20081615 Ver 4_Draft Monitoring Plans_20131231

111 D 1 w 0 m 1
Physical Monitoring Plan
4 0->O © " - O £M 7C.J-' O # ° =XJ.@E
1014J4 0
.,

Town of Topsail Beach:
Physical Monitoring Plan
Topsail Beach, North Carolina
30 ,July 2013
Prepared For:
Prepared By

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................
..............................4
1.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................
..............................4
1.2 audy Area ....................................................................................................
............................... 5
1.3 Background ....................................................................................................
..............................6
2 Physical Processes ...................................................................................................
..............................7
2.1 F;bgional Geologic Sr tting .............................................................................. ..............................7
2.2 Topsail Beach GeologicSr tting .....................................................................
............................... 8
2.3 Wave Cimate and Littoral Transport ...........................................................
............................... 8
2.4 Storm Events ..................................................................................................
..............................8
2.5 Beach Erosion & Shoreline Change ..............................................................
............................... 9
2.6 New Topsail Inlet ..........................................................................................
.............................10
3 Previous Work ........................................................................................................
.............................10
3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... .............................10
3.2 HDR& CLEARY, 2002 ....................................................................................
.............................11
3.3 OCEAN SURVEYSING, 2004 .........................................................................
.............................11
3.4 CLEARYet al., 2006 .......................................................................................
.............................12
3.5 US 2006 .................................................................................................
.............................12
3.6 RNI4et al., 2009 ..........................................................................................
.............................14
4 Physical Monitoring Ran ........................................................................................
.............................14
4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... .............................14
4.2 Beach and Offshore Profiles .........................................................................
.............................15
4.3 Inlet Area and Interior Channel Bathymetry ................................................
.............................15
4.4 Aerial Photography .......................................................................................
.............................15
5 Managed S,Istems Approach For Maintenance Actions ........................................
.............................17
5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... .............................17
5.2 Trigger 1TimeThreshold ...........................................................................
.............................17
5.3 Trigger 2 Oceanfront Volumetric Loss Threshold ......................................
.............................17
5.4 Trigger 3 -]Inlet/ Interior Channel Shoaling Threshold .................................
.............................19
6 Topsail Beach Management Ran ............................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1 Ran Bements ................................................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2 Original Nourishment Project ........................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3 Management Ran Borrow Areas Identified .. ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.1 Overview ................................................... ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.2 Inland Borrow Areas .................................. ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4 Summary ....................................................................................................... .............................20
7 Contingency Ran .................................................... ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1 Overview ........................................................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2 Area XO ption ................................................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.3 Area Al Option .............................................. ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.4 Area B Option ................................................ ...............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.

7.5 Inlet Sioulder Option .................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.6 SAmmary ........................................................ ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8 Maintenance Costs ................................................. ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
9 Dune Ranting .......................................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10 Conclusion .......................................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
11 Fbferences ...................................................................................................... ............................... 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map depicting study area and surrounding coastal zone ............................... ............................... 5
Figure 2. Map depicting project area ............................................................................. ............................... 6
Figure 3. Major hurricane tracks associated with study area (modified from US4C 2008) ....................... 9
Figure 4. Typical beach profile depicting upland and nearshore volumetric sections .. .............................18
Figure 5. Typical interior channel cross- section ............................................................ .............................20
Figure 6. Oblique aerial photograph (2/25/2011) depicting fill placement during the 2011 nourishment
project (photo courtesy of Norfolk Dredging Corporation ) ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 7. Oblique aerial photographs (2/25/2011) depicting both US4CEDisposal Areas (DA203 & 189)
used as borrow sources during the 2011 nourishment project (photos courtesy of Norfolk Dredging
Corporation) .................................................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 8. Map depicting inland borrow area associated with the 1992 US4CEoriginal authorized project
(modified from US4C 2008) ......................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 9. Map depicting inland borrow areastargeted for renourishment events every 3 -4 years.... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 10. Map depicting inland borrow areas' approximate sediment thicknesses and estimated
volumes of suitable material for the intial renourishment sos■o fill requirements in 2014/2015... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 11. Typical beach profile depicting the design fill template (including dune restoration and
vegetative planting) to be constructed as part of the recommended initial renourishment event.... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 12. Offshore borrow area map depicting 6 sites (A F) delineated by the US4CEGRRand the 3 -mile
line (dotted) separating state/federal waters (modified from US4C 2009) .............. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 13. Photograph depicting AreaX(red) contingency option and potential borrow area........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.

Figure 14. Photograph depicting inlet shoulder contingency option and potential borrow area........ Error!
Bookmark not defined.

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The Town of Topsail Beach, North Carolina completed its first beach nourishment project in the Spring of
2011. The project entailed the placement of approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards (CY) of sand along 4.5
miles of beachfront. This project was originally implemented to provide storm protection to the (aO�f
propertieswhile seeking authorization of a 50 -Year Federal Project. However, uncertainty in current
and future federal budgets and policies necessitates a local commitment to beach management and
funding to provide for the long -term maintenance of the (aO�f beaches.
For most beach communities, the beach itself is the centerpiece of the community and as such it needs
to be maintained. The main concern with any infrastructure maintenance program is usually finding and
organizing the necessary funding. The Town has made a substantial long -term commitment to funding
its beach nourishment project and has maintained a dedicated local funding source. Because a properly
maintained beach helps reduce storm- related damage to existing structures, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) maintains a program for assisting communities in restoring their
maintained beaches when excessive erosion occurs during major storm events. In order to be eligible
for this program, the Town must meet several criteria:
1. The beach must be constructed of imported sand (of proper grain size) to a designed elevation,
width, and slope.
2. A maintenance program involving periodic renourishment with imported sand has been
established and adhered to by the Town.
3. The maintenance program preservesthe original design.
To document eligibility of the beach as a designed and maintained facility, the Town should be able to
provide the following information to FEMA:
1. All design studies, plans, construction documents, and as-builts for the original nourishment.
2. All studies, plans, construction documents, and as-builts for every renourishment.
3. Documentation and details of the Maintenance Ran, including how the need for renourishment
is determined and funded.
4. Pre- and Post -storm profiles of that extend at least to the seaward edge of the sub- aqueous
nearshore zone (closure depth, usually _�j4to _�J$ feet).
"From FEMA Disaster Assistance Fact Eheet DAP580.9"
A goal of the management plan is to combine interests regarding the state of the beach and
inlet /interior channels into a regional strategic plan that works in concert with one another to mutually
benefit all areas. This plan was adopted by the Town In July of 2011. Stbsequently, Hurricane rUm§'66;-
brushed the Town in September of 2011 causing damage to the newly constructed beach. With Ga ! [f
assistance, Phase 1 of the Hurricane Irene beach restoration was conducted in the winter of 2012. As
part of the permit process for Phase 2, the National Marine Fisheries Service has requested that the
Town submit a Physical and Biological Monitoring Ran to monitor the effects of the project on the inlet
rd

