Surf City Beach Nourishment Permit Application

Surf City 
Beach Nourishment Project 

Prepared For:  

The Town of Surf City, NC 
December 13, 2019 

Prepared By: 

  TI Coastal Services, Inc. 
  387‐B N. Green Meadows Dr. 
                Wilmington, NC, 28405 
  910‐821‐1358 
  www.ticoastal.com 

CAMA Permit Application 
Agent Authorization 

CAMA Permit Application 
MP‐1 

252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Town Of Surf City
Project Name (if applicable)
Surf City Nourishment 2019
Applicant 1: First Name
Ashley
MI

Last Name
Loftis
Applicant 2: First Name

MI

Last Name

If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address

PO Box
2475
City
Surf City
State
NC
ZIP
28445
Country
USA
Phone No.
910 - 328 - 4131 ext.
FAX No.
910 - 328 - 1746
Street Address (if different from above)

City

State

ZIP
-
Email

2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Ti Coastal Services Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
Jamie
MI
C
Last Name
Pratt
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
Chris
MI
L
Last Name
Gibson
Mailing Address

PO Box
11056
City
Wilmington
State
NC
ZIP
28404 Phone No. 1
910 - 821 - 1358 ext.
Phone No. 2
910 - 508 - 2744 ext.
FAX No.
910 821 1359
Contractor #

Street Address (if different from above)
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
City
Wilmington
State
NC
ZIP
28405 -
Email
[e-mail]

<Form continues on back>

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Pender County Onslow County

Street Address
214 N New River Dr.
State Rd. #

Subdivision Name
Town of Surf City
City
Surf City
State
NC
Zip
28445 -
Phone No.
910 - 328 - 4131 ext.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
, , , ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
Cape Fear River
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Atlantic Ocean and Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
Natural Manmade Unknown
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
Yes No
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
work falls within.
Town of Surf City, North Carolina

4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
32,500ft of oceanfront beach
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
19,040,908 sq.ft. (437 acres)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
, , ,
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
Highest:9.3ft, Lowest: -10.7ft, Average Elevation: -7.5ft
NHW or NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
American Beach Grass, Sea Oats
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Public and private dune crossovers and the Surf City Pier
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
The lands adjacent to the proposed project site include Topsail Beach, N.C. and North Topsail Beach, N.C. North of the
proposed project site is North Topsail Beach. North Topsail Beach is a residential beach on Topsail Island. Land uses
include recreational boating, fishing, and swimming in the Atlantic Ocean and Intercoastal Waterway. South of the proposed
project site, is Topsail Beach, N.C. Topsail Beach is a residential beach on Topsail Island. Similarly to North Topsail Beach
land uses include recreational boating, fishing, and swimming in the Atlantic Ocean and Intercoastal Waterway.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
Mixed use - residential and light commercial

i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Yes No NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? Yes No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy.

If yes, by whom?
Yes No NA

Federial FEIS
l. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a
National Register listed or eligible property?
Yes No NA

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site?

(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site?

(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach documentation, if available)
Yes No

Yes No

Yes No
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Municipal water is available for all residential and commerical properities with the Town of Surf City.
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Existing drinking water supply comes from town-owned groundwater wells.
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
Typical runoff to municiple stormwater drains.

5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? Commercial Public/Government
Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
See attached project narrative.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Hydraulic cutterhead dredge with 24-30 inch pipeline, 4-5 pushboats and 1-2 crew boats, 3-4 bulldozers, 2-3 loaders, 1-2
excavators.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Placement of approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of sand on the oceanfront shoreline of Surf City. Material will be dredged
from Banks Channel from station 35+00 to 245+00 and supplemented with truck haul sand from the ST Wooten sand mine
on highway 421 in Wilmington, NC.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New Work
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 437.1 Sq.Ft or Acres

g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area
that the public has established use of?
Yes No NA
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Surface runoff- No proposed changes to runoff
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland?

If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water?
Yes No NA

Yes No NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed?
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
Yes No NA

<Form continues on back>

CAMA Permit Application 
MP‐2 

252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)

Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.

Access
Channel
(NLW or
NWL)
Canal Boat Basin Boat Ramp Rock Groin Rock
Breakwater
Other
(excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
Length 21,000ft
Width 200ft
Avg. Existing
Depth 6ft MLW NA NA
Final Project
Depth 18-14ft MLW NA NA

1. EXCAVATION This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
1,300,000 CY of material from Banks Channel and 450,000 CY
from ST Wooten Sand Mine to be placed on the oceanfront
shoreline of Surf City to restore the beach berm and slope

b. Type of material to be excavated.
Beach Quality Sand. Mean grain size: 0.31mm; 0.7% fines.
11.1% CaCO3.

c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
CW SAV SB
WL None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:

d. High-ground excavation in cubic yards.
450,000 CY from ST Wooten Sand mine on Hwy 421 in
Wilmington, NC

2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area.
Surf City Oceanfront Beach; Unsuitable material will be
stockpiled at the Broadway Ave staging area, then placed
on DA-203, outside of USACE right of way, on State owned
property after completion of the project

b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Length: 32,500ft, Width: 350ft on average

c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, where?
Surf City Oceanfront Beach

e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
CW SAV SB
WL None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
230 acres (10,020,425 sqft) below MLW on the beach

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06
Replace eroded sand from Hurricane Florence and increase
coastal protection for property owners in Surf City

3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 – Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
Bulkhead Riprap Breakwater/Sill Other:
b. Length:
Width:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:

d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:

e. Type of stabilization material:

f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.

g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater/Sill Other
h. Type of fill material.

i. Source of fill material.

4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? Yes No NA
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 1,127,029
CY below MLW; 1,518,248 CY below MHW
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 32,500' x 350'
(iv) Purpose of fill
Navigation dredging in Banks Channel with beneficial use
of material for shoreline protection and habitat restoration.

b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
CW SAV SB
WL None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:

5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
Beach quality sand will be pumped and desposited onto the beach
via dredge and piping and also by truck haul from ST Wooten to
Surf City; bulldozers will shape the sand into the designed
template.

b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hydraulic dredge, booster pump, dredge pipe, loader, bulldozer,
offroad buggy, on road dump trucks, offroad dump trucks,
excavator.

c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.

d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? Yes No NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.

CAMA Permit Application 

Project Narrative 
1.0 Purpose 
1.1 Introduction 
The Town of Surf City, N.C. was incorporated in 1949 and is situated along a +/‐ 6 mile stretch of central 
Topsail Island. During the 1990s, Surf City endured 5 direct hits by Category 1 or stronger Hurricanes and 
recently sustained widespread impacts from Hurricane Florence in September 2018. This put much of 
Surf City’s oceanfront in a critical or imminently threatened status. Losses of the beach berm prior to 
Florence left over 13% of the developed properties imminently threatened and a total of 58% properties 
endangered and not conforming to state setback regulations for building or re‐building.  These numbers 
are even more dire now after a direct landfalling hurricane last season. It is estimated that over 70% of 
structures were eminently threatened immediately after Hurricane Florence. Even with annual beach 
bulldozing operations, the shoreline continues to migrate landward as there is no natural influx of sand 
to rebuild the beach. This lack of sediment introduction along the Town’s beachfront is due to its central 
location on the island 14 miles south and 5 miles north of the inlets at either end of the island. The only 
major source of sediment influx to the beachfront is the shoreward migration of sediment from nearby 
hard‐bottoms. These very thin, low in volume, nearshore veneer deposits are insufficient to naturally 
provide the quantity of sediment necessary to keep the shoreline in a non‐erosive equilibrium. The 
landward migration of the shoreline and the absence of new sediment along the beachfront make this 
region one of the most sediment starved areas on the East Coast of the United States. Additionally, the 
passing of tropical cyclones and nor’easters make the Town vulnerable to significant beach erosion and 
property damages at any given time, which brings concern to an already sediment starved environment.    
The existing conditions for the Town of Surf City require beach nourishment efforts to preserve this 
pristine coastline. Management of this coastline will not only benefit the coastal ecosystem but also 
protect the present real estate and infrastructure which is a primary income for the Town during the 
summer months. Beach management is a constant and adaptive process. The dynamic coastal 
environment is in constant movement and mitigation strategies must be implemented to offset beach 
erosion.  By implementing and executing beach nourishment on a programmatic level, the long‐term 
future of the beach for the Town can be secured, protecting valuable environmental resources and local 
real estate. A beach nourishment program entails adding sand to the beach front multiple times over 
several decades, not just a “one‐and‐done” project. The beach nourishment program is not only more 
feasible financially but allows for additional monitoring surveys for the beach front of Town in order to 
offset beach front loss over several decades. The monitoring surveys detail the current condition of the 
beach and assist in placing sand appropriately for each nourishment project. A good program will 
eventually reduce the rate of erosion and become more economical as time moves forward. 
1.2 Project Objectives 
As discussed in Section 1.1, the Town of Surf City is proposing to increase the scale of its beach 
nourishment project. The proposed project’s goal is to afford immediate relief from encroaching high 
tides on the upland beach and dune system, providing sufficient coastal protection from Hurricanes and 
Nor’easters for a 4‐5 year time increment and buy the Town more time for either the Federal (USACE) 
CSDR project to become appropriated and go to construction or to develop and implement a long term, 
locally funded Beach Management Plan. 
There are two primary objectives of the proposed project. The first is to protect properties located 
within the Town of Surf City from future loss due to major coastal storms. The Town of Surf City contains 
approximately 2,600 homes and about 2,100 year‐round residents. Of the 2,600 properties 
within Town limits, 430 of them are directly oceanfront. During the summer vacation season, the 
residential population swells to over 19,000, sustaining the Town’s motels, restaurant, gift shops, fish 
pier and local businesses. The primary tourism draw, as with most coastal communities in the United 
States, is a wide and beautiful recreational sand beach, clean ocean and sound side waters, and boating 
access. If the Town did not maintain its coastal resources, visitors would likely choose a different beach 
town to vacation in and patronize businesses in other coastal communities. Widening the dry berm 
beach also provides habitat for shorebirds as well as nesting areas for sea turtles. Currently, the entire 
beach is nearly submerged on a normal high tide cycle, significantly reducing the available nesting area 
for both birds and turtles within Surf City.  
The second primary objective of the recommended project is to maintain Banks Channel adjacent to 
Surf City. The Town of Topsail Beach operates a town owned boat ramp and the North Carolina Wildlife 
Resources Commission (NCWRC) maintains a state owned boat ramp near the Surf City Bridge, allowing 
residents and tourists a public access point to its coastal waters. Dredging Banks Channel adjacent to 
Surf City and beneficially using the beach quality sand for a beach nourishment project provides a clear 
passageways for boaters to travel to the federally maintained Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (AIWW), 
and enjoy the backbarrier channels of Surf City without the worry of navigating through shoaled 
waterways. It should be noted that the Town of Topsail Beach recently received permits to dredge Banks 
Channel to the exact proposed dimensions as this project. Banks Channel in its entirety was originally 
included in the Topsail Beach permit application; however, the existing vibracores at the northern end of 
Banks Channel were over 5 years old (at the time of permit submission) and therefore no longer valid for 
the current permit application. As such, the northern portion of Banks Channel was dropped from the 
Topsail Inlet permit request to expedite permitting and remain on schedule for Topsail Beach. Since that 
time, additional vibracores for the remaining portion of Banks Channel have been collected and 
analyzed to continue the proposed 200’ width and 12+2’ MLW dredge depth, currently permitted for 
Topsail Beach, for the remainder of Banks Channel. 
As mentioned above, the Town of Topsail Beach recently permitted its full 30 year management plan 
project and is set to begin construction in the fall of 2019. This project utilizes beach quality sand in New 
Topsail Inlet, Topsail Creek, the Cut‐Through Channel, Banks Connector Channel, Banks Channel, and 
Banks Side Channels 1 and 2 to construct a new primary dune system and a large dry sand beach on 
their oceanfront beaches. Based upon the most recent survey data, the beachfill template requires 
approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of sand and the permitted sound‐side channel systems contained 
approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of sand. After Topsail Beach has completed construction in the 
winter of 2019, Surf City will use the remaining sand in the Banks Channel permitted templates, 
combined with the continuation of an expanded Banks Channel template (proposed in this application) 
to place approximate 1.6 million cubic yards of sand on their oceanfront beach. Prior to hydraulic 
dredging of Banks Channel, a separate truck haul project, initiated in the spring of 2019, will continue to 
rebuild the dune system lost to Hurricane Florence while the hydraulic beachfill project from the sound‐
side channels will construct a dry sand beach and natural slope seaward of the dune system. 
The design goals of the proposed project are summarized as follows: 
 To provide interim Hurricane and Nor’easter protection to Surf City by increasing the width of 
 the dry sand beach and repair dune scarping until the Federal USACE CSDR Project is    
 appropriated by Congress or the Town can initiate a long term Beach Management Plan. 
 Continue to provide a wide recreational beach for local residents and tourists to enjoy 
 (swimming, fishing, etc). 
 Maintain safe navigation throughout all interior channels surrounding Surf City that are 
 utilized by both commercial businesses as well as the public for pleasure boating, fishing, and 
 water sports. 
 Provide dry sand habitat for shorebird and sea turtle nesting and reduce the probability of 
overwash during storm events for nests. 
2.0 Project Description 
2.1 Location 

The project site is located in the middle of Topsail Island within the municipal limits of the Town of Surf 
City. Topsail Island is a barrier island located in southeast North Carolina along the beaches of Onslow 
Bay. The Town of Surf City is bordered by North Topsail to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, 
Banks Channel to the west and Topsail Beach to the south. The island is accessible to the public by 
highways 50 and 210 with Highway 50 being the only main road to the Town of Surf City. The 
approximate geographic coordinates of Surf City are Latitude 34o 25’40” and longitude 77o 33’ 24”. The 
Town consists of mixed use zoning, consisting primarily of residential single family homes, a small 
downtown business district, and several moderately sized hotels and condominiums. The oceanfront 
beach is flanked by a vegetated dune system consisting of typical beach vegetation including American 
Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata) and Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata). 

2.2 Surf City Current Beach Conditions 

In fall 2017, a beach monitoring survey was completed for the Town in order to compare the current 
conditions with previous datasets. Additionally, deliverables were prepared that showed (1) current 
beach width (Figure 1), (2) current distance from structure to setback line (Figure 2), and (3) current 
dune retreat rate (Figure 3). (1) The current beach width of the Town indicates that over 50%, nearly 
20,000 linear feet (lft) (3.75 miles), of the present shoreline has a current beach width between 10 to 20 
ft. The present beach width serves a great importance to not only acting as a buffer from on‐coming 
wave energy, but it also provides essential habitat for nesting turtles and birds. Additionally, the beach 
width provides an area for recreation for beach‐goers in summer and year‐round residents. (2) The 
current distance from structures to the setback line indicate that nearly 70%, 294 dwelling units fall 
within the 60 ft setback line. This means that if all property were to be over 50% destroyed from a 
tropical cyclone close to 300 dwelling units would have be moved from their current position and rebuilt 
outside of the setback line. (3) The current dune retreat rate varies across the Town. The dunes not only 
serve an important role in establishing vegetation growth for sea oats, which help keep the dune in 
place but are the primary defense against storm surge. Just over 50%, nearly 18,000 lft (3.4 miles), of the 
Town is experiencing a dune retreat of 4 to 9 ft per year. The seaward edge of established vegetation 
growth serves as the point from which the setback line is measured; therefore, adding a broader beach 
and dune field can make established vegetation growth be more seaward allowing for non‐conforming 
houses to regain conformity to the 60 ft setback rule.  
The current conditions of the Town indicate a beach management program is needed to help with the 
current beach width, distance from structure to setback line, and current dune retreat rate. 
Implementing a cost‐effective, environmentally friendly, and tourist attractive plan will benefit the Town 
substantially. A beach nourishment program will allow for continued deliverables of the Town’s present 
beach conditions and contribute to future beach nourishment plans for the Town of Surf City.  

Figure 1. The beach width condition (2017) for the Town of Surf City. 

Figure 2. The distance from structure to setback line (2017) for the Town of Surf City. 

Figue 3. The dune retreat rate for the Town of Surf City from 2012 to 2017.
2.3 Wave Climate and Littoral Transport 

Topsail Island is situated within a mixed‐energy hydrodynamic setting. Mean wave height is 3.3 ft and 
mean tidal range is 3.0 ft (CLEARY, 1994 and USACE, 2006). Annually, the most frequent occurring wave 
heights range from 1.6 to 3.2 feet. During winter months, the most frequent wave heights range from 
1.6 to 4.9 ft due to storms and easterly to northeasterly approaching waves increase in occurrence. 
Waves during the summer months propagate from a southeasterly direction and often reach 1.0 to 3.0 
ft in height. Tropical systems, although infrequent, can generate waves exceeding 15.0 feet (USACE,  
2006). The net longshore sediment transport is from north to south in Surf City.  

2.4 Storm Events 

Storms over the past 65 years have caused extensive damage to the island, destroying infrastructure 
and transporting sand from the oceanfront beach across the island to the marsh and sound creating 
overwash fans. Topsail Island is located along major historic storm tracks, and as a result has been 
repeatedly impacted by tropical and extra‐tropical storms. Storm activity between 1944 and 1962 and 
in the late 1980’s was significant and caused extensive damage island‐wide. Hurricane Hazel (1954) and 
the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962 were significant events causing massive damage. Hurricane Hazel 
destroyed approximately 90% of the buildings in existence on the island. That storm generated a 9.5 ft 
storm surge above mean sea level (MSL). The island’s average elevation was 8.9 ft above MSL (CLEARY 
and PILKEY, 1996). Hazel removed 850,000 CY of sand from the oceanfront beaches of Surf City and 
Topsail Beach. A portion of sand lost from the beach was carried onto and across the island into the 
sound and marsh in the form of overwash terraces. A large volume of this sand was lost from the 
oceanfront system as it became trapped beneath grasslands and incorporated into dune fields perched 
above washover deposits.  

