20052137 Ver 1_Complete File_20051128

Impacts M Hgations Fees Affillahons Evenls Inspections Comments i"History
Project Number: 20052137 -1 Verson 1 Status: withdrawn LastAcUanDesc: Applcationwthdrawn Save
_. --
Pro}ectName: :TownofNOrthTopsail Beach Pro1ectTYpa {Other PrimaryCounry:;Onsiow Yom`
'EventI)fpe Event Date -Due Date Catedon Com en cast date astU
r l, IF)
Public notice published 11!2212005 !aunt enn,
12102 a
---- -
Pubhc notice received in Central Office 1112612005 Ilaurie denm 121020
--
Application receiv- -r- -- - -- --
11l3012005?__ _ ?laune.dennl 12102/i
Public notice comment period end _ 1_2!0672005 ___ _ ?laurie.denni 12!02!'
Applic atlon w thdrawn 12119!2005 -
______, See200x1996 ?laurie.tlenni..I01105!!
i
_Add?
Re: Tracking/Tardy 12/27/2005
Subject: Re: Tracking/Tardy 12/27/2005
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:26:22 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
CC: Joanne Steenhuis <[e-mail]>, Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
Ian,
My records do not indicate that we have received The Town of North Topsail Beach
Project #052137. Can you please fax me a copy?
Thanks! Noelle
Ian McMillan wrote:
Please advise if there is info I need related to any of these projects or if there
are any mistakes. Also let me know if you have not received any particular project
so I can fax/mail that to you.
* *Mooresville:
_*_Tracking: _
*05-2092*, Joy B. Hildreth, Lot 66, Stanly Co, GP30 11/21/05 1/19/06**
-Tardy: _
None
* *
* *
**Asheville
*_Tracking: _
*05-2115*, Gary M. Carraux, Lot 16, Caldwell Co, GP30 11/23/05 1/21/06
*05-2101*, Cope Creek Culvert, Jackson Co, NW14 11/21/05 1/19/06
-Tardy: _
*05-2069*, James Rich Property Culvert, Caldwell Co, NW39 11/16/05 1/14/06
*05-2041*, Crowfields Condominiums-Dingle Creek Restoration, Buncombe Co, NW13
11/08/05 1/06/06
* *
**Washington
_ Tracking: _
_*05-2046, *AGRL-Ethanol Products Aurora Facility, Beaufort Co, NW39 11/22/05
1/20/065
-Tardy:-
None
**Wilmington **
_Tracking: _
_*05-2230*, Palm Cove POA, Inc., Brunswick Co, LAMA EXP 12/21/05 1/19/06
*05-2097*, Commonsgate SD, Lots 60, 61, Carteret Co, NW18 11/21/05 1/19/06
*05-2216*, The Cove At Newport, Carteret Co, CAMA EXP 12/19/05 1/17/06
1 of 2 1/2/2006 9:15 AP
Ze: Trackin-Tardy 12/27/2005
-Tardy:-
*05-2071*, Torn of Oak Island Access Road, Brunswick Co, NW39 11/16/05 1/14/05
*05-2137*, Town of North Topsail Beach, Onslow Co, CAMA 12/08/05 1/06/06
* *
* *
**Raleigh **
-Tracking: _
_*05-2050*, 6619 Maranatha Drive, Nash Co, N1127 TPBR 11/22/05 1/20/06
*05-2077*, City of Raleigh-308 West Ridge Stream Stabilization, Wake Co, NW13 NBR
11/22/05 1/20/05
*05-2107*, Old Carpenter Property, Wake Co, NW39 11/21/05 1/19/06
*C5-2086*, .Selanle B. Womble, Wilson Co, NBR MiV 11/18/05 1/16/06
*C5-20C9*, Lo::e's Roxboro, Person Co, NW39 NBR 11/23/05 1/21/06
-Tardy:-
*05-1973*, Caraleigh Fertilizer Site - Lead Remediation, Wake Co, NBR 10/26/05
12/24/05
*05-0799, Ver. 2*, Pinecrest SD Phase II, Wake Co, NW39 11/09/05 1/07/05
*05-2038*, Kenneth Uhlman, Franklin Co, GP30 11/09/05 1/07/06
"Winston-Salem
-Tracking:
::one
-Tardy: _
-None
**Fayetteville **
-Tracking: _
*05-2104*, Crestview Estates, Phases 4 & 5, Harnett Co, NW39 11/22/05 1/20/06
-Tardy: _
None
of 2 1/2/2006 9:15 AM
Re: Tracking/Tardy 12/27/2005
Subject: Re: Tracking/Tardy 12/27/2005
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:31:10 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
CC: Joanne Steenhuis <[e-mail]>, Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
A thought... Project #051996 is also for the Town of North Topsail Beach for dune
repair. Do you think we have duplicate project #'s for some reason? 051996 was
issued. Let me know! Thanks!
Ian McMillan wrote:
Please advise if there is info I need related to any of these projects or if there
are any mistakes. Also let me know if you have not received any particular project
so I can fax/mail that to you.
* *Mooresville:
_Tracking:
*05-2092*, Joy B. Hildreth, Lot 66, Stanly Co, GP30 11/21/05 1/19/06**
-Tardy: _
None
* *
* *
**Asheville
*_Tracking:
*05-2115*, Gary M. Carraux, Lot 16, Caldwell Co, GP30 11/23/05 1/21/06
*05-2101*, Cope Creek Culvert, Jackson Co, NW14 11/21/05 1/19/06
_Tardy: _
*05-2069*, James Rich Property Culvert, Caldwell Co, NW39 11/16/05 1/14/06
*05-2041*, Crowfields Condominiums-Dingle Creek Restoration, Buncombe Co, NW13
11/08/05 1/06/06
* *
**Washington
-Tracking: _
_*05-2046, *AGRL-Ethanol Products Aurora Facility, Beaufort Co, NW39 11/22/05
1/20/065
_Tardy:_
None
**Wilmington **
-Tracking: _
_*05-2230*, Palm Cove POA, Inc., Brunswick Co, CAMA EXP 12/21/05 1/19/06
*05-2097*, Commonsgate SD, Lots 60, 61, Carteret Co, NW18 11/21/05 1/19/06
*05-2216*, The Cove At Newport, Carteret Co, CAMA EXP 12/19/05 1/17/06
_Tardy:_
1 of 2 1/2/2006 9:16 A'.
te: TrackingTardy 12,27i'2005
*05-2071*, Tom of Oak Island Access Road, Brunswick Co, NW39 11/16/05 1/14/05
*05-2137*, Tc::n of North Topsail Beach, Onslow Co, CAMA 12/08/05 1/06/06
* *
* *
**Raleigh **
-Tracking: _
_*05-2050*, 6619 Maranatha Drive, Nash Co, N127 TPBR 11/22/05 1/20/06
*05-2077*, City of Raleigh-308 West Ridge Stream Stabilization, Wake Co, NW13 NBR
11/22/05 1/20/05
*05-2107*, Old Carpenter Property, Wake Co, NW39 11/21/05 1/19/06
*05-2086*, Melanie B. i1o:.tble, Wilson Co, NBR MiV 11/18/05 1/16/06
*C5-2 09*, Lo::e's Roxboro, Person Co, NW39 NBR 11/23/05 1/21/06
-Tardy:-
*05-1973*, Caraleigh Fertilizer Site - Lead Remediation, Wake Co, NBR 10/26/05
12/24/05
*05-0799, Ver. 2*, Pinecrest SD Phase II, Wake Co, NW39 11/09/05 1/07/05
*05-2038*, Kenneth Uhlman, Franklin Co, GP30 11/09/05 1/07/06
** :inston-Salem
_Tracking: _
None
-Tardy: _
None
**Fayetteville **
-Tracking: _
*05-21C4*, Crestview Estates, Phases 4 & 5, Harnett Co, NW39 11/22/05 1/20/06
-Tardy :
None
2 of 2 1/2/2006 9:16 AM