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
and estuary. The Physical Monitoring Ran contained in this document. Is currently in effect and has
been since 2011 with minor adjustments to accommodate adjustments in the alignments of the federal
channels.
1.2 Study Area
The Town of Topsail Beach is one of three coastal communities located on the 22 -mile extent of Topsail
Island in Pender County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Topsail Island, the second longest barrier island
within the Onslow Bay section of southeastern North Carolina, is bordered by New River Inlet to the
northeast and New Topsail Inlet to the southwest. New Topsail Inlet separates developed Topsail Island
from the undeveloped 3.7 -mile long, barrier island of Lea Island (Figure 2). The island has a northeast to
southwest orientation leaving the island vulnerable to impacts from frequent winter storm events.
Figure 1. Map depicting study area and surrounding coastal zone.
Topsail Island is generally low in topography and protected by a narrow, (< 10 ft wide) single foredune.
Island width averages approximately 900 ft. It is also situated within a recurring overwash zone. Storms
over the past 65 years have caused extensive damage to the island, destroying infrastructure and
transporting sand from the oceanfront beach acrossthe island to the marsh and sound creating
overwash fans. The Town of Topsail Beach is situated within the southern 5.0 -mile extent of Topsail
5

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
Island and is bordered to the north by Sarf City, to the west by Topsail Sound, and to the south by New
Topsail Inlet. The island is accessible to the public by Highways 50 and 210 with Highway 50 being the
only entry road to the Town of Topsail Beach. The (a0� f geographic coordinates are Latitude 340
99� 91KBN; Longitude 770 �-q ��-*KB-� V (NAD83).
Figure 2. Map depicting project area.
1.3 Background
The Town of Topsail Beach has experienced substantial shoreline erosion, exacerbated by multiple direct
and near direct encounters with tropical storm systems. In order to mitigate loss of property and
infrastructure, a Federal Storm Damage Fbduct ion Project was authorized under the Water Fbsources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1992. In November 1989, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(US4Cq released a Final Environmental Impact statement (FEIS) detailing the proposed federal beach
nourishment project and preferred borrow sources. Federal fundswere not secured for the project
however, and the project became inactive when the Town withdrew its support in 1994 due to funding
limitations. The Wilmington District completed a General Fbevaluation Fbport (GIRI:� of the federal
project and the combined GM/BSwas released for final public review in August 2008.
Due to the expected timeline associated with re- authorization of the federal project, the Town applied
for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to conduct a privately funded interim beach nourishment
project. The USNCEreleased a supplement to the FBS(J =BS) detailing the proposed project on April 10,
2009. Several borrow source alternatives were considered during the development of the SFBS
including the existing federal navigation channels (i.e. Topsail Creek, Connector Channel, and Banks
Channel) and existing federal disposal areas. It was determined, based on the information available at
the time, that the volume of material that could be removed from within the limits of the authorized
navigation channel was not sufficient to meet the interim shore protection needs. It was also
determined that the disposal areas along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) did not contain
enough material meeting the North Carolina sediment criteria to complete the proposed nourishment
project. Thus, alternatives involving these optionswere not carried forward.
A Fboord of Decision (FUD) completing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processwas signed
on June 12, 2009. A DA permit was issued to the town on June 15, 2009 to place approximately
1,000,000 CYof beach quality sand along the 24,700 linear feet of developed shoreline on Topsail Beach
from an ocean borrow area, designated as q drtaO Area d located immediately southeast of New
Topsail Inlet.
C.1

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
The unexpectedly high bids received during the contract procurement process in 2009 and delays in
project implementation prompted the Town to re- investigate alternative sand sources. Asa part of this
effort, the Town contracted Gahagan & Bryant Associates of NOS RLC(GBA) to conduct more detailed
vibracore surveys of disposal areas along the AIWVV as well as some areas within the existing federal
channels. GBA also examined recent hydrographic surveys of the existing federal channels. Thisnew
information revealed that removal of material accumulated in the existing federal channelswithin
Topsail Creek, Connector Channel, and Banks Channel combined with removal of suitable material from
within two federal disposal areas along the AIVVVVwould generate adequate volumes of material
suitable to complete the beach nourishment project.
The Town proposed to modify its DA permit to eliminate the offshore area, q drtaO Area a�B]�s a sand
source for the project and instead utilize material from the above - mentioned federal channels and
disposal areas. The Town asserted that utilizing these inland borrow sourceswould result in substantial
cost savingswith less environmental impacts and would fully meet the (aO�f interim beach
nourishment needs. To minimize environmental impacts, the Town proposed to limit borrow activities
to only that material accumulated within the authorized dimensions of the federal navigation channels
and within two active US4CEdisposal areas, owned by the Mate of North Carolina, and located within
the U {! / 0f AIWVVeasement. Fbgularly conducted federal channel maintenance activities are currently
authorized to utilize portions of the proposed beach nourishment project area for disposal.
During the winter of 2011 the Town of Topsail Beach conducted their first beach nourishment project
with the placement of approximately 1 million CY of sand across the oceanfront beach. A subsequent
F EMA sponsored renourishment in the northern third of the Town was conducted in winter 2012 after
Hurricane Irene.
2 Physical Processes
2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The southeastern coast of North Carolina, from Cape Lookout to the South Carolina border, is underlain
by geologi c units rangi ng in age from Upper Cretaceous to Riocene (SVYDEtet al., 1994). Onslow Bay
shelf sediment cover has been classified as residual (i.e. material derived from the erosion of underlying
geologic units) by M ILUMAN et al. (1972). Offshore sediment cover is usually thin ( <6 ft inmost areas)
and relatively sand -poor. Widespread exposures of rock exist across the shoreface. A deficiency of
Holocene sediments in Onslow Bay exists due to a lack of fluvial input and sediment exchange with
neighboring Paleigh Bay and Long Bay (CLEARYand RLIEY, 1968 and RIGGSet al., 1995).
,Spits and narrow barrier islands comprising the coastline of Onslow Bay overlie older geologic units
acrossthe shoreface (CLEARYand HOSIB� 1987; RIGGSet al., 1995). RIGGSet al. (1995) described a
paleo - drainage system consisting of large -scale river channels incised into Tertiary units in the region.
This drainage pattern has dictated the formation of headland and non - headland segments currently
comprising the area. Headlands exist where the underlying rock units outcrop as submarine features
across the shoreface. Geologic units extend beneath a barrier island and become exposed on the
shoreface, forming a headland. One such headland characterizes a portion of shoreface along North
Topsail Beach. Non - headland shoreline segments are common in this region. Sarf City and Topsail
7