Prior to 1996, southeastern North Carolina had not experienced a hurricane stronger than a category 2 
since 1954 (Hurricane Hazel) and a single dune, often scarped and sometimes nonexistent, fronted a 
majority of Topsail Island. However, between 1996 and 1999, four major hurricanes made landfall in the 
region with two others passing nearby. The southern 2‐mile length of Topsail Beach experienced some 
of the most extensive formation of washover terraces during the hurricanes of the late 1990’s. 
Overwash terraces extended as far as 328‐656 ft across the leveled barrier island (CLEARY et al., 2006). 
Bertha and Fran (1996) and Floyd (1999) were among the most destructive and costly storms ever to 
impact North Carolina. Frequent storm events affecting the region have increased erosion of oceanfront 
property. 

Most recently, in September 2018, Hurricane Florence made landfall near Wrightsville Beach as a strong 
category 1 storm. The duration of this storm event was extremely long and the cumulative impacts of 
the lasting hurricane force winds, surf, and tides wreaked havoc on Topsail Island. While total losses of 
property were limited in Surf City, the dune and beach system were severely eroded leaving the 
majority of the properties within town limits in imminent danger and fronted by a scarped or 
nonexistent dune system.  
3.0 Project Purpose 

3.1 Integration of Navigation and Nourishment  

As with most coastal towns, the beach itself is the number one economic resource and driving factor in 
the local economy. A close second is the surrounding waterways and boating access and as such, both 
need to be maintained. With a year‐round population of approximately 2,100 residents and a 
summertime population of nearly 19,000, it is easy to see that the draw of the beach, ocean and 
waterways have a huge impact on the local economy. Ensuring that both of these natural resources 
remain attractive to visitors, provide storm protection to residents, and protect the Town’s 
infrastructure is the ultimate goal of a successful beach and sound management plan. 

In February 2017, the USACE received guidance from headquarters that essentially made all dredge 
disposal areas off limits. Under these guidelines, disposal on the beach is the only option for a project of 
this magnitude. By beneficially using material dredged from Banks Channel, combined with remaining 
sand within the permitted channels for the Town of Topsail Beach, both facets of the project are 
completed—the beach receives high quality sands to replace eroded sands and maintain the high quality 
coastal environment that draws summertime visitors to Surf City. In unison with the nourishment of the 
beach, because the local channel systems are the sources of sand, navigation behind Topsail Beach and 
Surf City is significantly improved and completed at one time rather than leaving ‘speed bumps’ or 
extraneous shoals within the channels. The proposed dredge channel dimensions provide sufficient 
capacity to allow for the historic shoaling rates to infill the channel while still providing navigation at the 
federally authorized depths for the designed return period of the project, estimated at 4 to 5 years. 

Traditionally, beach nourishment projects and navigation dredging projects have focused on each 
individual aspect. Offshore borrow sites have been the go‐to source for sand used to restore beaches, 
excavating expansive shoals miles off the beach and placing the material on the beach via pipeline or 
hydraulic dredge. Due to their spatial size, the offshore borrow sites often provide substantial volumes 
of beach quality sand and are viable resources for multiple nourishment projects. However because they 
are outside of the active sediment transport zone, they do not recharge and once the sand supply has 
been exhausted a new search for sand must occur. Beach quality sand exists in the northern portion of 
Banks Channel due to overwash fans associated with the string of 1990’s hurricanes. The proximity of 
this channel area to the dynamic inlet zone does not produce tidal currents strong enough to transport 
beach quality sand within this area. While the volume of sand exists in the channel system to perform an 
initial construction project for Surf City, future locally funded projects will need to search for an 
alternative, most likely offshore, borrow source.  

3.2 Increased Shoreline Protection  

In the early 2000s, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed the feasibility study 
and approved a Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) project for the Town of Surf City, aimed at 
protecting
consists o
anticipatio
the projec
construct
for initial 
NAVD wit
dune slop
coming fr

As mentio
combined
approved
design ag
authoriza
frame. W
before the
project, sp
to contrib
congress. 

Figure 4.  U
of the beac
Dune‐and‐
g coastal prop
of 2 stages of 
on of equilibr
ct. The maint
ion beach. As
construction 
th a 1:15 beac
pe. The initial 
om offshore 
oned before, 
d project cove
 to start cons
reement was
tion will expi
ith no approp
e sunset clau
plit between 
bute their por
Without bot
USACE federal 
ch nourishmen
‐Berm bolded l
perties and in
construction
rium induced
enance portio
s shown in Fig
and then ma
ch slope. The 
construction
borrow areas
this Federal C
ering both Su
struction on t
s executed on
re ten years f
priations avai
se is initiated
Surf City and
rtion of the fu
h Towns payi
beach templat
nt program. Th
ine for future 
nfrastructure 
—an initial co
 erosion and 
on of the pro
gure 4, this fe
aintains the b
dune would 
 of this proje
s.  
CSDR was aut
rf City and No
his project th
n August 8, 20
from enactme
lable through
d are very slim
 North Topsa
unds if and wh
ing their port
te design. The 
he next cycle of
projects.  
from major s
onstruction w
then mainten
oject is a much
ederal beach 
erm at 50 ft w
be 25 ft wide
ct would con
thorized by co
orth Topsail B
hrough the FY
011 for the Su
ent unless co
h the 2020 fis
m. The Non‐Fe
ail Beach, is $4
hen the Fede
ion, the entir

initial constru
f beach replen
storm events.
which constru
nance portion
h smaller bea
berm design 
wide maintain
e at an elevat
sist of 6.6 mi
ongress for co
Beach. No Fed
Y 2020 budget
urf City/North
nstruction is 
cal year, the 
ederal cost sh
49,983,000 a
eral appropria
re project wo
ction (grey line
ishment effort
. The federal 
cts a large be
n for the rem
ach than the i
included a 30
ned at an elev
ion of 14 ft N
llion cubic ya
onstruction in
deral appropr
t. Additionally
h Topsail Beac
initiated with
chances of th
hare of the in
nd both town
ations are app
uld remain un
e) would be bu
ts would only b
beach design
each in 
aining lifetim
nitial 
00 ft wide ber
vation of 6 ft 
AVD with a 1
rds of beach 
n 2014 as a 
riations have 
y, the origina
ch project and
hin this time 
he project sta
itial construc
ns must be re
proved by 
nfunded. 
uilt for the first
be filled to the 
n 
me of 
rm 
1:10 
fill 
been 
al 
d this 
arting 
ction 
eady 

t cycle 
1550 
Due to th
construct
a better lo
determine
volume of
template 
average 8
initial bea
the projec
primary d
dune face
consist of
southern 
Station 24
project de
Highway 4
project). F
construct
the north
on the be
Figure 5. P
condition a
be done by
e uncertainty
ion costs, the
ong term solu
e the best de
f economical 
that would b
85 ft wide ber
ach design allo
ct will be com
dune, howeve
e will be dress
f approximate
terminus of B
45+00 in Bank
esign, high qu
421 in Wilmin
Final placeme
ion logistics a
ern end of Su
ach, where it
Proposed beach
and the black l
y truck haul an
y in Federal ap
e Town has de
ution. In fall o
sign beach te
sand, and Su
egin a long te
rm at an eleva
ows for repai
mpleted by a s
er if any scarp
sed up to rest
ely 1.6 million
Banks Side Ch
ks Channel. T
uality beach s
ngton (the sa
ent areas of h
at the start of
urf City, from 
t will meet th
hfill template. 
ine indicates t
nd berm and slo
ppropriations
ecided to sele
of 2017, a con
emplates for t
urf City’s budg
erm beach m
ation of 5 ft N
r of any scarp
separate truc
ping to that du
tore a 5H:1V 
n cubic yards 
hannel 1 to th
o supplemen
and will be tr
me sand min
hydraulically p
f the project, 
the North To
e hydraulic b
The colored lin
he proposed te
ope constructi
s and time fra
ect an alterna
nditional beac
the Town of S
get, TI Coasta
anagement p
NAVD with a 2
ped dunes by
ck haul projec
une is presen
slope. Initial 
of beach fill, 
he northern e
t the total ma
rucked in from
e that has be
placed and tru
however it is
opsail Beach t
each placeme
nes indicate th
emplate of the
on by hydrauli
ame, coupled
ate interim pr
ch survey was
Surf City. Give
l developed a
plan for Surf C
20H:1V natur
y adding a 5H
ct, working to
nt at the time 
construction 
dredged from
extent of beac
aterial neede
m the ST Woo
en utilized fo
ucked in sand
s likely that th
town line to a
ent area. 
he June 2018, J
e beach placem
ic dredge.  
 with the hig
roject that is m
s completed i
en the condit
a feasible bea
City. The temp
al beach slop
:1V slope. The
 rebuild the p
of hydraulic 
of this local p
m Banks Chan
ch compatible
ed to complet
oten sand min
or the dune re
d will depend
his material w
approximately
anuary 2019, a
ment area. Dun
h initial 
more feasible
in order to 
ion of the be
ach nourishm
plate entails a
pe (Figure 5). T
e dune portio
pre‐Florence 
construction,
project would
nnel from the 
e material at 
te the beachf
ne located on
estoration 
 upon 
will be placed 
y station 220+

and July 2019 b
ne construction
e and 
ach, 
ent 
an 
The 
on of 
, the 
d 
ill 
n 
on 
+00 
beach 
n will 
3.3 Navigational Benefit 
As mentioned in the section above a secondary benefit from this project is to provide and maintain 
navigation at the federally authorized depths over the 4‐5 year design cycle of the project. By creating 
shoaling capacity, the need for intermittent work between beach nourishment projects would be 
removed. Not only does this reduce the temporal environmental impact to the shallow water channel 
systems, it also alleviates the burden to the USACE dredge fleet. The sidecast dredges Fry and Merritt 
have been the USACE dredges to address shoaling and navigation issues in shallow draft inlets along the 
eastern seaboard. Despite being maintained and managed by the local USACE Wilmington District, these 
dredges are used in inlet systems from New Jersey to South Carolina. To exacerbate the burden of the 
sidecast dredges, the Fry was decommissioned in 2011 due to its age. This leaves the aging Merritt, 
which is over 50 years old, as the only available sidecast dredge to perform work on 25 separate inlet 
systems along the Atlantic coast. By establishing a navigational dredging plan for the Banks Channel 
system adjacent to Surf City, the Merritt would be free to address issues in other shallow draft inlets. 
As mentioned previously, the initial construction project for Surf City will utilize whatever sand remains 
within the Topsail Beach Nourishment Projects permitted templates after Topsail completes their 
project in the fall of 2019. It is anticipated that the Topsail project will require somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 2.1 million cubic yards of sand to complete their nourishment which leaves 
approximately 1.3 million yards in template. Dredging within Banks Channel for the Surf City project will 
begin near Station 35+00 and continue northward to station 245+00. Dredge depths for Banks Channel 
will follow what is currently permitted for Topsail Beach, with dredge depths of 16+2’ MLW from station 
35+00 to 40+00 and 12+2’ MLW from station 41+00 to 245+00. The channel width is 200’ wide for the 
entire channel, aside from the permitted channel widener’ in Banks Channel near the intersection with 
Banks Side Channel 1. Approximately 1.3 million CY of high quality sand exists within this section of 
channel. Piggy backing the Surf City project onto the Topsail project creates a comprehensive cleaning of 
the channel system and removes all hot spot shoals from the system.  
4.0 Proposed Project Description 
4.1 Surf City Beachfill 
Surf City is proposing to undertake an interim, emergency beach nourishment project until the Federal 
CSDR Project is appropriated or sunsets in 2021 and a locally funded long term Beach Management Plan 
can be adapted. Coupled with the truck haul dune restoration project, these projects would begin work 
to rebuild the primary dune system that was eroded during Hurricane Florence as well as create a dry 
sand beach in front of the dune to keep wave energy further offshore, reduce dune scarping, and 
protect dune crossovers. The beach placement would occur along the full length of beach within Surf 
City, from the town line with Topsail Beach on the south and the town line with North Topsail Beach on 
the north (Figure 6).  

Figure 6. B
Topsail Bea

Given the
Hurricane
relief to th
proposes 
scarping/e
be 20H:1V
Beach to 
sand to fil

 Surf City 
badly dam
pending p
the entire
and have 
project. T
will dictat
the time o
above in F
proposed
Channel. W
dredging 
sand exist
complete 
mine, on 
Channel. A
proposed

4.2 Hydra

Initial ren
west of To
Banks Cha
Vibracore
expanded
permitted
Beach nourishm
ach and includ
e condition of
e Florence, th
he oceanfron
on average a
erosion to the
V. Beach nou
North Topsai
ll the propose
began an em
maged during
permit approv
e length of Su
been eroded
The condition 
te any additio
of berm const
Figure 5, with
 project, and 
Within Banks
under this au
ts within this 
the beachfill
Highway 421 
Approximate
 to be trucke
aulic Dredge A
ourishment o
opsail Beach 
annel to a wid
es collected fo
d channel dim
d portion of B
ment would oc
e all of Surf Cit
f the beach as
e initial proje
nt homes and 
a 85 foot wide
e truck haule
rishment wou
l Beach lines 
ed template. 
ergency Post
 the storm. T
val, will begin
rf City. Areas
 will be repai
of the dune s
onal dune wo
truction. A ty
h the dune co
the berm and
s Channel, the
uthorization h
portion of th
 for the full S
in Wilmingto
ly 450,000 cu
d in and place
Areas 
of Surf City pr
and Surf City
dth of 200 fee
or Topsail’s pe
mensions end 
Banks Channe
cur within the 
ty. 
s described ab
ect for Surf Cit
Town’s infra
e dry sand be
d dune. The f
uld cover the 
and is estima
t Florence tru
his project w
n again on No
s of dunes tha
red and dres
system as a w
rk that is nee
ypical cross se
nstruction be
d beach slope
e quality of sa
has been trun
e Banks Chan
urf City berm
on, NC is prop
ubic yards of s
ed on the nor
roposes to us
. The Town of
et and depths
ermitting effo
there. Nouris
el. In the time
red oceanfron
bove in the 20
ty is triage in 
structure fro
rm at elevatio
front dune slo
entire length
ated to requir
ck haul proje
as put on hia
vember 16, 2
at were previo
sed up during
whole at the t
eded to ensur
ection of the c
eing complete
e being const
and degrades
cated here. A
nnel template
m template, tr
posed to supp
supplementa
rthern portio
e beach qual
f Topsail Beac
s ranging from
ort only exten
shment of Su
 since the To
nt beach areas,
017 analysis a
nature and s
m future coa
on 5 ft NAVD
ope will be 5H
h of Surf City,
re approxima
ect to rebuild 
tus due to en
2019, comple
ously constru
g the hydraul
time of this pr
e the dune te
completed be
ed by truck ha
tructed by hyd
s north of stat
Approximatel
e (16+2’ MLW
rucked in sand
plement the h
l sand from t
n of Surf City
ity shoaled sa
ch recently pe
m 16+2’ MLW
nded to statio
rf City seeks t
psail Permit w
, from Topsail 
and the recen
seeks to provi
stal storm ev
88 and repair
H:1V and the 
 from the Tow
tely 1.6 millio
sections of d
nvironmental 
ting dune rec
ucted by the t
ic beach fill p
roposed cons
emplate is ful
eachfill templ
aul prior to th
draulic dredg
tion 245+00 a
y 1.3 million 
W and 12+2’ M
d from the ST
hydraulic fill f
he upland san
. 
and within Ba
ermitted dred
W to 12+2’ ML
on 210+00 an
to utilize this 
was submitte
Beach to North
nt impacts fro
ide immediat
ents. This pro
ring the dune
beach slope 
wn of Topsail
on cubic yard
unes lost and
moratoriums
construction a
truck haul pro
portion of the
struction proj
l and comple
late can be se
he start of thi
ging of Banks 
and therefore
cubic yards o
MLW). In orde
T Wooten san
from Banks 
nd mine is 
anks Channel,
dging within 
LW deep. 
d therefore t
currently 
d, additional 

h 
om 
te 
oject 
e 
will 

s of 
d 
s and, 
along 
oject 
e 
ect 
ete at 
een 
is 
e 
of 
er to 
nd 
, 
the 
cores hav
intersecti
vibracore
245+00 in
placemen
alleviate t

The timin
completin
system fo
beach nou
Through C
estimated
1.3 million
and Topsa
for Surf C
this applic
Programm
and Biolog

