Feasibility report and environmental impact statement on hurricane protection and beach erosion control, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina (Topsail Beach)

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

TOPSAIL BEACH

FEASIBILITY REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON HURRICANE PROTECTION AND
BEACH EROSION CONTROL

West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet,
North Carolina (Topsail Beach)

DRAFT

US ARMY Corps
HV eers

551.4 District
.W476 ntic Division
F43
1988

ber 1988

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.0 BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890

Draf t

FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON HURRICANE PROTECTION AND BEACH EROSION CONTROL

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NORTH CAROLINA
(TOPSAIL BEACH)

SYLLABUS

The purpose of this study was to investigate hurricane protection and
beach erosion control needs at Topsail Island and develop the most sui *table
plan of protection for this area. Topsail Island is a barrier island located
on the central North Carolina coast. It includes the communities of Topsail
Beach, Surf City, and West Onslow Beach.

This study discloses that the most practicable plan of protection for
Topsail Island is a berm and dune project extending along approximately 3
miles of the oceanfront at Topsail Beach. Topsail Beach is located on the
southern end of Topsail Island, near New Topsail Inlet. This is the only
section of the 21.7-mile-long shoreline of Topsail Island where Federal im-
provements are economically justified.

The recommended plan of improvement consists of an artifical sand dune
constructed to an elevation of 13 feet above mean sea level, fronted by a
storm berm constructed to an elevation of 9 feet above mean sea level. The
berm and dune project will extend along a reach of 17,400 feet. This length
includes 10,250 feet for the main fill and 7,150 feet for a transition at the
northern end of the project. At the south end of the fill, near New Topsail
Inlet, a terminal groin will be constructed to control sediment losses from
the fill.

The principal project accomplishment is the reduction of hurricane and
storm damages. In addition, the project will enhance the quantity and quality
of the beach strand available for recreation use.

First costs of the project are currently estimated at $12,480,000.
Average annual costs are estimated at $1,616,000. With average annual
benefits estimated at $2,401,400, the project benefit-cost ratio is 1.5.

The recommended plan of improvement is considered to be environmentally
acceptable. Impacts on fish and wildlife resources will be negligible.
However, Topsail Island is known to be a nesting area for the threatened
loggerhead sea turtle, and this species could be affected by project construc-
tion and maintenance. Therefore, construction and maintenance activities will
be timed, to. the extent practicable, to avoid the turtle nesting season. If
construction or maintenance occurs during the loggerhead sea turtle nesting
season (I May through 15 November), a nest monitoring and relocation program
will be implemented to avoid impacts on this species.

This report was prepared in full compliance with four congressional
resolutions, which pertain to West Onslow Beach, Topsail Beach, Surf City, and
New River Inlet. Navigation needs at New River Inlet have been addressed
under the Chief of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Program. Studies per-
taining to New River Inlet have been reported in a Detailed Project Report,
and are not included in this document.

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Cc '-I Services Center Library
40 2,-- ,uth Hobson Aven-nc
C_'_, _,---.cston, SC 29405-2,@13)

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON HURRICANE PROTECTION AND BEACH EROSION CONTROL

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NORTH CAROLINA
(TOPSAIL BEACH)

Table of Contents

Item Page No.

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND I
SCOPE OF THE STUDY 4
PRIOR STUDIES 4
EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS 6
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION 7

SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

STUDY AREA 8
PUBLIC CONCERNS 10
THE FEDERAL OBJECTIVE 11
FEDERAL INTEREST 11
PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 13
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN 21
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 22

SECTION III - POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 23
POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR HURRICANE-WAVE PROTECTION 23
POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR ROAD PROTECTION 24
POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR PREVENTION OF CANAL ZONE BREAKTHROUGH 25
POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR RECREATION 25
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS 26

SECTION IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT PLANNING

SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES 27
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND CONSTRAINTS 29

SECTION V - PLAN FORMULATION

PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE 30
ALTERNATIVE PLANS 30
RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION 36

Table of Contents--continued

Item Page No.

SECTION VI - THE SELECTED PLAN

PLAN FEATURES 37
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 38
BORROW AREAS AND FILL MATERIAL 38
REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS 38
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 38
PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS 39
COSTS AND BENEFITS, SELECTED PLAN 39
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 43
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 45
POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON SHORE PROCESSES 46
PUBLIC VIEWS 47
SUMMARY OF PLANS EFFECTS 49

SECTION VII - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

REQUIRED STEPS 52
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES 55

SECTION VIII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS 56
RECOMMENDATIONS 56

List of Tables

Table No. Subject Page No.

1 Shoreline Changes - Topsail Island 16
2 Potential Economic Benefits for Topsail Beach 26
3 Costs and Benefits for Beach Berm Plans 32
4 Costs and Benefits for Combined Beach Erosion
and Hurricane Protection Plans 35
5 Average Annual Benefits for Selected Plan of
Improvement 40
6 Estimated First Costs for Selected Plan 41
7 Average Annual Costs for Selected Plan 42
8 Summary of Plan Effects 50
9 Cost Allocation and Apportionment 55

Table of Contents--continued

List of Figures

Figure No. Subject Page No.

I Authorized Study Area 3
2 Existing Federal Projects 6
3 Primary Study Area 12
4 Shoreline Changes, Topsail Island 14
5 Topsail Island Shoreline Stationing 15
6 Shoreline Movement and Inlet Migration 17
7 Schematic of Beach Berm 31
8 Schematic of Alternatives Considered 34
9 Cross-Section, Selected Plan of Improvement 37
10 Project Schedule 53
11 Project Schedule 54

List of Plates
All Plates
Plate No. Subject follow pg. 57

1 South End of Topsail Beach
2 Future Shoreline Conditions, South End of Topsail Beach
3 Generalized Beachfill Layout
4 Details of Terminal Groin
5 Coastal Barrier Resources System

,DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(follows main report and report plates)

List of Appendixes

APPENDIX A - PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B - DRAFT COORDINATION ACT REPORT, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON HURRICANE PROTECTION AND BEACH EROSION CONTROL

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NORTH CAROLINA
(TOPSAIL BEACH)

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate hurricane protection and
beach erosion control needs along Topsail Island and develop the most suitable
plan of protection for this area. Topsail Island is a barrier island located
on the central North Carolina coast. The beachfront along the southern por-
tion of Topsail Island, which includes the resort community of Topsail Beach,
is rapidly eroding. Several structures in this area have already been lost to
erosion or relocated. Also, with no natural dune protection, Topsail Beach is
highly vulnerable to hurricane overwash. A storm of moderate intensity could
breach Topsail Beach in this badly eroded area, severing the island and creat-
ing a new inlet in an area which is now heavily developed. This study
discloses that the most practicable improvement for beach erosion control and
hurricane protection is a berm and dune project along the southern two miles
of Topsail Beach. This is the only section of the 21.7-mile-long shoreline of
Topsail Island where Federal improvements were determined to be economically
justified. As discussed below, the authorizing resolutions also direct
studies of navigation needs at New River Inlet. Navigation needs at New River
Inlet have been investigated under the Chief of Engineers' Continuing
Authority program, and are reported in the Detailed Project Report pertaining
to that study.

AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND

This study was conducted pursuant to four congressional resolutions,
pertaining to West Onslow Beach, New River Inlet, Topsail Beach, and Surf
City. However, as noted above, the primary study emphasis was directed toward
beach erosion control and hurricane protection measures at Topsail Beach. The
text of the authorizing resolutions is quoted below.

RESOLUTtON ADOPTED 24 JUNE 1970 BY UNITED STATES SENATE

Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the United States
Senate, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, created
under Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act, approved June 13, 1902,
be, and is hereby, requested to review the reports of the Chief of
Engineers on the Inland Waterway from Beaufort to Jacksonville,
N.C., and New River to Jacksonville, published as House Document
Numbered 421, Eightieth Congress, on Bogue Inlet to Moore Inlet,
North Carolina, published as House Document Numbered 480, Eighty-
ninth Congress, and other pertinent reports with a view to
determining whether any modification of the existing project is
advisable at the present time, particularly for the stabilization
and deepening of New River Inlet.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED 2 DECEMBER 1970 BY UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of
Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review the reports of the
Chief of Engineers on the Intracoastal Waterway from Beaufort, North
Carolina, to the Cape Fear River, published as House Document
Numbered 450, 69th Congress, on the Inland Waterway from Beaufort to
Jacksonville, North Carolina, and New River to Jacksonville, pub-
lished as House Document Numbered 421, 80th Congress, on Bogue Inlet
to Moore Inlet, North Carolina, published as House Document 480,
89th Congress, and other pertinent reports with a view to determin-
ing whether any modification of the existing project is advisable at
the present time, particularly for the stabilization and deepening
of New River and Bogue Inlet.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED 23 JUNE 1971 BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of
Representatives, United States, that, in accordance with Section 110
of the River and Harbor Act of 1982, the Secretary of the Army is
hereby requested to direct the Chief of Engineers to make a survey
of the shores of West Onslow Beach, Onslow County, North Carolina,
and such adjacent shores as may be necessary in the interest of
beach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related purposes.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED 14 NOVEMBER 1979 BY UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives, United States, that, in accordance with
Section 110 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, the Secretary of
the Army i's hereby requested to direct the Chief of Engineers to
make a survey of Topsail Beach and Surf City, North Carolina, and
adjacent beaches and inlets, in the interest of beach erosion con-
trol, hurricane protection, and related purposes.

As indicated above, the four resolutions which provide the authority for
this study direct investigations of New River Inlet, Bogue Inlet, Topsail
Beach , Surf City, and West Onslow Beach (see figure 1, facing page). Studies
for navigation improvement at Bogue Inlet, directed by the resolution adopted
2 December 1970 and cited above, were combined with other congressional
authorities related to Bogue Banks and Bogue Inlet. A Federal project at
Bogue Inlet has been constructed under the Chief of Engineers' continuing
authority (Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960).

V A.

N 0 R T H

OUWVLLE CAROLINA
OCHMWTTE

LCAM
00MOUT
VICINITY MAP

WWW AWIT

C,
Nrw roPSAIL Alttr

cat,

avow aKrr
"J,

FIGURE
V.,

Authorized Stud

The remaining study authorities, pertaining to West Onslow Beach, New
River Inlet, Topsail Beach, and Surf City, were combined in 1980 at the direc-
tion of the Chief of Engineers, and designated the "West Onslow Beach and New
River Inlet, North Carolina" general investigation study. Like Bogue Inlet,
navigation needs at New River Inlet were determined to be most appropriately
addressed under the Continuing Authority Program. A Detailed Project Report
was prepared under this authority and is now undergoing review. This report
recommends an 8-foot-deep by 150-foot-wide channel across the ocean bar at New
River Inlet (see "Prior Studies," below).

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This report presents the results of studies conducted to address the
needs for erosion control and hurricane protection for Topsail Island, includ-
ing the incorporated areas of Topsail Beach and Surf City and the
unincorporated area of West Onslow Beach. The authorized study area is shown
on figure 1, preceding page. Primary study emphasis was placed on hurricane
protection and erosion control measures at Topsail Beach. This is the only
location in the authorized study area where Federal improvements for these
purposes appeared to be economically justified. As noted above, portions of
the study authority relating to navigation at New River Inlet have been ad-
dressed under the Continuing Authority Program. Therefore, navigation needs
at New River Inlet will not be discussed further in this report. This report
is submitted in full compliance with the four resolutions quoted in the "Study
Authority" section of this document.

PRIOR STUDIES

There have been several prior studies of Topsail Beach and adjacent
waters by the Wilmington District. These studies, listed below, include one
report on hurricane protection and beach erosion control, and several studies
pertaining to navigation.

HURRICANE PROTECTION AND BEACH EROSION CONTROL

House Document No. 480, 89th Congress, "Topsail Beach and Surf City,
North Carolina*'# This report, approved by Congress in 1966, presents the
results of an investigation of Topsail Island conducted during the period 1963
- 1965 as part of a comprehensive study of shore protection needs for the
segment of North Carolina coast extending between Bogue and Moore Inlets.
With approval of this report, Congress authorized hurricane protection and
beach erosion control projects for the towns of Topsail Beach and Surf City.
Improvements along the northernmost 10.5 miles of Topsail Island, referred to
as West Onslow Beach, were determined to be economically infeasible. The
improvements authorized by this report were not constructed, and the project
was deauthorized 5 August 1977. The reason for this deauthorization was that
there was no apparent non-Federal interest in the project following authoriza-
tion.

NAVIGATION

House Document No. 450, 69th Congress, "Inland Waterway, Beaufort-Cape
Fear River." This house document, approved by Congress in 1927, authorized
construction of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Beaufort to the Cape
Fear River, with dimensions of 12 feet by 90 feet.

House Document No. 421, 80th Congress, "Inland Waterway from Beaufort to
Jacksonville, NC and New River to Jacksonville." This house document, ap-
proved by Congress in 1948, authorized construction of a 12-foot by 90-foot
channel in New River. However, the project was deferred for restudy and has
not been constructed. The natural river channel is considered adequate for
existing river traffiB and no improvements are being considered.

House Document 691, 75th Congress, "Channel to New River Inlet." This
House Document, approved by Congress 20 June 1938, authorized construction of
a 6-foot-deep by 90-foot-wide channel from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
through New River Inlet to the Atlantic Ocean.

"Detailed Project Report on Improvement of Navigation, New Topsail Inlet
and Connecting Channels." This report, approved by the Chief of Engineers 7
Tpril 1966, authorized construction of a channel 8 feet wide by 150 feet deep
through New Topsail Inlet. A connecting channel through Banks Channel to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway was also authorized.

"Detailed Project Report on Improvement of Navigation, Bogue Inlet,
May 1983." This report by the Wilmington District addresses navigation needs
at Bogue Inlet. The recommended improvements, consisting of a channel 8 feet
deep and 150 feet wide across the ocean bar, have been constructed.

