94-62_McLean, Hicks, Howe_19940923

s pd arc dip 1r °,r
d�dJ prdd �� �OT rj��
J/lJ,v�iy/16�'J
-Mast
1swumte. R.9
d�/layos Jn. sr.
49otdan IR zMac4dam,
&RIMilllonlil
9&d! .11VdK anlon
N4,a e. !9-J_l
ailac �. Nfnlon
90M Of &Z7.aa_qifz
7500 6=wu :l �tivz
,FH=U id ffZX, --Nda &W&M 29594-93
.1P40.9 [phone] S=. (919) 354-
McLean,Hicks, Howe
106 Manatee St.
Cape.Carteret, NC 28584
December 5, 1994
RE: DENIAL OF CAMA MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 94-62
Dear Sir/Madam:
�%� tisYF�eto-0iAiDa•Oii!'1ti$
After receiving your application in conjunction with the development
standards required by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and our locally
adopted Land Use Plan and Ordinances, it is my determination that no permit may
be granted for the project you have proposed.
The lot in question, and on which this application was filed, is located
in the Bogue Inlet Hazard Area and Westward of the vehicular dune crossover ramp,
the area boundaries of which are more specifically defined below. This area is
prone to and has a documented history of flooding.
I have concluded that your request violates NCGS 113A-120(8) which requires
that all applications be denied which are inconsistent with State guidelines and
our Local Land Use Plan. On Page V-5 of the Emerald Isle Land Use Plan, you will
find that a residential dwelling is not listed among the uses permitted in the
Inlet Hazard Areas, as specified:.
Inlet Hazard Areas: The Town of Emerald Isle will allow uses within the
inlet hazard areas which are consistent with the Town's zoning ordinance.
15A NCAC 7H use standards and the following use standards:
(8) Except as may be allowed below, the Town opposes all residential,
institutional and commercial development in the area which is West of a
line lying along the eastern property line of Lot 9, Section A, Emerald
Isle by the Sea, Book 8, Page 73, Carteret County Registrar of Deeds
Office, Block 53, November 16, 1973, to its intersection with the Southern
I
ight-of-way with Inlet Drive and West of a line lying along the Eastern
property line of Lot 30, Section B, Emerald Isle by the Sea, Book 8, Page
73, Carteret County Registrar of Deeds Office, November 6, 1973, if
extended to intersect with the Southern right-of-way line of Inlet Drive.
Public rights -of -way and utilities shall be permitted. The following types
of development shall be allowed in the above described portion of the
inlet hazard area.
- parking areas with clay, packed sand, or similar pervious surfaces;
elevated decks not exceeding 500 square feet;
- beach accessways consistent with 15A NCAC 7H use standards;
uninhabitable storage sheds with floor areas of 200 square feet or
less;
temporary amusement stands; and
other uses allowed by the Emerald Isle Zoning Ordinance.
�ami�

In all cases, development shall only be permitted if it meets. other
applicable 15A NCAC 7H use standards; is landward of the vegetation line;
involves no significant alteration or removal of primary or frontal dunes
or the dune vegetation.
This project is also inconsistent with the State guidelines for Areas of
Environmental Concern (15A NCAC 7H), specifically:
15A NCAC 7H.0601 "NO VIOLATION OF ANY RULE:
"No development shall be allowed in any AEC which would result in
contravention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws of the Sate
of North Carolina or of local government in which the development takes
place."
This development is also inconsistent with the Emerald Isle Zoning
Ordinance which reflects the requirements of the Land Use Plan; therefore,
inconsistent with 15A NCAC 7.0601.
Should you wish to appeal my decision to the Coastal Resources Commission
or request a Variance from that group, please contact me so I can provide you
with the proper forms and any other information you may require. Appeal notices
must be received by the Division of Coastal Management in Raleigh within twenty
(20) days of your receipt of this letter in order to be considered.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Harrell
Local CAMA Permit Officer
TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE
SCH/ca
cc: DCM Field Representative
Mayor and Town Board of Commissioners
Town Administrator, Pete Allen
•.Town Attorney, Richard Stanley

C�

i
Locality �%%C '' `�✓ �'�' Permit Number
GENERAL INFORMATION
LAND OWNER
Name y- &A.Ei4A_ di
Address %O(2 AWArleg
City TWA 1��' �40�0 State At G • Zip ,Z8X8 4- Phone 9/ Q - .745 - &/4-+
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name C. ALAW Z?CU,
Address r4G AEV" a ia/'% QL IUD .
City '_' G&, wzw6jeo State h/. C. Zip Phone ?/9-0r9J - 610/
LOCATION OF PROJECT 11309 /Aagr ye. , /_6-r / Z. orC61C A . X3
refs - :75QJ dr &WZ�Aa ZSc
(If not oceanfront, is waterbody natural or manmade?)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT _2 .S43'b x0 ow/ /,L1xIG.�
97AW-PS. G4e11GR&-IX AgAeA; as F L •-7jffeu"l lIZ 8o f0r: z'
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) CLASSIFICATION
(To be filled in by the Local Permit Officer prior to completing application.)
Ocean Hazard Estuarine Shoreline ORW Shoreline Other //j%L A/AZAYM
PROPOSED USE
LzResidential Commercial/Industrial Other
SIZE OF BUILDING IN SQUARE FEET 2_4,oO
Size of other impervious or built upon surfaces (such as driveways, etc.) within 75 feet of the shoreline (575 feet
of an ORW shoreline)
SIZE OF SITE IN SQUARE FEET `18 ' x 7Z9Z '= ZZ. 740
OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED ...
The activity which you are planning may require
permits other than the CAMA minor permit you
are applying for here. As a service we have com-
pplied a listing of the kinds of permits which might
be required. We suggest that you check over this
list with your Local Permit Officer to determine
which, if any, of these may apply to your project.
This is not a requirement of LAMA, only a sugges-
tion to help you complete your project as quickly as
possible.
Zoning, Drinking Water Well, Septic Tank (or other
sanitary waste treatment system), Burning, Electri-
cal, Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, In-
sulation and Energy Conservation, FIA Certifica-
tion, Sand Dune, Sediment Control, Subdivision
Approval, Mobile Home Parhn
� a
Connection, Others: l��j�

:. I
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP
I, the undersigned, an applicant for a CAMA minor development permit, begin either the owner of property in
an area of environmental concern or a person authorized to act as an agent for purposes of applying for a
CAMA minor development permit, certify that the person listed as landowner on this application has a sig-
nifica t interest m the real property described therein. This interest can be described as follows: (check one)
Tan owner of record title, Title is vested in AceLEAJ.4GS a see Deed Book 4c'5'3
page j��A in the Coun Regis of Deeds.
an owner by virtue of inheritance. Applicant is an heir to the estate of
probate was in
County.
if other interest, such as written contact or lease, explain below or use a separate sheet and attach to this
application.
NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
I furthermore certify that the following persons are owners of properties adjoining this property. I affirm that I
have given ACTUAL NOTICE to each of them concerning my intent to develop this property and to apply for
a CAMA permit.
(Name)
(3)
(4)
(Address)
FOR DEVELOPERS IN OCEAN HAZARD AND ESTUARINE HAZARD AREAS:
I acknowledge that the land owner is aware that the proposed development is planned for an area which may
be susceptible to erosion and/or flooding. I acknowledge that the local permit officer has explained to me the
particular hazard problems associated with this lot. This explanation was accompanied by recommendations
concerning stabilization and floodproofing techniques.
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND
I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant and do in fact grant permission to the local permit officer
and his agents to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application.
This application includes: general information (this form), a site drawing as described on the back of this ap-
plication, the ownership statement, the AEC hazard notice where necessary, a check for $50.00 made payable to
the locality, and any information as may be provided orally by the applicant. The details of the application as
described by these sources are incorporated without reference in any permit which may be issued. Deviation
from these details will constitute a violation of any permit. Any person developing in an AEC without a per-
mit is subject to civil, criminal and administrative action.
This the day of 119
dl� -_ .
L own90,617persbn authorized to act as his agent
oPpurpqaeglof filing a CAMA permit application.

N
goC,VIL SovuC
t
IP
F
tio� y0)
f�a\v 9 e,I TAc4
?. 0-to SA G� 1 ►1
o
RI`''1� ' yN`'s�is GY.IQ.
� f3oGV
PC'\L
•�� I e po�'C
l _ 19.
�O Go►�G�rl:
30 ��
2 SrY vwEu.:c�.
• (a W.19 _
DECKS
cJF M4X =\
N�
e
l?I
• � • �o�E�fl 0.
Zvd Sr MAC• �
Art.q T
I G
l.p
0 GspyT 4vAepJ 4
7
� pit TA
Q yT.
��
Q 1u��T
OR•
SITt ec-eAv? � c
%/ILIu1T1f SKETC-0
O JOT -ro se- A L.P-)
SVR.VLYOK.S NOTES:
UIP • t•.la�tJ �RAv Plva
Ta•� PA¢c.� � I �, • 37 C • 3.24
I;MLcLaI_O Igt.t �V pGK 1..1�.11�
VO.GETP.'r'10w.1 �Q• g
uS�o�g g M
AC A., .
W Lly �
EI O
rR
AeQMgNc� � o�
�e4�TCT�o
u
e \ r2)
o /
829, �.1.I.P.
ti
00
iFt_ee0 2mu�, Y-Ito
SAsa et•. \4,c
SZ my ; MA9 v. 8, Pel, "13 - v-%"ctpFs7 uoJ 19.1
OAIE _
tiC4 1�tzc�nosc0 pL-A0 'C>
REGISTERED t �,,M
LAND SURVEYOR DO HEREBY CERTIFY I RG� !r� l�R� 1-�\�\c� !->o\L:E
T K, I HAW 3URVE'1'ED ir1E PROPERTY
AS SHOWN HER Q1JIIIH„rACCOROANCE
FOR LAND
WITH THE % J'b"Pf 1�CTICE
J=
sug
'll/lllllls,
wr itx
L.ov i2. SdeTION 'A 6Lacu• 63 act 430
� : 4 0 E M g OA LQ I SL%6 15Y T" ft SILA
P"u94 p No.
W 1-1 rr
94• l.(e fi OAtLZ'\ySP., coaTaRoT c.o..N.c.
.Alan Bell Surveying
.546 CEDAR POINT BLVD.
SMANSBORO, N.C. 28584
TELEPHONE: [phone]

r
I. G_`[R�5 A1.a�1 C3GLl REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT I HAVE SURVEYED THE PROPERTY
AS SHOWN HEREON IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH
CAROUNA.
CYRUS ALAN BELL. R.L.S.
REG. NO. L--2699
M t.l I.ET ot:z\VE
Coo cz U)
IE
- t tZST- Lk 0 6 o T
p ) I Pe2M(\\aCµT
0.
J ct
QCZp P�t�T✓ • l..l•1.]
�ti�h� I�R�PoSL- fl C�t2vCil_E �otZ:
DMGN
tZ W M L Ltif> N Y %-A'% c- V- S �� �OW C
CHEO o
(�oT 12 N A t-v- 15:�, ov 4-3 o
CMEQALO \ sLE gk-r -rvA z 5T-=A
PRQ! No. b \t�4atT� cP�C TwSP.� GAt2TEtZ,ET GO,, I'l C-
Alan Bell Surveying;
546 CEDAR POINT BLVD.
SIPANSBORO, N.C. 28584
TELEPHONE.- (919)-393-8101