Figure 7. C
Side Chann

4.3 Pipeli

Pipeline r
crossing a
Grant in T
dredge pi
traffic and

Through v
under the
the only a
road is no
ve been collec
on with the A
s, the increas
n Banks Chann
nt. Given the e
the concern f
g and plan fo
ng its ongoing
or the entire le
urishment pr
Channel, Bank
d 2.1 million c
n cubic yards 
ail’s beachfill 
ity utilizing be
cation. This p
matic Biologic
gical Opinion
Channel dredgi
nel 1 to Station
ne Crossings 
outes for the
at Oleander D
Topsail Beach
peline to cros
d environmen
verbal coordi
e road due to 
access road to
ot washed out
cted to charac
AIWW at stati
sed width of 2
nel—thereaft
essential timi
or any unsuit
or the Novem
g truck haul d
ength of the T
oject, utilizing
ks Connector
cubic yards is 
within the pe
project are c
each quality s
roposed dred
cal Opinion an
. 
ng will occur w
n 245+00. 
 project will e
Drive in the so
. The over ro
ss from Banks
ntal impact of
nation with t
the sandbagg
o the souther
t during storm
cterize the se
ion 328+00. G
200 feet and d
ter, the qualit
ing for this pe
table materia
ber 16, 2019 
une reconstr
Town. At the 
g permitted s
r Channel, Ban
required for 
ermitted cha
ompleted in o
sand in Banks
dge area for S
nd remedies t
within the red B
extend from t
outhern end o
ad crossing a
s Channel to t
f pipeline rou
he NCDOT, an
ged dunes on
rn end of Top
m events. A d
ediments from
Given the qua
depth of 12+
ty of sand deg
ermit applicat
l placement o
start of dredg
uction projec
same time, T
sand sources 
nks Channel, 
Topsail Beac
nnel template
or around Fe
s Channel (Sta
Surf City also 
the need for a
Banks Channel
the Banks Cha
of Surf City an
t Oleander Co
the oceanfro
utes through c
n over road c
n the oceanfro
sail Island, an
irectional bo
m Banks Chan
ality of sand fo
2’ MLW is pro
grades and is
tion, every at
on the beach
ge season inc
ct, restoring a
Topsail Beach
of Topsail Inl
and Banks Sid
h to complete
es. After the 
bruary 2020, 
ations 35+00 
places the ch
a project spe
 template exte
annel dredge
nd the existin
ourt and Sout
nt beach disp
critical dune h
rossing is pre
ont shoreline
nd the sandba
re under the 
nnel station 2
ound in the c
oposed to con
 questionable
ttempt has be
.   
cludes Surf Ci
a continuous 
h will begin co
et, Topsail Cr
de Channels 1
e their projec
dune constru
hydraulic dre
to 245+00), p
hannel system
cific Environm
ending from th
e area to a pla
g pipeline cro
th Shore Driv
posal area wh
habitat.  
eferred to a d
e, protecting R
ags are in plac
road would d
10+00 to the 
collected 
ntinue to Stat
e for beach 
een made to 
ty continuing
primary dune
onstruction on
reek, the Cut 
1 and 2. An 
ct, leaving nea
uction in Surf 
edging will be
proposed wit
m under the S
mental Analys
he southern en
anned over ro
ossing at Que
ve allows the 
hile minimizin
irectional bor
Route 50. Thi
ce to ensure t
disrupt the 
tion 
g and 
e 
n its 
arly 
City 
egin 
hin 
tate 
sis 

d of 
oad 
eens 
ng 
re 
s is 
the 
sandbag p
crossing is
center of 
be covere
vehicular 
2H:1V slo
along the 

Dredge pi
northwar
Sporadic b
both in Ba
needs and
the Surf C
from the c
crossing a
will be ret

placement an
s preferred by
Oleander Ct a
ed by crush an
crossings. To
pe with wate
roadside.  
ipe will stretc
d on the beac
booster pump
anks Channel
d equipment.
City bridge an
construction 
are temporary
turned to its 
Figure 8. Propo
nd create a po
y the NCDOT
and then ove
nd run with 6
otal width will
er barriers alo
ch from this lo
ch of Surf City
ps may be ne
, along the be
. The dredging
d Broadway A
site. All of th
y in nature. A
pre‐project co
osed over road
otential weak
. This crossing
er South Shore
6H:1V slopes l
l allow for 2 s
ong the side to
ocation both 
y until reachin
eeded to assis
each, or sligh
g contractor w
Avenue towa
e proposed g
At the conclus
ondition. 
d pipeline cros
k point in the 
g will involve
e Drive (Rout
eading up to 
separate 12’ r
o separate th
southward to
ng the end of
st in pumping
tly offshore w
will utilize ve
rds the north
gravel fill and 
sion of the be
sing with vehic
protective du
 the dredge p
te 50). The cro
a 30’ wide ho
roadways. Th
he crossing ra
o the Topsail 
f the job at th
g the sand but
will be dictate
hicle crossov
hern end of to
water barrier
eachfill projec
cular ramp at O
une. As such, 
pipeline exten
ossing at Sou
orizontal cres
e crossing ed
mp from ped
Beach town l
he North Tops
t final locatio
ed by the fina
ers at Kinston
own for all ing
rs used for th
ct, the entire 
Oleander Ct. in
an over the r
nding down th
th Shore driv
st to allow for
ges will be on
destrian traffic
ine and 
sail Beach line
n of these pu
al contractors 
n Avenue, ne
gress and egr
he pipeline 
pipeline cross
n Surf City. 
road 
he 
ve will 
r easy 
n a 
c 
e. 
umps, 

ar 
ress 
sing 

4.4 Environmental Impacts 
Efforts to reduce the overall environmental footprint of the project have been built into the design, from 
following the azimuths of the Federally authorized navigation channel in Banks Channel to a natural 
beach design that minimizes scarping and mimics the existing beach profile. All work proposed for Surf 
City falls within the guidelines of already established Biological Opinions (BOs). Dredging and beachfill 
associated with the Banks Channel system and Surf City oceanfront beaches should fall under the North 
Carolina Statewide Programmatic BO (attached in appendices). Additionally, a BO was written for the 
recently permitted project at Topsail Beach and as these two projects are extremely similar in nature 
(borrow areas and beachfill design); all work in Surf City should fall within these parameters as well. 
Finally, the USACE Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project for Surf City and North Topsail Beach has 
been approved and permitted and the Federal Environmental Impact Statement/BO for this project 
blankets beachfill work proposed here within. All work associated with this project and under this 
permit application will fall within the auspices of these three, previously defined and accepted, 
Biological Opinions. 
5.0 Geotechnical Information 
5.1 Vibracore Collection 
Core collection began on March 29, 2018 when TI Coastal contracted Athena Technologies, Inc. to 
collect 13 vibracores from Banks Channel adjacent to the Town of Surf City to investigate and determine 
if shoaled material in the channels was beach compatible in accordance to the North Carolina 
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Sediment Criteria Rules. All cores were collected with 3 
inch diameter aluminum pipes and pneumatically vibrated into the substrate. The cores were taken back 
to Athena Technologies’ shop, where the core barrels were split longitudinally and cut into 5 foot 
sections, with one half of the core dedicated to descriptions and sampling and the other transferred to 
3‐inch PVC and wrapped for archiving. The split cores were delivered to TI Coastal’s USACE certified 
Geotechnical Lab on April 5, 2018. An additional vibracore (TB‐48) was included in this initial study from 
a previous project and the same procedure for collection was executed.   
The core layout and spacing was created by TI Coastal in accordance with the NCDEQ Sediment Criteria 
Rules for borrow site characterization, allowing for 1,000 foot spacing between cores and  taken on the 
shallower sides of Banks Channel (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Athena Technologies loaded the proposed 
core locations into their on‐board navigation software and used Differential Global Positioning System 
(DGPS) positioning to navigate to each core location. Water depths on site were collected via survey rod 
and then tide adjusted by coordinating with TI Coastal personnel who read tide levels from an 
established tide board at the Surf City Boat Ramp. This information provided the top of hole elevation, in 
NAVD88, and allowed Athena to calculate their goal penetration depth, which was set at 2 feet below 
the proposed dredge overdepth (‐14' NAVD88). The additional 2 feet of penetration allows for some 
core loss upon retrieval while still ensuring the total core recovery covered the entire proposed dredge 
depths. 

Initial results of the March 2018 sampling effort and subsequent analysis revealed the potential for 
unsuitable material residing within the proposed dredge template, near the northwesterly turn of Banks 
Channel towards the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Significant findings of silt and oyster shells, from 
relict marsh banks, were found in the cores. In order to better delineate the area of unsuitable material 
and isolate it for separate disposal methods, additional vibracores were proposed in the questionable 
area. The supplemental cores were spaced between the March 2018 core locations with the goal of 
isolating the unsuitable material and maximizing the beach compatible sand. Athena Technologies was 
again contracted to collect the cores and work was completed on July 11 and 12, 2019 with the same 
procedures as the first sampling effort. After splitting the cores at their office, Athena delivered the 
2019 Surf City vibracores to TI Coastal on July 19, 2019. 

5.2 Vibracore Analysis 

Core photography and descriptions began on April  5, 2018 and was completed on April 13, 2018. Core 
descriptions focused on sediment texture and grain size, Munsell sediment color, sorting and visual 
USCS classification. A total of 43 representative samples, one for each distinct stratigraphic layer in the 
cores, were collected for grain size and calcium carbonate analysis. Each sample was transferred into a 
porcelain evaporating dish and dried in a bench oven at 215o Fahrenheit for at least 10 hours and held 
for testing in a sealed plastic zip lock bag. Grain size statistics were generated by running approximately 
200 grams of the dried sediment sample through TI Coastal’s stack of sieves on a sieve shaker for 25 
minutes (Table 1). The incremental weight retained was recorded and entered into gINT, a geotechnical 
software that generates data reports based upon user defined sediment statistics.  GINT utilized the 
weight retained on each sieve to determine the critical statistics: mean grain size, median grain size, 
standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, sorting, percent fines, and USCS classification. Grain size 
analysis was completed on April 16, 2018. 
Calcium carbonate testing began on April 17, 2018 and was completed on April 19, 2018. Analysis was 
conducted via acid digestion where 3 molar hydrochloric acid was introduced to approximately 50 grams 
of the dried sediment sample. The acid was added until the chemical reaction ceased, indicating all of 
the CaCO3 was dissolved from the sample. The remaining sediment was rinsed with distilled water and 
then dried in a bench oven at 215o Fahrenheit for at least 10 hours and weighed a second time once dry. 
The percentage of calcium carbonate was determined by the difference in weight between the original 
sample and the final sample. 

The 2019 core descriptions and photography was completed between July 23 and 25, 2019. Utilizing the 
same procedures as before, the split vibracores were analyzed by a North Carolina Professional 
Geologist, describing each individual stratigraphic layer and collecting representative samples for each 
sedimentary layer for grain size analysis, Munsell colors, and calcium carbonate testing. Geotechnical 
testing for the 2019 cores was conducted between July 29 and August 9, 2019 thus creating grain size 
distribution curves, granularmetric tables, and determining Munsell color for the representative 
samples.  

The following week, the vibracore spider map was updated by incorporating the additional cores as well 
as the 2019 Surf City monitoring data. The spider map breaks the proposed dredge area in Banks 
Channel into polygons where one vibracore represents the sediment within that segment of channel 
(map is included in Appendix A). The polygons were delineated by the midpoint of the straight line 
distance between two adjacent cores. Volume analysis was performed within the channel footprint for 
each core compartment to determine the amount of sediment each core layer represented. Once the 
total volume of sediment for the individual core layer was calculated, a weighted average of the sieve 
analysis was created, multiplying the total volume by the percent of sediment retained on each sieve. 
Compiling these numbers, an overall composite sample was created for Banks Channel in order to 
compare the borrow area sediment to the Native sand found on Surf City’s oceanfront beach. 

Calcium carbonate testing for the 2019 cores was completed on August 20 and 21, 2019 and utilized the 
same procedure as described for the 2018 vibracore samples. The calcium carbonate percentages were 
added to the final Surf City Banks Channel statistical analysis.  

Because the proposed dredge area of Banks Channel extends southward to Station 35+00 and the Surf 
City Banks Channel vibracores covered the area from 210+00 to 328+00, the volumetric and 
geotechnical information completed for the Banks Channel dredging portion of the Topsail Beach 
Nourishment and Dredging Project were incorporated into the final spreadsheet. Only cores that 
represented material within the proposed dredge template from 35+00 to 210+00 were used, but this 
provides a comprehensive geotechnical investigation of the sediment within the entire proposed dredge 
area. Compiling these numbers, an overall composite sample was created for Banks Channel.  

Preliminary comments from regulatory agencies after an initial permit submission on May 23, 2019 
indicated potential issues with sediment color. Review of initial procedures indicates that the Munsell 
colors were taken while the sample was wet and errantly recorded as a dry Munsell color in our 
geotechnical reports. These color hue, value, and chroma do not accurately represent the final color of 
dredged sediment after it has been placed on the beach and allowed to oxidize. Virgin material within 
the template has resided in an anoxic environment for an extended period of time and is therefore very 
dark in coloration when first removed from the ground. Allowing the material to naturally dry in the sun 
provides a better interpretation of the final sediment color once placed on the beach. The 2018 
vibracore samples were re‐evaluated for Munsell color by drying through an open‐air, sun drying 
process, allowing the sediment to oxidize naturally and lighten due to solar radiation as it would 
naturally on the beach. Between August 4 and August 9, 2019 the 2018 core samples were placed in 
aluminum pan baking dishes and left in a sunny area near TI Coastal’s geotechnical lab until completely 
dried. These samples were then photographed with the 2.5YR Munsell color classification sheet to 
provide better insight to the actual sediment colors. Representative samples from the 2019 cores were 
dried in the oven, but still photographed with the 2.5YR Munsell page for comparison. The sediment 
coloration was re‐evaluated for each 2018 sample and updated in the official sample records and all 
samples appear to be compatible with the native beach sediment.  Photographs of the sun dried (2018) 
and oven dried (2019) sediments can be found in the digital copy of Appendix A. 
Subsequent submittals of the summer 2019 vibracores and associated geotechnical analysis indicate 
that material in template north of Station 245+00 in Banks Channel degrades in quality as the quantity 
of clastic material and silt increases. To minimize any influx of unsuitable material for this project, the 
dredge area has been truncated to Station 245+00 under this permit application. 

Table 1. The sieve set used to calculate the grain size statistics (i.e. sorting, mean, median, skewness, 
and kurtosis). Classification based on the Wentworth grade scale. 

Figure 9. Vibracore summary provided by Athena Technologies for March 2018 and July 2019 sampling efforts. 

Figure 9. Vibracore summary provided by Athena Technologies for March 2018 and July 2019 sampling efforts. 

F
a
e
Figure 10. The 27
area to Station 24
efforts.
7 vibracore locatio
45+00 in Banks C
ons in Banks Cha
hannel. As such, 
nnel adjacent to 
Core SC‐04 is the
the Town of Surf
e last represented
f City. This permit
d vibracore and o
t application trun
only 19‐SC‐01 wa
ncates the propos
s used from the 2

sed dredge 
2019 core 
5.3 Surf City Native Grain Size Analysis 

According to the CRC guidelines, sediment sampling and analysis was conducted to capture the three‐
dimensional spatial variability of the sediment characteristic such as grain size, sorting and mineralogy 
within the natural system;  Shore‐perpendicular topographic and bathymetric surveying of the beach 
was conducted to determine the beach profile.  Topographic and bathymetric surveying occurred along 
seven shore‐perpendicular transects that were evenly spaced throughout the entire project area.  Each 
transect extended from the frontal dune crest seaward to a depth of ‐20' NAVD88, and the transect 
spacing was 5,000' ft in the shore‐parallel direction.  Elevation data for all transects were referenced to 
the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and the North American Datum of 1983.  A total of 15 
sediment samples were taken along each beach profile transect. At least one sample was taken from the 
frontal dune, frontal dune toe, mid berm, mean high water (MHW), mid tide (MT), mean low water 
(MLW), trough, bar crest and at even depth increments from 6' NAVD88 ft to 20' NAVD88 ft. The total 
number of samples taken landward of MLW were equal to the total number of samples taken seaward 
of MLW.  

A total of 105 samples were collected along 5 transects (15 samples each transect), TB‐27, TB‐32, TB‐37, 
TB‐42, TB‐47, TB‐52, and TB‐57 (Figure 11). For each transect a sample was taken at the dune crest, 
dune toe, mid‐berm, MHW, foreshore, MT, elevation 0' NAVD88, MLW, trough, bar crest, elevation ‐6' 
NAVD88, elevation ‐8' NAVD88, elevation ‐12' NAVD88, elevation ‐16' NAVD88, and elevation ‐20' 
NAVD88. Samples from the dune crest to ‐6’ elevation NAVD88 were collected on April 16, 2018 and 
April 17, 2018 while offshore samples from ‐8’ elevation NAVD88 to ‐20' NAVD88 elevation were 
collected on May 16, 2018. With the exception of TB‐27 rather than a sample be taken at elevation ‐12' 
NAVD88, a sample was taken at ‐10' NAVD88 due to rough seas.  

After the collection of sediment samples, the samples were taken back to TI Coastal's USACE certified 
geotechnical laboratory for further analysis. Similar to the vibracore analysis, description of color 
according to the Munsell Color chart was performed along with grain size analysis of each sample.  Each 
sample was transferred into a porcelain evaporating dish and dried in a bench oven at 215o Fahrenheit 
for at least 10 hours and held for testing in a sealed plastic zip lock bag. Grain size statistics were 
generated by running approximately 200 grams of the dried sediment sample through TI Coastal’s stack 
of sieves on a sieve shaker for 25 minutes (Table 1). The incremental weight retained was recorded and 
entered into gINT, a geotechnical software that generates data reports based upon user defined 
sediment statistics.  GINT utilized the weight retained on each sieve to determine the critical statistics: 
mean grain size, median grain size, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, sorting, percent fines, and 
USCS classification. Grain size analysis was completed on May 23, 2018.  
Calcium carbonate testing began on May 18, 2018 and was completed on May 29, 2018. Analysis was 
conducted via acid digestion where 3 molar hydrochloric acid was introduced to approximately 50 grams 
of the dried sediment sample. The acid was added until the chemical reaction ceased, indicating all of 
the CaCO3 was dissolved from the sample. The remaining sediment was rinsed with distilled water and 
then dried in a bench oven at 215o Fahrenheit for at least 10 hours and weighed a second time once dry. 
The percentage of calcium carbonate was determined by the difference in weight between the original 
sample and the final sample. 

The USACE completed its own internal grain size analysis for the Town of Surf City and found a mean 
grain size of 0.22 mm and visually 10% shell fragments (USACE, 2010). While TI Coastal's native grain size 
analysis for the Town of Surf City was found to have a mean grain size of 0.25 mm and CaCO3 of 6.6%. 
The proposed borrow area in Banks Channel had a mean grain size of 0.33 mm and CaCO3 of 16.5%. The 
percentage silt and clay (sediment size ≤0.063 mm), gravel (material with a diameter ≥4.76 mm), and 
granular sediment (2.0 mm to 4.76 mm) are all under 5% of the native (Table 4 and Table 5).  
A 50,000 sqft location of oceanfront beach in Surf City was analyzed for large clastic material ‐ exceeding 
3” in diameter‐ on the existing beach.  The summation of large clasts is needed to calculate sand 
composition and grain size distribution of the existing shoreline environment.  The survey location is 
near the intersection of Craven Ave and N. Shore Dr in Surf City, NC. The area extended from the toe of 
the dune to the shoreline MLW.  For our survey, we made a sample area of 500ft x 100ft. and broke it 
down into 5, 100ft x 100ft sections. We counted the number of large shells and sediment (clasts) that 
exceeded 3” in diameter in each 10,000 sqft section using 5ft x 5ft pvc frames as reference tools.  We 
also used an RTK rover to accurately measure the sample area parameters (Figure 12). 
The survey began at Station 257+00 and went northward to Station 262+00. A total of 98 clasts were 
found in the 50,000sqft area.  The majority of large clasts and shells were located at or near the toe of 
the dune, while the rest of the large shells and clasts, were found at or near the low‐tide shoreline.  
During the survey we extended past the 100ft width area in order to survey as close as we could to the 
MLW line. 