Mr. Henry Wicker
December 15, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
L 3 rUU)
?? U'rr r
Subject: Action ID #200600087, Town of North Topsail Beach, Onslow County, NC
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject
Public Notice (PN), dated November 22, 2005. The applicant, the Town of North Topsail Beach,
has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to create a sand dike using truck-hauled
sand, sand previously washed inland, and sand bulldozed off both the existing dry and intertidal
beach. These comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA
are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and
in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and wildlife
resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's determination of
project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C.1531-1543).
Project Area and Purpose of Action
The Town of North Topsail Beach is located on the northern ten miles of Topsail Island, a north-
south barrier islands on the Atlantic Ocean. Pilkey et al. (1998, p. 171) note that Topsail Island
has a troublesome geologic setting along its entire length. The island is very narrow and flat
with no significant area higher than the 500-year flood elevation. Most of the island lies within
the 100-year floodplain. Hurricane Hazel which struck the southern North Carolina coast in
1954 generated a storm surge of 9.5 feet on the island which has an average elevation of nine
feet (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 171). A 1987 evaluation by the North Carolina Department of
Emergence Management indicated that the island would be largely underwater in a category 1 or
2 hurricane and would be completely submerged in a category 3 hurricane (Pilkey et al. 1998, p.
173).
'DS - x.13 rl
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Barnes (1998, pp. 184-187) describes the damage on the island created by Hurricane Fran, a
category 3 storm, in September 1996. After the protective dunes were washed away by
Hurricane Bertha in July 1996, there was little to slow the ten-foot storm surge. The tide which
2
swept over the island lifted entire cottages and floated them hundreds of yards into the marsh.
Six new inlets were carved across the island.
The PN states that the sand barrier was damaged by Hurricane Ophelia in mid-September 2005.
Approximately 20 to 70 feet of the barrier was lost and 12 breaches were created. The area lost
at least half the waterward portion of the sand dike and there is an escarpment averaging 13 feet
along the remaining portion.
The PN notes that the stated purpose is for protection against storm events. However, there is no
discussion of what resources require protection. Many of the homes in the project area are well
elevated on pilings. The PN does not indicate whether any resources are imminently threatened.
Proposed Actions
As a linear embankment of small rocks (sand) meant to block the movement of water (the
Atlantic Ocean), the proposed structure functions as, and is consistent with the definition of, a
dike. The natural location of any primary dune line would be landward of the sand dike since
global sea level rise produces "island migration", a natural process "by which the islands avoid
being drowned by the encroaching sea" (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 41). Pilkey et al. (2004, p. 43)
state that sand piles created by bulldozers on Topsail Island are sand-dike features rather than
dunes because they "lack all the characteristics of natural dunes." For example, these piles lack
well-sorted and stratified sand that supports the growth of stabilizing dune grasses. It has been
suggested that Topsail Island has never had a large, continuous dune system (Pilkey et al. 2004,
p. 44), and natural dunes are absent or low and discontinuous between New River Inlet and the
Highway 210 Bridge (Pilkey et al. 1998, p. 172, 175). Therefore, the proposed sand placements
and bulldozed sand would not produce a dune system in the location dictated by current sea
level. Furthermore, the proposed structure would not have the geologic characteristics of natural
dunes and does not attempt to replicate the natural habitat features of a barrier island sand dune.
The work does not represent dune restoration, but is more accurately a form of dike construction.
The applicant seeks to rebuild the sand dike to its pre-storm dimensions. The material would
come from three sources. First, material would be truck-hauled from a commercial facility,
Riverside Sand, in Wallace, North Carolina. This material would only be placed above the high
tide line. The PN states that truck-hauled sand would be placed at a rate of 12 cubic yards (cy)
per linear foot. Information in the PN indicates that 11 breaches totaling 370 feet would receive
truck-hauled sand. Our calculations find that approximately 4,400 cy (12 X 370) of inland sand
would be imported to the site. Second, 2,100 cy of sifted sand which was removed from
roadways after Hurricane Ophelia would be used. Sand trucked to the site would presumably be
used to fill 11 breaches specified in the PN. Third, 11 areas would employ bulldozing, or
employ "pushing," to move sand from the mean low water (MLW) line landward to escarpment
areas. Bulldozing is expected to result in the "relocation" of approximately 128,900 cy of
material. The PN does not specify a limit to the depth of sand which could be scraped from the
beach and pushed landward to form the dike. The project is anticipated to impact a total of 63
acres of beach, 28 acres of dry sand beach and 35 acres of intertidal beach.
Issues of Sediment Compatibility
While no material is proposed for beach placement, sand placed on the dike can be expected to
move onto the beach. Since natural beaches provide important habitat for wildlife resources, the
Service is concerned that material directly or indirectly entering barrier island beaches should not
alter the major physical characteristics of these habitats. The important physical characteristics
include sand grain size, density, shear resistance (a factor in beach hardness), color, heavy
mineral content, and moisture content.
While the proposed sand dike may not replicate a nature dune, the material in this structure
would become part of the natural sand sharing system. The material in a natural dune, or
artificial dike, serves as a sand reservoir for the beach. A natural dune represents a "sand bank"
and beaches rely on the dynamics of the dunes for sustenance (Pilkey et al. 2004, p. 37). Dunes
are a primary source of sand to maintain the beaches. Scarps seen at the toe of a dune after a
storm are evidence that waves have distributed sand from the dune to the beach (Pilkey et al.
2004, p. 38). In this regard, material used for the dike should be similar to that of the native
beach since it will eventually be incorporated into the beach. Therefore, the physical
characteristics of the truck-hauled material must be evaluated for potential impacts for all species
occupying the beach waterward of the dike.
The PN contains a one-page Laboratory Sieve Analysis from Contractors & Engineers Services,
Inc. The analysis contains the result of grain size analysis, designated by a single sample
number, of material from Riverside Sand Co. We have also reviewed the supplemental
information from Mr. Steve Padgett, Building Inspector for the Town of Surf City, which you
provided by e-mail on December 6, 2005. This information describes the handling of material at
the Riverside Sand in Chinquapin, near Wallace in Duplin County. First, all topsoil is removed
from the area. The sand is then dug and loaded on to trucks and hauled to a conveyor. The sand
is loaded on the conveyor where it is run through screens and washed to get the right grain size.
It then goes onto a screw where it is sorted more and washed again. It comes out of a chute and
is loaded into trucks and hauled to the disposal site. These procedures would appear to yield a
fairly uniform product which should be free of organic material.
The Service seeks to ensure that sediment placements on potential sea turtle nesting sites, or
which may be transported to such sites, have the physical characteristics supporting nest
construction and successful incubation. One important characteristic is grain size. The grain
size analysis included in the PN shows that 82.2% of the material passed through a #30 sieve
(grain size 0.59 mm), 36.6% passed through a #50 sieve (0.30 mm), and 0.3% passed through a
#200 sieve (0.075 mm). Much of this material with a grain size in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 mm
can be considered as medium sand.
Recent work associated with permitting of a beach construction effort for North Topsail Beach
has collected data on beach characteristics. The composite grain size from 12 sampling stations
was 0.24 mm (Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2005, p. 22, Table 5.3.1). The truck-
hauled sand moving from the proposed dike onto the beaches is likely to introduce coarser
material, i.e., sand of larger grain size.
I
4
The Service has concerns about the color of the upland material proposed for beach construction.
Pilkey et al. (2004, p. 113) state that all natural North Carolina open beaches are light brown to
yellow-brown when viewed from a distance due to iron oxide in shell fragments. Your e-mail
also included two photographs comparing the color of the Riverside sand to sand from Surf City,
material likely to be very similar to that of North Topsail Beach. The color of the two sand
samples appears similar.
Specific concerns related to sediment compatibility for the various fish and wildlife resources in
the project area will be presented below. However, the proposed dike is not likely to replicate
the natural sediment characteristics of a natural dune. Dune sand is consistently finer grained
than that of the adjacent beach due to the facts that dune are built from sand blown landward
from the beach and the wind generally picks up the smaller sand grains and leave the larger
grains behind (Pilkey et al. 2004, p. 18). If the existing beach consists of sand in the range of
0.24 mm, the natural dune behind the beach would be expected to have smaller-grained sand.
Furthermore, the proposed dike would not have consecutive layers of windblown sand which
create the unique type of layering or stratification called "wind cross-bedding" (Pilkey et al.
2004, p. 47). Natural dune stratification usually consists of hundreds of very thin, alternating
layers of quartz sand, shell fragment sand, heavy mineral sand, and some layer of all three sand
types.
Issues of Work Scheduling
The second major concern of the Service is the scheduling of the work. The IN does not discuss
a work schedule. However, an article ("North Topsail Might Get a Little Bit of Duplin County")
by Garth McGrath published in the Wilmington StarNews on November 25, 2005, reports that
the town hopes to have the material in place before the "heart of winter storm season starts,
usually in late January." Scheduling concerns for specific fish and wildlife resources are
presented below.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Onslow County. The species protected by the ESA that are most likely to be
affected by the proposed work are the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle
(Chelonia rnydas), Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and
seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus).
Seabeach amaranth, an annual plant, exists adjacent to inlets, along beaches between dunes and
the high tide line, and in areas of extreme overwash. The plant helps to trap sand and build
dunes. The species is listed as threatened by both the federal government and the State of North
Carolina. While any plants which germinated during 2005 have gone to seed, both the
placement of truck-hauled sand and beach bulldozing would be harmful to seabeach amaranth
seeds which would germinate in 2006, usually from April to July. The work would bury seeds
currently in the area and prevent germination. However, it is likely that the buried seeds would
be viable when the sand in the proposed dike flows back to the beaches or the alongshore
transport system. While the proposed work may be detrimental in the short-term, it is not likely
to have a long-term adverse effect on seabeach amaranth.
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the Atlantic Coast population, designated as federally
threatened, are known to occur in the project area. Piping plovers nest above the high tide line
on coastal beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping
foredunes; in blowout areas behind primary dunes (overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes;
and in overwash areas cut into or between dunes. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for
feeding, and undisturbed flats with low dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting. Piping
plovers from the federally endangered Great Lakes population as well birds from the threatened
populations of the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains overwinter on North Carolina
beaches.
Piping plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Following
establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand
generally on the upper beach close to the dunes (or in other shoreline habitats depending on the
portion of the range). This is where the female will lay her eggs. By early September both
adults and young will have departed for their wintering areas. To avoid adverse impacts to
piping plover nesting, work on the beach should not occur between April 1 and August 31. The
Service recommends that all beach work should occur outside the recognized piping plover
nesting season.
The Service has designated critical habitat for wintering populations of the species along the
North Carolina coast. The only critical habitat on Topsail Island is at the southern end of the
island. Based on our review of the PN, the proposed work would not include designated piping
plover critical habitat.
The Service believes that sea turtles are ubiquitous nesters along the coast of North Carolina and
that nesting habitat is present within the proposed project area. While all five Atlantic sea turtles
are protected by the ESA and may occur in the coastal waters of North Carolina, we believe that
section 7 can be limited to a consideration of the loggerhead and green sea turtles, both of which
are listed as threatened.
Sediment placement and bulldozing on the beach may have both direct and indirect impacts on
sea turtle reproduction. Such work during the sea turtle nesting and incubation season (May 1
through November 15) may result in the burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings. Reproduction
is also diminished through the disruption of nesting activity by heavy equipment working on the
beach. Such direct impacts can be avoided by scheduling all beach work during the period from
November 16 through April 30.
Beach construction can result in long-term, secondary adverse impacts on sea turtle reproduction.
Such impacts are associated with the use of material which has physical characteristics which are
significantly different from the natural, historic beach. While the truck-hauled sand would be
used for a dike, this material can be expected to move down to the dry beach used for sea turtle
nesting. Sand is often moved from the upper beach to the lower beach by storm waves, a process
that flattens the beach (Pilkey et al. 2004, p. 34).
6
The color and organic content of beach sediments can modify nest temperatures and the nutrient
environment, which can result in an altered sex ratio of the sea turtle hatchlings. In addition,
sediments that differ from those of the native beach can result in beach compaction which may
increase false crawls, increase nest digging time, hinder gas exchange within incubating nests,
alter the hydric environment of the nest, and result in broken eggs from clutches deposited in an
egg chamber which is too shallow.
Overall, the proposed work has the potential to adversely affect piping plover and both
loggerhead and green sea turtles. However, several measures can be employed to reduce any
adverse impacts to a level which would not be significant. These measures include:
1. Ensuring that all sediment imported to, and placed on, the beach is similar to the historic,
native beach in sand grain size, density, shear resistance, heavy mineral content, and moisture
content. This conservation measure requires that the assessment of the physical characteristics of
the existing beach does not reflect sediment placements of the past, but is an accurate description
of the native beach which is essential to normal sea turtle reproduction.
2. Ensuring that the color of the imported material closely matches the color of the historic,
native beach. Material to be imported for beach construction should be evaluated by an objective
criterion, such as the Munsell Soil Color Chart, and compared with sediment of placement area
or a nearby beach which represents the historic beach color;
3. Prohibiting the placement of sediment and beach grading during the piping plover nesting
season (April 1 through July 15);
4. Prohibiting the placement of sediment and beach grading during the sea turtle nesting season
(May 1 through November 15); and,
5. The applicant should take the necessary measures to ensure that escarpments which may
development from the high tide line to the base of the dike do not block access of sea turtles
from potential nest sites. As noted, removal of material in the intertidal zone may reduce the
width of the beach until a natural equilibrium slope is reestablished. The reduced beach width
can allow stronger waves to strike the upper beach and dike. This higher wave energy may
produce escarpments. Any such escarpments should be eliminated prior to the start of the sea
turtle nesting season, May 1.
The inclusion of specific permit conditions addressing these issues would result in a project
which is not likely to adverse affect the federally protected species which are likely to occur in
the project area. With such permit conditions, the Service would concur with a determination by
the District Engineer that the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or
endangered species under our jurisdiction or their designated critical habitat. The requirements
of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be fulfilled. However, section 7 would need
to be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Service Concerns and Recommendations for General Fish and Wildlife Resources
In addition to federally protected species, the Service also has concerns about general fish and
wildlife resources that may be impacted by the proposed work. These include the potential for
harm to beach invertebrates which serve as a major food resource for shorebirds and nearshore
fishes. Many species of birds, including migratory shorebirds, occur on or near North Carolina
beaches (Pilkey et al. 2004, p. 125).
Of the two aspects of the proposed work, the placement of truck-hauled sand in dike breaches
(both inland sand and material from prior overwashes) and bulldozing to eliminate scarps; the
former is less likely to produce long-term environmental harm. A portion of the material to be
truck-hauled from Riverside Sand in Duplin County appears to have a larger grain size that the
existing beach material analyzed by CP&E this year. The imported sand certainly appears larger
than what might be expected in a natural dune. However, the imported material can still be
considered as medium to coarse sand and the limited amount of the placements (estimated at
4,400 cy) as breach fill may reduce any long-term adverse impacts of the placements. The use of
a very small amount of sifted sand from an earlier overwash should not create a major problem
of compatibility.
On the other hand, there is a concern that pushing, or scraping, 128,900 cy of sand from the 63
acres of beach into the dike to smooth away escarpments would produce more serious
environmental consequences. The short-term consequences of beach bulldozing on Bogue
Banks, northeast of Topsail Island, have been described by Peterson et al. (2000). One major
change produced by bulldozing on Bogue Banks was a reduction in the width of the intertidal
beach. Peterson et al. (2000, p. 373) found that the intertidal beach from the waterline at low tide
to the base of the major dune was reduced from 29 in (95 feet) in the area not bulldozed to 22 in
(72 feet) in the area bulldozed. As noted by Pilkey et al. (2004, p. 51) removing sand from the
beach and pushing it landward is a form of beach erosion. The reduction in the width of the
intertidal beach provides less habitat for beach invertebrates and may result in less food for
shorebirds and nearshore fishes.
Beach invertebrates live in the spaces between sand grains. The swash zone is dominated by
mole crab (Einerita talpoida) and coquina clam (Donax sp.) which serve as the primary prey
base for surf zone fish, crabs, and shorebirds. The health of the Emerita and Donax populations
is closely linked with the sediment characteristics of the beach, and the availability of natural sea
waters surging up and down the beach-face. Sediment grain size is extremely critical to mole
crabs because these organisms do not actually burrow into the beach as they change locations
within the swash zone, but rather vibrate their lower appendages and legs to create a "quicksand"
condition in their immediate area. This makes it easy for them to penetrate or burrow into the
sand with a minimum expenditure of energy. If the sand is too coarse, too fine, too well sorted,
or contains too many heavy minerals (dark sands), mole crabs find it difficult or impossible to
burrow into the beach. Similarly, significant alterations in beach-face sands have the potential to
impact Emerita numbers. If the proposed work reduces populations of beach invertebrates,
shorebirds and some near shore fishes would be adversely affected due to a reduction in food
resources.
8
Peterson et al. (2000, p. 375-76) discuss the impacts on beach macro-invertebrates on Bogue
Banks in July-August 1993 after of beach bulldozing in April 1993. While the work increased
the abundance of coquina clams, there was a 37% reduction in total mole crab abundance within
the bulldozed beach sections. These authors note that bulldozing may have affected the natural
cuspate morphology of the shoreline and thereby changed the habitat value for Emerita and
Donax.
Active ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata) burrows were, on average, 65% lower on the bulldozed
beach transects (Peterson et al. 2000, p. 375-76). This reduction was the consequence of an
almost complete elimination of ghost crab burrows from the face of the bulldozed dune and over
a 60% reduction on the lower beach. Almost half of ghost crab burrows on undisturbed beaches
occurred in the high beach, an area which became buried when bulldozing is done. The authors
note that the upper zone of the beach was converted by bulldozing from a gradually sloping
intertidal beach of fine sand sediment to a steeply sloping berm face composed of coarser,
shellier materials that were unconsolidated and incapable of holding a burrow. Peterson et al.
(2000, p. 376) found the natural berm face to be comprised of finer sediment, a condition also
stated by Pilkey et al. (2004, p. 49), less shell, and a greater degree of vegetative cover which
held the shape of excavations made by hand.
There is a concern about the ability of natural processes to restore the habitat value of beaches
scraped to form the dike. Peterson et al (2000, p. 372-373) found that bulldozed beaches on
Bogue Banks regained the topography, or elevation profiles, of unbulldozed beach (but with a
reduced width). However, these beaches were on the same island where material had been added
approximately three years earlier. Cleary (2001) states that much of the shoreline in southeastern
North Carolina is "sediment starved." It is uncertain whether the alongshore transport of
material would be sufficient to restore the sand pushed off the beaches.
The Service is concerned that the proposed bulldozing would have a greater impact on the beach
than currently estimated. If 63 acres of beach were bulldozed, this area would represent
2,744,280 square feet (ft). If this area was scarped to a depth of only one foot, then 2,744,280
cubic feet (ft) of material would be removed. Based on 27 ft3 in a cubic yard, this construction
plan involves 101,640 cy of material. This figure is much less than the 128,900 cy which the PN
states would be moved from the beach to the dike. Therefore, either a greater area would be
impacted or the 63 acres would be scraped to a depth of greater than one foot.
In light of these concerns and in order to preserve habitat values on the beach, the Service
suggests that beach bulldozing be eliminated as a form of dike repair and that truck-hauled sand
be used to construct an upland dike immediately inland from its present location. The remaining
portions of the existing dike would form the waterward side of the reconstructed protective
barrier. Heavy equipment could be used to form a more natural contour for the ocean facing
slope.
This plan would have the advantage of maintaining the existing width of the beach which serves
to reduce wave energy striking the dike. Constructing the dike with truck-hauled sand
immediately landward of its existing location would reduce our concern that the proposed
9
actions would be short-lived and require additional work in the near future. Pilkey et al. (1998,
p. 210) state that the simple bulldozing of beach sand into small mounds is highly ineffective as a
method of erosion control. These authors note that while bulldozing piles up sand, increasing the
height of the barrier, the process reduces the width of the beach, an effect observed by Peterson
et al. (2000, p. 373), and bring ocean water closer to threatened property. Artificial dunes erode
with much greater ease than natural dunes (Pilkey et al 2004, p. 50).
It is also noteworthy that the proposed work represents the exact opposite of standard beach
construction. Such construction normally proposes to add material to the beach in order to
protect development. The subject PN actually proposes to remove sediment from the beaches.
However, if the Corps public interest review should conclude that protection of the yet-to-be
specified development necessitates beach bulldozing, the permit should require the following
conditions:
1. No more than one foot of material, as measured from the pre-construction surface elevation,
should be pushed into the dike and no material is removed from below the mean low water line.
The latter feature is a design feature of the proposed work described in the PN. Such restrictions
would comply with current state regulations (15A NCAC 07K.0103). Pilkey et al. (1998, p.
210) state that bulldozing is often done waterward of the low tide line and to a depth greater than
one foot. Therefore, the permit should require measures to ensure compliance with these two
conditions, such as inspector(s) at the site during actual construction; and,
2'. The work should occur during the winter months of December through March would
minimize harm to these organisms (Peterson 2000, p. 11). Such a schedule would also avoid the
combined periods when piping plovers and sea turtles are at greatest risk, April 1 through
November 15.
Summary
The Service does not oppose relatively minor repairs to upland dikes on barrier islands to
provide short-term protection for development. In fact, protective dikes built entirely in uplands
should not require a Corps permit and thus would not be subject to Service review except in
terms of impacts to federally listed species. Such dikes will become increasingly critical as the
sea surrounding the island rises and the island is prevented from moving landward. However, in
order for the Corps to do an adequate public interest review, there should be a description of the
development requiring protection. Such a description seems essential in formulating possible
alternatives such as the use of sand fencing to gradually build up the protective barrier.
Sand dikes built entirely on uplands will impact some wildlife resources, but would not impact
the very limited and productive area of the intertidal beach used by shorebirds and the upper
beach used for sea turtle nesting. As noted in this letter, scraping 128,900 cy of material off the
beaches may be detrimental to food resources of nearshore fish and shorebirds as well as sea
turtle nesting. In order to do an adequate public interest review, the Corps should have a clear
picture of the societal benefits to be derived. Such benefits can be weighed against the costs to
fish and wildlife resources.
10
Overall, the use of truck-hauled sand to fill breaches in the dike should not create serious, long-
term environmental impacts. The one-time use of an estimated of 4,400 cy of such material and
supplemental information on color and sediment processing suggest that this aspect of the work
would produce commensurately minor environmental impacts as the material moves onto the
beaches and eventually out into the ocean. Of course, the constructed dike should not be
considered a natural dune. Natural dunes are characteristically small, or non-existent, on Topsail
Island.
As noted above, the relatively large-scale beach bulldozing represents a much greater threat to
the coastal resources of Topsail Island. For this reason we have suggested that this aspect of the
project be eliminated in favor of an upland, protective sand dike landward of the existing
structure built entirely with truck-hauled sand.
Regardless of the eventually permitted, there should be a clearly defined work schedule. For the
benefit of sea turtles, piping plovers, and important beach invertebrates, the work should occur
during the four-month period from December through March. The Service recommends that the
DA permit require that all sediment placement and grading be completed during the December
through March period. With regard to section 7, the Service has recommended five measures to
minimize adverse impact to federally listed species that are likely to occur in the project area.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this permit application. If you have
questions regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by
e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Pete B amin'
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited
Barnes, J. 1998. North Carolina's Hurricane History - Revised and Updated Edition. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 256pp.
Cleary, W.J., 2001. Availability of offshore sand resources for shoreline restoration in
southeastern North Carolina. Geological Society of America Southeastern Section
Annual Meeting, 2001 Abstracts with Program.
Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2005 (August). (Draft) Engineering, Geology, and
Geotechnical Investigations, Shoreline Protection, Town of North Topsail Beach, North
Carolina. CP&E. Boca Raton, Florida.
II
Peterson, C. H. and J. T. Wells. 2000. Bogue Banks beach renourishment project: Late fall 1999
assessment of benthic invertebrates and demersal fish resources in the offshore mining
sites prior to sand mining. Final Report prepared for Carteret County and CSE Baird,
Inc. 13 pp + Figures and Tables.
Pilkey, O. H., W. J. Neal, S. R. Riggs, C. A. Webb, D. M. Bush, D. F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B.
A. Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands - Restless Ribbons of
Sand. Duke University Press. Durham, North Carolina. 318 pp.
T. M. Rice, and W. J. Neal. 2004. How to Read a North Carolina Beach - Bubble
Holes, Barking Sand, and Rippled Runnels. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 162 pp.
cc:
Rebecca Fox, US EPA, Whittier, NC
Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington, NC
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Fritz Rohde, NC Division of marine Fisheries, Wilmington, NC
Steve Everhart, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilmington, NC
Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Ocean, NC
F
MEMORANDUM
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
To: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
NC DENR/DCM
Cyndi Karoly
NC DENR/DWQ
Henry M. Wicker
USACE
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
From: Steven H. Everhart, PhD.957,'"
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: November 23, 2005