P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
SEP-23-94 FRI 8:16
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES- TYPE NOTE +
{ SEP-23 8:14 CARTERET NEWS 1'21" 2 SEND OK
DATE: September 23, 1994
TO: Patti Lyerly, Classified
FROM: Carol Angus, Planning Dept.,
Inspections Asst.
S[JB=: CAMA Permit Notice Publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please publish on Sunday, September 25, 1994
CAMA PERMIT NOTICE
Pursuant to N❑GS 113A-119(b), Emerald Isle, a locality authorized to
issue permits in Areas of Environmental Concern, hereby gives NOTICE
that on September 23, 1994, McLean, Hicks, and Howe applied for a
CAMA permit to erect a dwelling with 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, concrete
drive, decking, access to the ocean with sitting area at 11309 Inlet
Drive, Block 53, Lot 12, Emerald Isle.
The application may be inspected at the address below. Public
comments received by October 10, 1994 will be considered. Later
comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit
decision. Project modifications may occur based on further review
and comments. Notice of the permit decision on this matter will be
provided upon written request.
Stephen C. Harrell
Local CAMA Permit Officer
Town of Emerald.Isle
7500 .Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle, NC 28594

AEC HAZARD NOTICE
Project Is In An: Ocean Erodible Area
Date Lot Was Platted:
High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware
of the special risks and conditions associated with
development in this area, which is subject to natural
hazards such as storms, erosion and currents. The rules of
the Coastal Resources Commission require that you
receive an AEC Hazard Notice and acknowledge that
notice in writing before a permit for development can be
issued.
The Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
setbacks and dune alteration are designed to minimize,but
not eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting
permits, the Coastal Resources Commission does not
guarantee the safety of the development and assumes no
liability for future damage to the development.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual ocean
erosion rate for the area where your property is located is
-5- feet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as
much as �Q feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach
nourishment and, relocation of threatened structures.
Hard erosion control structures such as bulkheads,
seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties and breakwaters are
prohibited. Temporary devices, including sand bags, may
be allowed under certain conditions.
This structure shall be relocated or dismantled within two
years of becoming imminently threatened.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the below space.
Without the proper signature, the application will not be
complete.
2
Date
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sudden and massive
storms and erosion. Permits issued for development in this
area expire on December 31 of the third year following the
year in which the permit was issued. Shortly before work
begins on the project site, the Local Permit Officer will
determine the vegetation line and setback distance at your
site. If the property has seen little change and the proposed
development can still meet the setback requirement, the
LPO will inform you that you may begin work. It is impor-
tant that you check with the LPO before the permit expires
for official approval to continue the work after the permit
has expired. Generally, if foundation pilings have been
placed and substantial progress is continuing, permit
renewal may not be necessary. If substantial progress has
not been made, the permit must be renewed and a new
setback line established. It is unlawful to continue work
after permit expiration without this approval.
For more information, contact:
STEPHEN HARRELL OR CAROL ANGUS
Local Permit Officer
7500 EMERALD DRIVE
Address
EMERALD ISLE, NC 28594
Locality
919/354-3338
Phone
Revised 11193

n
Exclee Tax 1
TAX l.ot NO.
NORTH CAROLINA, t;ARIER 110d�w
The foregrin 1.cer'tiiicale(s) o` _
is (are) certified to be cerrect. This trlment c--� -'�-46
-
sented r roe stintion ;;rd recar.:c•J in t3lis o::::s '
Boo
Jv
Thi; day ' 1�. 21
Slum ^ ^n
Register of eds
�1Jusisizat,
Recording 71me, Hoot and lase .. �•
Parcel identifier Nn. , .... " t
• '1
erified by County on the ... day of ..: ....... lf............
b: .. . .. ...... . ................... ... .... .. I . ..... I ................. .._ . .
Mail after recording to Vohn U. McManus..Jr. , Attorney... P.O.. Box .146... Red. .Springs..Hr...2837.7........ ......
................... ......... .......................................... ................... _
This instrument was prepared by John U. McManus, Jr... Attorney.. Red..Spr 1rgs,..NC...28377 ..... ... ........... .... _
NORTH CAROLIN A GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this 14th day of May . 19 81 , by and between
GRANTOR i GRANTEE
W. R. Peele. Jr.. and wife. 1
Callie B. Peele
P.O. Box 566
Clayton, N.C. 27520
.,�. B. McLean.,
H. Maynard Hicks, and
Martha It. Ricks
Cater is a►preprlolt block tee oath pony: mane, addres,, and, u i -lyak• efuaeter of entity ems. ce peratM" or Partaersllp. •1.
The d+eiltnation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs..uccessvr.a and assigns, and
-ball include singuler, plural• masculine, feminine net -ter as retluired by Context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, fur a ►alunble consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has and by these presents does gran; bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simpl-, all that
certain lot or parcel of land situated in . White Oak .. Township..... . Carteret .. County.
Norm f arolira and more particularly described as follows:
Being all of Lots Nos. TWELVE (12), THIRTEEN (13). and FOURTEEN (14). in Section
"A", as shown and designated on a map entitled. "Map of Emerald Isle By The Sea,
Being a Portion of Block 53", prrpared by C.C. King. R.S., and recorded in Book
of Maps'No. 8, at page 73. in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Carteret
County, North Carolina. The same being a portion of Section No. 430 as shown
and designated on a map of Emerald Isle By The Sea prepared by William Ragsdale.
R.S.. and recorded in Map Book 3, page 34. Carteret County Registry. Reference
{t. ` 16 said maps and the registration thereof hereby made for greater certainty of
Decsription. Being the same lands desctibed in and conveyed by dped.recorddd
,.,.1n Book 355. page 80, Carteret Cpunty Registry. See also Book 354. page 411.
But. this conveyance is made subject to the restrictions contained in an instrument
-recorded in Book 332, pane 249, Carteret County Registry.
4.
,�. J43..
•'•'
1
. ...... . :.
,