Figure 11. Location of sediment samples taken to determine the native grain size and percentage of calcium carbonate for the Town of Surf City, 
N.C. 

Figure 12: 5’x5’ PVC frames and a RTK rover were used as reference tools to verify clasts exceeding 3” in 
diameter from a 50,000 sqft sample beach area. 
5.4 Banks Channel Vibracore Results 
In order to maintain the integrity and quality of the current beach, the North Carolina Coastal Resources 
Commission (CRC) has established standards to prevent large amounts of coarse material (cobbles, large 
shells and shell hash) as well as excessive fine grained material (silt and clay) from being placed on the 
beach. Silt and clay (sediment size ≤0.063 mm), gravel (material with a diameter ≥4.76 mm), and 
granular sediment (2.0 mm to 4.76 mm) are limited to 5% over the percentage found on the native 
beach. The calcium carbonate (shell) fraction of the borrow material is limited to no more than 15% over 
what naturally is found in the fill area. Following within the guidelines of the CRC, TI Coastal determined 
the native grain size for the Town of Surf City.  After completion of all 105 native beach samples the 
results can be found in Tables 2 to 3 while grain size statistics for the Banks Channel dredge area (Station 
35+00 to 245+00) can be found in Table 5.  
Dried sediment samples from 2018 were measured under the Munsell Color classification method.  
Requirements asked that the sediment fall within a Munsell color value of 5/1 or lighter (i.e. 6/1 or 7/1).  
All sediment samples from the 2018 VC that were air‐dried and the 2019 vibracore samples that were 
oven‐dried had a value of 5/1 or lighter in value (6/1 or 7/1). Very few samples indicated any change in 
chroma from gray to yellow, while the vast majority had a chroma gray to light gray within the 2.5Y hue.  
The review of the sediment colors can be seen in the photos in the digital version of Appendix A.  
Volumes were calculated using survey data and drilling log information.  

Despite extra vibracoring efforts to isolate the unsuitable material areas within Banks Channel, it was 
determined that material in the northern portion of the proposed template is questionable enough to 
warrant it being removed completely from this application. The dredge template has been modified and 
the proposed dig area ends at Station 245+00, leaving only high quality beach sand within template. Due 
to the shortened template, the total volume within Banks Channel is no longer sufficient to complete 
the desired beachfill template. Sand from the ST Wooten Mine on highway 421 in Wilmington, NC, 
which was previously permitted for the Surf City Dune truck haul project, is proposed to supplement the 
Banks Channel dredged sand and complete the berm project. 

Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) averages are found in Table 5 of this report and represent weighted 
averages for all cores from 2017 through 2019 within the Banks Channel dredge area and the 
supplemental truck haul sand from the ST Wooten sand mine.  Additionally, the results of our grain size 
analysis can be found in Table 5, showing the mean and median grain size, as well as the average 
percentage of fine, sand, and gravel material from Banks Channel and both upland sand mines.  For 
comparison the CRC thresholds are posted in the table as well.  The overall composite of the combined 
borrow areas falls within the limits set forth by the CRC and proves to be sand source areas for 
nourishment on Surf City. 

Overall grain size statistics tables of the full Banks Channel borrow area (stations 35+00 to 245+00) are 
included in Appendix A. Accompanying these spreadsheets are the grain size distribution curves and 
granularmetric tables for both Surf City Banks and the upland borrow areas at the ST Wooten sand 
mine. 
The average percentages (%) for this report fall well within the CRC threshold.  Calcium Carbonate 
(CaCO3) concentration percentages fall within the 21.6% threshold. Gravel concentration percentages 
are all within 5.3% (Table 5).  Fine aggregates fall within the 5.0% threshold.  Our results indicate that 
our overall percentage of sand in the Banks Channel and ST Wooten Composite totals 95.7% (Table 5).  A 
supporting piece of consistency in our analysis is that each sequential aggregation of Banks Channel 
sediment results averaged resembles the previous individual analyses for this report.  In other words, all 
of the analyses from Table 5 have similar values to one another before and after being merged. 
The high percentage of sand in Banks Channel can be partially attributed to a strong incoming tidal 
current during high tide, carrying and pushing sand into Banks channel (Table 5).  However, this only 
occurs near Topsail Inlet at the entrance of Banks Connector Channel, and Banks Channel.  The large 
percentage of fine to coarse grained sand and granular sediment could be evidence of higher wave 
action and previous storm activity, where more energy keeps larger, heavier material in suspension 
before being deposited in the channel.  However, because this area of the channel is mostly closed off 
from the ocean wave energy, the main source of sand in Banks Channel was deposited from overwash 
fans from previous hurricane and strong storm impacts.  Due to the highly infrequent occurrence of 
overwash fan deposition in this area, navigation maintenance in the upper reaches of Banks Channel is 
not expected in the foreseeable future.  This makes this a one‐time project due to the limited sand 
supply. 
Fine sediment found in our vibracore analysis may be from rain runoff and fluvial discharge into the 
AIWW and Bank Channel and/or biogenous material from past marsh environments.  Fine sediment 
indicates calm water environments.  Circling back to Table 5 below, we can see that the weighted 
average values represented under “Borrow Area Composite” have low quantities of fine sediment and 
fall within the grain size percentage threshold suggesting that the sand in both Banks Channel and the 
ST Wooten sand mine are viable sources for beach nourishment. 
5.5 ST Wooten Upland Borrow Areas 
The material within the proposed template of Banks Channel becomes slightly unsuitable north of 
station 245+00 and in an effort to greatly reduce the chance that any non‐beach quality sand is placed 
on the beach, the proposed dredging ends at this location. Truncating the dredge area has reduced the 
overall volume of sand available for beneficial use placement on the oceanfront beach of Surf City and 
alternative methodologies must not be employed to compensate for the deficit. The upland sand mine 
at ST Wooten, off of Highway 421 in Wilmington, NC has been used for truck haul dune restoration 
projects in both Surf City and North Topsail Beach. The ST Wooten site was used last winter for Surf 
City’s dune project and this it is being used for North Topsail. Material dredged from ST Wooten is run 
through a 3/4” screen at the dredge pipe, stockpiled and sent directly to the beach as bulk material. 
Because of these construction methodologies, a complete geotechnical analysis of the borrow pit at ST 
Wooten was conducted to ensure the dredged material was beach compatible and comparable to the 
native Surf City Sand. A summary of this analysis can be found below. 

ST Wooten’s sand mine, located on Highway 421 in Wilmington, NC, has previously been permitted for 
an emergency Post Hurricane Florence truck haul project and is currently proposed for use under a 
minor modification of CAMA permit 190‐05 to truck in sand from an upland sand mine in order to 
complete the truck haul dune restoration project. This upland sand pit was also permitted for work at 
North Topsail Beach in 2017 (work on this truck haul project to begin in November 2019) and the 
geotechnical information submitted for this project follows. Due to its location and quality of sand, the 
ST Wooten sand mine located at 226 Sutton Lake Road, Wilmington, NC has been identified as 
supplemental source of beach quality sand for Surf City’s berm construction project. The previous study 
and permitting efforts determined the material in the mine was beach compatible in accordance to the 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Equality (NCDEQ) Sediment Criteria. Through collaboration 
with ST Wooten, TI Coastal was granted access to historical geotechnical work completed by S&ME, who 
specialize in core collection and geotechnical analysis. Sediment analysis of the mine began 
development by S&ME, under contract with S.T. Wooten, in 2005 and was able to provide the original 
core logs, grain size distribution curves, granularmetric tables, and maps showing the location of borings 
(Appendix A). TI Coastal Services was provided all of the geotechnical work conducted by S&ME from 
S.T. Wooten for additional analysis.   

 The study area includes 12 borings from 2005, 2 borings from 2007, and 4 borings from 2011/2012 (see 
spider map in Geotechnical Section). The borings included in this analysis are all located within the 
currently active mining area. Review of the core logs reveal that the sediment is very uniform, consisting 
of tan, fine to medium sand with a thin layer of topsoil capping most cores. The material becomes 
increasingly grey and clayey around ‐25’ NAVD88, which is below the currently designed dredge depth. 
Due to ongoing mining operations, some of the material represented by the original core samples has 
been excavated and is no longer present on site and has removed the sparse clay layers that were 
originally found in some cores. 

Despite use since the original permitting in 2017, the topographic survey completed in September 2017 
is included in this application to provide a cohesive correlation between on‐site elevations which were 
reassigned to their respective borings as the new top of hole elevation for the previous analysis. The 
designed dredge depth for the project is ‐20 feet; therefore, material that fell between the current top 
of hole elevation and the designed dredge depth of ‐20 feet was accounted for in determining the total 
volume and anything that was deeper than ‐20 feet was not accounted for in the total volume. Lastly, 
two grab samples were taken from a stock pile at the study site in September of 2017 and were 
analyzed at TI Coastal's geotechnical lab. The grain size statistics resemble the material previously 
documented by S&ME during their geotechnical surveys from 2005 to 2012 and represents the dredge 
material anticipated to be produced from the sand pit in the future. 

The geotechnical data (i.e. core logs, granularmetric tables, etc.) from the 18 borings collected by S&ME 
was used for statistical analysis of the borrow area and calculating the weighted average parameters of 
the borrow area sediment currently within the dredge template. Critical statistics generated from this 
dataset was then compared with the native sand found on Surf City’s beach (Table 5) to ensure borrow 
area compatibility. This analysis was completed by constructing a ‘Spider Map’, which creates a polygon 
where one boring represents the sediment within that polygon (Spider Map in Geotechnical Section). 
The polygons were delineated by the midpoint of the straight line distance between two adjacent cores. 
Volume analysis was performed within the borrow footprint for each core compartment to determine 
the amount of sediment each individual core represented. Once the total volume of sediment for the 
individual core was calculated, a weighted average of the sieve analysis was created, multiplying the 
total volume by the percent of sediment retained on each sieve. Compiling these numbers, an overall 
composite sample was created for the entire sand mine.  

Upon completion of the 'Spider Map' the statistics and volumes calculated for each of the cores were 
entered into gINT, a geotechnical software that generates data reports based upon user defined 
sediment statistics.  GINT utilized the weight retained on each sieve to determine the critical statistics: 
mean grain size, median grain size, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, sorting, percent fines, and 
USCS classification. The total breakdown of the sand mine, includes 18 polygons and based on the 
cumulative grain size statistics calculate in gINT the total sand mine yields a volume of 2,466,100 cubic 
yards of beach compatible sand, of which 760,000 cubic yards are anticipated to be used to supplement 
the sand dredged from Banks Channel (Table 5). 

In order to maintain the integrity and quality of the current beach, the North Carolina Coastal Resources 
Commission (CRC) has established standards to prevent large amounts of coarse material (cobbles, large 
shells and shell hash) as well as excessive fine grained material (silt and clay) from being placed on the 
beach. Silt and clay (sediment size ≤0.063 mm), gravel (material with a diameter ≥4.76 mm), and 
granular sediment (2.0 mm to 4.76 mm) are limited to 5% over the percentage found on the native 
beach (Table 2). The calcium carbonate (shell) fraction of the borrow material is limited to no more than 
15% over what naturally is found in the fill area. 

Native beach sand statistics associated with this permit application have identified the native beach 
characteristics for the proposed nourishment area to have a mean grain size of 0.25 mm, 0.0% silt, 0.3% 
gravel, 0.5% granular and 6.6% calcium carbonate. Based on current criteria established by the North 
Carolina CRC, dredged material being placed on the beach must consist of sediment encompassed 
within 5.0% of the native material – in this case no more than 5.0% silt, 5.3% gravel, 5.5% granular and 
21.6% calcium carbonate. The geotechnical analysis of the grab samples from ST Wooten proves that 
their quality of sand is a good match for the native material on Surf City and well within the limits 
established by the CRC (Table 5). There was no calcium carbonate sampling initiated to the samples 
because the material in the grab sample did not contain any shell fragments.   

Historic use of this mine for the dune construction on Surf City shows it produced high quality beach 
sand with limited amounts of pebbles. Because the pebbles became a source of contention during the 
dune restoration project, all sand to be used for this beach berm nourishment project will be pumped 
through a screening basket as it is harvested from the dredge area at ST Wooten. These screening 
baskets are frequently used on northeastern beachfill project to screen for munitions that were dumped 
offshore following World Wars 1 and 2. The Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) baskets are 
typically steel grate baskets that the dredge discharge is pumped through. Any undesirable material that 
is greater in size than the screening is retained within the basket while the sand passes through. All sand 
to be used for the upcoming dune restoration will be screened by a 3/4” MEC basket as it is dredged 
from the ST Wooten harvest area and stockpiled for the project, thereby removing any unsuitable 
pebbles or rocks that exist in the native material.  
The appendices found at the end of this document contain all the grain size analysis reports for each 
sample taken from the vibracores and sample taken to determine the native grain size for the Town of 
Surf City as well as the full set of geotechnical information used to analyze the sand at the ST Wooten 
plant. Included within these reports are the descriptive vibracore logs, granularmetric reports for each 
sample and cumulative grain‐size distribution curves for each sample. Photographs of the vibracores, 
taken in 2 foot sections, are also included. Detailed spreadsheets of how the composite samples were 
formed can be found there, as well as statistical analysis for each compiled sample. 
VOLUME TABULATIONS (Cubic Yards) 
2019 SURF CITY MONITORING SURVEY DATA 
CHANNEL GRADE OVERDEPTH TOTAL 
Banks Channel 
35+00 to 245+00 
12' MLW 14' MLW 
900,876 404,739 1,305,615 
ST Wooten 450,000  450,000 
GRAND TOTAL 1,350,876 404,739 1,755,615 
Area Grade Total 
Surf City Beachfill 1,623,159 1,623,159 
Table 2. Breakdown of proposed beachfill cubic yardage, amount of material in Banks Channel, and total 
quantity of supplemental truck haul sand required. Total dredged/hauled material is higher than 
required fill to account for typical losses during hydraulic dredging and beachfill.
Table 3. Native sand of Surf City grain size analysis. Individual transect grain size statistics of mean, median, and percentage of calcium 
carbonate. Each statistic contained samples from the dune crest to ‐20' NAVD88.  
Transect Mean 
(mm) 
Median 
(mm) 
Fine% 
(<0.0625 mm) 
Sand% 
(0.0625‐2.00 mm) 
Granular% 
(2.00‐4.76 mm) 
Gravel% 
(4.76‐76.00 mm) 
CaCO3% 
TB‐27 0.24 0.22 0.1 99.2 0.4 0.3 6.9 
TB‐32 0.26 0.23 0.0 99.3 0.5 0.1 4.4 
TB‐37 0.25 0.23 0.0 99.2 0.4 0.2 5.7 
TB‐42 0.22 0.21 0.0 99.4 0.2 0.2 5.2 
TB‐47 0.25 0.23 0.0 98.8 0.5 0.3 8.0 
TB‐52 0.26 0.23 0.0 98.5 0.6 0.6 7.4 
TB‐57 0.26 0.23 0.1 98.4 0.8 0.4 8.9 

Table 4. Native sand of Surf City grain size analysis. Composite of mean, median, and percentage of calcium carbonate for all of the transects in 
the Town of Surf City.  
Composite 
(Native) 
Mean 
(mm) 
Median 
(mm) 
Fine% 
(<0.0625 mm) 
Sand% 
(0.0625‐2.00 mm) 
Granular% 
(2.00‐4.76 mm) 
Gravel% 
(4.76‐76.00 mm) 
CaCO3% 
Average 0.25 0.22 0.0 99.0 0.5 0.3 6.6 

Table 5. Vibracore grain size analysis averages for Banks Channel (35+00 to 245+00), ST Wooten Sand Mine, and the Overall Composite of 
Borrow Areas.  Results are compared to CRC Threshold for viability.  Stations are included for location reference. 
Channel Area Mean 
(mm) 
Median 
(mm) 
Fine% 
(<0.0625 
mm) 
Sand% 
(0.0625‐2.00 
mm) 
Granular% 
(2.00‐4.76 
mm) 
Gravel% 
(4.76‐76.00 
mm) 
CaCO3% 
ST Wooten Sand Mine 0.27 0.28 1.8 97.8 0.3 0.1 N/A 
Banks Channel 
(Sta. 35+00 – 245+00) 0.33 0.25 0.1 94.1 3.1 2.7 16.5 
Borrow Area Composite 0.31 0.26 0.7 95.7 2 1.6 10.1 
Surf City Native 0.25 0.22 0.0 99.0 0.5 0.3 6.6 
CRC Threshold N/A N/A 5.00 N/A 5.50 5.30 21.60 
5.6 Unsui
An abund
problema
unlikely fo
dredging 
terminus 
beaches o
material i
The writte
being disc
compatib
the undes
Avenue. U
placed at 
borrow si
subject to
Creek. Th
the time o
island, ou