"Detailed Project Report on Improvement of Navigation, New River Inlet,
December 1987." This report by the Wilmington District addresses that portion
of the study authority concerning navigation at New River Inlet. The report
recommends deepening of the authorized navigation channel from 6 to 8 feet and
widening from 90 to 150 feet. This report is now (January 1989) under review
by higher authority.

EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS

As a result of the studies cited above, Federal navigation projects have
been constructed on the watercourses which, along with the Atlantic Ocean,
border Topsail Island. These existing Federal projects are summarized below
and are shown on figure 2.

* Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway--Channel from Norfolk, Virginia to St.
Johns River Florida, varying widths with depth of 12 feet; Beaufort to Cape
Fear River Section authorized by HD 450/69/1.

New River Inlet--Channel 6 feet deep and 90 feet wide through New
River Inlet to Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.

9 New Topsail Inlet and Connecting Channels--Channel 8 feet deep and 150
feet wide through New Topsail Inlet, with connecting channels 7 feet deep and
80 feet wide to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.

JACKSONVILLE

24
SOL

PENDER GOUNTY

MIL

U. S. IA C.

Dix
3

Air&,
L 409, f

0 All al.

1 *1120

F
RE
IGU 2A. New Topsail Inlet FIGURE 2B. New River Inlet

FIGURE 2. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS, TOPSAIL ISLAND AND ADJACENT WATERS

STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION

This study has been, and will continue to be, coordinated with various
Federal, State, and local agencies having concerns about hurricane protection,
beach erosion control, and the environmental impacts of potential improve-
ments. To date, coordination has consisted of informal contacts with local
interests and conferences and correspondence with elected officials(see
"Pertinent Correspondence," appendix A). Environmental coordination has been
conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service's Coordination Act Report is
attached as appendix B. Coordination with these and other agencies, as well
as the State of North Carolina, will continue with circulation of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement which is included in this report.

SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The purpose of this report section is to identify problems, needs, and
opportunities which can be adressed by the Federal Government under the
authorizing resolutions (see page 1). This report section includes the fol-
lowing (1) an analysis of public concerns, which presents the concerns of
local interests, Federal agencies, and others having interests in the study;
(2) a statement of the National Objective, which outlines the criteria for
Federal participation in water resources developments; (3) an assessment of
Federal interest, which identifies concerns in the study area which the
Federal Government can address under this objective; and (4) specification of
Problems, Needs, and Opportunities, which presents a discussion of those
problems for which Federal solutions appear to be potentially justified.

STUDY AREA

The "Authorized Study Area" includes Topsail Island and adjacent
waters. Topsail Island, shown on figure 1, is 21.7 miles long. It includes
the communities of Topsail Beach, Surf City, and West Onslow Beach.
Development on Topsail Island is of fairly recent origin. Prior to 1941,
Topsai 1 Island, then called "Ashe Island," was a stock-grazing range, with no
development or access to the mainland other than by boat. In 1941, the island
was acquired by the U.S. Government and was used as a military reservation
until 1947. A paved access road from the mainland, a drawbridge over the
Intracoastal Waterway, and a paved road the length of the island were con-
structed by the military during the time of its occupation. After 1947, the
island was returned to private ownership, and, since about 1950, has been
extensively developed by private interests as a year-round residential area
and a summer resort. Surf City, near the center of the island, and Topsail
Beach, along the southerly section, are incorporated towns and are the most
highly developed areas on the beach. Surf City covers about 5.5 miles of
ocean shoreline, and Topsail Beach extends along a reach of about 4.5 miles.
The northern 11.7 miles of shoreline, referred to as West Onslow Beach, are
relatively undeveloped. Each of these communities is described briefly below.

TOPSAIL BEACH

Over the past 25 years Topsail Beach has developed as a family-based
ocean resort community for outdoor recreation. The 1980 permanent population
of Topsail Beach was 264 persons, reflecting growth of 244 percent since 1970.
The most recent estimate of summer population, excluding day visitors, is
8,500. Land use is primarily recreation-oriented and residential and commer-
cial, with highest intensity along the oceanfront and Banks Channel. With the
exception of some dune areas, the entire town is subject to hurricane flood-
ing.

Today, development at Topsa il Beach is more vulnerable than ever to
storms and beach erosion. Along the southern 2 miles of Topsail Beach, ero-
sion is progressing at a rate of about 4.5 feet per year, and several
structures have already been lost to erosion or relocated. The area most
seriously threatened by erosion and hurricane overwash is in the vicinity of
three canals on the south end of the island. These canals, shown on figure 3,
page 12, were constructed by private interests in the 1970's. At its nar-
rowest point, opposite these canals, the island has a width of only 200 feet.
Based on studies conducted during this investigation, this area could be
breached by a storm of moderate intensity, resulting in a new inlet being
formed through an area which is now heavily developed.

SURF CITY

Like Topsail Beach, Surf City is a heavily developed resort community.
This development is also subject to flooding during severe storms, and land
losses due to beach erosion have occurred. However, the shoreline at Surf
City is now considered generally stable, although a beach erosion hazard does
exist during hurricanes and severe northeasters.

WEST ONSLOW BEACH

West Onslow Beach is not incorporated, and is a part of Onslow
County; Topsail Beach and Surf City are located in Pender County. Most
development on West Onslow Beach occurs on the southern half of the beach.
Several condominiums are located adjacent to New River Inlet, on the northern
end of the beach. As with Topsail Beach and Surf City, West Onslow Beach is
located in a flood prone area. The only road along the northern half of West
Onslow Beach is located just landward of the foredunes and is vulnerable to
storm overwash and erosion. An obvious beach erosion and hurricane damage
potential exists at West Onslow Beach. However, damage potential at West
Onslow Beach was not sufficient to justify detailed consideration of Federal
hurricane and storm protection and beach erosion control measures at this
location.

In addition, most of West Onslow Beach is included within the "Coastal
Barrier Resources System." Under current Federal law, Federal expenditures
for studies and projects within this system are subject to certain con-
straints, as discussed below.

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, PL 97-348, established the
Coastal Barrier Resources System. The Coastal Barrier Resource System is a
network of 186 units along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, within
which most Federal expenditures are no longer available to promote economic
growth or development. The stated purposes of the Act are to minimize the
loss of human life, reduce wasteful expenditures of Federal revenues, and
reduce the damage to fish and wildlife and other natural resources that can
occur when coastal barriers are developed.

With certain exceptions, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act prohibits new
Federal expenditures and financial assistance for development within the units
of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This restriction applies to such
items and programs as buildings, airports, roads, bridges, causeways, piers,
jetties, seawalls, water supply systems, utility lines, flood insurance, VA or
FHA loans, and projects to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize,
any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area.

The major part of West Onslow Beach from New River Inlet to an area
southwest of the Highway 210 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
is part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (see plate 5). This area is
in unit L06 of the system. The areas included within the Coastal Barrier
Resources System are areas that were undeveloped at the time of the passage of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (October 1982). Federal expenditures in the
area of unit L06 (West Onslow Beach) would be prohibited by the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act. Therefore, no detailed analyses of the beach erosion
and storm damage hazard in this portion of West Onslow Beach were undertaken
during this investigation.

PUBLIC CONCERNS

Local interests have expressed a need for beach erosion control and
hurricane protection measures on Topsail Island. This need appears to be
greatest at Topsail Beach, on the south end of the island. In addition,
agencies and individuals with interests related to environmental quality have
expressed concern that any Federal plan of improvement -be implemented in a
manner which avoids or minimzes environmental impacts. Concerns in both
categories are discussed below.

BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE PROTECTION

The concerns of local interests, as expressed by their elected repre-
sentatives, are reflected in the authorizing resolutions which are the basis
for this study. Correspondence documenting these concerns is included in
appendix A, "Pertinent Correspondence." As reflected in this correspondence,
hurricane flooding and beach erosion have been persistent public concerns in
the communities which occupy Topsail Island. Although these problems exist in
all developed areas of Topsail Island, concern is most acute at Topsail Beach,
where a severe erosion problem exists and the island's vulnerability to hur-
ricane damages is greatest.

ENVIRONMENTAL-QUALITY CONCERNS

The concerns of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are contained in the
Service's draft Coordination Act Report, included as appendix B. As discussed
in appendix B, the loggerhead sea turtle is of particular interest to the
Service, since this threatened species nests on Topsail Island.
Identification and resolution of environmental concerns will continue with
coordination of the attached environmental impact statement.

THE FEDERAL OBJECTIVE

The Federal Objective in water resources planning is to contribute to the
National Economic Development in a manner consistent with protection of the
Nation's environment. If hurricane protection and beach erosion control
measures at Topsail Beach are economically feasible (benefits exceed costs),
and environmentally acceptable, construction of a Federal project for these
purposes would contribute to this objective.

FEDERAL INTEREST

In accord with the National Objective, stated previously, any plan of
improvement to be recommended for Federal implementation must produce benefits
which exceed costs. Therefore, detailed studies were directed toward those
areas on Topsail Island where preventable damages due to hurricane-storm
action and beach erosion were of a magnitude consistent with the costs of the
available engineering solutions. The only technically feasible engineering
solutions identified in this study consisted of beachfill and dune construc-
tion to arrest erosion and protect against wave action. These measures will
be discussed in detail in the subsequent report section on "Plan Formulation."

While the potential for hurricane damages and beach erosion exists at
Surf City and West Onslow Beach, preliminary level analyses indicated that the
potential economic benefits at these locations were not sufficent to justify
detailed investigations of a Federal project. The shoreline at Surf City is
now considered stable, without a serious erosion problem, and potential
benefits for hurricane protection were not considered sufficient to merit
detailed study of a Federal project. At West Onslow Beach a significant
erosion problem exists, threatening the only road along the island and
development near New River Inlet. However, due to the relatively low level of
development at West Onslow Beach and constraints imposed by the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (see page 10), no detailed studies of Federal improve-
ments were made for this portion of Topsail Island. Reference points are
shown on figure 1, page 3; areas within the Coastal Barrier Resources System
are shown on plate 5, following the main report.

The only area of Topsail Island where a Federal project was determined to
be potentially economically feasible is the southern portion of the island at
Topsail Beach. This area, including the southern 2 miles of the town of
Topsail Beach, will be referred to as the "Primary Study Area" in subsequent
report sections. An aerial photo of the Primary Study Area is presented on
figure 3, following page.

. ....... .. ... ... . ... ..

JOLLY ROGER PIER

FIGURE 3. PRIMARY STUDY AREA. The photo above shows the southern 2 miles of
Topsail Beach, extending f rom the vicinity of New Topsail Inlet northward
about 1,000 feet beyond the Jolly Roger Fishing Pier. This is the only area
on Topsail Island where the severity and concentration of potential damages
were considered sufficient to merit detailed study of a Federal project.

PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES

The primary public concerns identified in the study area are the
loss of land due to progresive beach erosion and damages to structures due to
storm and wave action. These concerns are discussed below, along with an
indication of the possible solutions, which will be discussed in detail in
subsequent report sections.

BEACH EROSION CONTROL NEEDS

"Beach erosion" as used in this report section refers to long-term shore
processes which can be documented based on shoreline history, and projected to
estimate future conditions. Erosion in this sense differs from erosion during
storms, which, although devastating to development, is generally of a tem-
porary nature. Following storms, the coastline tends to reshape itself into
its former configuration, as sand washed from the beach is returned by wave
action and the beach shape conforms to the prevailing wave climate and lit-
toral processes. However, land losses due to progressive erosion processes
are essentially permanent, as documented by the shoreline history of Topsail
Island. Anlayses of coastal processes conducted during this study indicate
that historical erosion trends at Topsail Beach can be expected to continue if
no action is taken to stabilize erosion-prone areas. Past and projected
future shoreline positions at Topsail Beach are discussed below.

Past Shoreline Positions, Topsail Island. Areas of erosion and accretion
along Topsail Island during the period 1963 through 1983 are shown graphically
on figure 4, following page. Figure 5 shows shoreline stationing. As shown,
the peak erosion occurred just north of New Topsail Inlet. This accelerated
erosion has created numerous problems with the oceanfront development along
this reach, necessitating the removal of some cottages and threatening the
only road that connects the southernmost island development with the rest of
the island. Also, the width and quality of the beach available for recreation
have diminished.

:q,

I t
FIGURE 4. Shoreline Changes, Topsail Island,
1963-1983.
indicates Primary Study Area.
71-7.
T; ... ... .... . .. (see also figure 5, facing page)
7@7
+15-

1=7 77- 7
0
a 1

77 T:
7 7!'
44
4-10

+5
7-T
7 77 ...
.77 tTr-
t'd 1-:,
0 .. .... 1

E
... .. ..
-5 T@T7
w a
0 777@
7@-
7

Z-n
_10

-7-7
F .. . .... ... .
V)
A 0
-15 q:w :w.

;T;4
:P
W

0
N;V,
@ Wi"
1@_ 11,14 j i II
-20 j It!
x,
trT
il@j , i: 4, ,
cc
.14 T
1@10 i@
11 P,
-25
t T
It+
-4
441 _rtTi
it 411
H.114 HH 5,
-30 i_@4_ -
4 It
1w
Ifff - ! t
till
'4A
11 t i
All
w

T11

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

W
0

0
0
c III T
CA

4io 'mill 38
3 IS" .., flff
Ul
00

IP
00

en PSA DEAL511 C3
00
3 ins PRIMAJ
0
o..

25 4s

5000 0 5000 10,000 13,000 2QOOO 25000
SCALE IN FEET
vs STATUTE MILES

Shoreline changes for southern Topsail Island during the period 1963
through 1983 are shown in table 1. During the same period, New Topsail Inlet
migrated south at a rate of 110 feet per year, whereas over a longer, prior
period, between 1856 and 1963, the average rate of movement was 63 feet per
year (see figure 6, facing page.)