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
Beach are situated upon a non - headland shoreline segment and underlain by inlet -fill or transgressive
sequences (CLEARYet al., 2006).
2.2 Topsail Beach Geologic Setting
Limestone and siltstone units of Oigocene age form the outcrop and subcrop units off Topsail Beach
(MCQUAME1998; HDR and CLEARY, 2002). The shoreface in the region is characterized by paleo-
fluvial channels of Holocene and Pleistocene age incised into underlying rock units, notably the
0igocene siltstone sequence. A majority of the channels are filled with estuarine mud and silt deposits.
Several distinct zones of seafloor morphology exist offshore Topsail Beach. Across the northern portion
of the shoreface a variable distribution of low- relief, limestone hardbottoms are covered by a thin layer
of gravel and sand. Exposed limestone offshore the southern 2 miles of Topsail Beach is extensive.
Concentrations of channel -like features flank the hardbottom areas and are floored with rippled, very
coarse shell and lithic gravels. South of New Topsail Inlet the shoreface is underlain by Oligocene
siltstone (CLEARYet al., 2006).
Sediment cover in the area is intermittent and thickness varies greatly. Most sand units measureless
than 1.5 ft in thickness. Gravel -rich units are prevalent and constitute a major fraction of the
sedimentary concentrations near hardbottoms. Thicker concentrations (> 6 ft) of highly irregular
Holocene sediment are mainly situated in depressions amongst limestone hardbottoms and underlain
by siltstone (CLEARYet al., 2006).
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 US4CE, 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 (US4CE,
2006).
A US4CEstudy (1989) determined the dominant direction of wave propagation originates from the
south- southwest and accounts for over half the annual wave energy. The US4CEestimated that 55% of
the 654,000 CY /yr gross rate of sediment transport across New Topsail Inlet moves in a northerly
direction (CLEARY, 1994; JAFFETT, 1976). Sediment transport modeling acrossthe length of Topsail
Island indicates an average net sediment transport of approximately 200,000 CY /yr to the north in the
vidnity of Topsail Beach. This northerly sediment transport is consistent with the findings of the August
1992 Design Memorandum for the US4CEIntegrated GRRand EISShore Protection Project, which
reported a northerly transport rate of 325,000 CY /yr for Topsail Beach (US4CE, 2006).
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 acrossthe island to the marsh and sound creating
overwash fans. Topsail Island is located along major historic storm tracks, and as a result has been
L•3

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
repeatedly impacted by tropical and extra - tropical storms (Figure 3). Storm activity between 1944 and
1962 and in the late q�h i� f 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 (Ma-). The 41jar �f average elevation was 8.9 ft
above Ma- (CLEARYand PILKEY, 1996). Hazel removed 850,000 CYof 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 jq�N$ f Overwash terraces extended as far as 328 -656 ft across the leveled
barrier island (CLEARYet al., 2006). Bertha and Fran (1996) and Royd (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.
Figure 3. Major hurricane tracks associated with study area (modified from USACIE, 2008).
2.5 Beach Erosion & Shoreline Change
Extensive development of beachfront structures and infrastructure along Topsail Beach began in the
9� *[� Many of the oceanfront homes built during this era were placed along the existent primary
dune line that paralleled the southerly growing spit. New Topsail Inlet has a history of migration. Upon
opening in _9� _q$�� the inlet steadily moved southwest. As the inlet migrated Topsail LPjar[ C southern
spit progressively extended further southwest. Inlet migration has resulted in a realignment of the
9

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
trailing northerly shoreline in landward direction (CLEARY, 1994). Couple this related inlet influence to
the northerly shoreline with the influence of storm events and one can understand that Topsail Beach
experiences chronic erosion along its oceanfront shoreline.
The US4CE(2006) measured long -term shoreline changes along Topsail Beach by comparing mean high
water (M HVV) positions between 1962 and 2002. Shoreline change rates across the northern half of the
(a0� f oceanfront beach was < 1 ft /yr of erosion. Across the southern half of the (a0� f oceanfront,
erosion rates increased to > 3 ft /yr over the same 40 -year period.
2.6 New Topsail Inlet
New Topsail Inlet has played a major role in shaping the dynamic morphology of this coastal zone
through a historic pattern of migration. 9nce opening, south of 9oop Point in the late 9� _q$�� the inlet
has migrated southwest approximately 6.8 miles (CLEARY, 1994). Between 1938 and 2006, the inlet
migrated nearly 1 mile to the southwest at rates as high as 160 ft /yr (McLean, 2009). Previous migration
of the inlet is evidenced by the presence of Banks Channel (6 -mile long channel) paralleling the sound -
side extent of Topsail Beach. Other indicators of inlet migration, observed today, include a series of
narrow marsh islands, constructed upon previous flood tidal delta shoal complexes as flood currents and
storm- generated wave energy transported sediments into the inlet (CLEARYet al., 1996). These marsh
islands are situated along the marsh -side length of Banks Channel. The presence of re- curved dune
ridges along the southern end of Topsail Island serve as another indicator of the Ji�Go migration. As
New Topsail Inlet migrated, it created a progressive series of re- curved dune ridges separated by low -
lying areas, indicating lateral sedimentation (HAYED 1980).
3 Previous Work
3.1 Overview
The US4CEistasked with providing protection for coastal areas such as the oceanfront shoreline, tidal
inlets, and navigable waterways. Each coastal zone possesses different physical parameters shaping the
shoreline, as well as economic factors, that must be considered in determination of the feasibility of
coastal management (i.e. beach nourishment) in aspecificarea. Beach nourishment involvesthe
placement of sand from an outside borrow source on a beach. Sand can be placed on the beach by
dredging and transporting material from nearby borrow areas or may involve the use of trucksto haul
material from inland sites. Justification for federal expenditure on beaches requiring nourishment is
usually based on storm protection of beachfront structures. In order to minimize cost of a nourishment
project, finding an adequate borrow source in the immediate area of the beach in need is of utmost
importance.
Section 101 of the WRDAof 1992 authorized the construction or implementation of the West Ohslow
Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) chore Protection Project at Topsail Beach. This effort
recommended an inland borrow source area and a dune and berm system across 19,200 ft of Topsail
. §A �f oceanfront shoreline.
During 2001, the US4CEbegan preparing GRRfor the storm reduction project along Topsail Beach.
US4CEfocuswasthe availability of a sufficient volume of suitable beach fill material for an initial
10

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
nourishment project and following renourishment eventsover the next 50 years. The Do4f principal
purposewasto reevaluate feasibility of constructing a nourishment project that would serve to diminish
damage associated with hurricane and storm impacts. The USACE previously identified (USACE1989
and 1992) and evaluated several Topsail Sound sand resource areasfor use on Topsail Island. Potential
inland borrow sources included portions of Topsail Creek and bars associated with the flood -tidal delta
of the inlet. Aconsiderable quantity of high quality beach fill material wasfound. However, the
environmental restrictions involved with dredging these areaswere perceived to be a severe limitation
to their potential as primary sand source areas (USACE, 1989; HDR 2002). As a result, the USACEshifted
their efforts and focus offshore to find suitable sand sources.
3.2 HDR & CLEARY, 2002
HDRENGINEERNGING OFTHECAROUNASand William J Oeary, Ph.D./ PGwere contracted by the
USACEWilmington District Office in 2002 to conduct a study of the offshore area of Topsail Beach. The
intent of this investigation wasto serve as a preliminary sand search effort by delineating suitable
borrow areas, containing a minimum of 500,000 CYof native beach compatible material. Asecondary
goal was the identification of areas of environmentally sensitive hardbottoms. The study area
encompassed the shoreface within an area from the Town of Topsail Beach /Sarf City boundary to a
distance of 3 miles southwest of New Topsail Inlet and extended from the 30 -ft contour offshore to a
distance of 5 miles. This effort consisted primarily of geotechnical investigations (i.e. diver probes,
cores, samples, video), bathymetric profiles, and sidescan sonar imagery. Limited seismic reflection
profiling of the subsurface had been completed to date in Onslow Bay. Previous seismic work had been
conducted by MBMURGER(1977 and 1979) and MCQUAR9E(1998) with the general intent to generate
an overview of the geologic framework of Onslow Bay.
HDR& CLEARY ident ifi ed four target areas acrossthe shoreface that potentially contained high volumes
of suitable beach fill material. The exact volume of suitable material within each target areawas not
determined due to a lack of vibracore and seismic data. HDR& CLEARY(2002) stated that the ebb -tidal
delta of New Topsail Inlet contains as much as 7 million CYof material. Thiswork provided the
foundation for the USACEto pursue further investigations of specific target areas thought to retain
potential beach fill compatible material for nourishment efforts on Topsail Island.
3.3 OCEAN SURVEYS I NC., 2004
OCEAN SJRVEY$ INC (2004) conducted a marine geophysical investigation in the spring of 2003
searching for and evaluating potential sand resource (borrow) areas offshore Topsail Island and Lea
Island as part of the USACEGRR The area designated for investigation included the inner continental
shelf from as far north as New River Inlet to Rich Inlet to the south, and seaward of the 30 -ft contour
extending 5 nautical miles offshore. This investigation was part of the continuing effort to replenish the
oceanfront beach of Topsail Island with sand for shoreline stabilization and the protection of structures
from storm events. The study was performed under contract with Greenhorne & h� a ark, Inc. (G&O) for
the Wilmington District (WD) of the USACE OCEAN SJR1/EYSINC (2004) primary objectives included (1)
determining water depths and general bottom morphology, (2) mapping the areal extent and thickness
of unconsolidated sediments (primarily sand suitable for beach nourishment), and (3) delineate the
extent of bedrock units on and below the seafloor. The results from this study intended to further
11