SEPTEMBER 22, 1994
CECIL B. HICKS
215 CHANGE ST.
NEW BERN, N.C. 28560
DEAR MS: HICKS:
I AM WRITING TO INFORM YOU OF THE INTENT TO DEVELOP THE
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY AT EMERALD ISLE, N.C. THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TO ERECT A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING ON PILINGS HAVING 4 BEDROOMS, 3 BATHS, DECKING,
CONCRETE DRIVE, SEPTIC AREA, AND DUNE DECK(GAZEBO).
A SURVEY WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR
REVIEW FOR 11309 INLET DR., LOT 12, SECTION A, BLOCK 53,
EMERALD ISLE BY THE SEA, TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE.
ALL REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(CAMA) AND STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODE AND THE
TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE WILL BE ENFORCED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, OR OPPOSITION TO THIS
DEVELOPMENT, PLEASE SUBMIT THEM IN WRITING TO:
C. ALAN BELL
546 CEDAR POINT BLVD.
SWANSBORO, N.C. 28584
SINCERELY
Q.
ALAN BELL, R.L.S.
ALAN BELL SURVEYING
AND STEVE HARRELL
LOCAL CAMA PERMIT OFFICER
7500 EMERALD DRIVE
EMERALD ISLE, N.C. 28594
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE
INLET DR., LOT 12, SECTION
SEA, TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE,
SUBMITTED.
SIGNATURE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 11309
A, BLOCK 53, EMERALD ISLE BY THE
AS IT IS ILLUSTRATED ON THE PLANS
DATE
SIGNATURE DATE

Cary and Kate Harrison
105 Bogue Court
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
Voice/Fax [phone]
October 6, 1994
To Mr. Charles Jones
CAMA
3441 Arendell
Morehead City, NC 28557-0769
Dear Mr. Jones,
We are writing to officially voice our opposition to what we believe to be
dangerously inappropriate development on the inlet at the south west end of
Bogue Island. We refer to lots 10, 11, 12 , and 13 of block 53 at the Point.
The Town of Emerald Isle, as an apparently clear objection to this
development, has proposed an amendment to its current Inlet Hazard Area Land
Use Plan that would prohibit any development on the inlet -side of a dune ridge
system which protects the end of the island in an area known as the Point. The
residents didn't have to convince the Town of Emerald Isle that this was
inappropriate development. The Town Council Members live here. They can
clearly see what is going on. Please understand that the residents and the Town
are not against development in general at the Point. There are currently two
houses being built on Bogue Court at the end of the island. Both these homes are
within the dune system which has protected the Point area for over 25 years.
The lots we protest developing, 10, 11, 12, and 13, are presently being taxed
as unbuildable property and should remain so because they are immediately
adjacent to a migrating inlet. Houses have already been removed from the area
by choice or by force, and 800 feet of road next to this property was severely
damaged by a single storm event. A number of years ago, the owners erected
snow fences to improve the elevation of the area. However, the inlet which has
been migrating east toward these lots for 10+-years has already eroded a major
portion of their artificially -created frontal dune ridge. It is obvious the inlet is
now migrating in the direction of these lots. Although the average inlet migration
is estimated at 5' per year, there have been recent studies that show migration of
300' in just 6 months,

There are other problems to consider when houses are threatened by water.
When the ocean threatens these houses, their septic systems will be under water.
This puts human effluent into the ocean and an unwarranted burden on the
taxpayers for clean up. The result will be disastrous. It will be a repeat of what
has happened at Topsail Beach/Surf City. It will likely cause a reduction in tax
values, a reduction in tourist revenues, and a reduction of our otherwise favorable
flood rating. There will be collateral damage to our property, decreased tax base,
and increased cost to taxpayers for government assistance in clean up. Let's just
avoid the future expense and endangerment and stop the development now.
The Town has stated that they will not provide services that would require
breaching the dune or the Hatteras ramp. These people will have to negotiate for
these services. They will have to negotiate where to put their trash and recycling
for pick up because the trucks cannot cross the protective dune.
Our reasons for protesting building on these lots are varied and many.
These lots are inlet -side of the protective dune. This inlet is migrating towards
these lots. We want to protect the property that is developed behind the
protective dune. The town doesn't want these lots developed. With some stretch
of the imagination, developing these lots may meet the letter of the CAMA
regulations. It is by no means consistent with its theme of appropriate
development. Development on these lots will soon become an unreasonable
burden on taxpayers, will cause collateral damage to property, and very possibly
harm people of the area. Therefore it is inappropriate to develop these lots.
Accept this letter as our official protest against development of the lots 10,
11 12, and 13. We feel very strongly about the opinions we have expressed here.
I, Cary L. Harrison, have a graduate degree in Marine Science from the
University Of North Carolina At Wilmington and have taken many marine
geology courses such as Marine Geomorphology from Dr. Orrin Pilky. I continue
an open and active dialogue with many of the professors of Marine Science at
UNC-W, including Dr. Paul Hosier who co -wrote the study of Bogue Inlet enclosed.
This is the "Year Of The Coast." We must unite to make solid decisions and
to protect life, property, our ocean, and the original beauty of our island. We must set
precedents to prevent at Emerald Isle what has happened at Topsail Beach, Surf City,
Wrightsville Beach, Sunset Beach, and Carolina Beach. We hope that you at CAMA
feel the same responsibility.
Sincerely, ck—�
Gay L. Ham Kate G. Harrison
cc: James Mercer, Steve Harrell

WHITE OAK RIVER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
David A. Adams
Department of Forestry
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Larry K. Benninger
Department of Geology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Paul E. Hosier
Department of Biology
University of North Carolina at'Wilmington
Wilmington, NC .
Margery F. Overton
Department of Civil Engineering
NorthCarolinaState University
Raleigh, NC
James P. Reed
Department of Zoology
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
FOR:
Office of Water Resources
N. C. Department of Natural.Resources and Community
• Development
Raleigh, NC
December 15,__1982
Post -it" Fax Note 7671
Date
pages . a of
To t
From PAUL `!
CoJDepL
Co. V lV
Phone a C 2�Fa'n've
J 73So
-5S 3�••+
Faxa
��Q7J6