Figure 13

table Materi
ance of vibra
atic areas of s
or any non‐co
area has bee
point, we are
of Surf City. D
s encountere
en specificati
charged and d
le material (i.
sirable mater
Upon complet
USACE Dispo
te for the win
o wake‐induce
e material wi
of constructio
tside of the U
. Unsuitable m
al Handling 
acores taken f
ediment with
ompatible sed
n truncated t
e confident th
Despite that, m
ed.  
ons provided
disposed of o
.e. abundant 
ial would be 
tion of the na
osal Area 203,
nter 2010/20
ed erosion du
ll be placed w
on. Otherwise
USACE Right o
material will b
from Banks C
hin the propo
diment to ma
to Station 245
hat only high 
measures and
 in the bid wi
on the beach. 
shell, silt or c
removed and
avigation mai
, outside of th
11 Topsail Be
ue to summer
where needed
e, the unsuita
of Way (Figur
be placed in D
hannel have 
sed template
ake its way to 
5+00. Given t
quality beach
d plans are in 
ill require the
In the event 
clay) is encou
d stored at the
ntenance, th
he Federal AIW
each Nourishm
r boat traffic 
d on the islan
able material 
re 13). 
DA‐203, outsi
done a good 
e. In an effort
the beach du
he appearanc
h sand will be
place for the
e contractor t
that excessiv
ntered, the b
e constructio
e shells and u
WW right‐of‐
ment Project 
which erodes
nd, working to
will be placed
ide of the USA
job of deline
 to ensure th
uring this pro
ce of cores so
e placed on th
e off chance t
o closely mon
ve unsuitable,
beach would b
on staging are
undesirable se
‐way. This isla
and has histo
s the dike sys
o repair the d
d in the uplan
ACE Right of W
ating the 
at it is extrem
ject, the chan
outh of this 
he oceanfront
hat unsuitabl
nitor the mat
, non‐beach 
be scraped an
ea near Broad
ediment will 
and was used
orically been 
tem along To
dike if needed
nd portion of 
Way. 
mely 
nnel 
t 
e 
terial 
nd 
way 
 as a 
opsail 
d at 
the 

CAMA Permit Application 

Project Plan View and Cross Section Drawings 
ATLANTIC OCEAN
SURF CITY
AIWW
AIWW
TOPSAIL BEACH TOPSAIL BEACH
NORTH
Banks Channel
Side Channel 2
Side Channel 1
Banks Connector Banks Channel Beach Resoration Area
387-B N. Green Meadows DriveWilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTPROJECT PERMIT DRAWING
OCTOBER 2019
TOWN OF SURF CITYPENDER & ONLSOW COUNTYNORTH CAROLINA
11x17 = Half Scale
Sheet 4 Sheet 5
TI
-
2
6
TI
-
2
7
TI-
2
8
TI-
2
9
TI-
3
0
TI
-
3
1
TI
-
3
2
TI
-
3
3
TI
-
3
4
TI
-
3
5
TI
-
3
6
TI-
2
5
Topsail Beach
Sh
e
e
t

1
5
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
DA-203 DA-189
T
o
p
s
a
i
l
Banks Connector
To
p
s
a
i
l

I
n
l
e
t
Channel
T
o
p
s
a
i
l

I
n
l
e
t
Side Channel 1
C
r
e
e
k
Sheet 13 Top
Sheet 13 Bottom
Cut Through
Side Cha
n
n
e
l

2
Banks Channel
Banks Channe
l
Banks Channel
Banks Channel
Sheet 14 Top
Sheet 14 Bottom
SHEET: 2 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 1,500'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
750' 1,500'3,000'
Scale: 1" = 1,500'
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Project Control and Sheet Layout
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: October 8, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
Sheet 4 Sheet 5 Sheet 6 Sheet 7 Sheet 8 Sheet 9
TI
-
2
6
TI
-
2
7
TI-
2
8
TI-
2
9
TI-
3
0
TI
-
3
1
TI
-
3
2
TI
-
3
3
TI
-
3
4
TI
-
3
5
TI
-
3
6
TI
-
3
7
TI
-
3
8
TI
-
3
9
TI
-
4
0
TI
-
4
1
TI
-
4
2
TI
-
4
3
TI
-
4
4
TI
-
4
5
TI
-
4
6
TI
-
4
7
TI
-
4
8
TI
-
4
9
TI
-
5
0
TI
-
5
1
TI
-
5
2
TI-
5
3
TI-
5
4
TI
-
5
5
TI
-
5
6
TI
-
5
7
TI
-
5
8
TI
-
5
9
TI-
2
5
Sh
e
e
t

1
5
Top
Sheet 14 Bottom
Surf City, North Carolina
Atlantic Ocean
Construction Area
Construction Area Construction Area
0+00 20+00 40+00 60+00 80+00 100+00 120+00 140+00 160+00 180+00 200+00 220+00 240+00 260+00 280+00 300+00 320+00
Topsail BeachNorth
SHEET: 3 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 1,500'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
750' 1,500'3,000'
Scale: 1" = 1,500'Project Control and Sheet Layout
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: October 8, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
-
3
+
6
3
.
9
6
P
I

6
+
3
6
.
0
3
P
I

1
6
+
3
4
.
5
6
P
I

2
6
+
3
3
.
7
4
P
I

3
6
+
3
2
.
6
9
PI

4
6
+
2
9
.
8
3
-
5
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
1
5
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
2
5
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
3
5
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
4
5
+
0
0
5
0

0
S. Shore Dr.
C
u
t
l
a
s
s

D
r
.
Ma
r
i
t
i
m
e

D
r
.
K
a
t
e
l
y
n

D
r
.
S. Shore Dr.
So
n
w
a
r
d

C
o
v
e
Ol
e
a
n
d
e
r

C
t
.
S. Shore Dr.
Hu
m
p
h
r
e
y

A
v
e
.
C
r
u
t
c
h
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
.
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
o
l
a

L
n
.
Be
a
c
h
w
o
o
d

D
r
.
Landward Extentof Fill
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe
Fill Area
See Cross Sections
Fill Area
See Cross Sections
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
ha
Fi
e
l
d
s

A
v
e
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y

L
n
Be
a
c
h
w
o
o
d

D
r
Pipeline Crossing
Over Road Crossing
so DOT sandbags
are not disturbed
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
of Fill
Seaward Toe
Landward Extentof FillEnd of Dredge Template
Station 245+00
Pipeline Route in
middle of Oleander Ct
Small Surf City owned
access to Soundside
Need easement from
this homeowner to
allow for pipeline to
cross his/her property
SHEET: 4 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENT
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
Vertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Permit Drawing - October 2019
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
11x17 = Half Scale
PI

4
6
+
2
9
.
8
3
PI

5
6
+
2
9
.
6
0
PI

6
6
+
2
9
.
8
5
PI

7
6
+
2
9
.
6
7
PI

8
6
+
2
8
.
9
7
PI

9
6
+
2
5
.
0
5
PI

1
0
6
+
2
1
.
4
8
6
0
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
75
+
0
0
80
+
0
0
85
+
0
0
90
+
0
0
95
+
0
0
10
0
+
0
0
10
5
+
0
0
4
5
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
5
5
+
0
0
S. Shore Dr.
Dr
i
f
t
w
o
o
d

L
n
.
At
k
i
n
s
o
n

R
d
.
Sh
a
e
s

L
a
n
d
i
n
g
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e

L
n
.
Sa
n
d
y

L
n
.
S. Shore Dr.
So
u
n
d

D
r
.
S. Shore Dr.
El
i
z
a
b
e
t
h

S
t
.
S. Shore Dr.
C
u
t
l
a
s
s

D
r
.
Fill Area
See Cross Sections
Fill Area
See Cross Sections
Fill Area
See Cross Sections
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe of Fill
Seaward Toe of Fill
Seaward Toe
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
rd Extent
SHEET: 5 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
PI

1
0
6
+
2
1
.
4
8
PI

1
1
6
+
2
1
.
4
7
PI

1
2
6
+
2
2
.
6
2
PI

1
3
6
+
1
8
.
6
2
PI

1
4
6
+
1
8
.
0
1
PI

1
5
6
+
1
4
.
7
1
PI

1
6
6
+
1
1
.
7
3
10
5
+
0
0
11
0
+
0
0
11
5
+
0
0
12
0
+
0
0
12
5
+
0
0
13
0
+
0
0
13
5
+
0
0
14
0
+
0
0
14
5
+
0
0
15
0
+
0
0
15
5
+
0
0
16
0
+
0
0
16
5
+
0
0
S. Shore Dr.
S. Topsail Dr.
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

A
v
e
.
S. Topsail Dr.
S. Shore Dr.
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
h
o
r
s
e

A
v
e
.
S
e
a
h
o
r
s
e

A
v
e
.
S. Topsail Dr.
S. Shore Dr.
S. Shore Dr.
Wi
n
d
w
a
r
d

D
r
.
Lo
r
e
e
n

D
r
.
Fa
i
r
y
t
a
l
e

L
n
.
Dr
i
f
t
w
o
o
d

L
n
.
At
k
i
n
s
o
n

R
d
.
Ka
r
e
n

S
t
.
Ro
s
e
m
a
r
y

L
n
.
aections
Fill AreaSee Cross Sections Fill AreaSee Cross Sectionsof Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe
of Fill
Seaward Toe
of Fill
Seaward Toe
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Landward Extentof Fill
SHEET: 6 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
PI

1
6
6
+
1
1
.
7
3
PI

1
7
6
+
0
8
.
3
1
PI

1
8
6
+
0
7
.
7
3
PI

1
9
6
+
0
5
.
9
6
PI

2
0
6
+
0
8
.
1
1
PI

2
1
6
+
0
3
.
5
1
PI

2
2
6
+
0
1
.
0
9
16
5
+
0
0
17
0
+
0
0
17
5
+
0
0
18
0
+
0
0
18
5
+
0
0
19
0
+
0
0
19
5
+
0
0
20
0
+
0
0
20
5
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
21
5
+
0
0
22
0
+
0
0
22
5
+
0
0
N. Topsail Dr.
St
e
v
e
n
s

S
t
.
N. Shore Dr.
N. New River Dr.
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

A
v
e
.
N. Topsail Dr.
Ne
w

B
e
r
n

A
v
e
.
N. Shore Dr.
N. Shore Dr.
S. Topsail Dr.
Go
l
d
s
b
o
r
o

A
v
e
.
Gr
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o

A
v
e
.
Ro
l
a
n
d

A
v
e
.
Ki
n
s
t
o
n

A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h

P
o
i
n
t

A
v
e
.
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
t

A
v
e
.
S. Shore Dr.
S. Shore Dr.
S. Topsail Dr.
Du
r
h
a
m

A
v
e
.
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

A
v
e
.
S. New River Dr.
aections
Fill AreaSee Cross Sectionsof Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe
of Fill
Seaward Toe
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Sl
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Landward Extentof Fill
Landward Extentof Fill
Kinston Ave
Construction
Vehicle Access
SHEET: 7 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
PI

2
2
6
+
0
1
.
0
9
PI

2
3
5
+
9
9
.
5
3
PI

2
4
5
+
9
7
.
4
3
PI

2
5
5
+
9
5
.
2
3
PI

2
6
5
+
9
5
.
2
8
PI

2
7
5
+
9
4
.
5
9
PI

2
8
5
+
9
5
.
2
3
22
5
+
0
0
23
0
+
0
0
23
5
+
0
0
24
0
+
0
0
24
5
+
0
0
25
0
+
0
0
25
5
+
0
0
26
0
+
0
0
26
5
+
0
0
27
0
+
0
0
27
5
+
0
0
28
0
+
0
0
28
5
+
0
0
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
t
.
N
Pe
n
d
e
r

A
v
e
.
Pe
n
d
e
r

A
v
e
.
Easy St.
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
t
.
N. New River Dr.
N. Topsail Dr.
Le
n
o
i
r

A
v
e
.
Cr
a
v
e
n

A
v
e
.
N. Topsail Dr.
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

A
v
e
.
N. New River Dr.
N. Topsail Dr.
P
e
l
i
c
a
n

W
a
t
c
h
Shel
l

R
d
.
Sunrise Ct.
N. Topsail Dr.
Do
l
p
h
i
n

S
t
.
St
e
v
e
n
s

S
t
.
N. Shore Dr.
Fill AreaSee Cross Sections Fill AreaSee Cross Sectionsof Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe
of Fill
Seaward Toe
Sl
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Sl
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Landward Extentof Fill
Broadway Ave
Construction
Vehicle Access
SHEET: 8 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows DriveWilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITYPENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
PI

2
8
5
+
9
5
.
2
3
PI

2
9
5
+
9
5
.
9
6
PI

3
0
5
+
0
0
.
0
0
PI

3
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
PI

3
1
5
+
0
0
.
0
0
PI

3
1
7
+
7
5
.
0
0
32
5
+
0
0
28
5
+
0
0
29
0
+
0
0
29
5
+
0
0
30
5
+
0
0
32
2
+
7
5
30
0
+
0
0
32
0
+
0
0
Seashore Dr.
N. New River Dr.
N. Shore Dr.
W.

9
t
h

S
t
.
8t
h

S
t
.
7t
h

S
t
.
6t
h

S
t
.
5t
h

S
t
.
4t
h

S
t
.
3r
d

S
t
.
2n
d

S
t
.
1s
t

S
t
.
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
t
.
N. New River Dr.
N. Shore Dr.
Canal St.
asy St.
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
t
.
Fill AreaSee Cross Sections
Fill AreaSee Cross Sections
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Berm (5.0' NAVD)Seaward Crest
of Fill
Seaward Toe
Landward Extentof Fill
Sl
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Sl
o
p
e

1
:
2
0
Broadway Ave
Construction
Vehicle Access
SHEET: 9 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows DriveWilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITYPENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Beach Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 10 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: AS SHOWN
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION PROFILES -5+00 TO 105+00
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENT
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Vertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 50' 100'200'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: October 8, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
97.3'89.9'86.3'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge91.1'63.6'81.4'71.0'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge76.1'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge87.7'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge70.6'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge73.7'
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 11 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: AS SHOWN
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION PROFILES 115+00 TO 225+00
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 50' 100'200'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: October 8, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge84.5'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge59.6'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge80.8'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge78.4'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge96.0'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge94.9'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge55.3'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge82.8'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge70.7'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge95.2'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge63.1'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge71.4'
19.9'
Dune Construction
via Truck Haul
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 12 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: AS SHOWN
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION PROFILES 235+00 TO 325+00
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 50' 100'200'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: October 8, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge77.2'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge82.4'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge81.2'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge60.0'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge124.4'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge80.6'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge49.6'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge116.9'
Berm and Beach Slope
by Hydraulic Dredge66.5'
11x17 = Half Scale
Banks Channel
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
3
5
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
4
5
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
5
5
+
0
0
60
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
75
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
Banks S
i
d
e

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

1
Shore
L
i
n
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ocea
n

B
l
v
d
Go
o
d
w
i
n

A
v
e
Topsail

D
r
i
v
e
Mc
L
e
o
d

A
v
e
Bo
r
y
k

A
v
e
Carolina Blv
d
Tr
o
u
t

A
v
e
Dr
u
m

A
v
e
Fl
o
r
i
d
a

A
v
e
S. Anderson

B
l
v
d
Spot Blvd
Cl
a
r
k

A
v
Carolina Blv
d
Sm
i
t
h
Da
r
d
S. Anderson Blvd
Carolina Blvd
Cr
o
c
k
e
r

A
v
e
Channel Blvd
Banks Channel
Station 35+00 to

4
0
+
0
0
Dredge Depth 16+
2
'

M
L
W
Banks Channel
Station 41+00 to

2
4
5
+
0
0
Dredge Depth 12
+
2
'

M
L
W
Banks Channel dredge dimensions mirror permitted
channel for Town of Topsail Beach dredging project from
Station 0+00 to 210+00. New Surf City dredging permit
requests the same dimensions be carried to terminus of
Banks Channel at the AIWW, Stations 210+00 to 245+00.
Topsail Beach channel dredging expected in Banks
Channel from 0+00 to 35+00 and Surf City plans to use
sand from 35+00 to 245+00 for beach nourishment and
berm reconstruction.
Banks Ch
a
n
n
e
l
80
+
0
0
9
0
+
0
0
9
5
+
0
0
1
0
0
+
0
0
1
0
5
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
11
5
+
0
0
12
0
+
0
0
12
5
+
0
0
13
0
+
0
0
13
5
+
0
0
14
0
+
0
0
5+
0
0
Banks Side Ch
a
n
n
e
l

2
Sc
o
t
t

A
v
e
Carolina Blvd
S. Anderson Blvd
Cr
e
w
s

A
v
e
Carolina Blvd
Channel BlvdWa
r
d

A
v
e
Da
v
i
s

A
v
e
Ha
y
w
o
o
d

A
v
Bridgers Ave
Pe
a
r
s
o
n

A
Em
p
i
e

A
Bridgers Ave
Ro
c
k
SHEET: 13 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Banks Channel and Side Channels Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 201911x17 = Half Scale
Banks Channel
14
5
+
0
0
15
0
+
0
0
15
5
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
1
6
5
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
7
5
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
18
5
+
0
0
19
0
+
0
0
19
5
+
0
0
20
0
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
Bridge
r
s

A
v
e
Ba
r
w
i
c
k
Anderson Blvd
Monroe Ln Ca
n
a
d
y

A
v
e
N. Anderson Blvd
N. Anderson Blvd
Ga
y
e

A
v
e
Ba
r
e

F
o
o
t

L
n
Su
n
s
e
t

A
v
e
20
5
+
0
0
To
w
e
r

C
t
Ob
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

L
n
Bu
m
b
l
e

B
e
e

C
t
Bumble Bee Ct
200' Wide
12+2' MLW
Channel Permitted by
Topsail Beach
Surf City
Proposed Channel
Increase to 200' Wid
12+2' MLW
-3
+
6
3
.
9
6
PI

6
+
3
6
PI

1
6
+
-5
+0
Ol
e
a
n
d
Hu
m
p
h
r
e
y

A
v
e
.
Cr
u
t
c
h
f
i
e
l
d

A
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
o
l
a

L
n
Be
a
c
h
w
o
o
d

D
r
.
La

d
Banks Channel
21
5
+
0
0
22
0
+
0
0
22
5
+
0
0
23
0
+
0
0
23
5
+
0
0
24
0
+
0
0
24
5
+
0
0
25
0
+
0
0
25
5
+
0
0
26
0
+
0
0
26
5
+
0
0
27
0
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
Nix
o
n