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
refine potential offshore resource areas and allow design of a following, more intensive mapping phase
of sand resource areas exhibiting the highest potential for economic mining. Consequently, sped fic
borrow areaswere intentionally left undefined with the expectation that the USACEwould designate
such areas at a later date, following complete examination of the fC r It results (OCEAN 9JRVEYI�
2004). 9milarly, volume estimates for sand resource areas were not calculated.
OCEAN 9JR VEYSINC (2004) split their investigation area into five zones. Zone 2 encompassed an area
from the town line separating 9arf City and the Town of Topsail Beach to New Topsail Inlet to an
approximate distance of 5 nautical miles offshore. Their investigation revealed the region (Zone 2)
offshore Topsail Beach to be dominated by a broad, shallow limestone rock outcrop (Trent Formation).
This unit is characterized as moldic, sandy limestone (HDR 2002). OCEAN 9JR VEYSINC (2004)
determined the offshore area of Topsail Beach to be the most expansive hardbottom area in their study
area. Athin veneer of sediment overliesthe rods across much of the area. Several patches of suitable
sand were delineated within this veneer of sediment. However, the horizontal extent of sediment
overlying the rods in this area (Zone 2) appeared to retain the lowest volume of usable beach fill
material of the five zones investigated. OCEAN 9JR VEYSINC (2004) estimated the percentage of
suitable sand within Zone 2 to be 5 %.
3.4 CLEARY •° "., 2006
Astudy conducted by CLEARYet al. (2006) summarized findings related to research of sediment quality
and bottom conditions offshore Topsail Beach and New Topsail Inlet. It was initially hypothesized that
beach fill quality sand may occur in considerable volumes in four target areaswithin a 40 square mile
area offshore Topsail Beach and Lea Island. However, vibracore data revealed that accumulations of
unsuitable material (i.e. silty sands and muddy gravels) reside below a majority of the target areas. It
was concluded that these sediment sequences represent Holocene estuarine fill. Immediately seaward
of New Topsail Inlet, specific sites consisting of beach fill quality sand were delineated.
Given the prevalence of hardbottoms and unsuitable material residing in paleo - channels, this study
concluded that the only viable borrow source for nourishment events on Topsail Beach would include
New Topsail L40 throat, ebb -tidal delta, and immediate portions of the shoreface.
3.5 USACE, 2006
Adraft of USACEGRRwas released in 2006. The study conduded that the Topsail Beach shoreline is
susceptible to major damage and erosion from coastal storms. It selected a beach fill construction plan
that would substantially reduce economic losses due to storm activity and progressive erosion. The
selected plan consisted of a 26,200 -ft long dune system to be constructed to an elevation of 12 ft NGVD
and fronted by a 50 -ft wide berm, at elevation 7 ft NGVD, and spanning 23,200 ft of developed,
oceanfront shoreline within the (aO�f limit. The USACE recommended a renourishment cyde of 4
years. The selected plan was deemed feasible based on engineering and economic criteria. It was
consider acceptable by environmental, cultural, and social laws and standards. The non - Federal
sponsor, the Town of Topsail Beach, supported the plan. It was concluded that the sponsor possessed
the capability to provide the necessary non - Federal requirements identified and described in report
Section 9.02, Division of Ran F;bsponsibilities.
12

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
The preliminary identification of borrow areasfor the project included New Topsail Inlet, Topsail Creek,
Banks Channel, and shoreface offshore Topsail Beach in water depths greater than 30 ft below NGVD.
OCEAN S.JRVEYSINC (2004) investigation was used to delineate boundaries of offshore borrow areas.
Asediment compatibility analysis was conducted for samplesfrom New Topsail Inlet and the connecting
channel between the inlet and the AIWW. The analysis indicated New Topsail Inlet material was
compatible with native material on Topsail Beach. However, connecting channel material was
determined incompatible. Fbgardless, the potential borrow areas of the inlet and the connecting
channel were eliminated as options because they are situated within the Lea Island complex (1.07) of the
Coastal Barrier F;bsource S,Istem (CBRA) zone, and contain constituent elements of piping plover habitat
and other estuarine resourcesto the extent that other alternatives were environmentally preferable.
The USACI� Wilmington District, maintainsa policy of not pursuing borrow sites existing within CBRA
zones.
A Federal shore protection project was authorized for the Town of Topsail Beach in 1992. The proposed
borrow area for that 1992 project included a portion of Banks Channel, similar to this federal project.
Banks Channel is a Federal authorized connecting channel (80 -ft wide, 7 ft +2 ft depth) extending 6.27
miles from theAIWVVto the CBRA zone at New Topsail Inlet. The USACI� Wilmington District, collected
32 vibracores within Banks Channel in 2003. Atotal of 82 Banks Channel sediment sampleswere grain
size tested and compared to the native beach sediment of Topsail Beach. The analysis concluded an
overfill ratio of 1.08. Material from Banks Channel was compatible with the native beach sediment.
Based on hydrographic surveys and vibracore data, the USACEcalculated approximately 94,000 CYof
material available within the Federally authorized navigation boundaries of Banks Channel.
The USACEGRR(2006) concluded the dredging of Banks Channel to supplement a renourishment cycle
would require the mobilization of a second dredge for a negligible amount of material. The USACE
considered expansion of dredging limits associated with the channel but ultimately did not pursue this
avenue because it would require extensive effort with environmental agencies and potentially increase
mitigation requirements. Asa result, the USACEeliminated Banks Channel as borrow area for this
project.
Sx offshore borrow areas, located beyond a depth of 30 ft NGVDto approximately 5.5 miles offshore,
were identified for further evaluation as potential borrow areas for the Town of Topsail Beach. The
offshore borrow areas beyond 3 nautical miles offshore are subject to federal mining requirements of
the Mineral Management Service (MMS). It was determined that approximately 62 %of the sand within
all six offshore borrow areas (A, B, C D, E� and F) was situated in borrow area A. Borrow area A is
located approximately 1.5 miles south of New Topsail Inlet. It was selected as the sole source of sand
for the U {! / Of proposed initial beach construction project on Topsail Beach. Material contained in
areas B, D, E� and Fwas limited and would be used in periodic, subsequent renourishment cycles.
Borrow area C approximately 5 miles from the project area, would be used only for contingency
purposes. Borrow area F, based on preliminary investigation, potentially contained incompatible
material for use on the beach.
Initial construction volume required for the original project was calculated at 3,223,000 CY Sibsequent
renourishment would require 866,000 CYevery 4 years. Over 50 years, the total of 12 renourishment
13