From January 1, 1982 to June 1, 1982, hydrodynamic and
ecological conditions in the White Oak River Estuary were
investigated to 1) evaluate sedimentation rates and sources
and the condition of the fishery in the estuary, and 2)
analyze the physical and ecological impacts of potential
channel modifications defined by the White, Oak River
Advisory Council and the Office of Water Resources. Physical
and -ecological field data were obtained, historical maps and
aerial photos studied, and a hydrodynamic model of the
estuary utilized.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Sedimentation is occurring in the estuary above the
causeway. Two samples indicated that the sedimentation
rate in the upper estuary was in equilibrium with the
rate of submergence (about 0.3 em/yr); the third showed a
sedimentation rate of about 5 cm/yr -- more than ten'
times the rate of submergence (Appendix 1.).
2. Sandy sediments being deposited •in the lower estuary
originate in the Bogue Inlet environment, and do not come
from the White Oak River. Attempts to. improve circulation
within.the lower area by dredging new channels may extend
the deposition zone farther upstream unless steps are
taken to eliminate the sediment source in the Bogue Inlet
area (Appendix 2.).
3. The total amount of ocean water entering the lower river
during the flood cycle will not be changed by improvement
of existing channels or creation of new ones. Additional
channels will reduce the velocities in, existing •ones
(Appendix 3.) .
4. Channels and shoaling patterns south of the causeway have
changed considerably over the past 100 years, with Bogue
Inlet proper migrating over an area about.l.5 miles wide..
This behavior is. expected to ..continue into the
foreseeable future (Appendix 2.).
S. No evidence of a declining fishery was found. The 'White

09/12/94 12:38___,_V919 3504066 BIO SCIENCE .003
Oak River Estuary supports populations of fish and clams
comparable to other North Carolina estuaries; its
production of marketable oysters has been meager since
the late 1800s; and commercial fisheries landings of most
species have been highest during the past five years.
(Appendix 4 .) .
6. None of the channel modification alternatives considered
produced any measureable change in habitat quality .for
oysters, clams, spot, croaker, or brown shrimp. Baseline
croaker habitat quality was about 16 percent poorer and.
clam habitat quality- was about 67 percent better under
-the higher salinity characteristic of summer conditions
than under lower salinity, winter conditions. Oysters,;
spot, and brown shrimp were insensitive to these salinity
differences (Appendix 5.).

Concern over the condition of the White Oak River estuary
led to creation of a White 0ak River Advisory.,Co uncil in mid
198G1. -In January, 1981, the Office of Coastal Management
funded preparation of a "Plan of Action for the White Oak_
.River", by the firm of Henry von Oesen and Associates, which'
recommended a ..hydrodynamic model of the White Oak River
Estuary and led to this project. The 1981 General Assembly
appropriated funds to implement -recommendations of the von
Oesen report, making; the project possible.
During the fall of 1981, the Department of.. Natural
Resources and Community Development requested that the Water
Resources Research Institute' of The University of North
Carolina assemble a group of scientists to investigate
conditions in the estuary in more depth. .The team listed
above was then*constituted.and began work in December,.1981.
In conducting. the project, they received assistance from
numerous persons, among which were graduate students Jeffrey
P. Chanton, Dennis L. Stewart, and Jing Song Wei; research
assistant' Susan, Smith; Loie J. Priddy, Richard J. Carraway,
and Stephen, D. Benton of the Office of Coastal Management;
John N. Morris and Bobby L. Pelleg rini of the .Office of
Water Resources; Larry W. Akers of the. Geodetic -Survey
Section; David IL. Taylor of the Division of Marine
Fisheries; James M. Stewart of the Water Resources Research
-Institute; B. J. Copeland of the UNC 'Sea Grant Program; and
members of the White Oak River Advisory,Council.
During the early. stages of the project, T. C.
Gopalkrishnan of. the NCSU Department of Marine, Earth, and
Atmospheric Sciences organized the hydrodynamic modelling
effort.
The work described here represents the best efforts of
the research team to address the complex issues facing the
White Oak River Advisory Council and the Department of
Natural Resources and. Community Development within` the
constraints of limited time and money. It was not possible
to perform the exhaustive field and laboratory -work required
to address all the concerns which have been expressed over
the possible deterioration of the White Oak River estuary.
We channeled our resources into work which was necessary and
possible, but we do not claim to have performed an
exhaustive study. Where information was lacking, we
substituted our professional judgment.

PAGE 2
Description of Project
Objectives of this project were to 1) define water
circulation and sedimentation patterns within the White Oak
Estuary, 2) determine their impact upon water quality,
navigation, and fisheries, and 3) analyze the effects of
proposed estuarine alterations upon 1) and 2).
Specifically, the project was to:
1. obtain baseline _ physical data -- tidal
elevations, current velocity, salinity, and
other data as input to the hydrodynamic and
ecolog.ical models.
2. Obtain baseline ecological data sediment
type/macrobenthos distribution, other
ecological data.
3. Determine the sedimentation rate - obtain
cores from three locations in the lower river
and determine the- rate of sedimentation using
techniques based on the rates of, decay of
radioactive elements..
4. Analyze historic shoreline changes within the
lower estuary describe the pattern of
erosion and shoaling south of the causeway
through a comparative analysis of historic
aerial photographs.
5. Develop a physical model. of the White Oak
Estuary based on' existing hydrodynamic
models and data obtained in 11 above, develop a
numerical model relating water *level, current
velocity, and salinity, and capable of
predicting changes in these. parameters
resulting from potential alterations in basin
geometry.
6. Develop. biophysical models describing habitat
'suitability for selected estuarine species --
based on literature and data obtained in 2.
above, develop mathematical functions
describing 'habita-t suitability for clams,
oysters, and other estuarine organisms.
7. Predict existing habitat quality distribution
for selected estuarine organisms -- using the
models developed, create a series of maps
depicting existing habitat for clams, oysters,
and other estuarine organisms.

