
was completed in February 2013. Prior to the channel realignment, the nodal influence on North
Topsail Beach was enhanced due to the absence of significant shoal accumulations on the south
side of the inlet. The absence of shoal material south of the inlet is one of the issues the channel
27

relocation project was designed to address, i.e., the purpose of moving the channel was to
encourage the reconfiguration of the inlet's ebb tide delta through the redistribution of material
from the north side of the inlet to the south side. Monitoring of the inlet since the channel was
moved seems to indicate some redistribution of material is occurring; however, the process will
take years before it has a significant positive impact on the north end of North Topsail Beach.
Given the realignment of the channel and its impact on North Topsail Beach, the Commission
affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship results from conditions
peculiar to the property and has met the second factor required for the grant of its request for a
variance.
C. Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship does not result from actions
taken by Petitioner.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship
does not result from actions taken by the Petitioner. Specifically, the Town has done nothing to
accelerate the erosion affecting the Site and has taken significant steps to address the problem,
including the development and implementation of its Inlet Management Plan. While the losses
from the beach fill have been higher than anticipated, the condition of most of the shoreline
included in the Phase 1 fill is still better, in terms of the beach width measured at MHW than it
was prior to construction of Phase 1. The exception, as previously noted, lies in the area north of
Topsail Reef.
The Town's commitments to remove the geotextile sand tube in accordance with the
permit conditions when construction was completed was based on its belief that the sand bag
revetment alone would be able to provide the degree of protection needed to preserve the area
until the inlet channel relocation project begins to produce measurable positive impacts on the
28

area. However, the rapidly changing conditions along the north end of the island and the
accelerated rate of loss of material from the area has made it abundantly clear that the sand bag
revetment alone will not be able to protect the homes or the roads in this area for a sufficient
amount of time to allow for gradual recovery of the shoreline associated with the channel
realignment project.
For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated
that it has met the third factor required for a variance.
D. Petitioner has demonstrated that the requested variance is consistent with
the spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, will secure public
safety and welfare, and will preserve substantial justice.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated (a) that the
requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, (b)
that it will secure public safety and welfare, and (c) that it will preserve substantial justice.
Specifically, the spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules for the Ocean
Hazard Area of Environmental Concern is to allow temporary 'erosion control for imminently
threatened structures, while, limiting the size of the individual sandbags and the dimensions of
the overall structure that may be permitted. In 2003, CAMA was amended to include 113A-
115.1, which prohibited the use of erosion control structures along the ocean shoreline, except in
a few specific situations. The Commission's rules allow for the continued use of "temporary
erosion control structures" made of sandbags to protect. imminently threatened structures within
20 feet of the erosion scarp. The installation and design standards in the Commission's rules
reflect the temporary nature of the structures, and demonstrate that sandbags were not intended
as large, permanent structures. As stated in 15A NCAC 07M.0202(e), these temporary measures
29

are to be used "only to the extent necessary to protect property for a short period of time until the
threatened structures can be relocated or until the effects of a short-term erosion event are
reversed." This rule demonstrates that sandbags should only offer immediate relief and time to
find a permanent solution. The Commission's size limits on individual sandbags and limits on
the overall structure size are intended to promote structural stability and effectiveness, while
maintaining the temporary nature and the public's right of safe access to the beach. Given the
Town's commitment to renourish the North Topsail Beach during the 2015/2016 dredging
window, the Commission affirmative finds that Petitioner's proposed development is consistent
with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Commission's Rule as long as Condition No. 11 in
amended CAMA Major Permit No. 92-14 is revised to allow the authorized containment tube to
remain part of the temporary erosion control structures until June 30, 2016 or the Onslow
County's channel maintenance/beach disposal activities are completed whichever comes first.
The second assessment to be made is whether the variance proposed by the Petitioner will
impact public safety and welfare. Petitioner submits, and the Commission agrees that if the
deadline for removal of the geotextile tubes is extended, public safety and welfare will be
protected insofar as the structures will receive some additional protection which may prevent
their imminent destruction. Floating debris, submerged and/or hidden piles, as well as other
anthropogenic items remaining once these properties are abandoned would pose a serious threat
to the safety of the public that uses the area for recreational purposes. Allowing the containment
tube to remain as part of the temporary erosion control structures until such time as navigation
maintenance material is deposited or June 30, 2016 whichever comes first will significantly
lessen any unreasonable danger(s) to life and adjacent property from the foregoing dangers.
30

Observations made during the construction process indicate the tubes have not had a
noticeable adverse impact on adjacent shorelines as compared,to revetments composed of only
sand bags. Therefore, allowing the sand tube to remain for an extended period of time should not
have any greater negative impact on adjacent properties than the impacts associated with the
sand bag revetment itself. will have no adverse effect on public safety and welfare.
Finally, the Commission agrees that a variance will preserve substantial justice by
allowing the Town to use the geotextile tubes to stabilize the permitted sand bag revetment,
preserve the work already done to protect the North End of the island, and preserve the interests
of the Town and the North End property owners until such time as the deposit of navigation
maintenance material takes place in 2015/2016, and the realignment of New River Inlet begins to
yield positive effects. For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has
met the fourth factor required by N.C.G.S. § 113A-120.1(a) subject to the condition that the
Town's temporary use of the geotextile tube will be extended no longer than June 30, 2016 or
when the renourishment project is completed whichever comes first.
During oral argument before the Commission, the Town explicitly agreed that it would
remove the temporary geotextile tube when the beach renourishment project was completed or
by June 31, 2016 whichever came first.
ORDER
THEREFORE, the Town's request for a variance from 15A NCAC 7H. 0308(a)(2)(K)
and (L) in order to extend the time to keep the geotextile tubes in place as a part of the temporary
erosion control sandbag structures is GRANTED subject to the condition that the geotextile
tubes will be removed when Onslow County's channel maintenance/beach disposal project is
31

complete or by June 30, 2016 whichever comes first.
The granting of this variance does not relieve Petitioner of the responsibility for obtaining
any other required permits from the proper permitting authority. This variance is based upon the
Stipulated Facts set forth above. The Commission reserves the right to reconsider the granting of
this variance and to take any appropriate action should it be shown that any of the above
Stipulated Facts is not true or has materially changed.
This the 141h day of August 2015.
Frank D. Gorham, III, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission
32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served the. foregoing FINAL AGENCY DECISION
upon the parties by the methods indicated below:
Stuart Turille, Town Manager
Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Court
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
Brian E. Edes, Town Attorney
Crossley McIntosh & Collier
5002 Randall Parkway
Wilmington, NC 28403
Christine A. Goebel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department o1'Justice
Braxton C. Davis
Angela Willis
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the 14"' day of August, 2015
Certified i'vlaill Return Receipt Requested and
Electronically:
[e-mail]
U.S. 11dc1il aid Electronically at
[e-mail]
Tlectronically at
ecoebelLiNiedoi.aov
Electronically at
[e-mail] and
[e-mail]
4 Z-
Maryl,474casse
SpeA<Deputy Attorney General and Commission Counsel
N.C. Department of Justice
I'.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N. C. 27602
33