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
events would amount to 10,392,000 CYof material placed. Including the initial construction project
volume, total project requirement would be 13,615,000 CYplaced on the oceanfront beach of Topsail
Beach.
3.6 FI NKL • M° '., 2009
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE NC), working for the Town of Topsail Beach,
conducted a three - phased marine sand search investigation to meet the needs of the (aO�f Interim
(Emergency) Beach Nourishment Project. The objective of this investigation was to identify and develop
a suitable borrow area for the Town in a quick and cost- effective manner.
As part of this investigation, CPE NCreviewed previous work completed in the area and supplemented
thiswith further geophysical and geotechnical efforts. CPE NCreviewed US4CEidentified borrow areas
and determined US4CE Borrow Area Ato be the most promising area delineated. CPE NCfocused on
the portion of Borrow Area Alocated landward of the State/ Federal boundary for their further
investigation. Ageophysical survey was conducted of this area within Borrow Area A consisti ng of
seismic reflection profiling, sidescan sonar, magnetometer, and bathymetric surveys. Last final portion
of their investigation involved avibracore survey of a further refined area (i.e. Area Al) delineated from
the geophysical portion of the study. Twenty vibracoreswere collected by CPE NCin 2006. Fbsults of
the geophysical and geotechnical surveys indicated material in Borrow Area Al was comprised of silt
percentages (7.30%) in excess of limits allowed by N.C. DCM. It was also concluded that the material
was too fine to meet the (aO�f performance goals. CPE NCcalculated this area to contain
approximately 2.14 million CYof material across 230 acres (FINK-et al., 2009).
The Town of Topsail Beach approved a second three -phase sand search investigation by CPE NCin
January 2007. CPE NCre- examined vibracore data collected previously by the US4CEto delineate other
possible target areas. This inspection resulted in CPE NCdelineating a potential target area of interest
offshore New Topsail Inlet. The geophysical portion of this second investigation was conducted in
February 2007 and focused on the ebb -tidal delta of the inlet. Utilizing the geophysical data, twenty -
three vibracoreswere collected during the summer of 2007 and targeted areas of highest potential for
containing suitable beach fill sand. The culmination of these investigations resulted in a sand source
area comprised of material with a fraction coarse enough to comply with the performance needs of the
project and meet N.C. DCM requirements. Another set of geophysical surveyswere conducted at the
end of 2007 to further refine the limits of the borrow area located acrossthe southeastern portion of
New Topsail h4o ebb -tidal delta. This 127 acre area was designated Borrow Area X CPE NC
determined that Borrow Area Xcontained approximately 1.58 million CYof sand with a mean grain size
of 0.20 mm (fine sand), with a phi sorting of 1.21 (poorly sorted), and 2.17 %silt fraction.
4 Physical Monitoring Plan
4.1 Overview
The following plan describes various components of the currently ongoing physical monitoring that is
being used to establish a record of existing beach conditions and track morphologic change effectively in
order to implement effective maintenance events. 9nce 2011, topographic, hydrographic and aerial
14

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
surveys of Topsail Beach and Topsail Inlet have been taken on annual bads with additional surveys
conducted in assodation with the construction projects that have occurred. The existing data combined
with future data sets wiII allow for proper analysis of historical natural changes and their relationship to
any potential impacts by the project itself.
4.2 Beach and Offshore Profiles
Beach and offshore profiles shall be measured at 26 reference stations established along the Town of
Topsail Beach parallel to the oceanfront shoreline. 9milarly, 10 reference stationswill be established
along the oceanfront shoreline of Lea LPjar[f northern end. Profiles will extend along the shore- normal
azimuths, from the backbeach (i.e. west of the existing dune feature) to approximately 2,000 ft offshore
(to the-]-* ft NAVD contour). Average spacing between profile stations measures approximately 950 ft.
Beach profile data has been previously collected both prior to and following the original nourishment
project. Additional surveyswill be performed annually to track morphologic profile change. Profile
surveyswill also be conducted following significant storm events.
Vertical and horizontal control is established and referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD88) and North Carolina Mate Plane Coordinate S,Istem (NAD 1983). Each survey line azimuth is
identified by their respective magnetic bearing. 9arvey data will be compiled in the form of cross -
sectional profile plots and bathymetry and stored digitally. A report will be composed for each post -
storm surveyor post - maintenance event to document the results of volumetric and shoreline change
analyses along the oceanfront beach.
4.3 Inlet Area and Interior Channel Bathymetry
Bathymetric surveys of the inlet channel and interior channelswill be measured prior to and following
any maintenance event in addition to annual surveys to monitor vol umetric changes. Four specific
interior channel areas have been established to monitor morphologic change. These include Topsail
Creek, Banks Channel, the Connector Channel (i.e. the channel connecting Topsail Creek to Banks
Channel), and the A AN. The surveys consist of channel profile lines oriented perpendicular to each
respective channel centerline on an even 100 -ft interval. Topsail Creek has 77 established profile lines.
Banks Channel and the Connector Channel have 52 established lines combined. The data and volumetric
change analyseswill be included in any monitoring report indicated above.
4.4 Aerial Photography
Color, vertical aerial photography will be flown along the Project shoreline at the time of each full
monitoring survey (i.e. inclusive of beach profiles and interior bat hymetri c surveys). The scale of the
photographswill be 1 inch equals200 feet.
Each photograph will include New Topsail Inlet, Topsail Sound (i.e. marsh and interior channels), the
AIWVV, the oceanfront beach, nearshore environment, and sufficient upland features (i.e. beach -
fronting buildings, roads, etc.) to determine the location of any photograph. The shoreline location in
any image will be approximately halfway across the width of the photograph. Consecutive photographs
will possess sufficient overlap (approximately 20 %) to identify common reference points. Photographs
15