d
1
after`"
'F
•r'Y
4
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
p@wwq
DEC 2 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WRTLAND3 AND ST4ii6M/ATER fiR410i
RE: Town of North Topsail Beach, Dune System Repair, CAMA Dredge and Fill Permit Application and
USACE Public Notice Action ID # 200600087, Onslow County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject application for
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.), and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act (as amended).
The project is located adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean within the town limits of North Topsail Beach. The waters in this
area are NOT designated as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries.
The applicant proposes to rebuild dunes in the areas where breaches have occurred by trucking beach compatible sand at
an average of 12 cubic yards per linear foot and also sifting 2100 cubic feet of sand in storage that was removed from the
roadways after Hurricane Ophelia. They also propose to bulldoze (push) sand from mean low water (MLW) landward to
the existing erosion escarpments to repair the dune system to its original profile. The proposed restoration dune heights
range from 12 to 15 ft from the existing level of dry sand beach with a slope of 2:1. This project is anticipated to impact
approximately 28 acres of dry sand beach and 35 acres of intertidal beach. The pushing of sand will result in the
relocation of approximately 128,900 cubic yards of sand from the un-vegetated beach to the dune system.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
North Topsail Beach Dune Repair 2 November 23, 2005
We have the following concerns:
• Topsail Island, including the town of North Topsail Beach, is home to a rich diversity of fish and wildlife. Its
beaches provide nesting habitat for threatened and endangered species including sea turtles and ground-nesting
seabirds such as plovers and terns. Additionally, many species of birds forage year-round for living invertebrate
organisms within the intertidal zone. The relocation and death of these invertebrates by bulldozing them to the
dune system will eliminate their availability as prey to foraging seabirds until their populations are re-
established in the intertidal zone.
• Moratoria exist for construction activities on the beach for nesting sea turtles (May 1 - November 15) and
piping plovers (April 1- July 15). These must be observed.
• Overwash areas, especially those near inlets, are important to many species of shorebirds as nesting, foraging,
and/or loafing habitat. Lands adjacent to inlets, whether previously platted or not, should be protected from
development and preserved as conservation areas.
• There is a current mechanism that allows emergency beach construction activities to occur if homes are
imminently threatened by erosion or swell. The Town and individual property owners have already
exercised this mechanism. Hence, there does not appear to be a strong reason why this project should be
accomplished given the fact that the Town is currently developing a renourishment and shoreline protection
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have any questions or require
additional information regarding these comments, please call me at [phone].
cc: Joanne Steenhuis, NCDWQ
Fritz Rohde, NCDMF
Debbie Wilson, NCDCM
Howard Hall, USFWS
Issue Date: November 22, 2005
Comment Deadline: December 8, 2005
Corps Action ID M 200600087
All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans.
This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site
at www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant: Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Court
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina 28461
NOV 3 0 2005
Authority
WMXM AND ST WATER BPPXt'
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Location
The project site is located along the beach strand adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean from the
northern Surf City town limits to the New River Inlet, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County,
North Carolina. See attached plans and drawings for specifics.
Existing Site Conditions
North Topsail Beach received severe erosion to the dune system during Hurricane Ophelia. The
Town lost approximately 20' to 70' of their protective dunes and there are presently 12 breaches
in the dune system. At minimum the Town lost the waterward'/2 of the dunes. There is an
average. erosion escarpment of 13' along the remaining dune system. The existing vegetation on
the remaining dunes consists mostly of American Beachgrass (Ammophilia breviligulata),
Seaoats (uniola paniculata), and Bitter panicum (Panicum amarulum).
f
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The Town of North Topsail Beach wants to rebuild the dune system to its original profile prior to
Hurricane Ophelia for protection against storm events.
Project Description
The Town of North Topsail Beach is proposing to rebuild dunes in areas where breaches have
occurred by trucking in beach compatible sand at an average rate of 12 cubic yards per linear
foot and also sifting 2,100 cubic feet of sand in storage that was removed
from the roadways after Hurricane Ophelia. The trucked in beach compatible sand will come
from Riverside Sand in Wallace, North Carolina. This sand will only be place above the high
tide line. See attached documents for sand analysis. They are proposing to bulldoze sand from
mean low water (MI W) landward to the existing erosion escarpments to repair the dune system
to its original profile. They propose to restore the dunes to heights ranging from 12' to 15' from
the existing level of the dry sand beach with a 2:1 slope.
The project will impact approximately 63 acres of the dry sand beach and the intertidal zone. Of
this area, the dry sand beach is approximately 11.6 miles long and averages approximately 20' in
width, or approximately 28 acres. The remainder of the 63-acre project area is within the inter-
tidal zone. The beach bulldozing will result in the relocation of approximately 128,900 cubic
yards of sand from the unvegetated beach to the dune system.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly (all other projects) by
December 13, 2005.
The applicant has not provided to the Corps, a certification statement that his/her proposed
activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2(b)(2), the Corps
can not issue a permit for the proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to
the Corps and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), and the NCDCM
notifies the Corps that it concurs with the applicant's consistency certification.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination
2
is that the proposed project may adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the
South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries
Service. These impacts to EFH include destruction of habitat at the fill site, siltation plums,
erosion and sedimentation issues, time frame work is performed (fish moratoriums) and water
quality issues.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined there may be species listed as threatened or endangered or their critical
habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the
project area. A final determination on the effects of the proposed project will be made upon
additional review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
3
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in «riting, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, December 8, 2005. Comments
should be submitted to Henry Nicker, Project Manager for this project.
4