A
v
e
Si
d
b
u
r
y

A
v
e
Ca
t
h
e
r
i
n
e

A
v
e
N. Anderson Blvd
Fi
e
l
d
s

A
v
e
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y

L
n
Be
a
c
h
w
o
Town Line
Surf City
Proposed Channel
Increase to 200' Wide
12+2' MLW
End of Dredge Tem
p
l
a
t
e
Station 245+00
Pipeline Route in
middle of Oleander

C
t
Small Surf City ow
n
e
d
access to Soundsid
e
SHEET: 14 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Banks Channel Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 201911x17 = Half Scale
260+00
265+00
270+00
275+00
280+00
28
5
+
0
0
29
0
+
0
0
29
5
+
0
0
3
0
0
+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
0
0
31
5
+
0
0
32
0
+
0
0
32
5
+
0
0
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
O
v
e
r

R
o
a
d

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
o

D
O
T

s
a
n
d
b
a
g
s
n
o
t

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

R
o
u
t
e

i
n
m
i
d
d
l
e

o
f

O
l
e
a
n
d
e
r

C
t
S
m
a
l
l

S
u
r
f

C
i
t
y

o
w
n
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

S
o
u
n
d
s
i
d
e
N
e
e
d

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s

h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r

t
o
a
l
l
o
w

f
o
r

p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

t
o
c
r
o
s
s

h
i
s
/
h
e
r

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
SHEET: 15 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: 1" = 200'
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENTVertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
Graphic Scale
100' 200'400'
Scale: 1" = 200'Plan View - Banks Channel Layout and Bathymetry
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Mean Low Water
Mean High Water
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 16 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: As Shown
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
Station 35+00 to 150+00 - Banks Channel Cross Sections
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 100' 200'400'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENT
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 17 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: As Shown
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
Station 155+00 to 270+00 - Banks Channel Cross Sections
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 100' 200'400'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENT
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
11x17 = Half Scale
SHEET: 18 OF 18
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
Mean High Water
Conversion
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358 SCALE: As Shown
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
Station 275+00 to 328+00 - Banks Channel Cross Sections
1.20'
NAVD 1988
2.54'
Mean Low Water
3.74'
Christian L. Gibson, P.E. No. 026273
Graphic Scale
0' 100' 200'400'Horizontal
0' 5' 10'20'Vertical
SURF CITY BEACH NOURISHMENT
SURF CITY
PENDER & ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: Mean Low Water
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in July 10-17, 2019 and represent conditions at
that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in feet and tenths.
5. Aerial flown on June 17, 2019 by TerraLina Mapping Consultants.
DWG NAME: 2018 Surf City Beachfill.dwg
SURVEY DATE: July 10-17, 2019DWG DATE: November 25, 2019
Permit Drawing - October 2019
11x17 = Half Scale

CAMA Permit Application 
Geotechnical Information 

‐Native Grain Size Analysis 
‐Vibracore Location Maps 
‐Composite Tables, Statistics and Graphs 
T
I
-
2
7
T
I
-
3
2
TI
-
3
7
TI
-
4
2
TI
-
4
7
TI
-
5
2
TI
-
5
7
T
I
-
2
6
T
I
-
2
8
T
I
-
2
9
T
I
-
3
0
T
I
-
3
1
T
I
-
3
3
T
I
-
3
4
T
I
-
3
5
T
I
-
3
6
TI
-
3
8
TI
-
3
9
TI
-
4
0
TI
-
4
1
TI
-
4
3
TI
-
4
4
TI
-
4
5
TI
-
4
6
TI
-
4
8
TI
-
4
9
TI
-
5
0
TI
-
5
1
TI
-
5
3
TI
-
5
4
TI
-
5
5
TI
-
5
6
TI
-
5
8
SHEET: 1 OF 1
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
NAVD88
Conversion Graphic Scale
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
MLW
X.XX
0'500'1,000'2,000'
Scale: 1" = 2,000'
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88, Feet
3. Data collected by TI Coastal in April and May 2018,
and represent conditions at that time.
4. Soundings are expressed in depths and in feet and tenths.
DWG NAME: Surf City Native Grain Size Samples.dwg
SURVEY DATE: April and May, 2018
Surf City Nourishment Project
Native Grain Size Sampling Locations
Surf City
Pender & Onslow County, NC
PLAN VIEW DWG DATE: June 15, 2018
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
4 -2.25 4.76 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50
10 -1.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70
14 -0.50 1.41 0.50 0.50 1.20 1.20
18 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 2.00 2.00
25 0.50 0.71 1.50 1.50 3.50 3.50
35 1.00 0.50 2.70 2.70 6.20 6.20
45 1.50 0.35 7.40 7.40 13.60 13.60
60 2.00 0.25 23.60 23.60 37.20 37.20
70 2.25 0.21 19.00 19.00 56.20 56.20
80 2.50 0.18 22.30 22.30 78.50 78.50
100 2.75 0.15 15.30 15.30 93.80 93.80
120 3.00 0.13 3.70 3.70 97.50 97.50
170 3.50 0.09 2.10 2.10 99.60 99.60
200 3.75 0.07 0.10 0.10 99.70 99.70
230 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 99.70 99.70
Sorting
0.72
Skewness
-2.56
Kurtosis
15.93
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.20
Mean Phi
2.03
Phi 5
2.83
Phi 16
2.59
Phi 25
2.46
Phi 50
2.17
Phi 75
1.74
Phi 84
1.55
100.00
Phi 95
0.78
Mean mm
0.24
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
100.00 0.10
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-27
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.30
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
6.90
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 -2.25 4.76 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
10 -1.00 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60
14 -0.50 1.41 0.60 0.60 1.20 1.20
18 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 2.00 2.00
25 0.50 0.71 1.50 1.50 3.50 3.50
35 1.00 0.50 2.80 2.80 6.30 6.31
45 1.50 0.35 8.20 8.21 14.50 14.51
60 2.00 0.25 26.70 26.73 41.20 41.24
70 2.25 0.21 23.80 23.82 65.00 65.07
80 2.50 0.18 20.70 20.72 85.70 85.79
100 2.75 0.15 10.30 10.31 96.00 96.10
120 3.00 0.13 2.40 2.40 98.40 98.50
170 3.50 0.09 1.40 1.40 99.80 99.90
200 3.75 0.07 0.10 0.10 99.90 100.00
230 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 99.90 100.00
Sorting
0.66
Skewness
-2.04
Kurtosis
10.94
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.00
Mean Phi
1.97
Phi 5
2.72
Phi 16
2.48
Phi 25
2.37
Phi 50
2.09
Phi 75
1.70
Phi 84
1.53
99.90
Phi 95
0.77
Mean mm
0.26
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.90 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-32
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.00
#230 - 0.00
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
4.40
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
4 -2.25 4.76 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
10 -1.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.60
14 -0.50 1.41 0.50 0.50 1.10 1.10
18 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.80 1.80
25 0.50 0.71 1.20 1.20 3.00 3.01
35 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.01
45 1.50 0.35 6.30 6.31 11.30 11.32
60 2.00 0.25 26.00 26.05 37.30 37.37
70 2.25 0.21 24.00 24.05 61.30 61.42
80 2.50 0.18 24.30 24.35 85.60 85.77
100 2.75 0.15 10.00 10.02 95.60 95.79
120 3.00 0.13 2.30 2.30 97.90 98.10
170 3.50 0.09 1.70 1.70 99.60 99.80
200 3.75 0.07 0.10 0.10 99.70 99.90
230 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 99.70 99.90
Sorting
0.65
Skewness
-2.65
Kurtosis
17.07
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.10
Mean Phi
2.01
Phi 5
2.73
Phi 16
2.48
Phi 25
2.39
Phi 50
2.13
Phi 75
1.76
Phi 84
1.59
99.80
Phi 95
1.00
Mean mm
0.25
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.80 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-37
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.10
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
5.70
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
4 -2.25 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
5 -2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
10 -1.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
14 -0.50 1.41 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.70
18 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 1.10 1.10
25 0.50 0.71 0.90 0.90 2.00 2.00
35 1.00 0.50 1.90 1.90 3.90 3.90
45 1.50 0.35 5.40 5.41 9.30 9.31
60 2.00 0.25 17.70 17.72 27.00 27.03
70 2.25 0.21 20.60 20.62 47.60 47.65
80 2.50 0.18 27.50 27.53 75.10 75.18
100 2.75 0.15 17.00 17.02 92.10 92.19
120 3.00 0.13 4.30 4.30 96.40 96.50
170 3.50 0.09 3.20 3.20 99.60 99.70
200 3.75 0.07 0.20 0.20 99.80 99.90
230 4.00 0.06 0.10 0.10 99.90 100.00
Sorting
0.64
Skewness
-2.77
Kurtosis
20.9
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.00
Mean Phi
2.16
Phi 5
2.91
Phi 16
2.63
Phi 25
2.50
Phi 50
2.27
Phi 75
1.94
Phi 84
1.69
99.90
Phi 95
1.10
Mean mm
0.22
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.90 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-42
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.00
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
5.20
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
4 -2.25 4.76 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50
10 -1.00 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80
14 -0.50 1.41 0.70 0.70 1.50 1.50
18 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.51
25 0.50 0.71 2.10 2.11 4.60 4.61
35 1.00 0.50 3.60 3.61 8.20 8.22
45 1.50 0.35 6.90 6.92 15.10 15.15
60 2.00 0.25 22.20 22.27 37.30 37.41
70 2.25 0.21 20.70 20.76 58.00 58.17
80 2.50 0.18 21.60 21.66 79.60 79.84
100 2.75 0.15 12.90 12.94 92.50 92.78
120 3.00 0.13 3.80 3.81 96.30 96.59
170 3.50 0.09 3.00 3.01 99.30 99.60
200 3.75 0.07 0.20 0.20 99.50 99.80
230 4.00 0.06 0.10 0.10 99.60 99.90
Sorting
0.77
Skewness
-2.26
Kurtosis
12.92
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.10
Mean Phi
2
Phi 5
2.90
Phi 16
2.58
Phi 25
2.44
Phi 50
2.15
Phi 75
1.72
Phi 84
1.52
99.70
Phi 95
0.55
Mean mm
0.25
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.70 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-47
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.20
#230 - 0.10
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
8.00
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
4 -2.25 4.76 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.60
5 -2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60
7 -1.50 2.83 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.80
10 -1.00 2.00 0.40 0.40 1.20 1.20
14 -0.50 1.41 0.70 0.70 1.90 1.90
18 0.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 2.80 2.81
25 0.50 0.71 1.80 1.80 4.60 4.61
35 1.00 0.50 4.20 4.21 8.80 8.82
45 1.50 0.35 9.50 9.52 18.30 18.34
60 2.00 0.25 21.60 21.64 39.90 39.98
70 2.25 0.21 18.40 18.44 58.30 58.42
80 2.50 0.18 20.80 20.84 79.10 79.26
100 2.75 0.15 13.90 13.93 93.00 93.19
120 3.00 0.13 3.70 3.71 96.70 96.89
170 3.50 0.09 2.60 2.61 99.30 99.50
200 3.75 0.07 0.20 0.20 99.50 99.70
230 4.00 0.06 0.10 0.10 99.60 99.80
Sorting
0.84
Skewness
-2.51
Kurtosis
14.46
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.20
Mean Phi
1.96
Phi 5
2.87
Phi 16
2.59
Phi 25
2.45
Phi 50
2.14
Phi 75
1.65
Phi 84
1.38
99.80
Phi 95
0.55
Mean mm
0.26
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.80 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-52
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.20
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
7.40
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
4 -2.25 4.76 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50
7 -1.50 2.83 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70
10 -1.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 1.20 1.20
14 -0.50 1.41 0.80 0.80 2.00 2.00
18 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 3.10 3.11
25 0.50 0.71 2.40 2.40 5.50 5.51
35 1.00 0.50 4.40 4.41 9.90 9.92
45 1.50 0.35 9.30 9.32 19.20 19.24
60 2.00 0.25 20.70 20.74 39.90 39.98
70 2.25 0.21 18.40 18.44 58.30 58.42
80 2.50 0.18 22.10 22.14 80.40 80.56
100 2.75 0.15 12.30 12.32 92.70 92.89
120 3.00 0.13 3.40 3.41 96.10 96.29
170 3.50 0.09 3.10 3.11 99.20 99.40
200 3.75 0.07 0.30 0.30 99.50 99.70
230 4.00 0.06 0.20 0.20 99.70 99.90
Sorting
0.84
Skewness
-2.08
Kurtosis
11.02
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.00
Mean Phi
1.95
Phi 5
2.91
Phi 16
2.57
Phi 25
2.44
Phi 50
2.14
Phi 75
1.64
Phi 84
1.33
99.80
Phi 95
0.39
Mean mm
0.26
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.80 0.10
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Composite TB-57
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.10
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
8.90
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
3" -6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/4" -4.25 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3/8" -3.25 9.51 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
4 -2.25 4.76 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30
5 -2.00 4.00 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
7 -1.50 2.83 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50
10 -1.00 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80
14 -0.50 1.41 0.60 0.60 1.40 1.40
18 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 2.20 2.20
25 0.50 0.71 1.60 1.60 3.80 3.80
35 1.00 0.50 3.10 3.10 6.90 6.91
45 1.50 0.35 7.60 7.61 14.50 14.51
60 2.00 0.25 22.60 22.62 37.10 37.14
70 2.25 0.21 20.70 20.72 57.80 57.86
80 2.50 0.18 22.80 22.82 80.60 80.68
100 2.75 0.15 13.10 13.11 93.70 93.79
120 3.00 0.13 3.40 3.40 97.10 97.20
170 3.50 0.09 2.50 2.50 99.60 99.70
200 3.75 0.07 0.20 0.20 99.80 99.90
230 4.00 0.06 0.10 0.10 99.90 100.00
Sorting
0.74
Skewness
-2.43
Kurtosis
14.73
Sieve Number
SP
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g): Wash Weight (g): Pan Retained (g): Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
0.00
Mean Phi
2.01
Phi 5
2.84
Phi 16
2.56
Phi 25
2.44
Phi 50
2.16
Phi 75
1.73
Phi 84
1.53
99.90
Phi 95
0.69
Mean mm
0.25
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
99.90 0.00
Project Name: Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
Sample Name: Surf City Native Composite
Analysis Date: 05-24-18
Analyzed By: SJF
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.00
Organics (%): Carbonates (%):
6.60
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.30 -2.56 15.93 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.17
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
2.03 0.72 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-27
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
6.90
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.00
#230 - 0.00 -2.04 10.94 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.09
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
1.97 0.66 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-32
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
4.40
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.10 -2.65 17.07 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.13
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
2.01 0.65 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-37
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
5.70
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.00 -2.77 20.9 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.27
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
2.16 0.64 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-42
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
5.20
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.20
#230 - 0.10 -2.26 12.92 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.15
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
2 0.77 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-47
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
8.00
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.20 -2.51 14.46 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.14
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
1.96 0.84 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-52
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
7.40
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.30
#230 - 0.10 -2.08 11.02 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.14
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
1.95 0.84 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Composite TB-57
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
8.90
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#200 - 0.10
#230 - 0.00 -2.43 14.73 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SP 2.16
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
2.01 0.74 Surf City Beach Nourishment Project 2018
05-24-18
SJF
NAD 1983
NAVD 88
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Surf City Native Composite
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
6.60
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