Erosion of the southern 2 miles of Topsail Beach has accelerated in
recent years. Generally, the erosion of this area represents changes in the
island configuration in response to the southward movement of New Topsail
Inlet. This southward movement has occurred since the mid 1800's, but, as
noted above, has increased in recent years as has erosion of Topsail Beach.
An example of the relationship between southward inlet migration and shoreline
erosion is shown in figure 6, facing page. As shown, the island takes on a
bulbous configuration as it accretes near the inlet. As the inlet migrates
farther south, the waves begin to erode this area and it becomes narrower. At
Topsail Beach, this process is now resulting in the loss of approximately I
acre of land per year along the southern 2 miles of the shoreline.

TABLE 1

Shoreline Changes Southern End of Topsail Beach*
(1963-1983)

Total Change
1963-1983 Rate of Change
Station (ft.) (ft./yr.)
0+00 +323 +16.0
6+28 +175 + 8.6
11+29 -101 -5.0
18+80 -283 -14.0
27+23 -172 -8.5
35+19 -138 -6.8
42+23 -129 -6.4
53+84 -97 -4.8
61+33 -90 -4.4
68+51 -79 -3.9
80+58 -46 -2.3
89+62 -35 -1.7
101+26 +8 +0.4**
110+00 -41 -2.0
120+00 -61 -3.0
130+00 -10 -0.5
Average =91 -4.5'

*See plate I for detailed view of this area.

**Slight accretion at this station is probably related to the presence of a
fishing pier nearby, and does not reflect a natural trend toward shoreline
accretion.

0+00 TOPSAIL BEACH
6+28 018+80

1963 SHORELINE
1983 SHORELINE

Figure 6. Shoreline Movement and Inlet Migration, South End of Topsail Beach.

The figure above shows the positions of New Topsail Inlet and the
southern end of Topsail. Island during 1963 and 1983. The shoreline stations
shown correspond to the baseline stationing shown on plates I and 2 at the
back of this report and in table 1, facing page. Reference to those exhibits
is suggested. As shown, in 1963 New Topsail Inlet was located approximately
2,200 feet further north than it was in 1983. As a result of this earlier
inlet position, the shoreline opposite baseline station 18+80 protruded
seaward. This area is now heavily developed (see plate 1). When New Topsail
Inlet moved further south, the protuberance disappeared, resulting in a high
rate of erosion at station 6+28. South of station 18+80, the shoreline ac-
creted during the 1963 to 1983 period in response to the southward movement of
the inlet. However, between 1980 and 1983, shoreline changes measured at
stations 0+00 and 6+28 have shown a trend toward erosion, indicating that the
pattern of inlet migration and erosion is continuing in this area. Estimated
future inlet and shoreline positions are discussed on the following page.
70@0@@@TOPS@AIL @BE`ACH@@@@

Estimated Future Shoreline Conditions, Topsail Island. The discussion
below presents an estimate of the future shoreline condition at Topsail Beach.
Again, emphasis is placed on the southern 2 miles of the shoreline, which is
the Primary Study Area. This estimated future condition will form the basis
for evaluating potential economic benefits of beach erosion control and
developing plans to address these needs. For purposes of this discussion, it
is assumed that no Federal project will be constructed at Topsail Island
before 1997. The year 1997 is referred to as the "base year" in subsequent
report sections. (It should be noted that a Federal project could be imple-
mented before or after 1997; this base year is assumed for purposes of
economic analysis; it does not reflect project scheduling, which is discussed
on page 52 of this report under "Plan Implementation.")

Plate 2 shows estimated shoreline and inlet positions 5, 10, 15, 25, 35,
and 50 years from the base year (1997). It should be noted that these projec-
tions were developed based on historic rates of inlet movement and shoreline
adjustment, and do not take into account any erosion-control measure which
might be undertaken during the periods of analysis. As shown on plate 2,
erosion is expected to intrude on the existing oceanfront properties along the
southern portion of Topsail Beach by the base year. By 1997, these buildings
will probably have been destroyed by the ocean or relocated. By year 2002,
erosion is expected to begin to wash out the road in front on the finger
canals, at the narrowest point of Topsail Beach. This road, Ocean Boulevard,
is the seawardmost road on Topsail Island. Ocean Boulevard provides the only
access to the southern portion of Topsail Island. If this road is severed,
this area of Topsail Beach would be isolated from the remainder of the island.
Ocean Boulevard can be seen on plate 1 of this report, where the Corps of
Engineers baseline follows this route.

As noted above, the future shoreline positions and inlet changes dis-
cussed above and shown on plate 2 are based on uniform rates of shoreline
change and inlet movement. Considering the value of property on Topsail
Island relative to the cost of erosion control measures, it is likely that
local interests will undertake measures to protect against progressive ero-
sion. At present, the town bulldozes the beach to create artificial dunes in
the area where erosion is most acute. Also, the Corps of Engineers deposits
materials on the beach from navigation maintenance dredging in Topsail Creek
and Banks Channel. At the present level of activity, these measures are not
sufficient to prevent erosion from destroying Ocean Boulevard and proceeding
across the island, as shown on plate 2. Therefore, unless more effective
beach erosion control measures are undertaken, erosion is expected to progress
across Ocean Boulevard into the three finger canals on the landward side of
this road. As shown on plate 2, this progressive erosion is expected to
result in formation of a new inlet at the location of the finger canals. For
purposes of economic evaluations presented in later report sections, it is
assumed that local interests will be able, through increased placement of
dredged material, to prevent erosion from destroying Ocean Boulevard. As
discussed in subsequent report sections, protection of this road will require
substantial expenditures by local interests.

Thus, the "most likely future" scenario at Topsail Island is based on the
assumption that local interests, through increased placement of fill, will be
able to prevent progressive erosion from washing out Ocean Boulevard.
However, erosion control measures by local interests are not expected to
provide significant protection against the short-term erosion and flooding
associated with hurricanes and storm events. Also, a storm of moderate inten-
sity could breach Topsail Beach near the finger canals. In the vicinity of
the canals, the natural ground elevation varies from approximately 7 feet
above mean sea level (m.s.l.) along the oceanfront to around 4 feet m.s.l. at
the canals. At the narrowest point of the island, the ocean shoreline is
within 200 feet of the canals. While placement of fill by local interests is
expected to prevent permanent land loss, local actions would probably not be
sufficient to prevent a breach of the island by storm action at the location
of the canals. Based on analyses conducted during this study, a storm with a
frequency of occurrence of 30 years or greater would probably breach the
island at the finger canals, creating a new inlet and isolating development
south of the canal location.

Possible Solutions for Beach Erosion Problems. As noted above, local
interests are expected to increase their erosion control efforts in order to
prevent the destruction of the seawardmost road along the island. However,
the effectiveness of local efforts in halting progressive erosion is specula-
tive, due to the limited resources of the community and the cost of the
required dredging and fill placement. As will be discussed in subsequent
report sections, the most effective solution for the beach erosion problem at
Topsail Beach would be an artificial beach berm, constructed between Ocean
Boulevard and the ocean. The beach berm would be constructed to the elevation
of existing high ground along the oceanfront, about 7 feet above mean sea
level, and would extend seaward a sufficient distance to provide a stable
beachfront. If replenished as necessary, this project would offset the long-
term effects of beach erosion, and provide protection against an inlet
breakthrough in the narrowest portion of the island. A beach berm at Topsail
Beach could be constructed alone, or in conjunction with artifical sand dunes.
The dunes would provide protection against wave overwash during hurricane and
storm events. Hurricane protection needs are discussed on the following page.

HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION NEEDS

"Hurricane and storm damages," as used in this report, refers to flooding
by wave overwash during hurricanes and northeasters, as well as short-term
erosion which occurs during these events. When the island is under hurricane
attack, the full force of the storm waves is felt along the immediate ocean
shoreline; as the waves break and spill over the ocean edge of the island,
development in upland areas is subjected to the force of the waves. As noted
in the discussion of "beach erosion" problems above, there is little natural
dune protection along the southern end of Topsail Island. This segment of the
island, which includes the Primary Study Area, could be overtopped by a 10-
year storm. With the smaller storms, such as the 10-year storm, the principal
damages would be associated with the battering and loosening of the pilings
which support beachfront structures, and the loss of decks and other struc-
tures. With the larger hurricanes, such as Hurricane Hazel which occurred in
1954, entire structures can be swept away. Past hurricanes and hurricane
damage potential are discussed below.

Past Hurricanes. The hurricane history for Topsail Island is somewhat
limited since the island was undeveloped prior to World War II. In October of
1954, Topsail Island was struck by Hurricane Hazel, the most severe storm
which has occurred since development of the island began. At Topsail Beach
210 buildings were lost, which constituted 65 percent of the structures exist-
ing at that time. Three damaging hurricanes followed in 1955: Connie, Diane,
and lone. However, these storms did much less damage than Hazel, partly
because few undamaged properties remained at Topsail Island following that
devastating storm. In recent years, Topsail Island has not been struck by a
severe hurricane, although such an event could occur in any year. Most
recently, property damage resulted from Hurricane Diana in 1984, and from
northeasters in 1986 and 1987. However, this damage was insignificant com-
pared to the damage that would occur from another hurricane of the "Hazel"
magnitude.

Hurricane and Storm Damage Potential. As shown on plates I and 2, the
southern portion of Topsail Island is heavily developed and the potential for
hurricane-wave damage is obvious given the lack of natural dune protection in
this area and the low elevation of the island. Unlike long-term erosion which
can be predicted, to some extent, based on past trends and observed shore
processes, damages from hurricane-wave attack can occur in any year, and can
be predicted only as a mathematical probability. Based on these probabil-
ities, average annual damages were computed for hurricane-wave damages and
will be discussed in Section III of this report, "Potential Economic Benefits"
(see page 23).

Possible Solutions for Hurricane and Storm Problems. As discussed pre-
viously, placement of a beachfill, or berm, along the coast of Topsail Island
would prevent long-term erosion, providing it is regularly renourished.
However, a beachfill project alone would not protect development from wave
overwash during the larger storms. Also, short-term erosion of the beachfill
during storms, although later replenished, would still threaten structures
near the oceanfront. Protection against these forces would require protective
structures to absorb wave energy and act as a barrier against overtopping of
the island during storms. The best measure for providing this protection is
the construction of artificial sand dunes along the oceanfront, along with
placement of a beachfill. Projects of this type are referred to as "berm and
dune" projects and will be discussed in detail in the "Plan Formulation
Section" of this report (see page 30).

CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN

Development at Topsail Beach is expected to continue, with or without a
Federal project. However, if no Federal action is taken this development will
continue to be threatened by hurricane and storm damage, including the pos-
sibility of a new inlet being opened through the island. Basic assumptions
are as follows:

(1) Most development seaward of Ocean Boulevard is expected to have been
destroyed or relocated by year 1997, the year in which it is assumed that a
Federal project could be implemented at Topsail Beach. However, local inter-
ests are expected to take the necessary actions to protect this road, and
prevent progressive erosion from advancing across Ocean Boulevard.

(2) Local measures are not considered likely to provide significant
protection against hurricane and storm damage, including wave overwash and
flooding.

(3) Likewise, local measures are not considered likely to provide sig-
nificant protection against an inlet breakthrough in the area of the finger
canals (see figure 3) in the southwest portion of Topsail Beach. Breach of
the island and opening of a new inlet at this location is considered likely
with the occurrence of a storm having a frequency of occurrence of 30 years or
greater. However, it is further assumed that local interests would refill the
breach, restoring the island to approximately its pre-storm condition. Also,
it is expected that the breached area would quickly be redeveloped to pre-
storm conditions.

SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNTITIES

The principal water-resources problems identified at Topsail Island are
progressive beach erosion, due to long-term shore processes, and the threat of
hurricane and storm overwash. The need for action to address these needs is
particularly acute along the southernmost 2 miles of Topsail Beach, adjacent
to New Topsail Inlet. The most effective measure to address these needs
appears to be a berm and dune project along this portion of the Topsail Island
oceanfront. However, as discussed in the preceding report section on the
"National Objective," any plan of improvement to be implemented by the Federal
Government must be economically feasible. It must also be environmentally
acceptable. The following two report sections present analyses relevant to
both these aspects of the National Objective. Section III, "Potential
Economic Benefits," presents a quantitative analysis of the erosion and hur-
ricane damage problems at Topsail Beach. Section IV, "Environmental
Resources," presents a discussion of the study area's natural resources and
identifies environmental resources which must be considered in developing an
implementable plan.

SECTION III - POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the potential economic
benefits which could be realized with elimination of all preventable damages
due to beach erosion and hurricane and storm action in the Primary Study Area.
As discussed previously, the Primary Study Area includes the southern 2 miles
of Topsail Beach, the only area at Topsail Island where potential benefits
were of sufficient magnitude to merit detailed study of a Federal project.
Prevention or reduction of these damages, along with benefits for enhanced
recreational use of the area, constitutes the economic justification for the
plans of improvement which will be discussed in subsequent report sections.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The analysis of potential economic benefits which follows is based on the
assumption that no effective action will be taken to prevent hurricane and
storm damages at Topsail Island. However, efforts by local interests are
assumed to be effective in preventing progressive erosion from advancing to
and beyond Ocean Boulevard.

The interest rate for the analysis is 8-5/8 percent and a 50-year period
of analysis is used. October 1988 price levels are applied. The "base year"
used for economic analysis is 1997.

The base data for this analysis were compiled using a 1981 real estate
appraisal, updated to reflect 1988 property values. These appraised values
were updated by a factor of 1.4, reflecting an estimated increase of 40 per-
cent in property values from 1981 through 1988. Real estate appraisals were
conducted by the Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; updates have
been coordinated with Savannah Real Estate. A content value of 30 percent of
the structural value is assumed for the residential structures in the study
area.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION

This analysis includes 685 structures (724 units) which are expected to
occupy the study area by base year 1997. This level of development would
completely fill the present supply of vacant lots in the study area. The
total of 685 structures includes 108 structures expected to be built by 1997.
The remaining 577 structures include 61 structures which are at locations
expected to be seaward of the coastline by 1997 (see plate 1). For purposes
of this analysis, it is assumed that these structures will have been randomly
moved to new sites throughout the study area.