NOV 1 f" 2005
. PROPOSED AREAS OF BULLDOZING
AND PLACING BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND
Sand Hauled into Breach Areas - Star
Dune Bulldozing - ( )
Breached Areas will be filled:' 10'x30'
Dune Pushing will correct erosion - Ranges:
5'x'15
7' x 20'
10'x20'
Areas numbered for reference:
# 1 - Pushing 7' to 10' in height and 15' wide
# 2 - Breach area 10' in height and 40' wide
# 3 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 4 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 5 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' ,wide
# 6 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 7 - Breach area 7' in height and 35" wide
# 8 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
# 9 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' wide
#10 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' to 20' wide
#11 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' wide
#12 - Pushing 5' to 10" in height and 10' to 15' wide
#13 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#14 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#15 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#16 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#17 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#18 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height to 15' wide
#19 - Breach Area 10' in height and 35' wide
#20 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#21 - Breach Area 10' height and 20'. wide
#22 - Breach area 7' in height and 30' wide
"?:,,? ?. ., tom.: • .z
Goss 5&AZx,0Z,)5

s?
t
•Y
'? .rte 3 _... _' -? ? ? ..- t

?r? -_ _
?? ? c, -..._ _ 1
1? -+? S
r .
_
-
'. t 1
? ?
atg ?i ?
? 3 ? _ -? t` J
-

_ _ ?- ? l
_ _ _ ??
-? ? ?
? t. ??'? ? f -
?e --"'w__-? ti"-?:- _ _ - i?t T?l?_3YiL?L'" - - ?_ _ ?. v1.-dSi.r. ? ,.J_=. ?. ...?.
U
z
?z
V O
= N CD
Z:
zC%l D
4j
u
x? D
V
In
?i ?
?. m
m
x
y .
lJ_
Z
n ! o:v'0
o?
o;
a?
V
LABORATORY SIEVE AhtALYSIs
crAAfnikon '11 C ACCUU. `X
SIEVE SIZE PASSING SP EC IFI CATIONS
-- 3 - 4
C
WI Di
;
41
2 t
0
1 )a
1
1
0.
(
T_
3 e- 1)00 1 1 0. .
F
to s -o

9 4 g '= 0 9 -

5 s.5 -5 7 --0

•2 2 -60 1 44 5

6
- s 0 i -

0 .
3 0 -5

p 3 -

F 1 .8 2. - -

I

i

CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS SERVICES, INC.
P L_A Imo! T m i x
p . RIVERSIDE SAND CO,
ctwue= GOLDSBORO, N.C.
12.31 a MTV 10 9 O3
- i g? ? . OalliiUlCf Ha:
??t?
GRADATION REPORT
PM A CDoMEiL, • M PM 12613 4.? D . ---- . -
..•?
SOl1RCE OF MAI RW- AT RAW
(°'7
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
20052137
Issue Date: November 22, 2005
Comment Deadline: December 8, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200600087
All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans.
This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site
at www.saw.usace.g,=.mil/wetlands
Applicant: Town of North Topsail Beach D @?t-5 0 V@ 0
2008 Loggerhead Court NO V. 2,'q 2005
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina 28460 PENN w4T
ND3 AND Srf }yy fek r ,
j Authority The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Location
The project site is located along the beach strand adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean from the
northern Surf City town limits to the New River Inlet, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County,
North Carolina. See attached plans and drawings for specifics.
Existing Site Conditions
North Topsail Beach received severe erosion to the dune system during Hurricane Ophelia. The
Town lost approximately 20' to 70' of their protective dunes and there are presentlyl2 breaches
in the dune system. At minimum the Town lost the waterward'/2 of the dunes. There is an
average. erosion escarpment of 13' along the remaining dune system. The existing vegetation on
the remaining dunes consists mostly of American Beachgrass (Ammophilia breviligulata),
Seaoats (uniola paniculata), and Bitter panicum (Panicum amarulum).
Applicant's Stated Purpose
1 The Town of North Topsail Beach wants to rebuild the dune system to its original profile prior to
Hurricane Ophelia for protection against storm events.
Project Description
The Town of North Topsail Beach is proposing to rebuild dunes in areas where breaches have
occurred by trucking in beach compatible sand at an average rate of 12 cubic yards per linear
foot and also sifting 2,100 cubic feet of sand in storage that was removed
from the roadways after Hurricane Ophelia. The trucked in beach compatible sand will come
from Riverside Sand in Wallace, North Carolina. This sand will only be place above the high
tide line. See attached documents for sand analysis. They are proposing to bulldoze sand from
mean low water (RELW) landward to the existing erosion escarpments to repair the dune system
to its original profile. They propose to restore the dunes to heights ranging from 12' to 15' from
the existing level of the dry sand beach with a 2:1 slope.
The project will impact approximately 63 acres of the dry sand beach and the intertidal zone. Of
this area, the dry sand beach is approximately 11.6 miles long and averages approximately 20' in
width, or approximately 28 acres. The remainder of the 63-acre project area is within the inter-
tidal zone. The beach bulldozing will result in the relocation of approximately 128,900 cubic
yards of sand from the unvegetated beach to the dune system.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly (all other projects) by
December 13, 2005.
The applicant has not provided to the Corps, a certification statement that his/her proposed
activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2(b)(2), the Corps
can not issue a permit for the proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to
the Corps and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), and the NCDCM
notifies the Corps that it concurs with the applicant's consistency certification.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination
2
is that the proposed project may adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the
South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries
Service. These impacts to EFH include destruction of habitat at the fill site, siltation plums,
erosion and sedimentation issues, time frame work is performed (fish moratoriums) and water
quality issues.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined there may be species.listed as threatened or endangered or their critical
habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the
project area. A final determination on the effects of the proposed project will be made upon
additional review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
3
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
)'Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, December 8, 2005. Comments
should be submitted to Henry Wicker, Project Manager for this project.
4