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
will be captured prior to 2:00 pm to avoid shadows cast by tall objects (i.e. buildings, trees, etc.) across
the beach.
Local predicted tideswill be used to determine flight times so subsequent photography eventswill occur
during similar times in the tidal cycle. Photographswill be rectified, and horizontal ground control
established by setting sufficiently sized aerial targets (4 ft x 4 ft) on representative reference
monuments in the days prior to flight. In the event that a monument is either not visible due to
vegetation or located in an area of heavy traffic, the aerial target will be offset from the monument
along the profile azimuth. This offset distance and azimuth will be kept in the target- setting .'Aof field
notes for use during any subsequent photographic analysis.
From this data several analyses can be made. These include the shape and location of shorelines and
marsh fringes within the inlet system and variations within the subaqueous shoals in areas that are
unsafe for direct survey.
Figure 4. Survey Area with Profile Layout for Physical Monitoring Surveys
It should be noted that the hydrographic and topographic data collection shall extend in a manner to
include the inlet shorelines and edges of marsh for the Topsail Inlet and Topsail Creek areas (purple,
orange, and cyan). This data can easily be incorporated to with the Aerial photography to obtain
detailed shoreline change analysis.
16

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
5 Managed *stems Approach For Maintenance Actions
5.1 Overview
The development of the managed system approach assumes that the oceanfront beach has undergone
an original nourishment project and that monitoring, as described in the previous section, is conducted
at the regularly specified intervals. The results of the monitoring plan will be analyzed to determine
whether or not future maintenance should occur and if so provide predetermined CC�rsf f-
,-to guide
future maintenance events. If these c64V I-La�-KBre exceeded the Town of Topsail Beach should
commence dredging and the placement of sand along the oceanfront beach (i.e. beach nourishment
project) during the next scheduled maintenance event or, if thiswork is not scheduled to occur for 2 or
more years, the work will commence within an 18 -month period. This schedule will allow for
maintenance events to be scheduled within reasonable timeframes for planning, design, engineering
and contracting for the next dredging season (i.e. November 15th to March 31" annually). If a permit is
required, additional time may be required for permit processing and acquisition in order to initiate
construction. The final recommended sand placement volumes, shoreline lengths and unit fill
placement will be afunction of the sand volume losses calculated from the Physical Monitoring
program.
5.2 Trigger 1 MTime Threshold
A recommendation set forth in this plan is a maximum time span of 5 years not to be exceeded between
maintenance events. This time frame is based on design criteria specified by FEMA and is an acceptable
period that will allow primarily targeted borrow areas (inlet throat and interior channels) associated
with this plan to adequately recharge (i.e. shoal) with sand following a dredging/mining event. The
US4CErecommended an event cyde of 4 years for Topsail Beach in their GRRreport (US4C 2006).
5.3 Trigger 2 MOceanfront Volumetric Loss Threshold
An oceanfront beach volume approach is proposed to analyze the Monitoring Program data and
evaluate need for maintenance. Monitoring volume r'sEj -*ill be established along the (aO�f
oceanfront beach. Implementation of numerous cells will aid in the determination of erosive segments
of oceanfront versus more erosion - resistant zones. These cellswill be delineated by shoreline reach
(based on location, coastal processes, etc.) and extend seaward to the -�J-q ft NAVD88 depth contour
(based on its October 2010 position). Volumetric changesfor each monitoring cell will be separated into
3 sections (Figure 4). The upland section (i.e. recreational beach) will include the onshore (i.e. berm)
portion of the beach and the frontal slope. The nearshore section will be set at 500 ft wide and include
the nearshore bar and the area out to approximately the -�J-q ft contour. The offshore section will
extend from approximately the -�J-q ft contour seaward to the -�J$ ft contour.
17

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
34.0
i
10.0
0.0
-14.0
-24.0
300 400 500 640 700 604 900 1000
Figure 5. Typical beach profile depicting upland and nearshore volumetric sections
30.4
1
M,
M
-10.0
l
Although volume change analysis to the depth of closure -IJ$ ft NAVD88) will be calculated, an obstacle
in identifying an nViANcan originate when volumetric gad nslower in the beach profile
disproportionately exceed upper, recreational beach volume losses. As a result, determining the need
for maintenance work based on calculations of beach profile volumes over the entire width of the
profile (i.e. from the upland to depth of closure), has the potential to underestimate the upper,
recreational L§A �f erosion and degree of vulnerability to subsequent wave attack. This becomes
evident when a considerable volume of sand erodesfrom the upper, recreational beach and nearshore
portion and relocates lower in the profile to the offshore area -IJ-9 to _�J$ ft NAVD88). Once sand is
distributed acrossthis lower portion of the profile it is less likely to migrate back to the upper portions (>
_�J_q ft NAVD88) of the beach. Thus, calculating volumetriclosses/gainsto the _�J_q ft NAVD88 contour, is
optimal for evaluating whether an .rJ 0-hasoccurred. Focusing volume calculation efforts on the
upland and nearshore sections of the beach profile diminishes the potential to underestimate erosion
across the recreational beach and it avoids any potential problems associated with survey error at
increasing depths/distances along the profile. In addition, atypical nourishment An4l' o beach fill
template is designed with construction limits within the upland and nearshore sections of the beach
profile.
Utilization of scheduled (biannual) monitoring profile surveys and post -storm surveys will allow for the
evaluation of beach fill performance following the most recent nourishment event. The average end
area method will be used to calculate volumes of sand lost and gained within a monitoring cell. Overall
impacts and spatial variation resulting from stormswill be evaluated for the purpose of factoring
comprehensive storm- related erosion in a monitoring cell. It is expected that a higher degree of
oceanfront erosion will occur along the adjacent shoreline with closer proximity to the inlet. This
18

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
erosion will be ascribed as inlet - influenced. However, erosion of beach fill across monitoring cells
further north will be used in determining the rCA-Pzfj ■r KBstorm- influenced erosion. Following a
severe storm event a post -storm survey will be conducted, and the net average storm- related
volumetric losseswill be calculated.
The proposed threshold to trigger a maintenance event is a 60 %total volumetric loss of oceanfront
beach fill from the most recent ■oj '0 Lj§mo placed fill, measured across all monitoring cells along
Topsail Beach. Whether this 60 %volume loss is a direct result of one storm event, chronicwave energy
reworking fill, or a combination of both the threshold will be considered met regardless. As stated
above, this particular trigger will be evaluated using volume calculations within the upland and
nearshore sections of each monitoring cell.
5.4 Trigger 3 Mlnlet/ Interior Channel Shoaling Threshold
Five specific borrow areas have been selected for monitoring sedimentation. These areas include the
ebb channel of New Topsail Inlet, the Connector Channel, Banks Channel, New Topsail Creek, and the
AIWW. Utilizing channel alignments, channel widths, and side - slopes specific channel templateswith
fixed boundarieswill be set in each borrow area (Figure 5). These boundarieswill define previously
permitted areas acceptable for dredging and define the extents of where dredging can occur laterally
and at depth within each channel. Asa result, these established areas could be defined as shoaled to a
specific percentage (i.e. %capacity) after any given monitoring survey is conducted. For the purposes of
this management plan, channel templates in each of these borrow areas will be considered 100%
shoaled and at capacity when filled with sediment to a depth of -J$ ft mean low water (M LW), with the
exception of the outer -bar channel. The outer -bar channel will be considered at capacity when filled
with sediment to a depth of _];$ ft MI-W. The proposed threshold to trigger dredging work is shoaling
of 85 %capacity in a defined channel template. Periodic monitoring surveys will track the progressive
accumulation of sediments transported throughout the inlet and interior channels. Ratesof
sedimentation within the Inlet Channel, Connector Channel, Banks Channel, Topsail Creek, and the
AIWWfollowing a dredging event will be better estimated astime elapses following the original
nourishment project of 2011.
19