Average annual hurricane and storm damages for the Primary Study Area
were computed using Wilmington District computer programs. These programs are
used to compute damages based on the probability of occurrence for various
storms, and the damages that would be done by these storms. These damages are
then estimated at an average annual amount. Average annual hurricane and
storm damages for the primary study area were estimated at $2,975,000. This
average annual damage figure includes damages to structures due to inundation
and undermining by erosion accompanying hurricanes and northeasters. It does
not include land losses due to long-term, progressive erosion.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR ROAD PROTECTION

At present, the town of Topsail Beach bulldozes the shoreface to create
artificial dunes and the Corps of Engineers deposits material on the beach
from navigation maintenance dredging in Topsail Creek and Banks Channel.

However, these measures alone will not be sufficient to prevent progres-
sive erosion from undermining Ocean Boulevard. Based on analyses conducted
during this study, effective protection of the road against progressive ero-
sion will require placement of approximately 560,000 cubic yards of material
on the beach every 4 years. The Corps of Engineers removes about 120,000
cubic yards of dredged material from Topsail Creek and Banks Channel every 4
years. This material is placed on Topsail Beach at no cost to local inter-
ests. This amount of fill material is expected to continue to be available,
due to Corps of Engineers maintenance dredging operations in Topsail Creek and
Banks Channel. However, as' noted above, total nourishment requirements for
protection of Ocean Boulevard are estimated at 560,000 cubic yards every 4
yards. Local interests would be responsible for the costs of dredging and
placing the additional 440,000 cubic yards of material necessary to prevent
the destruction of the oceanfront road. The cost of placing this material on
the beach is estimated at $2.38 per cubic yard. The equivalent average annual
costs for this 440,000 cubic yards of material to be dredged every 4 years is
$321,000. This amount represents the potential economic benefit associated
with protection of Ocean Boulevard. Benefits in this category will be
referred to as "Road Protection" benefits in subsequent report sections.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR PREVENTION OF CANAL ZONE BREAKTHROUGH

Potential benefits in this category are based on the value of land which
would be lost with an inlet breakthrough in the area of the three finger
canals shown on figure 3. Based on analyses conducted during this study, such
a breakthrough would result from a 30-year or greater storm. About $4.3
million in land would be lost with an inlet breakthrough. The potential
economic benefit associated with prevention of the canal zone breakthrough is
the damages times the probably of a 30-year or greater storm, or an average
annual amount of $143,400. It should be noted that this potential benefit is
based on storm-frequency relationship. For purposes of economic analysis,it
is assumed that the inlet breakthrough will occur due to a storm event, rather
than progressive erosion. As discussed previously, actions by local interests
are assumed to to be effective in preventing progressive erosion from washing
out Ocean Boulevard. Also, when an inlet breach occurs, local interests are
expected to take the necessary action to refill the breach, returning the
canal zone to approximately its former configuration. Structures lost in the
breached area are expected to be rebuilt in a short time. As noted pre-
viously, potential economic benefits associated with prevention of an inlet
breakthrough are limited to land losses; loss of structures is accounted for
in the "Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction" category.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR RECREATION

As discussed previously, local interests are expected to be able to
prevent progressive erosion from destroying Ocean Boulevard by increased
placement of dredged material. However, the recreational beach which remains
by 1997, is expected to be very narrow or nonexistent at high tides.
Potential recreation benefits for the portion of Topsail Beach in the Primary
Study Area were computed by estimating the Unit Day Value of the recreational
experience available with and without a Federal project. The term "unit day
value" represents the economic value which is assigned to a day of recrea-
tional experience. A unit day value of $2.30 was assigned for the "without
project" condition. The unit day value will be higher if a Federal project is
implemented to restore and stabilize the beach strand. Assuming that any
Federal project which is constructed will include a beach width of at least 50
feet and is regularly renourished, a unit day value of $3.08 is considered
appropriate. This increase of $0.78 per unit day multiplied by estimated
annual visitation represents the potential economic benefits for a restored
and stabilized beach along the southern 2 miles of Topsail Island. Estimated
visitation is discussed below.

Beach use at Topsail Beach is estimated at 6,805 persons per day over a
90-day beach season, based on data from the town's "Coastal Management Plan
for 1995." This represents 612,450 beach users annually. Of this number, it
is estimated that 248,410 visits to the beach will occur along the southern
two miles of Topsail Beach (Primary Study Area) where beach use will be
degraded by erosion. Therefore, potential recreation benefits for the Primary
Study Area are estimated at an average annual amount of $193,800 (248,410
visitor days x $0.78 increase in unit day value).

0
25

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

The total potential benefits for shore protection at Topsail Beach are
summarized in table 2 below. As shown, potential economic benefits include
four categories: (1) Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Benefits--Potential
benefits in this category are based on damages due to short-term erosion and
wave overwash during hurricanes and northeasters; all potential economic
benefits in this category are for reduced damages to structures; (2) Road
Protection Benefits--Implementation of a Federal project at Topsail Beach
which effectively protects Ocean Boulevard from progressive erosion would
eliminate the need for non-Federal erosion control measures to protect this
road; thus, the potential economic benefit in this category is based on ex-
pected expenditures by non-Federal interests for fill placement to arrest
erosion along this road; (3) Prevention of inlet breakthrough--Benef its in
this category represent the elimination of the costs of refilling the breach
in the island due to an inlet breakthrough in the area of the finger canals in
the southwest portion of Topsail Beach (see figure 3); (4) Recreation---
Benefits in this category are based on the increase in the value of the
recreation experience for beachgoers which would be realized with implementa-
tion of a Federal project at Topsail Beach.

TABLE 2

Potential Economic Benefits, Topsail Beach

Average
Benefit Annual
Category Benefit

Hurricane and Storm Damage
Reduction $2,975,000

Protection of Road $ 321,000

Prevention of Inlet Breakthrough $ 143,400

Recreation 193,800

TOTAL $3,633,200

As shown above, total potential average annual benefits for the Primary
Study Area at Topsail Beach are estimated at $3,633,200. In accord with the
National Objective stated previously, the average annual cost of any Federal
improvement recommended must be less than this amount. In addition, any plan
of improvement to be recommended must be shown to be environmentally accept-
able. Environmental resources of Topsail Island are discussed in the
following report section.

SECTION IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT PLANNING

The purposes of this report section are (1) to identify significant
environmental resources which might be affected by a Federal project along the
southern 2 miles of Topsail Island; and (2) to identify criteria which should
be followed in planning and designing a project to minimize impacts on these
resources. Significant, or potentially significant, resources are discussed
below.

SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES

Generally, the upland areas in the Primary Study Area have limited
natural values, due to the intensity of development. However, the estuaries,
inlets, beaches, and shallow ocean bottom surrounding Topsail Island have
significant values, as discussed below.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Topsail Island is separated from the mainland by marshes and sounds. The
estuary serves as a nursery ground for numerous marine species, while the
barrier island serves as a buffer which protects the estuary from the ocean
environment.

Although developed areas in the Primary Study Area have limited habitat
value, the adjacent marshes and sounds support a rich mixture of wildlife.
Terns, gulls, plovers, sandpipers, willets, rails, oyster-catchers, marsh
hawks, kingfishers, mockingbirds, and painted buntings are seen in the area.
Many other birds, reptiles, and small mammals frequent Topsail Island and
associated wetlands. -Topsail Sound and New River Inlet support significant
quantities of sport and commercial marine species. Practically all of the
sounds and creeks landward of Topsail Island are designated as primary nursery
grounds for shrimp by the State of North Carolina. Oyster and clam harvesting
takes place in the estuarine waters of Topsail Island and New River Inlet.

More detailed descriptions of the landforms and fish and wildlife
resources of Topsail Island are presented in the attached environmental impact
statement and appendix B. Appendix B contains the "West Onslow Beach and New
River Inlet Study, Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report," prepared
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Topsail Island.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service has been conducted to identify endangered and
threatened species which might be present in the vicinity of Topsail Island.
One threatened species, the loggerhead sea turtle, is known to nest on Topsail
Island. An endangered species, the piping plover, is a winter visitor in the
vicinity of Topsail Island. However, this species has not been documented to
nest on the island, and is unlikely to be affected by a Federal project at
Topsail Island.

WATER QUALITY

The tidal saltwaters of New River Inlet from the Atlantic Ocean to the
AIWW and New Topsail Inlet from the Atlantic Ocean to the AIWW are classified
"SA" by the State of North Carolina. Best usage of Class SA waters includes
shellfishing for market purposes, primary recreation, fishing, and secondary
recreation. Waters of this area generally meet the designated classification,
although there are areas of localized degradation, depending on proximity to
human settlements, as is evidenced by the "closed to shellfishing" signs
along the AIWW.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

No upland archeological sites have been recorded from the primary study
area and none are likely because of the recent formation of this area of the
beach. Should any sites be present, it is likely that they are of recent
origin and have been severely damaged by modern human activity. A review of
the National Register of Historic Places indicated that there are no histori-
cal sites listed or nominated for inclusion. Beachfront erosion, inlet
migrations, and limited project dimensions in the most recently formed beach
areas resulted in a decision to perform reconnaissance of the borrow area
only. This decision was coordinated with the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Underwater Archeology Unit, and is documented in an
assessment dated 19 August 1987.

Twelve shipwrecks have been documented near New Topsail Inlet by the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. Of these 12 vessels, six are
known to have sunk at locations unlikely to be impacted by a Federal project
at Topsail Beach. The locations of the six other vessels are uncertain.
Surveys of the borrow areas have been conducted with negative results.

ESTHETIC RESOURCES

The esthetic values of Topsail Island and vicinity are evidenced by the
popularity of the area for tourism. The total environment of barrier islands,
oceans, estuaries, and inlets attract many visitors to enjoy the esthetic
experience created by the sounds, smells, winds, and sprays.

The town of Topsail Beach is an area with many well maintained beach
cottages and year-round homes. The exception is found near the southern end
of Topsail Island in the region of the existing finger canals at the Town of
Topsail Beach. In this area, the esthetic qualities of the beach, and its
overall value for recreation, are being diminished by beach erosion. As
erosion advances in this area, without a Federal project, esthetic qualities
can be expected to diminish as the beach is littered with the remnants of
structures which have been lost to erosion.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND CONSTRAINTS

No environmental constraint was identified which would preclude implemen-
tation of a Federal project at Topsail Beach. However, any plan of
improvement should be designed and implemented, to the extent practicable, to
avoid interference with the nesting of the threatened loggerhead sea turtle.

Generally, any plan of improvement should be designed to avoid adverse
impacts on water quality and biological resources. Also, the timing of
project construction and maintenance should be adjusted as practicable to
avoid periods of high biological productivity.

As noted above, the esthetic qualities of the beach strand at Topsail
Beach will probably continue to be degraded as erosion encroaches on develop-
ment. Therefore, there is an opportunity to enhance this aspect of the
island's esthetic quality by restoration and maintenance of the beachfront.

SECTION V PLAN FORMULATION

This report section describes the procedures by which alternative plans
were developed and the optimum plan of improvement for Topsail Beach was
ultimately selected. Plans discussed herein provide protection for the reach
of Topsail Beach shown on plate 3. This reach, including approximately 2
miles of beachfront, corresponds to the Primary Study Area described pre-
viously.

PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE

Based on engineering and economic analyses conducted during this study,
the most appropriate measure to address hurricane protection and erosion
control needs at Topsail Beach is a shore protection project. A shore protec-
tion project would consist of (1) a beach berm to control erosion; or (2) a
beach berm and artificial dunes to control erosion and reduce wave overwash
during storms. "Nonstructural" measures were also considered as required by
Federal planning regulations. These measures usually include relocation,
elevation, or waterproofing of buildings to reduce damageability. The only
nonstructural measure which would substantially reduce damages at Topsail
Beach is structure relocation. However, every developable lot on the island
will probably be occupied by 1997, the assumed base year for project implemen-
tation. Thus, relocation was not considered a practicable alternative.

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The alternative plans evaluated in detail were beachfill plans, referred
to below as "Beach Erosion Control Plans," and berm and dune plans, referred
to as "Combined Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control Plans." Within
each of these categories, various levels of protection were evaluated for
comparison of benefits to costs. In all cases, the area protected extends
along the same reach of Topsail Beach, as shown on plate 3. This project
reach was evaluated for all alternative plans since: ( 1 ) This reach has
consistent development and lacks natural dune protection; and (2) there are no
environmental constraints associated with this reach, such as the Coastal
Barrier Resources designa@tion at West Onslow Beach, which would preclude
construction of a Federal project.

BEACH EROSION CONTROL PLANS

The "beachfill" plan is illustrated on figure 7, following page. As
shown, the area to be protected by the berm extends from just south of the
three finger canals to a point about 800 feet north of the Jolly Roger Fishing
Pier, or a total distance of 10,250 feet (see plate 3). The north end of the
fill would terminate with a gradual transition, as shown on figure 7. At the
south end, the distance between the fill terminus and New Topsail Inlet is not
sufficient to allow the use of a gradual transition from the fill shoreline
back to the existing shoreline. Therefore, a terminal groin would be used at
the south end of the fill. The terminal groin is a feature of all plans
considered. All shore protection plans considered would be constructed using
the borrow area shown on plate 3. In each case, material would be pumped from
this area to the beach and shaped by earth moving equipment.