K,0v I ° 2005
PROPOSED AREAS OF BULLDOZING
AND PLACING BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND
Sand Hauled into Breach Areas - Star
Dune Bulldozing - ( )
Breached Areas will be filled: * - 10' x 30'
Dune Pushing will correct erosion - Ranges:
5' x' 15
7' x 20'
10'x20'
Areas numbered for reference:
# 1 - Pushing 7' to 10' in height and 15' wide
# 2 - Breach area 10' in height and 40' wide
# 3 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 4 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 5 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' wide
# 6 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 7 - Breach area 7' in height and 35" wide
# 8 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
# 9 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' wide
#10 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' to 20' wide
#11 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' wide
#12 - Pushing 5' to 10" in height and 10' to 15' wide
#13 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#14 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#15 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#16 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#17 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#18 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height to 15' wide
#19 - Breach Area 10' in height and 35' wide
#20 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#21 - Breach Area 10' height and 20'. wide
#22 - Breach area 7' in height and 30' wide

Gloss 5+o?s

(?o
t
,,V\ ? ?f ¢wsrn?, F? Paiftl a
?r? fE ..rte
171, li
tot
0510
19
O
l
f F
?? -
w
U
z
z
V 0
=> CIA CD
j z
°D U
z? U
u
b o
V
ri
rl ?
i IV
?. m
m
I J
3:3 d
? S
°
? N
1J_ t`
7 = T3 •
n i ?u
0
o?
3 o
V
LAE30RATORY SIEVE • ANALYSIS
nrAh, in Ron '1 I C AM. UU. %
Jl(q.w w.. ??.
SIEVE SIZE PASSING
SP
EC
IFI
CATIO
N

-T - 3 --- 4
l I C E -E $ M Of IRY

I
22 1 0 0 1 1 0.

3 8- 0 0 1 1 0.
r
lpc)t o

9 4 8'?0 9 -

5 7 -10
+
.2 - D 44
5

0 - B Z 0 t -

0 ,3 0 -5

FM.

CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS StRY U15, INC.
P L-/N,, r'-J T M I X
?r?? . RIVERSIDE SAND CO,
GOLDSBORO,
? -fl S?1k) DATE 10 903
- a lZ313
??'f GRADATION REPORT
--- 4... FI - - - - - , ---
PETER 'n c?01?iE1l.. - fit. P.L. 12513
50USCE OF MAIFRW- AT PlRff
Issue Date: November 22, 2005
Comment Deadline: December 8, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200600087
All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans.
This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site
at www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands
2r= Applicant: Town of North Topsail Beach D
2008 Loggerhead Court NOY 2 8 2005
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina 28460
WETLAMDSAND .ANCii
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Location
The project site is located along the beach strand adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean from the
northern Surf City town limits to the New River Inlet, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County,
North Carolina. See attached plans and drawings for specifics.
Existing Site Conditions
North Topsail Beach received severe erosion to the dune system during Hurricane Ophelia. The
Town lost approximately 20' to 70' of their protective dunes and there are presently12 breaches
in the dune system. At minimum the Town lost the waterward %Z of the dunes. There is an
average, erosion escarpment of 13' along the remaining dune system. The existing vegetation on
the remaining dunes consists mostly of American Beachgrass (Ammophilia breviligulata),
Seaoats (uniola paniculata), and Bitter panicum (Panicum amarulum).
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The Town of North Topsail Beach wants to rebuild the dune system to its original profile prior to
Hurricane Ophelia for protection against storm events.
Project Description
The Town of North Topsail Beach is proposing to rebuild dunes in areas where breaches have
occurred by trucking in beach compatible sand at an average rate of 12 cubic yards per linear
foot and also sifting 2,100 cubic feet of sand in storage that was removed
from the roadways after Hurricane Ophelia. The trucked in beach compatible sand will come
from Riverside Sand in Wallace, North Carolina. This sand will only be place above the high
tide line. See attached documents for sand analysis. They are proposing to bulldoze sand from
mean low water (MLW) landward to the existing erosion escarpments to repair the dune system
to its original profile. They propose to restore the dunes to heights ranging from 12' to 15' from
the existing level of the dry sand beach with a 2:1 slope.
The project will impact approximately 63 acres of the dry sand beach and the intertidal zone. Of
this area, the dry sand beach is approximately 11.6 miles long and averages approximately 20' in
width, or approximately 28 acres. The remainder of the 63-acre project area is within the inter-
tidal zone. The beach bulldozing will result in the relocation of approximately 128,900 cubic
yards of sand from the unvegetated beach to the dune system.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly (all other projects) by
December 13, 2005.
The applicant has not provided to the Corps, a certification statement that his/her proposed
activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2(b)(2), the Corps
can not issue a permit for the proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to
the Corps and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), and the NCDCM
notifies the Corps that it concurs with the applicant's consistency certification.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination
2
is that the proposed project may adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the
South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries
Service. These impacts to EFH include destruction of habitat at the fill site, siltation plums,
erosion and sedimentation issues, time frame work is performed (fish moratoriums) and water
quality issues.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined there may be species listed as threatened or endangered or their critical
habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the
project area. A final determination on the effects of the proposed project will be made upon
additional review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request,. in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, December 8, 2005. Comments
should be submitted to Henry Wicker, Project Manager for this project.
4
r- K=--T.:, yam. - t'r..,
NOV I (' 2005
PROPOSED AREAS OF BULLDOZING
AND PLACING BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND
Sand Hauled into Breach Areas - Star
Dune Bulldozing _
Breached Areas will be filled: - 10' x 30'
Dune Pushing will correct erosion - Ranges:
5' x' 15
7' x 20'
10' x 20'
Areas numbered for reference:
# 1 - Pushing 7' to 10' in height and 15' wide
# 2 - Breach area 10' in height and 40' wide
# 3 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 4 - Pushing 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 5 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' wide
# 6 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height and 15' wide
# 7 - Breach area 7' in height and 35" wide
# 8 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
# 9 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' wide
#10 - Pushing 5' to 10' in height and 15' to 20' wide
#11 - Breach area 7' in height and 35' wide
#12 - Pushing 5' to 10" in height and 10' to 15' wide
#13 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#14 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#15 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#16 - Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#17 - Breach area 10' in height and 35' wide
#18 - Pushing area 5' to 7' in height to 15' wide
#19 - Breach Area 10' in height and 35' wide
#20 Pushing 10' in height and 20' wide
#21 - Breach Area 10' height and 20' wide
#22 - Breach area 7' in height and 30' wide

Cgo-65 5AAnctob5

ISO
c
szoties Creek..
'? i -`a €x
rO, 175 172
X
)?? , t dpi A rra
&16
1[1i
' 4 r. e
f ?1911h 7d?i?d?1 ?(?41G11
1 ? x l ,
'?lwmas Latxtaaq
?} Walt Onsbw B.wch: , -? ;
n r,." ?l. ?? rxc?sn
v ,
hta?Quzst.ca_ m, c , 1,2{)05 TOie Atlas
v

?z _
C14 O
m
CD C`'
Gar

\0

z?
41

co u
0
0

40
N
M
o,

z? Ia

.-1
Ol
'
x ¢L
I
Z
W L

cc:c
a
?l

Z = rI j

S;
o
E-

LC-) a: U .

J j .
O j LC%
Q
O ?
C',
x

of i.
? z
0

z
IL 1
"_1
0
i
0
N
LABORATORY SIEVE ANALYSIS
STANDARD U.S. ACCUM. X
,,,••' ...vr oAcciKrr CPF(`IFTC`_ -nnh1S

I At ID D

t 2f 1 a o A m p

3 B- 1 o Q 1 1 o.

100 0 -,D( I o_

9S .4 84 -11 0 9 -

g 9 .5 -5 7 -- 0

I -A 0 .2 2 - 0 5
-
.01 1 B l o llq - p

.1 10 p .3 -0 - 5

.3 -

F M.

i
7 i
CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS SERVICES, INC.
P L-A Imo! T' NA I X
pM . RIVERSIDE SAND CO,
c9:ct?a+c G O L D S B O R O, N. C.
SE/1! 9
i -4 Zu13 r oat : DATE: 10/9/03
20 `?'f GRADAnC)N REPORT
pm 't1 dOMal.. • ML Fs 12613
SOURCE OF WIUUM- AT PLW
cok_ U0(0 000Y'f
RE
Recommendations for State Permit - Town of North Topsail Beach
OCT 2 7 2005
I have no objections to the proposed ProJ'ect subject to the following conditions: R ? EMS,
?..
ex u _ 41
(1) The area in which the bulldozing activity is being performed must maintain a slope of adequate grade so as not
to endanger the public or the public's use of the beach.
(2) The movement of material by a bulldozer, front-end loader, backhoe, scraper or any type of earthmoving or
construction equipment shall not exceed 1 foot in depth measured from the pre-activity elevation.
(3) Movement of material from seaward of mean low water is not authorized.
(4) No work shall occur within the period of May 1 through November 15 of any year in order to minimize adverse
impacts to nesting sea turtles. Coordination with local Turtle Program officials shall ensure that no sea turtle
nesting sites are within the project area.
(5) The activity must not significantly increase erosion on neighboring properties and must not have a significant
adverse effect on important natural or cultural resources.
(6) Adding to dunes shall be accomplished in such a manner that the damage to existing vegetation is minimized.
The fill areas will be immediately replanted or temporarily stabilized until planting can be successfully completed.
(7) If one contiguous acre or more of oceanfront property is to be excavated or filled, an erosion and sedimentation
control plan must be filed with the Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section.
(8) The applicant shall complete a successful Section 7 consultation, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the commencement of any work.
127 Cardinal Drive Fact., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
own %
D4vulcp-manl Type FEE (142001601 435100093 1625 62531 (243001602 435100055 2341)
L Pdvalle, ncr.-pnlnarc!sl ,
dur•:Ir lncrt that dcas n: t invclvu 5Ge0 100°: rz2SO) 0% (SO)
?•: fiiGn9 or er..wWi0n of ary
ri;tLu,ds ar open mater 5rcas:
'
If. l u':lic cr eJmmd jal dcve:oq:nent v