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
EM
W001111
MR
15.€1
Mil
-100 -50 0 50 100
Figure 5. Typical interior diannel cross-section.
5.5 Summary
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.11
-20.0
Targeting existing navigation channels as borrow areas is preferred for multiple reasons. These sites
naturally shoal with sediment that characteristically is comprised of beach quality material. Three
sampling events have occurred within these channels in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and in all instancesthe
material was high quality sands, suitable for beach placement. Deepening these areas periodically will
improve navigation while symbiotically providing material for beneficial use on the beach. Dredging
costs are significantly reduced when work is performed in the protected environment of the sound as
opposed to open ocean efforts. (jdical hydraulic dredging of these channelsfor beach nourishment will
predude the need or use of USNCEside -cast efforts. GBA survey data within the channel areas collected
since the original 2011 nourishment project and USACEdata (Inlet Channel and Banks Channel) allows
for analyses of estimated borrow quantities and historic natural changes within the inlet ssytem.
6 References
CLEARY, W.J., 1994. New Topsail Inlet, N.C. migration and barrier realignment: consequences for beach
restoration. Union Geographique Internationale Commission Sar [� 9■Mn s■()'otier Q Institute de
Geographique, 116 -130.
CLEARY, W.J. and H03B::,) RE, 1987. Onslow Beach, N.C<: morphology and stratigraphy, In: Kraus, N.C.
(ed.), Coastal Srdiments�� � . New York, NY, American Society of Ovil Engineers, p. 1745 -1759.
CLEARY, W.J. and PILKEY, O.H., 1968. Sedimentation in Onslow Bay. In: Guidebook for field excursion,
Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, Durham, NC Southeastern Geology, '90ecial
Publication, 1:1 -17.
CLEARY, W.J. and PILKEY, O.H., 1996. Environmental Coastal Geology: Cape Lookout to Cape Fear, NG
In: Carolina Geological Society Fieldtrip Guidebook, 89 -127.
20

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
CLEARY, W.J., RIGG$ SR, MARC(, D.C, and 9NYDB:� SW., 1996. The influence of inherited geological
framework upon a hardbottom - dominated shoreface on a high energy shelf: Onslow Bay, North
Carolina, USA. Geology of 91iddasticchelf Seas, Geological Society goecial Publication 117, 249 -266.
CLEARY, W.J. and MAIDEN, T.F?, 1999. Shifting Shorelines: A Pictorial Atlasof North Carolina Inlets,
UNGSG-99 -04, Raleigh, NC 52p.
CLEARY, W.J., WILLSON, KT., and JACKSON, CW., 2006. Shoreline restoration in high hazard zones:
Southeastern North Carolina, USA Journal of Coastal Fbsearch, 3 39 (Proceedings of the Stn
International Coastal 9,jmposium), 884 -889. Itajai, 9✓, Brazil, ISSN 0749 -0208.
EPAand USACE 2004. Evaluating Environmental Effectsof Dredged Material Management Alternatives
ATechnical Framework. U.S Environmental Protection Agency and U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 95p.
FIND CW., JAF�:EF, J.T., W LLSON, KT., ANDIBN,9 J.L, FOF49EST, B.M., and LARENAq M., 2009.
Topsail Beach, North Carolina: marinesand search investigations to locatesand sourcesfor beach
nourishment. Wilmington, North Carolina: Coastal Panning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., 44p.
(Prepared for the Town of Topsail Beach).
HAYED M.O., 1980. General morphology and sediment patterns in tidal inlets. Sedimentary Geology, 26,
139 -156.
HDRENGINE RNGINC OF THE CAROLINASand CLEARY, W.J., 2002. Assessment of the availability of
beach quality sand offshore Topsail Beach, Pander County, NC Final Fbport to the USACI� Wilmington
District Office, 23p and Appendices.
JARFETT, J.T., 1976. Tidal prism -inlet area relationships. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S Army Corps of
Engineers, GI-1 Fbport No. 3, 54p.
MCLEAN, M.RW., 2009. Effectsof inlet migration on barrier island planform and oceanfront change:
New Topsail Inlet, N.C. Masters Thesis. University of North Carolina Wilmington, 127p.
MCIQ, UAIRIE M.E, 1998. Geologic framework and short -term, storm - induced changes in shoreface
morphology: Topsail Beach, NC Masters Thesis. Department of the Environment, Duke University,
Durham, 105p.
MBSBUF13E1::,) EP, 1977. Sand resourcesof the inner continental shelf of the Cape Fear region, North
Carolina, U.S Army Corpsof Engineers, Coastal Engineering and Fbsearch Center, Miscellaneous Fbport
M R77 -11, 20p.
MBSBUFUE1::,) EF?, 1979. Fboonnaissance Geology of the inner continental shelf of the Cape Fear
region, North Carolina, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering and Fbsearch Center,
Technical Fbport TF79 -3, 135p.
MIWMAN, J.D., PLIEY, O.H., and FUS� D.A, 1972. Sedimentsof the continental margin off the eastern
United Mates. Geologic 8odety of America, Bulletin, v. 83,1315-1334.
OCEAN 9JRVEY!� INC, 2004. Marine Geophysical Investigation For the Evaluation of Sand Fbsource
Areas: Offshore Topsail Island, North Carolina, New Topsail Inlet to New River Inlet in Onslow Bay, Final
21

Town of Topsail Beach: 30 -Year Beach Management Ran RNALREPORT
Fbport. Prepared for Greenhorne & h�a ark, Inc. and U.S Department of the Army, Wilmington District,
44p and Appendices.
PALMUO, M.R and RANDAL, RE, 1990. Practices and Problems Associated with Economic Loading
and Overflow of Dredge Hoppers and S)ows, Final Fbport. Prepared for Department of the Army, U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, 50p.
RIGG$ SW., O_EAW,, W.J., and SVYDB::,) SW., 1995. Influence of inherited geologic framework on
barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics. Marine Geology, 126: 213 -234.
BVYDB::,) SW., HOFFMAN, CW., and RIGG$ SR, 1994. SBismic stratigraphic framework of the inner
continental shelf: Mason Inlet to New Inlet, North Carolina. North Carolina Geological SArvey Bulletin,
No. 96, 59p
US4CE 1989. Final Fusibility Fbport and Environmental Impact statement, Hurricane Protection and
Beach Erosion Control, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina (Topsail Beach), U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, 74p.
US4CE 1992. Beach Nourishment, Design Memorandum West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet
Topsail Beach, North Carolina, U.S Army Corpsof Engineers, Wilmington District, 7p and Appendices.
US4CE 2006. Draft Integrated General Fbevaluation Fbport and Environmental Impact statement,
chore Protection, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) North Carolina. U.S Army
Corpsof Engineers, Wilmington District, 2076p.
US4CE 2008. West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), NCGeneral Fbevaluation Fbport.
Presentation by Colonel J.P. Pulliam Commander, U.S Army Corpsof Engineers, Wilmington District.
US4CE 2009. Draft Integrated Fusibility Fbport and Environmental Impact statement, Coastal storm
Damage Fbduction, S.irf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. U.S Army Corpsof Engineers,
Wilmington District, 302p and Appendices.
22