PAGE 3
8. Predict. the physical and ecological impacts of
potential channel modifications. -- using 'the
-models developed and descriptions of possible
alterations furnished by the Office of Water
Resources, predict likely changes in estuarine
circulation, sedimentation patterns, and
habitat for estuarine species.
The" project began on January 1, 1982 and produced a
preliminary report for the General Assembly, in early June.
This paper constitutes the.final project report.
PROCEDURES
Hydrology and Sedimentation
A numerical model based on the Finite Element Method was
used to predict current velocities and directions, water
elevations, and salinity patterns throughout the White Oak
River Estuary above the Swansboro - Cedar _Point causeway.
The area was divided into two dimensional triangular
elements for which discrete values were ascribed to the
parameters at the nodes. Boundary conditions were applied at
specific nodes as known values of water velocity or,
elevation and salinity concentrations as a function of time.
A complete space time history of the nodal parameters was
then produced and inferences concerning erosion and shoaling
developed. Boundary salinities characteristic of winter -
spring (relatively low) and.summer (relatively high). were
used to develop two different salinity regimes. Resultant
salinity distributions. provided inputs- to the ecological
models by which baseline and postproject conditions were
described.
Historic maps and photographs were used- in determining
changes in the Bogue Inlet - Lower White` Oak .River. •Estuary
below the Swansboro - Cedar Point causeway . Three maps
(1873,- 1910, and 1933) and eight sets of aerial photos
(19381 1949, 1956, 1959, 1964, 1971., 1976, and 1980) were
used to reconstruct the shoaling and erosion history of the
area. A set of 1976 color aerial photographs was used as the
base map, other maps and photographs were. compared to the
base.by projecting their images using a Bausch and Lomb'Zoom
Transfer Scope,. and overlays of changing conditions drawn.
Interpretations of causative factors and implications for
future conditions were then developed based on a general
knowledge of coastal processes and the geography of the
area.

PAGE 4
three sediment core samples were obtained from the
estuaryy above the causeway and analyzed for 210Pb and
239.240Pu. The quantity of 210Pb adsorbed on fine sediments
provides an index to the age of the sediments over the past
70-90 years, whereas the 'presence of 239,240pu indicates
that sedimentation has occurred since the beginning of
atmospheric nuclear tests (approximately 30 years).
Fisheries Resources
Chesapeake Bay style patent tongs, were used to obtain
samples of oysters and clams, using a random sampling system
in areas of varying substrate type, depth, and salinity.
Each sample represented 0.9 square meters of bottom. All
oyster' samples were taken from well defined rocks. Clams
were sampled by lowering the tongs to the bottom,• closing
them, and lifting them to the surface while rinsing most of
the mud and sand from the basket. This rinsing action may,
have allowed seed clams to fall through the 24 mm openings,
thereby causing an underestimate of -the seed clam
population. All oysters and clams were counted and measured.
Oysters :were classified as follows: "seed" - less than 51
mm long, "precommercial" -- 52-76 mm, "commercial"` --
greater than-76 mm. Clams were classified as: "seed" - less'
than 38 mm thick, "little necks" -- 39-60 mm, "cherrystones"_
=- 61-80 mm, and "chowders" - greater than 81 mm.
Juvenile fish were sampled with an 11 foot wide, 1/4.inch.
bar mesh otter trawl. Duplicate trawl *samples were, taken at
a speed of approximately 2.5 knots for l min at each of five
locations between Hunter's Creek and Pettiford Creek on May
15, 1982. Organisms collected were identified and.measured
from the tip of the nose to the base of the.'tail.
Historical seafood landings data were obtained from the.
Division of Marine Fisheries.
Impacts of the proposed projects upon clams, oysters,
spot, croaker, :and brown shrimp were analyzed through
habitat models. Habitat requirements for each species were
obtained from literature or field data and expressed as
simple mathematical equations. Data on each environmental
factor were mapped, and each species -habitat function solved
for each 200 x 250 ft cell throughout the estuary. Results
were -portrayed graphically as habitat quality maps and as an
index of the total habitat quality in the entire estuary
(obtained by summing the habitat quality values over all
cells). Comparing baseline (no project)• indices with those

PAGE 5
resulting. from each, project or other alteration provided a
means of comparing the relative impact of each alternative
upon each of the species considered.
RESULTS
Existing Conditions
Hydrology and Sedimentation
North of the Swansboro - Cedar Point causeway, the White
.Oak River Estuary is a mixture of riverine and marine
influences, The river introduces fresh .water and fine
sediments. The sediments flocculate and deposit in the upper
estuary; the fresh water mixes with saline ocean water from
Bogue Inlet. In=addition to saline water, the tide sweeps
sand -sized and finer sediments •through the inlet to
deposition sites as far inland as the Eastern Channel north
of the causeway. Sedimentation in this area varies from.
about 0.3 cm/yr (two samples) to about 5 cm/yr (one,sample).
The former' approximate the annual rate of submergence' along
the Atlantic Coast, and indicate that this portion of the
estuary is in general equilibrium with submergence. The
latter indicates that the area sampled (about 0.4 miles
north of Jones Island) is - in disequilibrium with
submergence, perhaps resulting from natural estuarine
channel meandering, incomplete restoration since the last
major storm.., or human activities.
South of the causeway, the estuary is influenced
primarily by Pogue Inlet. In this . Mood tide _dominant
system, the most active sediment transport takes plan —
through the. inlet throat during strong onshore winds and
storms, distributing sand well inside the inlet. Major
shoreline changes have also occurred along Bogue Bank and
Bear Island. Over. s+-udied•, the shorp11nPRof both
)stands have rec ded more 1-han lOIA f 2- _ In addition, the
spits off both islands have changed configuration as the
position of the inlet. has. changed. RaW jnlet .was at its
terly _position in 1938, and has migrated over a zone
1.5 mile wide overt a past 250 years or so.
The main ebb channel has been oriented to the south or
south-southeast during most years, resulting in a greater
net longshore drift in the east -to -west direction (toward
Bear Island). This channel position is generally in line
with the Main Channel dredged periodically by the Corps of
Engineers. If the Main Channel .continues to be maintained
through dredging, the inlet will remain relatively stable,