Widths of 50, 100, and 200 feet were considered for the beach berm. in
each case, the beach berm would be constructed at an elevation of 7 feet
m.s.l. , the elevation of the natural beach berm along the project reach. The
50-foot width is the minimum width necessary to prevent long-term erosion and
inlet breakthrough during storm events. However, a beach berm alone would not
protect structures against short-term shoreline retreat during storms.
Although the berm would later be restored by natural processes and/or by
pumping sand from a borrow source, structures in the eroded area would be
damaged. Also, the beach berm alternative would not substantially reduce
damage due to hurricane and storm overwash; measures to address this problem
will be discussed in the following report section on "Berm and Dune" alterna-
tives. Benefits and costs for the 50-, 100-, and 200-foot berm alternatives
are shown in table 3, following page.

As shown in table 3, all three berm widths achieve the same benefits for
road protection, prevention of a canal zone breakthrough, and recreation,
since each alternative would effectively control progressive erosion and
provide an adequate recreation beach. Therefore, all potential benefits
related to control of long-term erosion, including costs of protecting the
seawardmost road on Topsail Beach and recreation benefits, would be realized
by the 50-foot berm alternative (see "Summary of Potential Economic Benefits,"
page 26). With the 200-foot berm alternative, the greatest benefits would be
realized for hurricane-wave damage reduction. These additional benefits
represent reduced damages to structures due to short-term erosion induced by
storms. However, as shown in table 3, these additional benefits are less than
the additional costs associated with the 200-foot berm width.

a ANKS CHANNEL

15, TOPSAIL BEACH
TERMINAL ARTIFICAL BEACH BERM JOLLY ROGER PIER
GROIN 10,250. 7,150,
MAIN FILL TRANSITION

PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE

100

EL. - 7' $.1.

EXISTING BEACH
PROFILE

CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
a
=TO PS A 11B
M

NOT TO SCALE

Schematic of Beach Berm

TABLE 3

Costs and Benefits for Beach Berm Plans
(Based on 8-57-8 percent interest rate, 50-year period of analysis)
(October 88 price levels)

PART I COSTS

50-ft.-wide berm 100-ft.-wide berm 200-ft.-wide berm
Item at +7 feet m.s.l. at +7 feet m.s.l. at +7 feet m.s.l.
First Cost:
Beachfill Construction $2,306,000 $4,092,000 $ 7,645,000
Terminal Groin 859,000 923,000 1,007,000
Contingencies (25%) 791,000 1,254,000 2,163,000
Subtotal $3,956,000 $6,269,000 $10,815,000
Engineering & Design 198,000 313,000 541,000
Supervision & Admin. 198,000 313,000 541,000
Real Estate 1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
Total First Cost $6,227,000 $8,770,000 $13,772,000
Interest During Const. 290,000 405,000 627,000
Total Investment Cost $6,517,000 $9,175,000 $14,399,000

Average Annual Cost:
Interest & Amortization $571,000 $ 804,000 $ 1,262,000
Beach Nourishment 349,000 393,000 480,000
Groin Maintenance 10,000 10,000 10,000
Monitoring Surveys 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total Average Annual Cost $945,000 $1,222,000 $ 1,767,000

PART II - AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

Hurricane and Storm
Damage Reduction $ 416,000 $ 800,700 $ 1,046,500
Prevent Road Loss 321,000 321,000 321,000
Prevent Canal Breakthrough 143,400 143,400 143,400
Recreation 193,800 193,800 193,800
Benefits During Construction 53,300 72,400 84,600
Total Average Annual Benefits $1,127,500 $1,531,300 $ 1,789,300

PART III - BENEFIT-COST RATIOS

1.2 1.3 1.0

PART IV - NET AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

$182,500 $309,300 $22,300

BEACH EROSION AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION PLANS

In order to increase the protective value of the beachfill, artificial
dunes and storm berms can be incorporated into the upper portion of the fills.
The added elevation and mass of the dunes would reduce the landward retreat of
the beach during storms and would decrease the size of the wave capable of
propagating across the island.

Four dune and storm berm fill cross sections were analyzed to determine
their effectiveness in reducing storm induced erosion and wave heights across
the southern 2 miles of Topsail Beach. Schematics of the four combined ero-
sion control and storm wave protection fills are shown on figure 8, page 34.
As shown in figure 8, the alternatives considered consist of (a) an 11-foot
m.s.l. dune and an 8-foot m.s.l. storm berm; (b) a 13-foot m.s.l. dune and a
9-foot m.s.l. storm berm; (c) a 15-foot m.s.l. dune and an 11-foot m.s.l.
berm; and (d) a 20-foot m.s.l. dune and a 16-foot m.s.l. storm berm. For
brevity, the four sections will be referred to as the 11, 13, 15, and 20-foot
m.s.l. dune sections. As indicated on the schematic, each of the dune sec-
tions is fronted by a beach berm at elevation +7 feet m.s.l.

EFFECTS OF BERM AND DUNE ALTERNATIVES ON BEACH EROSION

Each of the alternatives described above would effectively control long-
term shore erosion, as would the "berm only" alternative discussed previously.
In addition, the added elevation and mass of the berm and dune fills would
provide a higher level of protection against short-term shoreline retreat
during storms. For example, the 100-foot-wide berm discussed previously would
prevent storm induced erosion damages for storms with a return period of 10
years. The 13-foot and 15-foot berm and dune alternatives would prevent storm
induced erosion damages for storms with return periods of 70 and 230 years,
respectively. The 20-foot dune section would prevent storm erosion damages
for a storm with a return period greater than 500 years.

EFFECTS OF BEACHFILLS ON STORM WAVE HEIGHTS

In addition to reducing storm-induced erosion, the berm and dune alterna-
tives wo 'uld reduce damages to upland development due to hurricane-wave
overwash. Each berm and dune plan would reduce the heights of the waves
capable of propagating across the island during hurricane events. Increasing
the height and mass of the protective structure increases its resistance to
storm erosion and wave overtopping. Thus, the level of protection for upland
development is increased with the higher, more massive dune structures. Table
4, page 35, shows benefits, costs, and benefit-cost ratios for the berm and
dune alternatives considered. As shown in table 4, maximum net benefits
(benefits minus costs) are achieved with the 13-foot m.s.l. dune alternative.
Although this alternative would produce less average annual benefits than the
larger dune alternatives, the additional benefits achieved by the 15-foot and
20-foot dune alternatives are less than the additional cost.

BANKS CHANNEL

TOPSAIL BEACH
44r
BEACH FILL
---40LLY ROGER PIER
TERMINAL 10,250 7, 150'
GROIN
MAIN FILL TRANSITION

PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE

..... . ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
.... ... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
........ .... -... - ....... ......... ......... .........
.. ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
.. ......... ......... ... ......... ......... .........
... ......... ........ I ......... .........
... ......... .... .... ...... I .. ......... ......... .........
....... ......... ......... ......... .........
30-

........ ........ ......... .......
...... ......... .. I ...... .....
....... ......... .......
... ......... ......... .........
....... .......
.... .... .. S'QHEMATIC, OF.'
...... . ......... . EL'+20' M3L .'BERM: & DUNE: ?kLT.
20-
..... .. .... .... ......... .. ...... .........
.... ...... ......... ......... ......... .....
EL +16" MSL ...
U 4 1 MSL
......... .........
A 1, /77- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EL + 3, S .........
EL +11' M 17 ....... .........
......... .. .... ......... ....... .........
EL' +9`
10-
.... . ...... 7111111 tow" 16 .......... . .......
... ..... YL . *R' US .7.111.60 Im ......... MSL .....
.. . . . .. - -
....................... ..... ...

... .......

0
... .........
.... ......... .
........ .....

....... . . . .............. .. . .. . ........... ........................
..........
. ......... ....... ........
..............
........ ...........
-10-
....... ........ ........ ......
............
. .j . .............
........ ........ . ..... . .
.. ... ......... ....
......... ... EXISTING. E EACH PRMLE ... :
......... ...... ......... .......
@:::@ ., ......... **,*.'',.. .. ........
...... ......... ....... I. ........
..... ......... ......... ......... ... I ..... .........
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
......... .. ......... ..... - .. ......... ......... .........
0 1 i i i i 1 1
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
BANKS CHANNEL

TABLE 4

Costs and Benefits for Combined Beach Erosion and Hurricane Protection Plans
(Based on 50-year period of analysis, 8-5/8% interest rate, October 1988 price levels)

PART I - COSTS

11-ft. m.s.l. 13-ft. u.s.l. 15-ft. m.s.l. 20-foot m.s.l.
Item Dune Section Dune Section Dune Section Dune Section

First Cost:
Beachfill Construction $ 4,795,000 $ 6,676,000 $ 8,196,000 $12,148,000
Dune Grassing 51,000 65,000 82,000 112,000
Terminal Groin 926,000 972,000 1,004,000 1,070,000
Contingencies (25%) 1,443,000 1,928,000 21321,000 3,333,000
Subtotal 7,215,000 $ 9,641,000 $11,603,000 $16,663,000
Engineering & Design (5%) 361,000 482,000 580,000 833,000
Supervision & Admin. (5%) 361,000 482,000 580,000 833,000
Real Estate 1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000 1,875,000
Total First Cost $9,812,000 $12,480,000 $14,638,000 $20,204,000
Interest During Const. 450,000 568,000 663,000 906,000
Total Investment Cost $10,262,000 $13,048,000 $15,301,000 $21,110,000

Average Annual Cost:
Interest & Amortization $ 899,000 $ 1,144,000 $ 1,341,000 $ 1,850,000
Beach Nourishment 425,000 445,000 476,000 551,000
Dune Maintenance 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,000
Groin Maintenance 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Monitoring Surveys 15,00 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total Avg. Annual Cost $1,351,006 $ 1,616,000 $ 1,844,000 $ 2,429,000

PART II - AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

Hurricane-Storm Damage Reduction $1,133,300 $1,629,700 $1,827,100 $2,351,000
Prevent Road Loss 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Prevent Canal Breakthrough 143,400 143,400 143,400 143,400
Recreation 193,800 193,800 193,800 186,300
Benefits During Construction 88,900 113,500 123,300 144,300
Total Avg. Annual Benefits $1,880,400 $2,Z-01,400 $2,608,600 $3,158,500

PART III - BENEFIT-COST RATIOS

1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3

PART IV - NET AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

$529,400 $785,400 $764,600 $729,500

RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION

All plans considered for Topsail Beach would control progressive erosion
and eliminate permanent land losses. All plans would, to varying extents,
reduce damages to structures caused by short-term, storm-induced erosion. The
berm and dune plans would also reduce damages due to overwash during hur-
ricanes. All plans are considered to be environmentally acceptable. As
discussed previously, the National Objective for Federal water resources
projects is to contribute to the National Economic Development. The plan
which maximizes this contribution, measured as net economic benefits, is
designated the "National Economic Development (NED) Plan." Unless there are
other, overriding considerations which favor an alternative plan, the NED plan
will be the plan selected for implementation. As shown in table 4, page 35,
net average annual benefits are maximized with the 13-foot m.s.l. berm and
dune alternative. Therefore, the 13-foot m.s.l. berm and dune plan is desig-
nated the NED Plan and the Selected Plan. This plan is discussed in detail in
the following report section.

SECTION VI - SELECTED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT

The purpose of this report section is to centralize information concerning
the Selected Plan of Improvement. The Selected Plan is discussed in terms of
(1) Plan Features, (2) Construction and Operation, (3) Plan Accomplishments,
(4) Plan Impacts, (5) Public Views, and (6). Plan Implementation.

PLAN FEATURES

The Selected Plan of Improvement for Topsail Beach includes a 13-foot
M.S.I. dune and a 9-foot m.s.l. storm berm with a total fill width of 160
feet. The dune and storm berm will be fronted by a beach berm at an elevation
of 7 feet m.s.l. Project dimensions are shown on figure 9, below, and on
plates 3 and 4. Following construction, the dune will be planted with beach
grass.

t15

+ 13'MSL
5

U)
2+10 + 9'MSL

-+7'MSL
2
+5 1
25' L" 20' 3 5' idl 40'

0 50 100 150 200 250
DISTANCE IN FEET
13-FOOT MSL DUNE SECTION

FIGURE 9

Cross-Section, Selected Plan of Improvement

The berm and dune project will extend along the reach shown on plate 3.
As shown on the plate, the total length of the fill will be 17,400 feet. This
length includes 10,250 feet for the main fill and 7,150 feet for the northern
transition where the beach fill will taper into the existing shoreline.

At the south end of the fill a terminal groin will be constructed to
control sediment losses from the main fill. A groin structure is necessary at
this location since the proximity to New Topsail Inlet does not allow suffi-
cient distance for a gradual transition. Without the groin at this location,
@
"SL SL
23 5 - id 40 @'

sediment losses would make protection of this heavily developed area imprac-
ticable. Details of the groin structure are shown on plate 4. As shown, the
groin will be constructed of concrete sheetpiles protected by a rubble toe
along both sides of the structure. Total length of the groin is 1,010 feet,
including a landward section of 260 feet.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Initial construction of the Topsail Beach project will require ap- 0
proximately 3,240,000 cubic yards of sand. Annual nourishment for the project
is projected to be 126,000 cubic yards of material. Renourishment of the
project will be done every four years. Therefore, approximately 504,000 cubic
yards of sand will be required for each nourishment operation. Material for
beachfill construction and nourishment will be obtained from the borrow area
shown on plate 3. The material will be pumped to the beach by pipeline dredge
and shaped by earth moving equipment.

The terminal groin at the south end of the project will be constructed
utilizing prestressed concrete sheetpiles available from sources as close as
Wilmington, North Carolina. The granitic stone for the toe protection will
come from inland quarries. Marine limestone for bedding material is available
from quarries near Maysville and New Bern, North Carolina (quantities and cost
estimates are shown in table 5, page 41). Project construction is expected to
take about 1.5 years (9 months for the groin and 9 months for the berm and
dune); a construction time of 2 years is assumed for economic analysis.