CA-:; nct Imrclvu ttta ful:g or
L'Icl c!
S 00
1CQ% (S4CO)
Of° (SO)
ixl_iv::Gca e! ary wulh ;d, or o;en
walar rea
G!. Fcr U.vcl,Dpnen! Iha! wvctva the
Si1ta,? cx¢.:ra5or, of up la 1 .
sera cf v+laland: andia: open w.-Mr
jre35. G :!Ir. « 5nu if A, E, C, or 0
:ulgr a?1:Gr.::
Far rrvatc, ncn•cirnmcr4al
Ervn!:, r.•0?:. If GcMan! wa!cr eunDi £,?0 1CO9S p5c) 0% (SO)
clr?:c:d:an Nc.3301 (--a G!t'r.:•hc.)
r--.r te

¢mraa:cial
IS(^j; F=r:.i;ZGcor
r._r', if Grne-al wZ:u CcaCry g ,00 100% (?:?C) C% (SO)
C4 tf.:1:..1 ha.1:01 (_cc
m n aa; Ind:
I!1(C). If C^ ,':JI `ti'a..: CUT_%:y
r=-:??i s i Na. 3531 (z_.. _..,.•!?ed)
=r._I4 .e pFcd• tut CCM s:.uT
'
:
CO a (c40)
4C% (5160}
l::r W
d
dc'_r^Crr.i U:nt aC:a!icrat rEv

bc=:: of c:^ccTS rc!a!cd In watt,::
1u:1•i: j or ac ..at:c t•!a:
Ill;C}. I! Gen^_ral W ]lr:! C.`ua:1y
C?ili?tai ..: No. 3.01 (u.a SilSC ,c:) 5:20 fi0:e (5240) d i% (5160)
-.:n of ba zppncd:
W. For dr-wlcpmenl 0.11 irveive;
O c CCU , ardJ;r cxcvr.6on of more 5475 O3% (S--55) 40 : ($190)
U is CS.a :.CV Ot 1v0113nd5 8!I;
Peen water areas:
feud
.i
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Topsail Beach
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project site is the entire beach strand from the Surf City Town Limits
north to the New River Inlet, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County.
Photo Index - 2000: 28-380 through 28-390 1995: 28-366 through 28-378 1989: 167-1 through 167-19
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,474,6000 Y: 273,000 GPS File: N/A ECOVE
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA / Dredge and Fill OCT 2 7 2005
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 10-20-05 ' "4 7
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - Complete on 10-14-05
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -North Topsail Beach
Classification From LUP - Developed
(B) AEC(s) Involved: OH
7.
(C) Water Dependent: No
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - N/A
Planned - Repair the dune system along the entire beach.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: Ranges from 2' - 3.5' / year Source -1998 LTAASCR
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
[AREA]
DREDGED I L D OTHER
8.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands - open water
(C) Other (Ocean Beach) 11.6 miles
(Disturbed)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: Approximately 63 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: N/A
(F) Water Classification: SB Open: N/A
PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to repair the dune system that was damaged during
Hurricane Ophelia.
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagementnet
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
Form DCM-MP-1 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
APPLICATION n?T 1 4 2005
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town. comtp mny or landmark,
1. APPLICANT '06er4 &6'Q; r Ac fil
a. Landowner:
Name le r' AeW
Address
City tle?
r State
c. - Street address or secondary road nu er
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction?_ Yes No
e. ' Name of body of water nearest project e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) &1T ti.JT1e l? j(_!9
Zip Day Phone 4;g -13y9
Fax q"6-15-2f3- 45D&
b. Authorized/ Agent:
. Name L >°)9l.J,415 &e&Wk
Address ,2boB ZD6nGEe 1. Exe &r
city State 10C
Zip 028`100 Day Phone /O- 128 - l gif9
Fax ! to-.,'28 ?SCe
c. Project name (if any) L 14
NOTE. Perndt wM be isswd in name of landowner(s), and/or
project nerve.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County A)-s 4 to
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excav on and/or filling 'vi ies 01
ov / ??
A) A
?(XAA!0 /.3 G ,ee S04/
r OJ a& faet?a
f hq c)Lw & j6eA N C6NPfTn9u c5AJA
b. Is the proposed activity mainten ce of aq existing
project, new work, or both? Lcl wdeK
c. Will the project ?q9 for public, private or commercial
use? 7'U8L1 (Z.,
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more sp is n eded, please attach
additional p es. _
?J b
' 14 *1 Ibl-
LI
95 117% p 6v LED
(2ATige
Revised 03!95
North Topsail Beach
Page Two
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Town of North Topsail Beach is located on the northern end of Topsail Island in Onslow county. The
project location is the entire beach strand from the Surf City Town Limits north to the New River Inlet, adjacent
to the Atlantic Ocean, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County. North Topsail Beach received severe erosion to
the dune system during Hurricane Ophelia. The Town lost approximately 20' - 70' of their protective dunes and
there are 12 breaches in the dune system. At minimum the Town lost the waterward %2 of the dunes. There is an
average erosion escarpment of 13' along the remaining dune system. The existing vegetation on the remaining
dunes consists mostly of American Beachgrass (Ammophilia breviligulata), Seaoats (Uniola paniculata), and
Bitter panicum (Panicum amarulum).
The North Topsail Beach Land Use Plan classifies the upland areas of this project as Developed. The waters of
the project site are classified as SB by the NC Division of Water Quality. The NC Division of Marine Fisheries
has NOT designated this area of the Atlantic Ocean as a Primary Nursery Area, and the waters adjacent to the
proposed project are closed to the harvesting of shellfish.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The Town of North Topsail Beach is proposing to rebuild dunes in the areas where breaches have occurred by
trucking in beach compatible sand at an average rate of 12 cubic yards per linear foot and also sifting 2,100
cubic feet of sand in storage that was removed from the roadways after Ophelia. They are also proposing to
bulldoze sand from mean low water (MLW) landward to the existing erosion escarpments to repair the dune
system to its original profile. They propose to restore the dunes to heights ranging from 12' to 15' from the
existing level of the dry sand beach with a 2:1 slope.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The proposed project will impact approximately 63 acres of the dry sand beach and the inter-tidal zone. Of this
area the dry sand beach is approximately 11.6 miles long and, of the date of this report, averages approximately
20' in width, or approximately 28 acres. The remainder of the 63-acre project area is within the inter-tidal zone.
The push will result in the relocation of approximately 128,900 cubic yards of sand from the unvegetated beach
to the dune system.
Submitted by: J. W. Giles Date: October 21, 2005 Office: Wilmington
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract il,Ji
b. Size of individual lot(s)
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL /• s - c?2 1, f66r
d. Soil typ? a?texture(s) of tract
1
e. Vegetation on tract Z/67-5
f. Man-made features now on tract
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
OCT 1 4 2005
m. Descri existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effl ent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
o. Descri?e?ezi?Wdrinking water supply source.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
•
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
h. How is the ct zoned by local vernment?
f?5t ,3A1A1E.Q(2 A /
i. Is the propos project consistent with the applicable
zoning? Yes No
(Aach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) •
j. Has a professional archaeological ass went been
done for the tract? Yes No
If yes, by whom?
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes _?L No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Yes No
Coastal (marsh) Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Anm* doaanen=don, if a-ilable)
An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1R" by II" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
•
A list of the names z,.d complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy o; the application and plats
by certified mail. Such 1, --downers must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed r-piect to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon sig ing this form, the applicant
further certifies Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
OCT 1 4 2005
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER. ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. 7be project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
_,-Y?d S
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for This is the /_ day of
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, Print Name Q e
permittee, and issuin dates.
400 Signature
-e V7,
r or Authorized Agent
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP4 Structures Information
_ DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
_ DCM MP-6 Marina Development
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Ad (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public land, attach a statement
documenting compliance 'with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and-culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Fbud
E3dsdng Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shomline
stabilization)

35r` <
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
GC 1 1 4 2005
1. EXCAVATION
a. -Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards IA6t'306
b. Type of material to be excavated na7 n
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic ve etation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards _ .U(A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Loc34on of disposal areaoJT1q L-
LJQA3 e-,
b. Dimens7tsons of disposal area &Atogak-
s,
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
X _ Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes No
If yes, *where?
Revised 03195
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Form DCM-M -2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands? .
Yes -.X- No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ?/p
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Source of info-don)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIMIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes ,-„_ No .
OCT 1 4 2005
If yes,
(1) Amount of mat ial to be placed in the
water (2) Dimensions of fill area -;93ye6 35"?
(3) Purpose Of fill EsOAi Q ???
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or o er wetlands?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be pt on site
and erosion controlled? L'3A,J4 Cr.J E?
,UI-Ac)7 O IFQ-AT!043
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
-/ leV e_X'S
c. Will wetlands be crassed in trans orting equipment
to project site? Yes , ' No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
App ' o Project N
I
Revised 03/95
j
ESL. '?'O ????d oZe -? Cc_?ot,i1 ? c? ? CGS n t,J A r
F v F -?ro n? A l d Uri v (? s s ho (-j b
? s s ?.? ? c1?c d Prc-n?- b ?! o c,J . H
DCM WILMING i pN, NC
OCT 1 4 2005 .
L
? lV
Ong
Town/North Topsail Beach
U f of q1{
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'

DCM WILMI _OIY=NC.
?J w : w o2
w g \ Qn . ••• 1.1(1(;. g
cc)
. TTTTK2 • .? f? .