09/12/94 12:43 0 919 3504066- BIO SCIENCE .009
PAGE
or will .move slightly west of its present position; if a
hurricane or other severe storm strikes the area, rapid
inlet movement xs possible
The 100 year trend is for the West Channel to become less
and 1PGG imonrrant sPdim-ntatlon wi 1 probably continue to
Dudley's island and the associatedmarshes surrounding it
have developed on sand carried inside the inlet on flood
tide. The island/marsh complex developed on the flood delta.
and has -been accreting seaward. An equilibrium has now
apparently been reached, and both erosion and accretion are
occurring.
The marsh -filled lagoon east of the inlet (behind Bogue
Bank) also appears to be filling. Recent photography shows
more marsh than comparable 1873 and 1910 maps.
Tidal marsh along both the West and Main Channels has
undergone significant erosion. Boat wakes and dredging in
the Main Channel are likely responsible for some of the
observed changes.
Construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in 1930-32 and
the NC Route 24 causeway and bridge in 1933 altered the
east -west flow from a channel adjacent to Huggins Inland to
one adjacent ;to the mainland near NC 24. Spoil deposition
in a continuous string directly west of Huggins Island may
also be responsible for decreased tidal flow in the West
Channel of .the inlet.
e ma or source of sediment 's
o fshore; only a small 'amount is reworked dredged material
om a In acoas a a erway. is material is:continually
being swept from the inlet environment into the estuary, and
deposited there in a flood tide delta. Channel modifications
resulting fromhighway and Intracoastal Waterway
construction have facilitated landward sediment movement,
and sand deposition,is now occurring on -shoals north of the
causeway.
Fisheries Resources
Juvenile spot and croaker populations in low salinity
areas within the White Oak River Estuary were. comparable to
or higher than those in the most productive nursery areas in
Western Pamlico Sound and the Cape Fear River. Spot were the
most abundant fish, attaining. a density of 1.6 individuals
per square meter in waters of 8 ppt-salinity in Hunter's
Creek. At all other locations,. spot averaged 0.25
individuals per square meter. The modal length for spot was

09/12/94 12:44 1 919 3504066 BIO SCIENCE 121 010
PAGE 7
27'mm. The maximum croaker density was one- individual per
square -meter just south of Hunter's Creek; -the, lowest
density was-0.13 per square meter in 18 ppt salinity west -of
Cales Creek., The modal length of croakers was 24 mm in the
former, and 21 mm in the latter, location. No croakers'wera
found in the 26 ppt salinity of Pettiford Creek. The
diversity of fish species was high and did not indicate a
stressed condition.
Clam populations averaged 0.75 individuals per. square
meter in. muddy sand and 1.9 per square meter in shelly
bottom, comparable to or slightly lower than those of other
North Carolina estuaries. Th
contains betwe'en,6 and 18 io
re seed ed 31.5
n are ittlenecks 27.2 percent are cherr sto es an
1 percent are chowders.
�st"ar_productivity, on the other hand, is quite low and
has been since at least the late 1880s. Stunted and crowded
oysters in.the lower estuary serve as a source of seed for
transplanting to less saline areas, where they .become
marketable. Live oyster reefs contained an average of 156
oysters per square meter. The entire estuary probably
contains between 120 and 410 million o s,'of which 55.4-
percent are seed, cen are precommercial size, and—,---,
percent are comme . In the vicinity of Jones
ea shells extend up to 24 meters from the live
reef, and similar conditions exist along the line of reefs
south of Hancock Point.
No species for which landings data are available appears
to show- any long term population decline, although
considerable short term variations are evident.. The highest.
recorded catches of crabs, clams, shrimp,.. and oysters have
occurred within the last five years, and blue crab landings
for 1978 were nearly triple those of any other year.
Finfish landings for the period 1978-1981 were an order of
magnitude higher than -those of 1966, the only previous year
for which data were available.
Impact of the Proposed Projects
Project Description
The White Oak Advisory Council and the Office of Water
Resources defined two alternative channel modifications for
evaluation of their possible effects on circulation,
navigation, and sedimentation in the estuary above the
causeway (figure 1):

ti a� J •
0 a. t •� — 1
sa ryy <
as 17 -
t t ones
Island b�F
• Swansboro
�Q
O 12 V
12
oLights�aybeato
t\ s
Dols' •' •a
O:� • a
WA r
b /S XIA
ns lsl 'd
FIGURE 1
Location of Proposed Alternatives for White Oak River_Modifications