TI,,,, Oasta
Opd n cf s!32- !3124!
Ns/!Ebvye!Ujn qz!
X jmjohtpo!Ejt tdddSf hvrbrpsz!gf rer!Pgjdf !
X jm johtpo!Ejt tsjdL+!V/T /!Bsn z!Dpsgt !pdFohjof f st !
7: !Ebsrjohrpo!Bwf ovf !
X jmjohtpo- !Opsii !Dbsprffib!39514.2454!
Vyb!F.n bj EbNe /MUjn gzA vt bdf /bm z/n im
TvcIf dy! Upx o!pdUpgt bjrtCf bdi !Opvdt i n f odQsplf dd
! ! Bdypo!.E!$TBX .3124.11515!
! ! Sf t qpot f !tp!ON GT!Dpn n f oLt
Ef bsIEbd -!
Ui bol !zpv!g)s!g)s( bsejoh!b!dpgz!pdd f !ON GT!Dpn n f oLt !po!N poebz/!X f !voef st rboe!d f !
bhf odzA!sf dpn n f oebypot !sf hbsejoh!gi ztjdbrtm pojtpdoh /!Ui f !beejypo!pol px bseAi!Di boof rqt !
bddf grbcrh!boe!d f !sf dpn n f oebypot !sf hbsejoh!bf sjbrtgi prphsbn n f rs?!bsf !dpotjef sf e!cz!vt !tp!cf !
t rboebse!pgf sbyoh!gspdf evsf !g)s!jorfndboe!t i psf rjmf !n pojtpdoh /!
Ui f !bhf odzA!dpn n f odsf hbsejoh!d f !ejt dpoof ddcf Lx f f o!d f !n pojrpdoh!boe!bo!bebgywf !grbo!jt !
opdbt !drfibs/!Ui f !Esbgl41 !Zf bs!Qrbo!x bt !ef d rpgf e!jo!3122!jo!psef s!tp!t rbsdb!ejbrphvf !xjd !d f !
bhf odjf t !po!b!rpoh!Lf sn !n bobhf n f odt LsbLf hz!boe!rp!cf hjo!d f !qf sn jdgspdf t t !g)s!rpoh!Lf sn !
n bobhf n f oLi!Ui f !esbglgrbo!i bt !qsf gf ssf e!brd scbgd t !bt !x f rdbt !gpLf oybrt6pbo!CAi t i pvrer!d f !
qsf gf ssf e!brd scbywf t !gspwf !jn gsbdydbrhHjwf o!Opsd !Dbsprjobt !t tbtf !qf sn jujoh!gspdf t t !x f !
t vhhf t Ud bdd f !41 !Zf bs!Qrbo!jt !bduibn®!bo!bebgywf !n bobhf n f odt LsbLf hz/!!
Bt !x f !i bd !f yqf If odf e!po!d f !N bt po!.brhdQsplf ddpwf s!d f !rbt d23!zf bst -!f uvf o!jdd f sf !jt !b!rpoh!
J sn !)41 !zf bs *!qf sn jdjt t of e!cz!d f !VTBDF -!d f !Opsd !Dbspgob!Ejvytjpo!pgDpbt rbrtM bobhf n f oil
pom!jt t of t !tjohrfn!f 4 odgf sn jLt !g)slgsplf dd !joveprvloh!cf bdi !opvsjt i n f oLi!Fbdi !boe!f d sz!f d od
n vt dcf !sf vyf x f e!cz!brFbhf odjf t -!t tbtf !boe!gf of sbr+tgdps!rp!jt t vbodf !pdb!gf sn jdn pejddbypo!ps!
of x !qf sn jdg)slesf ehjoh!boe!cf bdi !grbdf n f oLI!Ui f !qspqpt f e!n pojrpdoh!ebrb!dpn cjof e!xjd !d f !
cvjrdjo!Opsd !Dbsprjob!gf sn jujoh!gspdf t t -!sf r vjsf t !f bdi !gsplf ddf d oULp!cf !f \AbrmbLf !cbt f e!po!
qsf vypvt !epdvn f oLf e!jn gbdtt !)gptjo !ps!of hbywf * -!bt !x f rrbt !qf sdfjd e!giuisf !jn gbdtt -!boe!
bebgdd f !giLvsf !ef tjhot !tp!n jojn j {f !boe(ps!n jyhbf !jn gbdtt !gdps!tp!gf sn jujoh!boz!beejypobrh
x psl /!Ui jt !jt !d f !t bn f !I joe!pdbebgyuvf !qsphsbn !d bdx f !joLf oe!tp!x psl !xjd !d f !bhf odjf t !tp!
f yf dvJ !bdUpgt bjrtCf bdi /!!
2i

TI,,,, oasta
Bt !xjd !d f !VTGX T -!jdjt !f vyef odON GTA!sf brfdpodf so!jt !opdpwf s!d jt !tjohvrbs!gspit dL+!sbd f sld f !
bggbsf odn pd !rpx bse!b!n vojdjgbftf bdi !n bobhf n f odgsphsbn /!Ui f !Upx o!i bt !cf f o!qsf qbsf e!
tjodf !3122!rp!bggspbdi !d f !gsplf ddbt !b!rpoh!Lf sn !grbo -!bt !f vyef odf !cz!d f !jojybrigspevdypo!pdd f !
41 Tf bs!N bobhf n f odQrbo /!I px f d s-!t f d sf !f sptjpo!gpn !I vss dbof !(W of Ejo!3122!dbvt f e!bo!
jn n f ejbLf !of f e!d bdi be!rp!cf !beesf t t f e!bt !b!t rboe. brpof !gsplf dLPUi f !Upx o!jt !bdywf m!grboojoh!
rp!bggspbdi !d f !gsplf ddgsphsbn n bydbn®!boe!i bt !brsf bez!dpoLsbdLf e!WDpbt rbr- AQMW!rp!cf hjo!
d bdrpoh!Lf sn !qf sn jL joh!gspdf t t !jo!d f !t gsjoh!pg3125 /!Fvbrmbypo!pgd f !rpoh!Lf sn !n bobhf n f od
t LsbLf hz!boe!jLt !f gg dot !po!pvs!n bsjof !sf t pvsdf t -!bt !bgggdbcrfi -!jt !f yqf dd e/!!
X f !rppl !g)sx bse!rp!x psl joh!i boe!jo!i boe!xjd !d f !bhf odjf t !po!d jt !boe!giLvsf !gsplf dtt !rp!jot vsf !
n bobhf n f odpdUpgt bjrtCf bdi !boe!Upgt bjriabrfndbsf !qf sg)sn f e!jo!bo!f ga dod -!f dpopn jdbr+iboe!
f ovyspon f orbrzdt f otjyvi !n boof st!
Ui bol !zpv!g)s!zpvs!bt tjt rbodf !boe!buf oypo!rp!d jt !n buf st!Qfibt f !ep!opdi f tjtbJ !Lp!dpoLbddn f !jg
zpv!i bd !boz!r of t ypot !bd: 21.623.41: 7!ps!dririct poA Odpbt rbrkpn
Tjodf sf rte!
Di sjt !Hjct po -!OF!
Qsf tjef od!
WDpbt tbr}iQK&D!
3!