Town/North Topsail Beach
L of
October 7, 2005

+0 buildoze
? OP -?r-o(IR I du.nv Fr S S hoL"j ? RECEIVED
. Ll aCM wiLMINGTON. NC
a s s ?? ? c ?c a Ptce?r b et ? c.J
OCT 1 4 2005

47
rv ?
We-T Sid
is to peg Ll nc1

Pte:
}t
4
?i9bD
Town/North Topsail Beach
of .44
October 7, 2005
'Scale 1" =10'
mft4-%c
Oct ?
+o ?6ull8o-ze- ?a C?bu? ?cl occ?af\LJA`cl RECEIVED.
k? o-F ?r on?A I d unv P?s 5 hotj b DCM WILMINGTON. NC
oss ???c?cc4 f?-cn be.1?i,J OCT 14 2005
?? ?'s ? \ l??-r Sid
a 5 to peg

1-iv
&S,?
a
a)
Town/North Topsail Beach
7 of 4q
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'
Oc? ?,
Town/North Topsail Beach
OS of Z141
October 7, 2005
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON. NC
Ot T 1 4. ?r5

- :764-1

1

. - ' 750A-12 • •
_ .750A-10 •• - •75DA-23' - -

5oA 2
754-13 •
'
- 750A-22
-
_ '.750A=9 64
• 764-
.
•

- ? - 750iF25
- .750A-1

750A-21•
. 750A.8 .
.
. •6' ..75DA-26

• • 75DA-1
-750A,7
.. .750A-2?

. 750A 75DA-17 950P1fl
OA-
•
• i5oa.is

' ?
'
'
.
750FF3 •
' - -
:1;
•7so- t .
'
'
:
.
aos dD
oA:
7s 1

s
. eos3i .: ' a z1• eoaA 1
80$33.. ?... 806A 7. .
•
•
8-2 -

.. 808.313 - 8-T 808.1:1 ' . ..
.18
'
. 35
• • 'wy?
'?77 . - .808.35. &t b? • & ..
e 1 : ?
•
ze .:
aDS-z7 y? : e0s-37: ..
: ,? ?'z . s-, ??\s°s_7' . - :..C:,l ? :.• . ; •.: ' • . ° ... ' :. - ' • • • :': ? •.
=' ': •'
+0 ? U 1,8 0Ze J-0 fe-6," 1 8 CGA 11 i J A r G?
??' -?ro ?-? A 1 dune ? s s how b ? - •
ss ?? ckc j N-Ca-pr e,(p c,J RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 14 2005
' ? W?-r Sid
bu C;L is PC,
Town/North Topsail Beach
of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'

RECEIVED \.
DCM.WILMINGTON, NCB
OCTli 4 2005
,ps,-- Jo 6LM oze it) f _loul j 8 O cc-, r, t„) A r- d
F o-F -?rofAA I dune a s is how b uj
? ss ?,?? ? c?c c? E?ce-f? b e_I o c,J
RECEIVED- '
GCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005
/6 ' WET SA?d
Onci
1 is lope-,
-- !\
-W ft4-%c
Oce.?P, f.,% .
cD 4prZ? ? V ?)V<.
loll
boo (f??
Town/North Topsail Beach
Y, of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
Q2C\a,e\A- ecP\0%t fz
ose_ +0 ?????OZe }D r?bu1 ?c? OCc,ARlJf1rG
v -bra PA A 1 d Uri V? 5 S ho ? b _ '
RECEIVED
ASS ?,A?c1?cc! Pyre-F? b?lo? DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005
(? ncJ
?? ? ?u ? ' a : ? s to peg
It ?s8?

(e)q
Town/North Topsail Beach
of 44
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
*4ft4-%C
OcCA r-1
+b buildoze. J-D Ce.6utI CA
O cc,a iJAr
vF ?ran?A I (:Iu.nv E s IS kC) tj b L, RECEIVED
asS ?? C- e- C1 Prt'nPr be-t D CJ - DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005
hnc?
Oct

( ... -0)
Town/North Topsail Beach
!5' of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'
`
`
\
\ �
\ � \
13803
3767
3.7593707
3762
374
`372�. 137B2
SM
772
-371

. -?-o 6-k 118 oz? . -hr) CC t' u; 1 a o cc,?, n A ?- d
v F -?r'o A R ? d un vP? s 5 ho ? b?
o ss ?,-??ckr c4 f?ccat?- \be? D c,J
f-XI
f
RECEivE D*
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
?!CT 1'4 2005
we?T Sid
a: I S to p? Oncj

Town/North Topsail Beach
_7; of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
- f4-%c
OcC'ON ",
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OC i 14 2005

4021
\ \\ !?"a`'• - 4030
4004
\\ \ ?? `'` 4000'.
\\ \l ' 3984990'
•3978 ' r? S.
l `x3972 3980,
/\l 3966 `
•/ \. \\ 3962 , +^r
?? -\ '\ 3869 ` \' a - '- 3960 y -'
\ \ \ 3956
'...i \ \ 393952.
\\? 39369940
\ \ \ l 3936,
•\ \ \ \ 3930'.. .
\ l \\ \ \ 3920 y
3916 J -
3900 y?
3892
3660\
3874+, ?.
t6p ?! 3854 3862`.
380 : \ ?\ 3850'•1 \ •? _' A,. >
3805/ 3842`.
\ \' \ Town/North Topsail Beach
`? ?\ \3626 \ r ?1 ,
379\ \\ \, 3814 \ \, '`.
?. 380Za 3808 \ ?? \ October 7, 2005

?JS'Cr +d ??1???OZ? -tD ???jt,?1 C? Q CGAi\IJHrC?
?? vF ?ro n? A d unv E? s 5 ho L-i b L
o ss 1,?+ Ckc C4 N-MPr 'n e_t D L-)
??' ?1.,)unv
RECEIVED
DCM WILAMINGTON, NC
OCT z 4 20b5"
WET Sid
??a: i s to P? L?nv
Oc? ?
??`t8b ? ?J ' S>
Town/North Topsail Beach
-/ j
- Of iq
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'
•.t 5\
'` '•4128'•, •
f:,• ?
,\ .'F •',4110 _ 4128
:4130:;4110 41222•
,..y` 41041'4110 /

RECE VED
DCM WILMING ON, NC

OCT 1 4 20

i

431
. ' 4294 `: `•.
4290 `
'
. 4264
4
-4274 ` . 4298 -
4270
2 4266•

l 4
64 - 4278
f
11.0
4254 ` 's
4278 9 .

r' A -' 4744 4258 ?
- 4234
% 4230 :•
` 4248. ?.
4224 4238`
4236 _
142 4
422a b}

Town/North Topsail Beach
020 of LO
October 7, 2005
%s.
0 +0 6u\9o -6 re-lo ul ? c1 O cc,^ \LJA1-c1
CTP j?roN?A I dune P? s 5 koL,) b Ll
r 0 ss 1.? + ckc Cl - Prcn b e.[ o c,J

RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT' 4 266'
I?J?T Sid
??a : l 5 to p? Inc-)
.- I u` --?
A?4ft4;c
Oct ", ,
4 -
4AAJfZZ 0 -)Y
a?7 qs
CK? K
Town/North Topsail Beach
of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'

l ? CEIVED
D LMINGTON, NC `•,
T' 1 4 8D5
7008
,
11
f 398
431
\\
`., r.
129
/!I 149 137`133.
141
14,
145
153
,
57
165 1
_ 138
142
146
• 648 `
\ 150 \.
.154
...636 158 '.
,?` t\ 818. , `. • ?; i`, , t r ` -.166 162' 642
?\ , Jt
I\\ a16 .
./
Town/North Topsail Beach
-1 in
of 4LI_
October 7, 2005
? l
L
22 2
21, RECEIVED
uvivi 7vILI?iII1Vla U?V. .V
46 41 ffttrrl1
?UJ
42S 43 44 45 . So-
41
'r
40
39
38
56
37 57
35 59 58
35 60
1 61
34
2
33 3
I
'820
810
814
790 ; 790.
v
Yj 706
ti 700
694
I- C
•.`? 682
676
670
''? •??,` 664
656
64 . l .::
6 4 850
Y
Town/North Topsail Beach
of -qA
Odd er 7, 2005
J J •
N \418
06' \t `\.
31 y
RECEI t ',9
DCM ON, NC
1 4 2005
? v
. t . ? v Z \ \
\ \ ?. \v 205 204
\ y
\
\ `
203=
\ ?
\

815

'
:'"
'
a'?
819
20T

•. -'
.v
.\ 625
y ` 1 (A . 208 ?ti \' 601 605 -
Y
w.204 206 I
202 \ J ; -
, ^
v` ice' `,•200 ,
?
1 .<?? .
.
`
`.6301638
x'

30 •.624
.818
r? 1'
604

74 02
f ' ,
,
- \
?
\ .598
\ 00 y
'
'v
104 v

\fj 645 550. y
. ,
y y \
??
` `
b ..
538
\
'
532
\ f '
\ 528

- 520. •v ? r
?
.514 \t ?
•
f
451 506 - `.,i??

- .
645 .?,,.

i •t t
`tt 'v. '•.460 -
'.454 `
8.4428 y ri
7

Town/North Topsail Beach
of
October 7, 2005
?f
?r"
?d 6ulld o-Ze- ?a fe- i d O cc-, n r.J R r-cI
rti? t?F a??A I dune s s how b L
D ss ?A ckc J Prfa A- b e-4 o LJ
RECEIV>rp
aCM WILMIWGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005
Lt?
Zkk a S lope-,

? aso ?l,-1?1J
Town/North Topsail Beach
a of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
Oct ?, ,
-1-,- 1s`-,

48 47
41 2 S ' 44 \
\38
37
36
35 / \60
34 1 }61 \
j 2
? 3
% 4
5
7 8
`
4 f\
8
1\11 10
7\oo ?
50 51
\ %- SZ
53
54
56 "\
F
i
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 14 2005
•y

,94S
944
?940
U-
3311 E
J 327
' 323 1- 3
331334
324--?}y-
,.t 320'
Town/North Topsail Beach
a7 of q4
October 7, 2005

+0 60W oze ?a rebut ? d o cc?, n ? car d
1 D-F J?-o 4 A I aUn v (? s 5 ho I?j b LI
r 0 s s >\? + c-kc d- frca,& b e_l o E j
RLCEIVED
aCM WIL•MNNGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005
We?-r Sid
? ??Stfab ? ?a: 1 S to pe, L..?ncJ
a, (EA

A1ft4;c
Oct ", ,

C,aosgoez- lvW
Town/North Topsail Beach
c>IR of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
r77r
i
?i
? j 1069.
?i
' ]D81t
i t
? i
? j
t '
1060
1056
1050•
t' I 4 n,
-- IRECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 14 2005

? v-F -?TDPA A I dune s 5 ho Lj b L
r o ss ??? c?c c? ErrnPr b e I DL J
10 ?41
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT I A Z005-
WET Sid
0
a : I S to p? I_i nci
a,qUO
-Wft4,C.
Oce-o' i, ,

Town/North Topsail Beach
of 44
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'

RECEIVE
DCM WILMI ' ON, NC..,
uCT 14 200.5-
- 15 14
14011409 1415
1313' 1329 1337
- i .
1321
.1311 3aq
?"`? 1309`
13051307
1329'

130 r -
21
1301 1321.` 277 24
•` .9, - X26.
1350
1313 `271
1307 1311
2111 217.` 1309
,.? 1350`
1275 209 Z22t. ' 1303 305' 271
207
`? \`\ `\ `'• +•126T27t.`. ..,Z 1301 13111313
1255 1263, 1309
` 1251 1259 307
`1247. 1305'
\ + 1301-1303
? \? •'1243'. +? +` `+ -
+'1231'1235•.39 -
12` \
1256K
\ `, 238 124&
Town/North Topsail Beach
of 4LL
October 7, 2005
o io bulldozes -{a r??,u? ?? Occr?n?Aro?
?f O-F -?1-0 4 A I dune s s ho b
o SS ?,? Ck-c C PrCe-er ' e-t D L,
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 14 2005
? ? ? WET Sid
?' 1?xl',•? , ?? l °+nc)
to p?