09/12/94 12:47 C 919 3504066 BIO SCIENCE
PAGE 9
' :! •Yi w
1. Improvements in the Eastern Channel'.
Maintaining the Eastern Channel through the
causeway 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep at MLW,
and extending the channel 5000'feet upstream of
the causeway to a point west of Jones Island,
where it would intersect the existing Western
Channel:'
2. Creating a New Eastern Channel. Excavating a
new channelthrough :the eastern end of the
causeway 600 feet wide.and 10 feet deep at MLW
and extending and narrowing the new. channel
7250 feet upstream of -the causeway to a point
west of Jones 'Island, where it would intersect
the existing Western Channel.
Hydrology and Sedimentation
The following results are based, on input from March 5,
1982 field data: tidal range from high to low of 1.77 feet
in 7.25 hours and low to high of 1.16 feet in 5.25'hours at
the causeway.
Improvements in the Eastern Channel would decrease tidal
velocities in the 'Western Channel slightly,` but not enough
to significantly change existing conditions. In - the
improved Eastern Channel, tidal velocities within 2000-`ft.of
the causeway during the ebb cycle , would be sufficient .to
transport medium sand, but would not be sufficient to cause
erosion. During the flood cycle, tidal velocities would
remain in the deposition regime up to about 1000 feet north'
of the causeway. Thus sand carried inland from the inlet
would be deposited in this area during flood tides, ebb
tides would not be capable of removing. it and carrying_ it
back downstream, and net sedimentation would occur.
Creation of a new Eastern Channel would decrease tidal
velocities in the Western Channel 10 to 30 percent and shift
the flow direction eastward. Velocities through most of ttie
Western Channel; would remain sufficient to prevent
deposition, velocities in the existing Eastern Channel
would be reduced up to.42 percent, sufficient to cause
deposition through an area extending from the causeway about
1600 feet upstream (about: 400 feet farther- than now).
Within the New Eastern Channel, tidal velocities would be
sufficient, to transport sediment, throughout the lower. ..2800
feet; from this point. upstream to its junction with the
Western Channel, deposition would occur.

PAGE 10
In no case would salinities within the estuary vary more
than a few parts per thousand from those now existing.
Fisheries Resources
None of the channel modification. alternatives evaluated
had any measureable impact'upon habitat.quality for oysters,
clams, spot, croaker, or brown shrimp. Changes in the
salinity regime were simply. too small to. affect these
species.
Differences between the high salinity (summer) and low.
salinity (winter) regimes were more apparent. Baseline
croaker habitat quality was about 16 percent poorer, -and
clam habitat quality.was about 67 percent better, under the,
higher salinity characteristic of summer conditions. than
under low salinity, winter conditions. -
CONCLUSIONS
1'. Sedimentation is occurring in the estuary above the
causeway. Two. 'samples indicated .that the sedimentation
rate in. the upper estuary was in equilibrium with the
rate of submergence (about 0.3 cm/yr); the third showed a
sedimentation rate of about 5 cm/yr -- more than ten,
times the rate of submergence (Appendix 1.).
2. Sandy sediments being deposited in the lower estuary
originate in the Bogue Inlet environment, and do not come
from the White Oak River. Attempts to improve circulation
within the lower area by dredging new channels may extend
the deposition zone farther upstream unless steps are
taken to eliminate the sedimentsource in the Bogue Inlet
area (Appendix 2.)
3. The total amount of ocean water entering the lower river
during the flood cycle will not.be changed 'by improvement
of existing channels or creation of new ones. Additional
channels will reduce the velocities in existing ones
(Appendix 3.)
4. Channels and shoaling patterns south.of the causeway have
changed considerably over ,the past 100.years, with Bogue

09/12/94 12:50 V919 3504066 BIO SCIENCE
PAGE 11
a
F
et proper migrating over an area about 1.5 miles wide.
s behavior is expected to continue into the
eseeable future (Appendix 2.).
5. No "evidence of a declining fishery was found. The White
Oak River Estuary supports populations of fish and clams.
comparable to other North Carolina estuaries; its
production of� marketable oysters has been meager since
the late 1800s; and commercial fisheries landings of most
species have been highest during the past five :years.
(Appendix 4.).
6. None 'of the channel modification alternatives considered
produced any.. measureable change in habitat quality for
oysters, clams, spot, croaker, or brown shrimp. Baseline
croaker, habitat quality was about 16 percent poorer and
clam habitat quality was about 67 percent better under
the higher salinity characteristic of summer conditions
than under lower salinity, winter conditions. Oysters,
spot, and brown shrimp were insensitive to these salinity
differences (Appendix 5.).
APPENDICES
1. Modern Sediment Accumulation in the White Oak River, '
Estuary.
2. Historic Changes in :the Bogue Inlet Gower White Oak
River Estuary (1873-1980).
3. Hydrodynamic Modelling of the White Oak River Estuary.
4. Biota .of the White. Oak River Estuary: An evaluation of
biological resources: Clams, oysters, and nursery areas.
5. Biota in the White Oak River Estuary: The effects of two
channelization scenarios on clamsy oysters,: shrimp, spot
and croaker as evaluated with habitat models.

o"ASrAt WHITE--j-
4. OAK RIVER
ct� A. +pN��G ~•
a pYL
•- - ''{,� GNP - "' ''• ._: •; �"' a;.•'• t .• t.•..:,;;,;:
' � � . - t •ter - • ,, .s- ��-�-. •��. •, •' •
}• • ,,•• .� ./• • �\ � � . �: y mil. i
�, •.!�• ,•;i• . •,•:1• � YM__r..'/ •.4• r •'•:ti •:ti•��• • �S1 � t\1 . '•���i: ��if�I,,..
loi
.��.ti. till. ;•� •...�.• 1..'i:, i �. " .,•.�.•,•••:� i•. •:..`��
ATLANTIC OCEAN. :�. ; ;.::: :�....•.,:�:: -::, ;::.:.:....- •. r •
KM
o i .2 .1976
Ul EROSION U ACCRETION

1
4.7...
ti
,fir'{: r t • :;• .�)�, �fJ=a:�/•)
MAP 1873

r
r;. .cam' • ,;: Y•
y. '�i••.' ^— •i' `•r"- � mot! r':
\4i��t�.�:i.•.i!•;ti: ••�'{!;N�r •t•'�•;;�tar /:� �• •�•♦
- '1 + t f6 •� !: Jam( �';�.�
Lie
•/R. �; �� •i•••�•�����•�i• :�• .-`:' is •��jj�r%
193
8