BORROW AREAS AND FILL MATERIAL

As noted above, a potential source of beachfill material is located in
Banks Channel as outlined on plate 3. Based on grain size analysis of samples
taken in this area, the potential borrow area contains good quality beach sand
The amount of silt and clay in the borrow area appeared to be minimal, con-
stituting less than 5 percent of the total volume of material in the borrow
area. The material in the Banks Channel potential borrow area is ideal for
beach nourishment in that it is coarser than the native beach material and has
a wider range of particle sizes. Due to the good quality of the sand in the
borrow area and the absence of signif icant silt or clay deposits, the material
in the Banks Channel borrow area was taken to be 100-percent compatible with
the native beach material. Material from the borrow area outlined on plate 3
will be utilized for both construction and periodic beach nourishment.

REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS

Project construction will require acquisition of a narrow strip of
beachfront land along the 10,250-foot reach over which the main fill will be
constructed. A construction easement will be required along the 7,150-foot
transition section. In addition, 16.5 acres of undeveloped land southwest of
the terminal groin will be acquired in fee title. This property will be
subject to shoreline adjustments downdrift of the terminal groin (see
"Possible Impacts on Shore Processes," page 46).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The principal task, from a cost standpoint, for operation of the project
will be periodic beach nourishment. In addition, dune and groin maintenance
will be required. Costs for these items are shown in table 6, page 41.

PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Selected Plan of Improvement will stabilize the project reach against
further land losses due to progressive erosion and provide an adequate recrea-
tion beach for existing and projected future demand. The plan will also
eliminate damages caused by storm wave overwash for storms up to a 30-year
return interval and reduce wave overwash damages for larger events. Finally,
structural damages associated with storm-induced beach erosion would be
prevented for storms with return periods up to 70 years.

In summary, the Selected Plan achieves 100 percent of the potential
economic benefits for recreation, road protection, and prevention of inlet
breakthrough. The Selected Plan reduces average annual damages to structures
due to hurricane-wave action and storm induced erosion. As shown in table 2,
page 26, estimated average annual damages in the hurricane-wave category are
estimated at $2,975,000 without a Federal project. With the Selected Plan in
place, average annual damages are estimated at $1,345,300. Thus, the plan
would reduce hurricane-wave damages by an average annual amount of $1,629,700,
or about 55 percent. A summary of economic benefits for the Selected Plan is
presented below under "Costs and Benefits."

Although the plan will substantially reduce damages due to hurricane-wave
overwash, it should be noted that the Selected Plan of Improvement provides
for storm protection only in terms of protecting development from the action
of ocean storm surge and wave action. There are no provisions in the project
to protect the area against storm-tide flooding occurring from increased water
levels in the estuaries backing the barrier island.

COSTS AND BENEFITS, SELECTED PLAN

As discussed in the report section on the "Federal Objective," any plan to
be recommended for implementation as a result of this study must make a posi-
tive contribution to National Economic Development. This contribution is
measured by the amount by which project benefits exceed project costs. As
discussed below, the Selected Plan of Improvement has a favorable benefit-cost
ratio, indicating that it is consistent with this objective. Benefits and
costs are discussed on the following page.

BENEFITS

Total average annual benefits for the Selected Plan are summarized in
table 5, below. As shown in table 5, the majority of the project benefits are
for hurricane and storm damage reduction.

TABLE 5

Average Annual Benefits for Selected Plan of Improvement,
13-foot m.s.l. Dune with 9-foot Storm Berm
(8-5/8 percent interest rate, October 1988 price levels,
50-year period of analysis)

Benefit Category Average Annual Benefit

Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction $1,629,700

Protection of Road 321,000

Prevention of Canal Breakthrough 143,400

Recreation 193,800

Benefits During Construction 113,500

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS $2,401,400

As shown above, total average annual benefits for the Selected Plan are
estimated at $2,401,400. If the plan is to be recommended for implementation,
average annual costs must be less than this amount. Project costs are dis-
cussed below.

PROJECT COSTS

Determination of the economic costs of the Selected Plan consists of three
basic steps. First, project first costs are computed. First costs include
expenditures for project design and construction and related costs of supervi-
sion and administration. First costs also include the lands, easements, and
rights of way needed for project construction and maintenance*

Second, interest during construction is added to the project first cost.
For purposes of economic analysis, a 2-year construction period is assumed.
The project first cost plus interest during construction represents the total
investment required to place the project into operation.

Third, average annual costs are computed. These costs consist of interest
and amortization of the initial investment, and the annual cost of project
operation, maintenance, and nourishment. The average annual costs provide a
basis for comparing project costs to project benefits. A summary of the
computations involved in each of the three steps described above is presented
on the following pages.

Project First Costs--The total first cost of construction for the Selected
Plan is estimated at $12,480,000, based on October 1988 price levels. An
itemized listing of first costs is presented in table 6, below.

TABLE 6

Estimated First Costs for Selected Plan of Improvement
13-foot m.s.l. Dune Section
(8-5/8 percent interest rate; October 1988 price levels)

Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost

BEACHFILL CONSTRUCTION
Mobilization & Demobilization Job Lump Sum $ 520,000
Dredging 3,240,000 $1.90/cy 6'156' 000
Subtotal, Beachfill $ 6,676,000

DUNE GRASSING 19 Acres $3,400/ac $ 65,000

TERMINAL GROIN
Concrete Sheetpile 6,888 LF $80/LF $ 551,000
Toe Protection
a. 1,600-lb. Granitic Stone 4,600 Tons $46/Ton 212,000
b. 6,400 lb. Granitic Stone 3,200 Tons $46/Ton 147,000
c. Marine Limestone Bedding 2,600 Tons $24/Ton - 62,000
Subtotal, Groin $ 972,000

CONTINGENCIES (25%) $ 1,928,000

Subtotal $ 9,641,000

ENGINEERING & DESIGN $ 482,000

SUPERVISION & ADMINISTRATION $ 482,000

REAL ESTATE $ 1,875,000

TOTAL FIRST COST $12,480,000

Interest During Construction--Interest during construction, based on a 2-
year construction period, is estimated at $568,000. Thus, the total
investment required to place the project into operation will be $13,048,000
($12,480,000 first cost plus $568,000 interest during construction).

Average Annual Costs--Average annual costs consist of interest and amor-
tization of the initial investment over an assumed project life of 50 years.
Operation, maintenance, and beach nourishment costs are also included. As
shown in table 7, below, average annual costs for the Selected Plan of
Improvement are estimated at $1,616,000.

TABLE 7

Average Annual Costs for Selected Plan of Improvement
13-foot m.s.l. Dune Section
(8-5/8 percent interest rate, 50-year period of analysis)

Item Average Annual Ccost

INTEREST & AMORTIZATION OF INITIAL INVESTMENT $1,144,000

BEACH NOURISHMENT 445,000

DUNE MAINTENANCE 2,000

GROIN MAINTENANCE 10,000

MONITORING SURVEYS 15,000
Total Average Annual Cost $1,616,000

Beinefit-Cost Ratio--The Selected Plan produces average annual benefits
estimated at $2,401,400 (from table 5), while average annual costs are es-
timated at $1,616,000 (from table 7). Thus, benefits divided by costs results
in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5. Since project benefits exceed costs, the
Selected Plan is considered to be economically feasible. However any plan of
improvement to be recommended for implementation must also be evaluated in
terms of its environmental acceptability. A discussion of the environmental
impacts of the Selected Plan is presented on the following pages.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Selected Plan of Improvement is considered to be environmentally
acceptable, although some adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
Significant resources likely to be affected by the Selected Plan include
biological resources, water quality, esthetic values, and, possibly, a
threatened species. No effect on cultural resources is anticipated.
Anticipated impacts on each resource are discussed below.

IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biological resources will be affected by dredging of material for project
construction and by placement of this material on the beach. These impacts
will reoccur as the project is renourished at 4-year intervals. Biological
resources will also be affected, although to a lesser degree, by groin con-
struction. In order to minimize impacts on biological resources, construction
and maintenance activities will be conducted during a period of low biological
productivity from 15 November to I May, if practicable. Construction of the
groin at the south end of the fill cannot be accomplished within this time
frame; however, as will be discussed below, impacts on biological resources
associated with this plan feature are very minor. Expected impacts on
biological resources due to borrow area dredging, fill placement, and groin
construction are discussed below.

Borrow Area Dredging. Within the borrow area, existing shallow water and
intertidal habitat will be converted to deep water habitat, and resident fauna
will be lost. Limited sample data from the overall borrow area indicate that
a small number (both species and population) of bottom-dwelling worms inhabit
the area. Since stable, productive bottom will be avoided, there should be
very little impact associated with the borrow area. A stable bottom community
is not expected to occur in the project area with or without the project
because a suitable substrate for population by benthic organisms is lacking.

No significant impact on biological resources is expected due to piping of
dredged material from the borrow area to the construction area. The pipeline
route will follow existing waterways or roads from Banks Channel to the beach.
Negative.impacts associated with pipeline routes will be minor and temporary.

Fill Construction. The major impacts associated with this type of opera-
tion include:

A. Increased turbidity in the surf zone;

B. Effects on the benthic communities;

During disposal operations, there will be an increase in the turbidity of
the surf zone in the immediate area of sand deposition. This increase may
cause the temporary displacement of various species of sport fish, causing a
negative impact to surf and pier fishing in the area of deposition.

Although a considerable body of information is available on the effects of
dredging on benthic communities, much less is known about specific environmen-
tal consequences of beach nourishment. The disposal operation may also have a
negative impact on the intertidal macrofauna as was documented in "A Study of
the Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment With Dredged Material of the
Intertidal Zone," by Reilly and Bellis (1978). As stated by Reilly and
Bellis, "Beach nourishment virtually destroys existing intertidal macrofauna;
however, recovery is rapid once the pumping operation ceases. In most cases,
recovery should occur within one or two seasons following the project comple-
tion." The impacts to intertidal macrofauna and subsequent reduction in surf
feeding fish should be minimized by avoiding disposal during the summer
months.

Groin Structure. The terminal groin should have no significant adverse
impacts to either fish or wildlife resources since it will be located on a
high energy sand beach. In all, approximately 0.1 acre of beach and ocean
habitat "will be converted to rocky shoreline with construction of the groin.
Minor losses of coquina clam, mole crab, and ghost crab habitat will occur.
These losses should be offset, however, by provision of a stable substrate
upon which a diverse assemblage of fouling organisms (algae, barnacles,
hydrozoans) can attach.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

The threatened loggerhead sea turtle is known to use the project area for
nesting and, therefore, could be affected by the proposed action. In order to
avoid impacts on nesting sea turtles, nourishment sand should match natural
sand as closely as possible. As discussed previously, the material available
from the borrow area shown on plate 3 appears to closely match the existing
beach material, and the sea turtle should not be affected by this aspect of
project construction. In addition, construction and maintenance nourishment
should take place during the 15 November to I May period to avoid times of
high biological productivity, including sea turtle nesting. However, if
circumstances require that project construction or nourishment occur during
the nesting season, the sea turtle could be affected. Therefore, a monitoring
and nest relocation program will be implemented if beach nourishment overlaps
the nesting season. As discussed previously, the piping plover is known to be
a winter resident in the vicinity of Topsail Island. However, this species
has not been documented to nest on Topsail Island, and is not considered
likely to be affected by project construction and maintenance.

IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY

The proposed project will result in elevated turbidity and suspended
solids compared to the existing non-storm conditions of the surf zone in the
immediate area of sand deposition. Due to the low percentage of silt and clay
in the proposed borrow area (less than 5%), this impact is not expected to be
greater than the natural increase in turbidity and suspended material during
storm events. The impacts associated with the discharge of dredged material
into waters of the United States are discussed in the Section 404(b) evalua-
tion (attachment I to the Environmental Impact Statement).

ESTHETIC RESOURCES

Esthetic impacts of project construction are expected to be both positive
and negative. Construction and maintenance of a wider, stabilized beachfront
should generally have a positive effect on the esthetic values of the beach as
perceived by local residents and vacationers. Although the landward portion
of the groin will be visible on the south end of the project fill, the overall
beach strand should have a more "natural" appearance than would be present if
no action is taken to control erosion in this area. Minor noise and visual
intrusion will be associated with project construction and beach nourishment.
However, these effects will be short-term.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

An assessment of cultural resources was conducted and coordinated with the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit.
The assessment recommended magnetic survey of the borrow area only for pur-
poses of identifying shipwrecks determined to be probable for the project
borrow area. No reconnaissance was recommended for the beachfront fill area
because of: recent formation of this area as a by-product of channel migra-
tion, erosion of the existing beachfront, and beachfront location and limited
dimensions of the project features. No historic sites are known for the beach
area. A remote sensing reconnaissance and aerial photo study of the borrow
area were conducted during June 1988. No submerged resources were identified
within the borrow area and no impacts are anticipated.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action include
(1) Destruction and displacement of intertidal and benthic fauna during con-
struction and nourishment operations; (2) temporary increases in turbidity and
suspended solids during construction and nourishment operations; and (3)
potential adverse impacts on the loggerhead sea turtle if project construction
and beach nourishment occur during the nesting season. A program of monitor-
ing and nest relocation will be implemented to avoid adverse impacts on the
loggerhead sea turtle if beach nourishment operations overlap the sea turtle
nesting season.

MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

The term "mitigation requirements," as used herein, refers to actions
necessary to reduce or compensate for adverse environmental impacts of the
project. Overall environmental impacts are expected to be minor, due to the
scope, location, and timing of project activities. Impacts on fish and
wildlife resources will be negligible. Therefore, no specific mitigation
measures appear necessary. However, should project construction and beach
nourishment occur during the nesting season of the threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (I May through 15 November), a beach monitoring and nest relocation
program will be implemented to avoid impacts on this species.

POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON SHORE PROCESSES

As discussed previously, the use of a single terminal groin at the south
end of the beachfill is an element of each project plan. This project feature
is necesary due to the proximity of the fill terminus to New Topsail Inlet.
The use of a groin at this location could cause a readjustment in the
shoreline configuration on the inlet side of the groin. The undeveloped area
southwest of the groin, consisting of 16.5 acres, will be acquired by the
Federal Government.