Oct ?, ,
P
Town/North Topsail Beach
&,ofLN
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
L-- a L>1
-?
sus
271 CEIVED
IMINGTON, NC
f 1 4 2005
1
13
r . f`~.., .511 1512
'509
.••.507 .' 510 ',,\.`
f - 505
1503 at 508 F ri
70\00 501 506
702+`.700 504 `, y 1? ..:1661
. 502 - f '•.1675
702 306- ` \ /f ^: `.1669
` r r,? '•1661
701 304 ?,_ 1655
703 .-.; 305 _ 302
•'
•.70 303 "300. ?.
707 r
i _"'•S '_- ,-301
"•.• ',1611 rte-'
`.1605
.r 1601
•.1597':, - /r
100
1575
Town/North Topsail Beach
of
October 7, 2005

J >; ?; ( 704
l} ` 1? 708.706.

237- \.
J ( ! 1901 i 23b'?• a 1
17
i? E C f V Q D;.e<?
' '\\5:.
DCM UUMINGTCU,-,N:m•
327
\t ! .t j?531
C (y \ 1901 1901 1J I L 2 o (? Ua
".,` ) :r 1 '•} \ 318-•"=?, . 1 \
1901
'•_, . i r 4,1?'F 1 ? \ _,? , l' 30930§?
81 `307, •'.
320.!34-311,.
\ _ ?• j` '• '?` `'`\ \s \ \f98
?__ tl_ ' •\' 196', i,.? \ 1979'•\\
?---- "• (^r? '•.. 1955 \1973. '
1901 } `? `? rr\? f'•? •'\ \1951
` \ "(945 `? ?,}`??
? _? , r . .. - _. -. !• , 1941'', r'"y ?,.,•
1935'• \
I Jr ! YJi? ..•? f:•.?M1`., \. '1931`. •''? ••..\\
!_, J? !1901, ,i-"?' 1825',.• '?-- ` 3:
1911 1921 _
1915, ?..,. .. '•.{909
'? \ f ? . •, ':. 1901'. ?.\
189+
r Jl f '-\ 1 ,_ .< \ `•188T.
`,1889. ?J1! -
l r.• 1857 4 it, (cam
•? ? ?/ ``i ? \_?• ,:. 1849' i" '-?_tfir ` ?????,=i ??896' I \ `
?? r L^ \
J } . is 4 i841
I _ i 7 1833` t •y.
r 1 __._.`avK,? _.1.1866'x• .
?- 1901 r.
F17?44't
SS, , U Y
j ?1 .__ • ?-176$''x- .:.?, r??
V ,l
_-?,?.• ? J I `'x 1779
7 \ •1763
13 7743 1757. (':..1774? t l??
1753•
\ 1747 ` 17,74`
' 1737'.'' 4768
IN 745
\'''? { `^ ''?,,,.'' ?_' • 1750'-
! 174317481753 %
?c1681•: `fir '•:, /j
\:16751
\689'
Y/
To n/North Topsail Beach
of
October 7, 2005
I
1 o-F -?rDA I aunt/ P? s s hOL,) ?j
Toss ?? c?cd N-ca-'Pr be.l o Lj
?I
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1.4 2005,
5
I??T Sid

A?4 t4;c.
Oc.c*t ?,
LED - o )
Town/North Topsail Beach
-3-5-of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" =10'
237
11 1- `., _ • j\. 1901 1235
f .... ?__--r•/ ._1_.r??.,... `_.-,ti 231. '?••
•t ... ! I' ? 229
RECEIVED \225
t t
- DCM WILMINGTON, N?r 329
327
y 31b _ ? .•? .
1901 1901 1801 ; ?! r? ' -_. n 'J C Y 1 c1 2r?5 31
3o93os•
?? 't .•` 320.'31701 30TH. \.
??^,'•\ `? ? - _,? j . , /?, 311` ?\,
1981' \. \ 1979
1955 1973
- 1901 ( .1951 1665 ?.
•?' \ 1945• •}\ v 1941\
J ?;^ \ \ 1931.. \ s
;19011 \ \
?1A
t92. 5
1911 1921
_ _ -. -- y -•' ,? `. ..
\19071915\
t f.. .. ( .i 1909 >.
\ ? l i y _ 1 1904. .
tl J c C 189T \\
'- ? - •. ` 1887 ? ' \
rf? r11 <? \ 1 '1
v ?? ( 1877
I` 1 1870 j t?`\ 11 rI? I? `
C\ `\ •.
1 j \ 1865'• ,1f
3c\
1857 ;' )2) u.l?L1,}Y +C'??`.f',1 ','`•..a ' ,'t '? /
1843 1849 p<y \ x143 1896 \ f
C V r j rte/ }
Teal
1833 r1 \ ir'?
1901 - \\
\\j ail a
I S' ,.•'' J 4i ?.'
70.
r ? ?? - `li ?f • -1785' ?t _ ft.
j ' 1979 .
/• n-;,;}r..h 1 1779
1: A
176317/}.:
_?._a. 1757 .1 1784- / r.
13 17431753. <.t7Z4
1747. 1774 •.
1768
` 1737, #``' "1788'
a1 L ?, ,;1TA5
1758-
175(Y
\.\ 17431746
y753
1737`.
,..1\1681`
1675',
\869 •,?..%' sY:- ,?,'`'. l?
1 ; .
V"
? Pos,e. +b 6t OZe '?D ('mo`o t,? , C? CGA t\ l.J A r
k o-F ? n? R I a U-n v s 5 ho w b UA
o ss 1,? c?c c? PrCC4-r b e.10 LJ
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1 4 2005'
---------- - -
W?? Sid
?LL? a : i s to p?

Town/North Topsail Beach
of 4
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
-k4t4-%C.
Ccc-tN ",

r

R\EC•E1,V ?b .
DCM WILMINGTON) NC
OCT T" ?,. 2005,
"???,?
? J~ 1

'2083\ `\• ?",?

2063
104
1\02 ./?. 1
\ \r' ??,\ 2
? `2054\ \,. /?
25
\ r2itE- "2i9 i6\ 'f?/ /\ ,\048121\'22 .w
\ \
r2t4210.\i21•Y? \20 `•
303
\ • '- ??
9305 .212.E 206 "%203' / •19
)07,??Y`., 206,E rf \
1991'• 200.% f'A 30S9i \
1907 ? / 30z
\. \
x983', r' 1 =3403•..., / 3
;•. am
Town/North Topsail Beach
3a of
October 7, 2005

226
228
?T '. u c °u 215 -a N5
`-? 225 { 218 . 213
22t
167_ '2t9- * 214 .2209?\153 `.146145•. , x.:•169-';;?' 215-`• .. ' 2n \`\ v,Y1ZY jK%?213: ^ 202
.203
\\ .? ? \ ` t4t,'','•, \ '?I 4 ' I : ' ?. x' ?^? ,? . •,.
\ \ \ \ \ ` \. 35139,. •\ \ \y/ ' 173•! '; • 7A9 \ `2277 201
'' • .2271 •...
\\ `\ \ 125 t27 33. ,r,.' ?.-^ '177 .207-
\Y'f.??\ \? \119, ?`i23: 125\.•\\,'.`.?% r' •'179' ... 205'
\ 21 \ `,115??r\ 121
209x,.`,, .2
2264
160
2076\.
r \\ \ 2054 2181" 221D h
60. \ t j 2224`.`
\? •?l 2086. '` \ `}.~ _ /'? ''?.: '?` -
V\, ?. • `? -:\ 2088 , ..tom
\28`'29 \ ,`` 2070.72\ %'` / ra
'y ^??`2066\ 1 ?ra w
\ 27
33
`.35 34 \.
38
o ?d ?UI UOZe- '? ??501.L? d Cwt 1\ f G
dunv (? s s ho?.,? b

RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 1 2005
\ ??To Sid
`??a :1 s t? p? L?nv
.?.yba eel ?,PA? 2
WA?
Town/North Topsail Beach
31 of
October 7, 2005
Scale 1" = 10'
-04,c
Ccd4N ",
\ L `\? " i'
•?j---, \\ ? ?? !f: `f 3950:
- ?`y [1,,? \ \!? f\ 3044 ?? J:
_ ?? `?994p `x'3948`- i.
??
f \\ \\
y......_...._...._, ?"? "\ \ '\ 93p34038
\ 0 ? 23BT
? \
\` t?.g3p3 2387i
f? rr h/'?\3920 K/// I
\ \. \ { "f 3'j ?28 3028 / r-....,2389
? \\ r / 301 1 '• -;;3920?928 / 2389
0! \
\
a \ ? 59'16 s.i
3908'-
` 301 - ?28
as
3904\ 2387
\\ ^. 902 908 X2885 \ /
\ \ \ 2392
,, ? ?? \ !^ \ 2341.' 2365
4. \ 1 /2?5 r? fl 2521 \ 90.63 y? 23B1.. \ / ?!
23 .99D0, ?/ / 2366
?r? C?/ \ _22 \ 2377 2387
,2373 '-i • J
C 2252389 2377 2362
226 221 2
Z22 Ja 214 2373 2378
.`
22D 2505
2 2389 37fi
-_ 226 223/ 2
2 2 z z37o
218\ 2
7 2 20 \ 1 2368
2 \Z?
33
218 2 208 29 2364
221 213 20?203 .2327 52
\ 1 18 2 214 22 2D4 0 2356
1 2305 11 23
i\4 sa
4 % 1 22 21202 2 2 203 2D 200 gg \233& \ \\ -
ZS4
a 4
`rt•F?? ? Town/North Topsail Be4chY
or
October 7, 2005
k r F?