S
U
R
F

C
I
T
Y

N
A
T
I
V
E

G
R
A
I
N

S
I
Z
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

5
/
3
1
/
1
8
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
ph
fax
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐10' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
2 ‐1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
1.4 ‐0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5
1 0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 1.0 1.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.8
0.71 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 7.0 2.1 2.1 0.9 2.4 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.1 1.5
0.5 1 3.9 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.6 6.2 4.6 4.0 2.0 4.6 4.6 2.3 2.2 0.8 0.4 2.7
0.36 1.5 8.6 2.8 7.3 14.6 12.6 9.8 11.6 8.8 2.8 9.2 9.8 6.2 3.3 2.1 1.3 7.4
0.25 2 22.3 34.4 40.1 52.2 34.3 26.0 20.8 18.9 7.5 18.4 21.3 40.8 7.0 8.2 2.1 23.6
0.21 2.25 22.8 28.2 30.9 18.2 23.4 18.8 16.5 18.5 19.7 16.7 18.8 23.5 11.6 13.0 4.4 19.0
0.18 2.5 21.1 19.0 14.7 8.6 18.1 14.3 22.1 22.3 40.4 22.7 23.5 16.4 42.1 27.4 22.5 22.3
0.15 2.75 12.7 10.0 4.9 3.7 7.2 8.3 12.5 17.1 20.9 17.1 13.1 5.8 21.4 31.4 43.8 15.3
0.13 3 2.8 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 2.1 4.1 3.7 4.6 2.0 1.6 5.8 9.1 14.0 3.7
0.09 3.5 2.5 3.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.7 1.2 2.2 0.5 1.1 3.6 4.9 9.2 2.1
0.08 3.75 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.1
0.06 4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 SILT
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.7 100.0 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.5 99.7 99.5 100.0
CaCO3% 2.6 3.2 5.4 6.6 6.8 17.8 10.5 9.7 5.2 10.8 12.5 3.6 2.8 5.4 1 6.9
Pan
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
TB‐27 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1
2 ‐1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3
1.4 ‐0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.6
100.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 1.9 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.3 3.9 0.5 0.7 0.8
0.71 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.1 2.7 2.4 4.3 1.8 0.5 7.1 0.7 1.0 1.5
0.5 1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.0 3.3 3.4 5.4 10.4 2.6 1.4 10.7 0.9 1.6 2.8
0.36 1.5 4.6 3.9 4.3 1.7 1.0 3.1 12.5 10.9 14.5 30.5 7.0 13.2 11.9 2.1 2.3 8.2
0.25 2 36.0 30.7 44.3 30.3 15.4 26.4 23.9 33.2 28.7 28.4 20.5 46.1 12.0 18.8 5.3 26.7
0.21 2.25 28.1 32.9 26.7 48.1 33.4 25.5 20.3 20.8 17.5 10.1 20.5 29.8 9.6 22.2 11.1 23.8
0.18 2.5 18.9 21.5 15.1 14.8 33.7 24.3 22.7 13.9 19.8 7.6 32.3 5.6 17.7 25.3 38.0 20.7
0.15 2.75 8.6 7.8 5.7 3.6 13.1 14.0 10.8 7.5 6.9 4.1 11.4 1.8 14.7 18.4 25.8 10.3
0.13 3 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.7 2.2 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.8 2.2 0.6 4.3 5.5 7.8 2.4
0.09 3.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 2.5 4.9 5.3 1.4
0.08 3.75 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 SILT
Totals 99.8 99.7 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.9
CaCO3% 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.3 2.0 3.4 6.9 6.5 14.8 1.8 2.5 21.8 2.7 2.6 4.5
TB‐32 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Totals
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
2 ‐1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2
1.4 ‐0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5
100.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.0 1.6 2.1 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7
0.71 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.4 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 0.7 2.6 0.8 0.7 1.2
0.5 1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.8 3.7 3.7 6.7 3.3 1.1 4.9 1.3 0.7 2.0
0.36 1.5 0.5 3.5 2.6 4.2 1.1 7.0 9.3 15.0 7.4 18.7 8.4 3.4 9.5 2.3 1.7 6.3
0.25 2 19.3 24.1 45.0 37.1 22.3 38.4 27.8 36.4 15.1 30.8 25.5 22.2 19.2 22.1 5.2 26.0
0.21 2.25 28.1 28.7 23.9 25.9 32.3 27.1 20.8 18.2 15.6 16.2 23.0 27.8 28.7 23.4 20.1 24.0
0.18 2.5 31.4 32.4 15.8 22.0 30.9 17.0 27.3 12.2 33.0 9.8 27.2 18.4 19.8 23.7 44.0 24.3
0.15 2.75 14.9 6.5 8.5 7.2 9.3 6.6 9.0 7.6 13.6 5.7 6.5 15.6 8.6 14.1 17.0 10.0
0.13 3 3.3 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.7 2.8 1.3 1.0 5.4 2.3 4.8 3.3 2.3
0.09 3.5 2.2 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.2 3.9 1.6 4.2 3.6 1.7
0.08 3.75 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 SILT
Totals 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.6 99.5 99.4 99.8
CaCO3% 1.9 4.2 5.7 6.1 3.9 4.1 5.4 6.8 9.1 7.9 6.2 3.4 9.3 5.9 5.6 5.7
TB‐37 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
2 ‐1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1
1.4 ‐0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3
100.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.4
0.71 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.7 1.1 1.7 1.1 0.9 3.7 0.7 0.2 0.9
0.5 1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 8.2 2.8 3.6 2.5 2.2 4.6 2.1 0.3 1.9
0.36 1.5 0.3 1.9 4.5 1.3 0.6 1.5 4.1 22.4 7.9 12.6 7.6 3.6 8.9 3.3 1.2 5.4
0.25 2 14.1 19.3 32.9 21.6 16.2 13.3 20.4 26.0 17.0 27.1 20.3 6.8 17.8 8.5 4.1 17.7
0.21 2.25 37.7 29.0 28.3 28.5 23.7 22.0 19.6 13.0 16.5 19.1 19.3 8.3 18.5 17.1 8.4 20.6
0.18 2.5 26.2 35.1 19.0 32.7 34.2 41.6 23.1 11.0 34.7 17.5 32.9 23.8 22.1 32.3 26.2 27.5
0.15 2.75 14.8 9.7 10.6 9.6 19.1 17.0 21.4 6.9 14.0 12.8 11.3 33.8 14.9 25.7 32.8 17.0
0.13 3 3.4 2.0 1.9 2.3 4.2 2.7 5.2 1.7 3.2 2.9 2.4 11.0 3.9 6.3 11.4 4.3
0.09 3.5 3.3 2.3 1.9 3.6 2.0 0.8 3.0 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 7.9 2.1 3.0 12.7 3.2
0.08 3.75 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.2
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 SILT
Totals 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9
CaCO3% 1.5 2.2 3.1 2.0 1.6 3.1 3.4 14.1 5.6 8.1 5.0 4.9 12.3 5.8 4.7 5.2
TB‐42 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1
4.00 ‐2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1
2 ‐1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.3
1.4 ‐0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.9 2.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.7
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.0 3.3 4.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 3.0 0.6 0.4 1.0
0.71 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 1.6 8.3 6.8 2.6 0.9 1.4 5.5 0.9 0.5 2.1
0.5 1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 8.4 3.2 15.3 9.4 3.4 1.3 1.6 8.3 1.0 0.6 3.6
0.36 1.5 0.1 4.1 2.6 4.0 5.5 17.3 8.3 20.6 12.0 9.5 1.8 3.7 10.1 2.5 1.0 6.9
0.25 2 3.1 35.2 29.3 23.5 28.4 24.6 30.3 28.4 29.5 57.0 11.6 10.5 10.5 7.9 3.1 22.2
0.21 2.25 20.3 31.4 30.2 25.5 25.1 13.1 32.1 15.5 25.3 15.9 32.2 15.7 9.4 12.5 6.5 20.7
0.18 2.5 54.3 18.3 19.7 32.3 23.7 18.9 18.6 4.0 6.4 4.2 31.4 28.1 17.2 26.9 20.3 21.6
0.15 2.75 15.8 8.4 9.2 8.4 10.6 10.1 3.2 0.6 0.3 2.2 14.6 24.4 20.9 28.0 37.1 12.9
0.13 3 3.3 1.4 3.2 2.1 2.4 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 3.6 7.8 6.8 9.1 15.2 3.8
0.09 3.5 2.5 0.9 5.2 3.4 3.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.4 5.2 4.2 7.2 11.3 3.0
0.08 3.75 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.4 0.2
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 SILT
Totals 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.5 99.2 99.6 100.0 99.6 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.6 99.7 99.7
CaCO3% 1.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 12.0 5.1 16.4 15.7 20.8 4.5 4.4 15.1 8.2 4.8 8.0
TB‐47 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2
2 ‐1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.0 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.4
1.4 ‐0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.8 2.7 0.7 1.2 0.7
1 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.0 0.7 1.6 0.5 2.1 3.2 0.5 0.7 0.9
0.71 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.9 6.0 1.9 4.7 0.6 4.5 4.8 0.6 0.7 1.8
0.5 1 0.1 1.7 4.6 0.4 0.3 0.8 4.3 15.6 4.0 15.3 0.9 6.8 6.8 0.9 0.6 4.2
0.36 1.5 0.2 8.7 18.4 8.6 3.3 6.3 9.3 25.0 11.1 26.1 2.6 11.4 8.6 1.9 1.4 9.5
0.25 2 6.2 29.5 34.4 41.8 19.8 26.7 14.6 21.6 23.3 32.0 39.5 14.4 11.1 5.0 4.7 21.6
0.21 2.25 16.6 26.4 18.1 24.5 24.1 25.3 19.5 9.0 22.0 15.5 34.6 12.9 11.5 9.1 7.7 18.4
0.18 2.5 34.2 22.5 16.0 16.0 31.3 25.1 32.3 10.0 18.6 3.0 14.4 17.5 20.4 28.3 22.5 20.8
0.15 2.75 27.2 7.1 6.8 6.9 16.7 12.7 11.8 4.0 9.9 0.0 4.9 16.6 18.9 35.3 30.4 13.9
0.13 3 8.7 1.2 0.8 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.8 0.6 2.2 0.0 0.9 5.1 6.1 9.8 12.5 3.7
0.09 3.5 6.3 0.8 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 3.5 5.5 14.0 2.6
0.08 3.75 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.5 0.2
0.06 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 SILT
Totals 99.8 99.6 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 99.8
CaCO3% 1.7 4.0 6.0 1.7 3.2 3.7 6.3 18.7 8.1 14.6 4.2 13.1 16.8 4.6 4.4 7.4
TB‐52 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size Dune Crest Dune Toe Mid Berm MHW Foreshore Mid Tide 0' NAVD MLW Trough Bar Crest ‐6' NAVD ‐8' NAVD ‐12' NAVD 16' NAVD ‐20' NAVD Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2
4.00 ‐2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2
2 ‐1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5
1.4 ‐0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 2.8 1.3 1.2 2.9 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.8
100.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.3 5.3 2.7 1.1 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.1
0.71 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 3.0 1.3 10.8 6.8 3.4 6.9 1.3 1.3 0.4 2.4
0.5 1 0.2 2.4 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.9 6.4 3.7 17.1 13.0 5.0 10.4 1.6 1.9 0.4 4.4
0.36 1.5 0.3 15.8 9.4 12.9 2.4 4.5 13.0 17.5 17.8 15.2 10.6 12.1 3.5 2.9 0.9 9.3
0.25 2 2.6 44.0 34.0 33.7 24.0 27.5 18.0 39.1 15.8 17.4 23.6 12.2 10.4 5.8 2.4 20.7
0.21 2.25 12.0 19.0 24.2 22.1 30.6 32.0 27.8 26.0 10.0 11.8 18.4 10.0 15.8 11.9 4.6 18.4
0.18 2.5 60.1 12.5 22.0 18.1 33.4 21.6 23.4 8.0 11.5 15.0 19.9 16.2 27.0 29.6 12.6 22.1
0.15 2.75 17.7 4.7 7.7 9.1 8.0 9.8 3.9 2.5 4.3 10.2 13.2 14.1 22.8 27.2 29.6 12.3
0.13 3 4.0 0.7 0.9 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.7 2.4 1.9 3.7 8.0 8.6 14.5 3.4
0.09 3.5 2.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.8 1.6 6.3 5.7 24.7 3.1
0.08 3.75 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 3.5 0.3
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.1 SILT
Totals 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.7 99.6 99.8 100.0 99.9 99.3 99.8
CaCO3% 1.7 4.5 5.1 4.9 2.3 4.2 11.8 8.0 25.0 16.1 7.1 25.0 3.9 7.4 6.8 8.9
TB‐57 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
Millimeters PHI Size TB‐27 TB‐32 TB‐37 TB‐42 TB‐47 TB‐52 TB‐57 Average
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
4.00 ‐2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
2.80 ‐1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
2 ‐1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3
1.4 ‐0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6
100.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.8
0.71 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.6
0.5 1 2.7 2.8 2.0 1.9 3.6 4.2 4.4 3.1
0.36 1.5 7.4 8.2 6.3 5.4 6.9 9.5 9.3 7.6
0.25 2 23.6 26.7 26.0 17.7 22.2 21.6 20.7 22.6
0.21 2.25 19.0 23.8 24.0 20.6 20.7 18.4 18.4 20.7
0.18 2.5 22.3 20.7 24.3 27.5 21.6 20.8 22.1 22.8
0.15 2.75 15.3 10.3 10.0 17.0 12.9 13.9 12.3 13.1
0.13 3 3.7 2.4 2.3 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4
0.09 3.5 2.1 1.4 1.7 3.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.5
0.08 3.75 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
0.06 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SILT
Totals 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8
CaCO3% 6.9 4.4 5.7 5.2 8.0 7.4 8.9 6.6
PEBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
Pan
SURF CITY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL RETAINED %)
2017 Vibracore Location
N
e
w

T
o
p
s
a
i
l

I
n
l
e
t
N
e
w
T
o
p
s
a
i
l
Topsail Cree
k
T
o
p
s
a
i
l

C
r
e
e
k
Ban
k
s
Connec
t
o
r
Channel
Cu
t

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
Banks Channel
Banks S
i
d
e

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

1
Ma
t
c
h

L
i
n
e
Sh
e
e
t

2
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
3
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
2
2017-VC-TB-31
2017-VC-TB-30
2017-VC
-
T
B
-
5
02017-VC
-
T
B
-
4
9
2017-VC-TB-29
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
SHEET: 1 OF 3
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
MHW
Conversion Graphic Scale
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
NAVD88
1.20'
0'250'500'1,000'
Scale: 1" = 1,000'
DWG NAME: Surf City Vibracore Spider Map.dwg
SURVEY DATE: 6/2017, 3/2018 & 7/2019
Surf City Nourishment Project
Proposed Channel Design
Surf City
Pender & Onslow County, North Carolina
Vibracore Sampling Locations and Spider Map DWG DATE: August 29, 2019MLW
2.54'
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88
3. Channel layout is preliminary, pending approval by State and Federal Permitting
Agencies.
4. Vibracores collected by Athena Technologies between June 5 and June 14, 2017 (Topsail) and on
March 29, 2018 and July 11-12, 2019 (Surf City).
5. Positions provided by Athena Technologies and determined by DGPS, tide corrections provided by
TI Coastal Services via RTK GPS.
6. Aerial photography performed by TerraLina Mapping Consultants, Inc. on June 17, 2019
and represent conditions at that time.
Vibracore Volume
Representative Polygon
Banks Side Chann
e
l

2
Banks Channel
Banks C
h
a
n
n
e
l
Ma
t
c
h

L
i
n
e
Sh
e
e
t

1
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
7
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
8
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
4
0
2017-VC-TB-38
2017-VC-TB-39
2017-VC-TB-37
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
6
2017-VC-TB-41
2017-VC-TB-42
2017-VC-TB-43
2017-VC-TB-44
2017-VC-TB-45
2017-VC-TB-46
2017-VC-TB-47
2017-VC-TB-48
201
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
6
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
5
2017-VC-TB-35
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
4
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
5
3
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
4
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
3
20
1
7
-
V
C
-
T
B
-
3
2
2017-VC-TB-31
2017-VC-TB-30
BANKS CHA
N
N
E
L
HA
R
V
E
Y
S

C
U
T
TOPSAIL BE
A
C
H
2018-VC-SC-01
2018-VC-SC-02
Ma
t
c
h

L
i
n
e
Sh
e
e
t

3
SHEET: 2 OF 3
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
MHW
Conversion Graphic Scale
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
NAVD88
1.20'
0'250'500'1,000'
Scale: 1" = 1,000'Proposed Channel Design
Vibracore Sampling Locations and Spider MapMLW
2.54'
Surf City Nourishment Project
Surf City
Pender & Onslow County, North Carolina
DWG NAME: Surf City Vibracore Spider Map.dwg
SURVEY DATE: 6/2017, 3/2018 & 7/2019DWG DATE: August 29, 2019
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88
3. Channel layout is preliminary, pending approval by State and Federal Permitting
Agencies.
4. Vibracores collected by Athena Technologies between June 5 and June 14, 2017 (Topsail) and on
March 29, 2018 and July 11-12, 2019 (Surf City).
5. Positions provided by Athena Technologies and determined by DGPS, tide corrections provided by
TI Coastal Services via RTK GPS.
6. Aerial photography performed by TerraLina Mapping Consultants, Inc. on June 17, 2019
and represent conditions at that time.
1
6
5
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
7
5
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
18
5
+
0
0
19
0
+
0
0
19
5
+
0
0
20
0
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
21
5
+
0
0
22
0
+
0
0
22
5
+
0
0
23
0
+
0
0
23
5
+
0
0
24
0
+
0
0
24
5
+
0
0
25
0
+
0
0
25
5
+
0
0
26
0
+
0
0
26
5
+
0
0
27
0
+
0
0
27
5
+
0
0
28
0
+
0
0
28
5
+
0
0
29
0
+
0
0
29
5
+
0
0
300+00
305+00
310+00
31
5
+
0
0
32
0
+
0
0
32
5
+
0
0
BANKS CHA
N
N
E
L
ATLANTIC I
N
T
R
A
C
O
A
S
T
A
L

W
A
T
E
R
W
A
Y
HA
R
V
E
Y
S

C
U
T
SURF CITY
TOPSAIL BE
A
C
H
20
5
+
0
0
2018 Vibracore Location
2019 Vibracore Location
2017-VC-TB-43
2017-VC-TB-44
2017-VC-TB-45
2017-VC-TB-46
2017-VC-TB-47
2017-VC-TB-48
2018-VC-SC-01
2018-VC-SC-02
2018-VC-SC-03
2018-VC-SC-04
2019-VC-SC-01
SHEET: 3 OF 3
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
MHW
Conversion Graphic Scale
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
NAVD88
1.20'
0'250'500'1,000'
Scale: 1" = 1,000'Proposed Channel Design
Vibracore Sampling Locations and Spider MapMLW
2.54'
Surf City Nourishment Project
Surf City
Pender & Onslow County, North Carolina
DWG NAME: Surf City Vibracore Spider Map.dwg
SURVEY DATE: 6/2017, 3/2018 & 7/2019DWG DATE: August 29, 2019
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Feet
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88
3. Channel layout is preliminary, pending approval by State and Federal Permitting
Agencies.
4. Vibracores collected by Athena Technologies between June 5 and June 14, 2017 (Topsail) and on
March 29, 2018 and July 11-12, 2019 (Surf City).
5. Positions provided by Athena Technologies and determined by DGPS, tide corrections provided by
TI Coastal Services via RTK GPS.
6. Aerial photography performed by TerraLina Mapping Consultants, Inc. on June 17, 2019
and represent conditions at that time.
DREDGE SLIDE SLOPES (3:
1
)
DREDGE SLIDE SLOPES (3:1)
DREDGE EXCAVATION TO -30' NAVD88
DREDGE EXCAVATION TO -30' NAVD88
DREDGE SLIDE SLOPES (3:
1
)
DREDGE SLIDE SLOPES (3:1)
DR
E
D
G
E