The shape of the reconfigured shoreline is difficult to predict due to the
groin being situated in an inlet environment in which the configuration of the
shoreline is controlled by both tidal currents and incident wave conditions.
With the placement of the beachfill north of the groin, however, sediment
transport past the groin should continue at a rate equal to or slightly
greater than the normal rate. Thus, the beach to the inlet side of the groin
would continue to receive material at the present rate, which would prevent
significant net land losses in this area.

PUBLIC VIEWS

To date, the emphasis in project coordination has been in obtaining the
views of the potential non-Federal sponsor, the Town of Topsail Beach, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project plan, as presently formu-
lated, is considered acceptable to local interests and to agencies and
individuals having responsibilities and interests related to environmental
quality. Required coordination related to the environmental permits and
entitlements necessary for project construction is discussed in detail in the
attached Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Public coordination will
continue with circulation of this draft Feasibility Report and EIS for review
and comment. Local views and the views-of the Fish and Wildlife Service are
summarized below.

VIEWS OF POTENTIAL NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR

If the project is ultimately constructed, a non-Federal sponsor will be
required to participate financially in project construction (see attached
discussion of "Division of Plan Responsibilities." The potential non-Federal
sponsor is the Town of Topsail Beach. The Selected Plan of Improvement is
considered to be acceptable to, and supported by, the Town of Topsail Beach
(see "Pertinent Correspondence," appendix A.)

VIEWS OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Views of the Fish and Wildlife Service are contained in the attached Draft
Coordination Act Report (see appendix B). The project plan is considered to
be acceptable to the Service, provided certain environmental criteria are
observed in project construction and subsequent beach nourishment operations.
Specific recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service are presented below,
along with a discussion of how each recommendation has been incorporated into
the project plan.

Recommend at i on--Bor row materials needed for the beach and dune restoration
alternatives will be obtained from estuarine bottoms which do not support
environmentally significant plant or animal communities as determined by the
Service.

Discussion--The proposed borrow area, located in Banks Channel, is shown on
plate 3. This area meets the criteria recommended by the Service.

Recommendation--Excavation of borrow materials and beach and dune restoration
work will be limited to the period December 15 through February 28 of any year
unless otherwise specified by the Service and the Corps of Engineers.

Discussion--The period recommended by the Service appears to be too restric-
tive. Based on estimated time required for project construction and beach
nourishment, a period of 15 November through I May appears more practicable,
and is the construction period used in the analyses herein. If construction
and beach nourishment activities go beyond these dates, a beach monitoring and
nest relocation program for the loggerhead sea turtle will be implemented to
avoid impacts on this species.

Recommendation--To preclude private use of publicly funded beach and dune
restoration sites, undeveloped oceanfront property located adjacent to re-
stored beaches and dunes will be maintained, to the maximum extent
practicable, as public lands for the life of the project.

Discussion--All lands necessary for project construction and permanent right
of way will be maintained as public lands. However, as discussed previously,
all developable lots at Topsail Beach are expected to be occupied by the time
(1997) a Federal project is implemented.

Recommendation--Beach access and parking will be provided to the maximum
extent practicable; access by pedestrians and off-road vehicles to public
trust lands and waters in the vicinity of Topsail Inlet will be provided.

Discussion--An analysis of parking and access needs will be conducted during
the subsequent stages in development of the project. These recommendations
will be made part of the plan. It will be the responsibility of the locals to
provide land for additional parking and access needs.

SUMMARY OF PLAN EFFECTS

Table 8, following page, provides a summary of project effects. Effects
are evaluated in the following categories, or "accounts:" (1) National
Economic Development (NED), which reflects the plan's economic justification;
(2) Environmental Quality, which evaluates the plan's environmental accept-
ability; (3) Regional Economic Development; and (4) Other Social Effects,
including health and safety. Effects in these four categories encompass
significant effects on the human environment as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. They also encompass social well being as
required by Section 122 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. For purposes of
comparison, the effects of the Selected Plan are evaluated against the
of without project" or "no action" condition. As shown in table 8, the Selected
Plan is judged to have an adverse environmental impact, although this impact
is not considered significant. Except for temporary noise and disruption of
beach activities during construction and maintenance, all impacts on the
community are considered positive.

TABLE 8

Summary of Plan Effects

SELECTED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT "NO ACTION"

1. NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Beneficial Contributions

Hurricane-Storm Damage
Reduction $1,629,700 None

Elimination of Non-Federal
Costs for Protection of
Ocean Boulevard $ 321,000 None

Prevention of Inlet
Breakthrough $ 143,400 None-

Recreation $ 193,800 None

Benefits During Construction $ 113,500 None

Total Average Annual Benefits $2,401,400 None

Adverse Contributions

Annual Project Costs:
Interest & Amortization $1,144,000 Continuation of hurricane and
and storm damages, along with
Maint. & Beach Nourishment $ 472,000 expenditures for road protection

Total Avg. Annual Cost $1,616,000

2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Beneficial Contributions None None

Adverse Contributions

a. Water Quality and *Increased turbidity during None
Aquatic Resources. construction and maintenance

b. Vegetation and *No significant impact None
Wetlands

c. Wildlife Habitat *Destruction and displacement None
of intertidal and benthic
fauna during construction
and maintenance; effect will
be temporary, but will recur
over life of project

d. Esthetic Values *No significant impact Continued loss of esthetic values
of oceanfront as erosion intrudes
upon development

e. Air and Noise Pollution *Increased noise and air None
pollution during construction
and maintenance

TABLE 8

Summary of Plan Effects--continued

SELECTED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT "NO ACTION"

2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY--cont'd

f. Threatened and *Loggerhead sea turtle is known None
Endangered Species to use project area; if project
construction or beach renourish-
overlaps nesting season, nest
monitoring and relocation program
program will be implemented.

g. Cultural Resources None None

3. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Beneficial Contribution

Increased Income and *Potential increase in None
employment tourism income due to
beach stabilization

Adverse Contributions

Increased Income and None *Potential loss of tourism
employment income due to beach erosion

4. OTHER SOCIAL EFFECTS

Beneficial Contributions

Enhancement of com- *Reduction of hurricane and None
munity social well being, storm hazard along with
health and safety shoreline stabilization
is expected to have favor-
able impact on social well
being and safety; net effect
not quantified

Adverse Contributions

Enhancement of community *Minor and temporary in- *Continued threat of erosion,
social well being, health convenience due to along with hurricane and storm
and safety construction activities. damages; hurricane of moderate
intensity could breach island,
isolating a portion
of the community

*Effect specified in Section 122 of PL 91-611.

SECTION VII PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this report section is to present information related to
the procedures which will be followed in obtaining the necessary congressional
and administrative approvals for the Selected Plan and its ultimate construc-
tion. This section presents (1) a summary of the required steps which must be
accomplished prior to project construction; and (2) a discussion of the divi-
sion of plan responsibilities.

REQUIRED STEPS

Figures 10 and 11 show the schedule for the Topsail Beach project through
construction. The reviewer should note that this schedule assumes expeditious
review and approval of the project through all steps, including congressional
authorization and funding. Actual project implementation could take longer.
The procedure leading to implementation of the Selected Plan is as follows:
the District Engineer will transmit this report to the Division Engineer,
South Atlantic, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for review. Upon completion of
review, the Division Engineer will issue a public notice to interested parties
advising them of the report recommendations and informing them that the report
will be considered by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,
Washington, D.C. Interested parties will have an opportunity to present
written views on the report for consideration by the Board.

Following action by the Board, its report and the proposed report of the
Chief of Engineers will be submitted to the Governor of North Carolina and
interested Federal agencies for comment. Following the State and interagency
review, the final report of the Chief of Engineers will be forwarded by the
Secretary of the Army to the Congress, subsequent to his seeking the comments
of the Office of Management and Budget regarding the relationship of the
project to the program of the President.

Congressional authorization of the project would then be required. This
procedure would include appropriate review hearings by the Public Works
Committees. If the project is authorized the Chief of Engineers would then
have to include funds in his budget request for design and construction. If
the Congress appropriates the necessary initial funds, formal assurances of
local cooperation would then be requested from the non-Federal sponsor.

Advance engineering and design would then be initiated, project formula-
tion reviewed, and the plan modified to meet the then-current conditions.
Plans, specifications, and an engineering estimate of costs would then be
prepared by the District Engineer, bids would be invited, and a contract
awarded. Prior to contract award, the necessary local actions would be re"
quired. Following completion of the project, local interests would be
responsible for operation and maintenance. Beach nourishment will be ac-
complished under contract to the Federal Government, and will be cost-shared
by the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. A discussion of the
division of responsibilities is presented on page 55.

TOPSAIL BEACH SCHEDULE THROUGH CONSTRUCTION

2 3 4

3/89 10/09 10/92 4/94

Apportionment/Allotment Decision Feasibility Phase
New Start Decision (Budget Decision) Washington Review
I Draft Feasibility Report Completed Preconstruction Engr
2. Feasibility Report Completed & Design (PED)
I ASA(CW) Report to Congress construction Phase
4, Congressional Authorization
5. Construction Start

TENIATIVE MILESIONE SCHEDULE

Comments Schedule I tem Duration
2/89 Wilmington District (SAW) submits final Feasibility
Report to South Atlantic Division (SAD)
3/89 Report review, coordination, finalization,Div Engr's
Public Notice, send final report to Board of Engrs for
Rivers & Harbors (BERH). Express FY90 capability PED I month

4/89-6/89 Washington level processes& submits report to Congress 3months
12/89 Congress authorizes project

Receive FY90 10/89-9/91 SAW initiates Preconstruction Engineering & Design (PED)
PED & completes Oeneral Design Memorandum (ODM) & draft
Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) & submits to SAD 24 months

10/91 - 12/91 SAW processes ODM and gets approval to start plans
& specifications (P&S) 3months

1/92-6/92 SAW completes two draft P&S & subm Its to SAD 6months

Congressional 7/92-9/92 SAD review, SAW revisions, ready to advertise 3months
authorization
required by 10/92- 12/92 SAW advertises & awards terminal groin contract 3months
12/89 1/93 -10/93 SAW construcst terminal groin 9months
6/93- 8/93 SAW advertises & awards berm & dune contract 3months
8/93- 4/94 SAW constructs berm and dune (Dredge Window Nov-May) 9 months

FIGURE 10

STUDY/PROJECT SCHEDULE STUDY/PROJECT NAME: TOPSAIL BEACH
TOTAL TIME FROM COMPLETION OF DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT TO PROJECT ON LINE DATE (POL)
FY87 FY88 FY89 I FY90 j FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94

2 3 4 5 6 7

WASHINGTON PRECONSTR.ENGR
FEASIBILITY PHASE REVIEW & DES.(PED) CONSTRUCTION (Two Contracts)

12/77 2/88 3/89 10/89 10/92 4/94(POL)
ADV & AWARD BERM & DUNE CONTR
ADV & AWARD GIROIN CONTR
CONSTRUC BERM
WASHINGTON REV P&S REV] DUNE PROUECT
FEASIBILITY I REVIEW I REVIEW1 GDM F
I I I d
2 mo 6 mo CONSTRUCT GROIN PROJECT
24 mo, 20 mo
4' 1-v 7
Total Time DIST - 52.0 months

10 Mo 7 mo 3 mo 3 mo
REVIEW Total Time REV - 23.0 months

Total Time 75.0 months

6.25 years)

CWIS NO. 79730 NAME OF MANAGER: RON FASCHER DATE SCHD REVISED: DEC 88
ADP NO. AA937
FILE: TOPSAIL

DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES

Federal policy concerning cost sharing for water resources projects re-
quires that project costs be allocated to the various purposes served by the
project; these costs are then apportioned between the Federal Government and
the non-Federal sponsor according to percentages specified in Federal
guidelines. As shown in table 9, below, all project costs are allocated to
the purpose of "hurricane and storm damage reduction." Under current Federal
policy, costs allocated to this category are shared with the Federal
Government paying 65 percent and the non-Federal sponsor paying 35 percent.

TABLE 9

Cost Allocation and Apportionment

PART I - INITIAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Project Apportionment Apportionment
Project Purpose First Cost Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Federal
Hurricane Yn-d
Storm Damage
Reduction $12,480,000 35% 65% $4,368,000 $8,112,000

PART II - BEACH RENOURISHMENT

Cost Per Apportionment (%) Apportionment ($)
Project Purpose Operation Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Federal
Hurricane and
Storm Damage
Reduction $2,100,000 35% 65% $735,000 $1,365,000

As shown above, the Federal and non-Federal shares of initial project
construction are estimated at $8,112,000 and $4,368,000, respectively. The
non-Federal share includes $1,875,000 in lands, easements, and rights of ways.
The remainder will be in the form of a cash contribution. Costs of beach
renourishment are estimated at $1,365,000 Federal and $735,000 non-Federal for
each renourishment operation. Renourishment is expected to be required at
intervals of about 4 years. The reviewer should note that, for purposes of
cost apportionment, beach renourishment is considered "construction" and thus
is cost shared in the same percentages (65-percent Federal, 35-percent non-
Federal) as are the project first costs. Project maintenance, including dune
and groin repair, will be the responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor (see
table 7, page 42).

SECTION VIII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS - 0

I have given consideration to all significant aspects in the overall
public interest, including engineering feasibility, economic, social, and
environmental effects. The Selected Plan described in the report provides the
optimum solution for storm damage reduction for Topsail Beach and adjacent
areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has addressed the needs for hurricane protection, beach erosion
control, and navigation at Topsail Beach, Surf City, West Onslow Beach, Bogue
Inlet, and New River Inlet. Recommendations relative to Bogue Inlet and New
River Inlet are contained in the project reports pertaining to these inlets.
No Federal improvements are recommended at Surf City and West Onslow Beach.
Recommendations relative to Topsail Beach are presented below.