S
L
I
D
E

S
L
O
P
E
S

(
3
:
1
)
B-12
B-8
B-4B-1
B-2
B-3
B-5
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-2B-1
B-1
B-2
B-7
B-3
Spider Map
polygons used
to determine
volume
represented by
each core.
CENTERLINE
2005 Borings
2007 Borings
2011/2012 Borings
S&ME Historical Geotechnical Testing
SHEET: 1 OF 1
387-B N. Green Meadows Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Vertical Datum
NAVD88
Conversion Graphic Scale
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
910.821.1358
SCALE: 1" = 300'
NGVD29
1.00'
0'75'150'300'
Scale: 1" = 300'
DWG NAME: ST Wooten Excavation Layout.dwg
ST Wooten Geotechnical Survey
Historic Core Locations and Spider Map Layout
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane - Zone 3200, NAD83, Survey Feet.
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88
3. Layout designed by TI Coastal on September 27th, 2017.
4. Cores collected in 2005, 2007, and 2011/2012 and represent conditions at that time
5. 2016 Aerial downloaded from NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal.
6. Core locations and Top of Hole elevations are approximate and scaled off of location
maps provided by S&ME.
SURVEY DATE: Spring 2017 & 2019
Surf City Hurricane Florence Dune Restoration - Phase 2
Town of Surf City
Pender and Onslow County, North Carolina
DWG DATE: August 6, 2019
Millimeters PHI Size 2017‐VC‐TB‐28 2017‐VC‐TB‐29 2017‐VC‐TB‐30 2017‐VC‐TB‐31 2017‐VC‐TB‐32 2017‐VC‐TB‐33 2017‐VC‐TB‐34 2017‐VC‐TB‐35 2017‐VC‐TB‐36 2017‐VC‐TB‐37 2017‐VC‐TB‐38 2017‐VC‐TB‐39 2017‐VC‐TB‐40 2017‐VC‐TB‐41 2017‐VC‐TB‐42 2017‐VC‐TB‐43 2017‐VC‐TB‐44
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.53 ‐3.25 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.1 8.1 0.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
4.75 ‐2.25 2.5 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 5.1 0.9 3.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 3.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
4.00 ‐2 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
2.80 ‐1.5 2.9 0.4 0.6 1.4 0.6 1.3 2.8 1.3 2.3 0.5 0.1 0.9 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
2.00 ‐1 4.9 0.5 0.9 2.7 1.0 2.2 6.4 2.6 3.7 0.8 0.6 2.3 3.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.7
1.40 ‐0.5 7.7 0.8 1.7 4.4 1.8 3.8 11.3 4.8 4.8 1.0 1.0 5.9 3.7 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5
1.00 0 9.8 1.0 2.3 5.1 2.2 4.9 6.0 5.1 4.9 0.8 1.3 7.3 3.5 2.5 0.7 0.7 2.0
0.71 0.5 11.8 1.6 5.2 7.8 3.4 7.2 9.2 7.0 6.1 1.7 2.1 9.6 4.9 4.0 1.8 1.2 3.7
0.50 1 12.0 3.6 9.5 9.3 5.0 10.0 13.2 7.8 8.2 3.1 3.0 6.1 7.9 7.6 3.1 2.0 5.2
0.36 1.5 9.7 6.9 23.6 15.0 10.6 16.4 12.5 12.1 16.9 11.1 4.8 3.9 14.4 18.7 7.6 5.7 10.5
0.25 2 8.5 11.7 29.3 11.2 24.2 19.0 5.1 16.3 18.1 37.3 8.7 3.8 19.2 19.1 16.2 23.4 16.3
0.21 2.25 5.4 10.2 13.0 2.6 13.7 7.8 4.3 11.7 9.4 21.1 9.4 7.6 9.1 8.6 14.2 34.6 12.4
0.18 2.5 10.1 25.6 7.5 2.8 15.5 12.1 2.4 13.2 10.3 12.7 31.0 27.0 11.6 15.2 27.0 21.8 19.2
0.15 2.75 9.5 25.3 4.7 12.9 14.7 8.2 3.0 12.2 6.6 7.4 29.6 18.9 8.5 15.9 22.2 8.3 20.3
0.13 3 2.3 7.1 0.7 8.8 4.5 1.4 1.0 2.4 1.3 1.1 5.9 4.0 1.6 3.9 4.2 1.1 4.3
0.09 3.5 0.9 4.6 0.3 9.3 2.3 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.4 0.7 1.8 1.4 0.2 2.7
0.08 3.75 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.06 4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Pan 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 SILT
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CaCO3 33.7 9.4 24.3 20.8 16.0 24.4 35.6 25.1 25.2 9.7 10.7 20.8 26.0 12.5 8.0 6.7 10.5
Volume 23,766 73,081 22,817 34,911 44,547 33,909 15,539 33,149 36,961 32,498 66,710 40,963 40,882 32,080 44,156 42,990 41,234
Millimeters Phi Size 2017‐VC‐TB‐45 2017‐VC‐TB‐46 2017‐VC‐TB‐47 2017‐VC‐TB‐48 2017‐VC‐TB‐49 2017‐VC‐TB‐50 2017‐VC‐TB‐53 2017‐VC‐TB‐54 2017‐VC‐TB‐57 2017‐VC‐TB‐58 2018‐VC‐SC‐01 2018‐VC‐SC‐02 2018‐VC‐SC‐03 2018‐VC‐SC‐04 2019‐VC‐SC‐01 ST Wooten Totals 
>75.00 ‐6.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 COBBLES
19.05 ‐4.25 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 0 0.2
9.53 ‐3.25 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.5 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6
4.75 ‐2.25 3.6 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 6.2 0.1 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 0.6 0.8 0 0.7
4.00 ‐2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0 0.3
2.80 ‐1.5 3.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 4.2 0.3 1.5 2.3 0.6 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.7
2.00 ‐1 3.7 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.3 4.7 0.6 2.1 3.3 0.8 2.3 1.8 0.8 1.1 0 1.0
1.40 ‐0.5 4.6 0.4 0.6 1.9 2.9 0.5 4.5 1.5 3.4 4.8 1.1 3.3 2.5 0.9 1.8 3 2.7
1.00 0 4.8 0.5 0.9 2.2 3.8 1.0 3.7 2.6 3.9 4.1 1.3 3.8 2.8 0.8 2.4 0 1.7
0.71 0.5 5.3 0.8 1.6 3.5 5.1 2.0 5.4 4.5 6.5 4.7 2.5 5.7 4.3 1.4 3.9 14.3 8.3
0.50 1 5.3 1.0 2.2 6.2 6.6 3.7 9.2 6.8 8.9 6.6 4.0 8.4 7.4 2.4 6.3 0 3.4
0.36 1.5 6.8 2.5 5.8 17.0 11.6 5.9 17.8 11.3 16.7 6.9 11.3 17.4 14.1 5.9 10.4 44.8 24.7
0.25 2 9.7 13.0 12.5 33.5 27.1 16.4 19.0 22.1 23.2 13.5 25.9 24.9 17.8 13.3 17.8 0 10.1
0.21 2.25 4.4 26.7 5.2 16.2 17.3 23.9 6.9 22.7 12.9 19.7 17.7 10.0 10.3 13.1 12.6 0 7.1
0.18 2.5 5.5 31.3 5.1 11.5 12.1 24.2 5.8 17.8 8.0 21.7 17.5 9.4 10.7 27.6 17.0 31.6 22.6
0.15 2.75 14.9 18.6 32.1 7.6 7.7 15.9 3.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 11.4 6.7 12.4 23.4 15.3 0 9.0
0.13 3 9.7 3.3 18.9 1.4 1.7 4.1 0.7 1.5 1.9 1.6 2.1 1.3 5.6 5.3 5.8 0 2.7
0.09 3.5 9.8 1.3 11.6 0.5 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.6 3.4 2.8 2.1 4.1 3.3
0.08 3.75 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.1
0.06 4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.8
0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 SILT
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 104.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CaCO3 27.8 5.4 11.9 18.4 7.5 9.7 34.5 18.8 23.0 16.0 15.3 26.0 20.7 10.3 14.8 N/A 10.1
Volume 48,305 34,948 50,113 7,359 15,420 422 12,783 1,032 3,017 17,072 54,367 61,805 57,465 30,446 27,851 758,671 1,841,270
ALL BANKS CHANNEL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (Station 35+00 to 245+00)
ALL BANKS CHANNEL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (Station 35+00 to 245+00)
Pan
PEBBLES 
GRAVEL
SAND
PEBBLES 
GRAVEL
SAND
**All numbers represent percent of total core incrementally retained on the sieve. Calcium carbonate is a percentage. Volume is cubic yardage each core represents.**
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00150.0150.1515105100
Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
#230 - 0.70 -1.99 9 Project Name:
Analysis Date:
Analyzed By:
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:
-3
5/16
-1.5
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

C
o
a
r
s
e
r

B
y

W
e
i
g
h
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
SW 1.92
Sample Sample Information
Gravel
Silt and Clay
1.71 1.18 Surf City Nourishment 2018-2019
10-09-19
JCP
NAD 1983
MLW
PHI Sieve Sizes
Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer
Millimeters
-1
10
-0.5
14
0
18
0.5
25
1
35
1.5
45
2.5
80
3
120
3.75
200
Depths and elevations based on measured values
3.5
170
4
230
-2
5
-2.25
4
-4
5/8
2
60
-4.25
3/4
Banks & ST Wooten #COMPOSITE
Comments:
USCS % Fines % Organics % Carbonates Median Mean Skew Kurt SortElev. (ft)Symbol
10.10
SI
E
V
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

B
A
N
K
S

C
H
A
N
N
E
L

C
O
R
E
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

1
0
/
9
/
1
9
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
3"-6.25 76.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.75"-4.25 19.03 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.375"-3.25 9.51 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.80
4 -2.25 4.76 0.80 0.80 1.60 1.60
5 -2.00 4.00 0.30 0.30 1.90 1.90
7 -1.50 2.83 0.60 0.60 2.50 2.50
10 -1.00 2.00 1.10 1.10 3.60 3.60
14 -0.50 1.41 1.50 1.50 5.10 5.10
18 0.00 1.00 2.90 2.90 8.00 8.00
25 0.50 0.71 2.50 2.50 10.50 10.50
35 1.00 0.50 9.30 9.30 19.80 19.80
45 1.50 0.35 6.20 6.20 26.00 26.00
60 2.00 0.25 28.50 28.50 54.50 54.50
70 2.25 0.21 7.10 7.10 61.60 61.60
80 2.50 0.18 9.60 9.60 71.20 71.20
100 2.75 0.15 22.00 22.00 93.20 93.20
120 3.00 0.13 2.70 2.70 95.90 95.90
170 3.50 0.09 1.60 1.60 97.50 97.50
200 3.74 0.07 1.80 1.80 99.30 99.30
230 4.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 99.30 99.30
Sorting
1.18
Skewness
-1.99
Kurtosis
9
Sieve Number
SW
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
Elevation (ft):
USCS:Comments:
Dry Weight (g):Wash Weight (g):Pan Retained (g):Sieve Loss (%):
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Granularmetric Report
Northing (ft):
Munsell:
-0.10
Mean Phi
1.71
Phi 5
2.92
Phi 16
2.65
Phi 25
2.54
Phi 50
1.92
Phi 75
1.42
Phi 84
0.80
100.00
Phi 95
-0.53
Mean mm
0.31
Moment
Statistics
Fines (%):
100.00 0.80
Project Name: Surf City Nourishment 2018-2019
Sample Name: Banks & ST Wooten #COMPOSITE
Analysis Date: 10-09-19
Analyzed By: JCP
Shells (%):
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Easting (ft):
#230 - 0.70
Organics (%):Carbonates (%):
10.10
GR
A
N
U
L
A
R
M
E
T
R
I
C

R
E
P
O
R
T

B
A
N
K
S

C
H
A
N
N
E
L

C
O
R
E
S
.
G
P
J

F
L

D
E
P

R
O
S
S
.
G
D
T

1
0
/
9
/
1
9
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]

CAMA Permit Application 
Appendix A 
Geotechnical Information 

‐Descriptive Core Logs 
‐Core Photographs 
‐Individual Granularmetric Reports 
‐Individual Grain Size Curves 

(Digital Copy Only) 

CAMA Permit Application 
Appendix B 

Current Biological Opinions 

(Digital Copy Only) 

CAMA Permit Application 
Appendix C 

Adjacent Property Owner Notifications 

In accordance with guidelines in applying for a Major Permit Modification through the Coastal Area 
Management Act (CAMA) offices of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 
the applicant must notify the adjacent property owners of their application and what the proposed 
project consists of. Utilizing aerial photography and the Pender County Online Tax GIS Database, 
adjacent property owners and their home mailing addresses were established.  
The south end of the proposed Surf City nourishment project truncates at the Surf City/Town of Topsail 
Beach line and the first house to the south of this municipal border was identified as the southern 
adjacent property owner. The same scenario plays out on the northern of the beachfill area as it reaches 
a terminus at the Surf City/North Topsail Beach property boundary. The southernmost property in North 
Topsail Beach was sent a notification of this permit application. 
Project notifications were also sent to the Towns of Topsail Beach and North Topsail Beach as the 
project limits extend beyond the Town of Surf City’s jurisdictional boundaries. The extension beyond 
Surf City’s municipal limit is to ensure that all property owners within Surf City receive the full template 
of beachfill while also constructing a natural, sloping transition from the nourished beach area to the 
existing beach adjacent to town line. 
This notification package includes a full copy of the permit application, but does not include the 
appendices due to document size. As per protocol for this notification, the notification package was sent 
via certified mail with return receipt and instructed to send any objections or concerns in writing to Mr. 
Jason Dail with NCDEQ. Locations of the property owners dwellings, letters to the homeowners and 
receipts of the certified mail packages can be found below. 

South End Adjacent Homeowners 

North End Adjacent Homeowner 
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 11056
Wilmington, NC 28404
910.821.1358 office
[e-mail]
August 28, 2019 
James C. Gardner
PO Box 119
Arnolds Park, IA 51331

Dear Mr. Gardner,
The Town of Surf City has applied for a Major Permit to conduct a beachfill and dredging project. This
project is intended to provide the Town with a beach nourishment project as an alternative to Federal 50
year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project which is currently authorized but not appropriated through
Congress. The sunset for the Federal project is 2021 and in anticipation of funding not becoming
available, the Town is electing to move forward with a privatized version. The local project, proposed by
the Town of Surf City, would provide oceanfront shoreline protection while also working to improve
navigation through the channel system surrounding Topsail Island. This permit application seeks to repair
dune scarping after a dune rehabilitation truck haul project is completed as well as provide an
approximately 80 foot wide dry sand beach in front of the new primary dune system.
A full copy of the permit application is enclosed with this letter for your review. As part of the permit
application process, Surf City is required to notify neighboring property owners of their application. Any
objections or concerns regarding the proposed project should be directed in writing, within the next 30
days, to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ATTN: Jason Dail
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845

Sincerely,

Jamie Pratt

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 11056
Wilmington, NC 28404
910.821.1358 office
[e-mail]
August 28, 2019 
Paul S. and Anne F. Scott
3305 Marblehead Ln
Raleigh, NC 27612

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Scott,
The Town of Surf City has applied for a Major Permit to conduct a beachfill and dredging project. This
project is intended to provide the Town with a beach nourishment project as an alternative to Federal 50
year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project which is currently authorized but not appropriated through
Congress. The sunset for the Federal project is 2021 and in anticipation of funding not becoming
available, the Town is electing to move forward with a privatized version. The local project, proposed by
the Town of Surf City, would provide oceanfront shoreline protection while also working to improve
navigation through the channel system surrounding Topsail Island. This permit application seeks to repair
dune scarping after a dune rehabilitation truck haul project is completed as well as provide an
approximately 80 foot wide dry sand beach in front of the new primary dune system.
A full copy of the permit application is enclosed with this letter for your review. As part of the permit
application process, Surf City is required to notify neighboring property owners of their application. Any
objections or concerns regarding the proposed project should be directed in writing, within the next 30
days, to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ATTN: Jason Dail
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845

Sincerely,

Jamie Pratt

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 11056
Wilmington, NC 28404
910.821.1358 office
[e-mail]
August 28, 2019 
Bryan Chadwick
Town Manager, Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Court
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460

Dear Mr. Chadwick,
The Town of Surf City has applied for a Major Permit to conduct a beachfill and dredging project. This
project is intended to provide the Town with a beach nourishment project as an alternative to Federal 50
year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project which is currently authorized but not appropriated through
Congress. The sunset for the Federal project is 2021 and in anticipation of funding not becoming
available, the Town is electing to move forward with a privatized version. The local project, proposed by
the Town of Surf City, would provide oceanfront shoreline protection while also working to improve
navigation through the channel system surrounding Topsail Island. This permit application seeks to repair
dune scarping after a dune rehabilitation truck haul project is completed as well as provide an
approximately 80 foot wide dry sand beach in front of the new primary dune system.
A full copy of the permit application is enclosed with this letter for your review. As part of the permit
application process, Surf City is required to notify neighboring property owners of their application. Any
objections or concerns regarding the proposed project should be directed in writing, within the next 30
days, to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ATTN: Jason Dail
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845

Sincerely,
Jamie Pratt

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 11056
Wilmington, NC 28404
910.821.1358 office
[e-mail]
August 28, 2019 
Mike Rose
Town Manager, Town of Topsail Beach
820 S. Anderson Blvd
Topsail Beach, NC 28445

Dear Mr. Rose,
The Town of Surf City has applied for a Major Permit to conduct a beachfill and dredging project. This
project is intended to provide the Town with a beach nourishment project as an alternative to Federal 50
year Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project which is currently authorized but not appropriated through
Congress. The sunset for the Federal project is 2021 and in anticipation of funding not becoming
available, the Town is electing to move forward with a privatized version. The local project, proposed by
the Town of Surf City, would provide oceanfront shoreline protection while also working to improve
navigation through the channel system surrounding Topsail Island. This permit application seeks to repair
dune scarping after a dune rehabilitation truck haul project is completed as well as provide an
approximately 80 foot wide dry sand beach in front of the new primary dune system.
A full copy of the permit application is enclosed with this letter for your review. As part of the permit
application process, Surf City is required to notify neighboring property owners of their application. Any
objections or concerns regarding the proposed project should be directed in writing, within the next 30
days, to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ATTN: Jason Dail
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845

Sincerely,
Jamie Pratt