I recommend that the plan of improvement described herein as the "13-foot
m.s.l. dune alternative," and selected herein for purposes of beach erosion
control and hurricane protection at Topsail Beach, North Carolina, be
authorized for implementation as a Federal project, with such modifications as
in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable; at a first cost
to the United States presently estimated at $8,112,000, and annual costs to
the United States presently estimated at $1,365,000. The recommended plan
consists of a dune system to be constructed to a height of 13 feet m.s.l. ,
fronted by a storm berm at elevation 9 feet m.s.l., with a main fill length of
10,250 feet. Recommendation of this plan is made, provided that, except as
otherwise provided in these recommendations, the exact amount of non-Federal
contributions shall be determined by the Chief of Engineers prior to project
implementation in accordance with the following requirements to which non-
Federal interests must agree prior to implementation.

a* Provide all lands, easements, right-of-way, and dredged material
disposal areas and perform all relocations and alterations of buildings,
utilit ies, highways, railroads, bridges (other than railroad bridges), sewers
and related and special facilities determined by the Government to be neces-
sary for construction of the project.

b. If the value of the contributions provided under paragraph (a) repre-
sents less than 35 percent of total project costs, provide, during the period
of construction, a cash contribution in the amount necessary to make its total
contribution equal to 35 percent of total project costs.

c. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, except for damages
due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors.

d. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646).

e . Publicize flood plain information in the area concerned and provide
this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their guidance
and leadership in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and
in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future
development and to insure compatability with protection levels provided by the
project.

f. As to realize the benefits upon which Federal participation is based,
provide and maintain clearly marked beach access, nearby parking areas, and
other public use facilities, open and available to all on equal terms.

g. Assure and continue to assure conditions of public ownership and use
upon which the amount of Federal participation is based during the economic
life of the project in accordance with the existing law and based on shore
ownership and use existing at the time of construction.

h. Be solely responsible for operating, maintaining, replacing, and
rehabilitating the project or element.

The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at
this time and current departmental policies governing formulation of in-
dividual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities
inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program nor
the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch.
Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted
to the Congress as proposals for authorization and implementation funding.

LAWRENCE W. SAUNDERS
Chief, Planning Division

PAUL W. WOODBURY
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Commanding

D
IIN-

Al.

4W.

3
t

Tt,

119W

A I

-t A,

OEM I

3
t

0 T-13

ELEVATION FT MSL

T
0

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -

C5 CA
0

r
0
0

ioz

0
QA
i.0
2 CD
. 0 m
Ic
F
0
"tk 0
--------------------

0
0,
r
Z
ro
z
C,

M
0
ca ca

65
Z.

-4

rn
z

Ic
Z

z
0

I f z

21. Tm z
ILI P2 0, - zm!@
z z 8 T P
f M r) 0
It C: F=z

rn
m L-
z
o zp@
> OF;
F nm-t
K.i. 0 t--
120 "t
0 ZoZ
1 2 @2 z
zOz 0
Oll
W, A o
0
Fig.
c

11-71 w 1 0 1
t

7;4@1/)
creek

r"j
A@
AG-t (C)

RAY@
A 11 11A 111,R

rl
-7

G-
X"-oz,
31
11 u
0 Tvkey Pt

E T T BA Y

13 A Y .3
P I

-lo

SCALE

0 4,090 8,000 FEET
(Sourc
Servic:
3o Congres
0 '/2 1 2 MILES 97-348)

19 740 01 Trent Woods CANA Land use ptan.

OCLC: 22439038 Rec stat: n
Entered: 19900926 RepLaced: 19950516 Used: 19900926
$ Type: a Bib LvL: m Source: d Lang: eng
Repr: Enc LvL: I Conf pub: 0 Ctry: ncu
Indx: 0 Mod rec: Govt pub: f Cont: b
Desc: a Int LvL: Festschr: 0 ILLus: a
F/B: 0 Dat tp: s Dates: 1988, %
1 040 NXW Ic NXW %
$ 2 043 n-us-nc %
$ 3 086 D 103.62:W52/draft %
$ 4 090 lb %

$ 5 049 NO@M %
$ 6 245 00 FeasibiLity report and envirorimentaL impact statement on
hurricane protection and beach erosion controL, West OnsLow Beach and New River
InLet, North Carotina (TopsaiL Beach). %
$ 7 260 WiLmington, N.C. : lb U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ic 1988. %
$ 8 300 1 v. (various pagings) : lb iLL. (some foLded) ; Ic 28 cm. %
$ 9 500 Above titLe: Draft. %
$ 10 500 "December 198811--cover. %

ASYNC1 EPRISM tBLO t t t t
CAT SID: 04517 OL
End of record dispLayed.

OLUC dt fea,re,an,e Record 6 of 18
NO HOLDINGS IN NO@ - 1 OTHER HOLDING
11 504 BibLiography: p. B-42-B-44.
12 650 0 Shore protection z North CaroLina z TopsaiL Beach.
13 650 0 Shore protection z North CaroLina z West OnsLow Beach.
14 650 0 Hurricane protection z North CaroLina z TopsaiL Beach.
15 650 0 Hurricane protection z North CaroLina z West Onstow Beach.
16 710 1 United States. b Army. b Corps of Engineers. b WiLmington
District.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet
(Topsail Beach)

Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection
Pender County, North Carolina

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington

Abstract: Topsail Island is located in Onslow and Pender Counties. The
Wilmington District has investigated public concerns of the Topsail Beach
study area related to greater protection from hurricane waves and flooding so
as to reduce their detrimental effects, and control of beach erosion to arrest
recession of the shoreline. Of the four plans initially considered, one was
selected for detailed study. This plan, consisting of a berm, dune and ter-
minal groin, maximizes net benefits and will have minimum impact on the
environment. The plan was selected based on its performance in addressing
identified public concerns and its net positive contributions to the goal of
National Economic Development.

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER BY

If you would like further information on this statement, please con-
tact:
Mr. John Baden
CESAW-PD-E
U.S. Army Engineer District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Commercial Telephone (919) 251-4754

Note: Information, displays, maps, etc. discussed in the West Onslow Beach
and New River Inlet Main Report are incorporated by reference in the EIS.

EIS-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Number Subject Page

1.00 Summary EIS-1

2.00 Need For and Objectives of Action EIS-5

3.00 Alternatives EIS-6

4.00 Affected Environment EIS-10

5.00 Environmental Effects EIS-15

6.00 List of Preparers EIS-19

7.00 Public Involvement EIS-20

8.00 References EIS-21

List of Attachments

ATTACHMENT 1 - 404(b)(1) Evaluation

ATTACHMENT 2 - Consistency Determination

EIS-2

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET
(TOPSAIL BEACH)

BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

1.00 SUMMARY

1.01 Major Conclusions and Findiag-S. The selected plan, which is also the
National Economic Development (NED) plan, consists of a berm, dune, and ter-
minal groin. The National Economic Development Plan is the plan which
maximizes the net annual benefits. The selected plan maximizes net benefits
and has minimal impacts on the existing environment. The benefit-cost ratio
is 1.4 to 1. The project involves a discharge of fill material into waters of
the United States which is in compliance with Section 404(b) (1), Public Law
95-217 (see attachment 1).

1.02 Areas of Controversy. There are no known areas of controversy concern-
ing the proposed plan.

@.03 Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues.

1.04 Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements. Table I summarizes
the relationship of the proposed plan to environmental requirements.
Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local policies has been
examined.

EIS-3

TABLE I

Relationship of Proposed Plan to Envirornental Requirements

Federal Policies Proposed Plan
Preservation of Historical Archeological Data Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 469, et seg Full Compliance
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7609 FuU Compli
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, 33 U.S.C 1251, et Full Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act, as azwn-ded, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seg Mill Compliance
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. Full Compliance
Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. MI, et M. Full Compliance
Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460-1-12, et seg Full Compliance
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, as wended, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. Full Compliance
I.nid & Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601, et seg Full Compl J ance
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amrded, 33 U.S.C. 1401, et seg. Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act, as ananded, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seg Full Compliance
National Environmental Policy Act, as ananded, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et SN Full Compliance
River and Harbor Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq. Full Compliance
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention K--t, 16 U.S.C. 1001, et seg N/A
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seg. Full Compl-iance
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full compli
Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management Full Compliance
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Envi Full Compliance

State Policies
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 Full Compli

Local Policies
The Town of Topsail Beach, N.C., L3M Use Plan Full Compliance
Pender County, N.C., Land Use Plan Full Compliance
Onslow County, N.C., laid Use Plan Full Coupliance

EIS-4

2.00 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION

2.01 Study Authority. The general investigation of West Onslow Beach and New
River Inlet, N.C., is being conducted pursuant to resolutions of the Committee
on Public Works of the United States Senate, adopted 24 June 1970, and the
Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives,
adopted 3 December 1970, for a survey to determine the advisability of stabi-
lizing and deepening New River Inlet. Also, it is being conducted pursuant to
a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of
Representatives for a survey of the shores of West Onslow Beach in the inter-
est of beach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related purposes.
Also, it is being conducted pursuant to a resolution of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of Representatives
for a survey of Topsail Beach and Surf City and adjacent beaches and inlets in
the interest of beach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related
purposes.

2.02 Public Concerns. The desires of local interests include:

a. Greater protection from hurricane waves and flooding so as to reduce
their detrimental effects, and

b. Control of beach erosion to arrest recession of the shoreline
(Satilla Planning, 1987).

c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed concern that any
Federal plan of improvement be implemented in a manner which avoids or mini-
mizes environmental impacts.

2.03 Planning Objectives. Based on the identified public concerns and the
needs and opportunities determined in the course of the planning process, the
following planning objectives were established:

a. Reduce the adverse effects of hurricane flooding and erosion.

b. -Reduce the potential of new inlet breakthrough adjacent to the
canals at the south end of Topsail Island.

EIS-5

3.00 ALTERNATIVES

3.01 Alternative Plans. Each element of the selected plan was considered
individually and in combination. Alternatives considered included the follow-
ing:

a. Beach Erosion Control Plans, consisting of beachfills constructed at
an elevation of 7 feet above mean sea level. Alternatives considered in this
category included beach berms with widths of 50, 100, and 200 feet.

b. Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Plans, consisting of
beachfills with artificial dunes and storm berms incorporated into the upper
portion of the fills. Alternatives considered in this category included dune
sections with elevations of 11, 13, 15, and 20 feet above mean sea level.

Each of the alternatives described above includes a terminal groin at the
south end of the fill.

After further analyses, the berm, dune, and terminal groin alternative with a
dune elevation of 13 feet above mean sea level was selected as the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan. All other plans were eliminated due to
economic criteria.

3.02 Without Conditions (No Action). Under a no action alternative there
would be no Federal participation in beach erosion control and hurricane wave
protection at Topsail Beach. State or local governments could provide protec-
tion.

3.03 Plans Considered in Detail. The only plan considered in detail was a
combined beach erosion and hurricane-wave protection plan. Four dune and
storm berm fill cross sections were analyzed to determine their effectiveness
in reducing storm induced erosion and wave heights across the southern 2 miles
of Topsail Beach. Schematics of the four combined erosion control and storm
wave protection fills are shown on figure 3 of the main report and consist of
(a) an 11-foot m.s.l. dune and an 8-foot m.s.l. storm berm with a total fill
width of 140 feet, with a terminal groin; (b) a 13-foot m.s.l. dune and a 9-
foot m.s.l. storm berm with a total beach fill width of 160 feet, with a
terminal groin (b) a 15-foot m.s.l. dune and an 11-foot m.s.l. storm berm with
a total beach fill width of 195 feet with a terminal groin and (c) a 20-foot
m.s.l. dune and a 16-foot m.s.l. storm berm with a total fill width of 280
feet with a terminal groin. As indicated on the schematic, each of the dune
sections is fronted by a beach berm at elevation +7 m.s.l. The 13-foot
m.s.l. dune and 9-foot m.s.l. storm berm of a total fill width of 160 feet
with a terminal groin is the NED plan, the plan which maximizes the net annual
benefits, as well as the selected plan. The dune will be planted with dune
grasses.

EIS-6

The main fill of the selected plan will be placed along the southern end of
Topsail Beach for 10,250 feet. There will be a northern transition zone of
7,150 feet to give a total fill length of 17,400 feet. A single terminal
groin would be used at the south end of the fill to prevent excessive or
unacceptable erosion losses in the area of the main beach fill (see plate 3 of
main report).

The basic configuration of the groin was the same for all fills in that a
horizontal section, at +7 ft m.s.l., would extend from a landward anchorage
point 260 ft seaward to approximately the intersection with the +7 foot m.s.l.
contour on the fill. From this point the groin would slope IV:12 H down to an
elevation of 0 feet m.s.l. for a distance of 84 feet and then horizontally at
this elevation to approximately the -10 to -11-foot m.s.l. depth in the ocean
for a distance of 666 ft. The terminal groin would be constructed with
prestressed concrete sheetpiles and scour protection would be provided by a
rubble toe. The total length of the groin is 1,010 feet. (See plate 4 in main
report for profile.)

A potential source of beachfill material is located in Banks Channel as out-
lined in plate 3 of the main report. Initial beachfill construction will
require approximately 3,240,000 cubic yards of sand. Maintenance or annual
nourishment for the project is projected to be 126,000 cubic yards of
material. Renourishment of the project will be done every four years for a
total of approximately 504,000 cubic yards per maintenance event.

3.04 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives. The alternatives considered in-
clude the construction of a berm and dune with a terminal groin, and no
action. A comparison of the predicted impacts of these alternatives on the
area's resources is summarized in table 2.

EIS-7

TABLE 2

Cbmparative Liipacts of Alternatives

Resource Proposed Action No Action

Socioeconomic Resources 1. Improved recreational attraction of 1. Continued deterioration of the
expanded beach existing beach

2. Greater protection of oceanfront land, 2. Continued threat to oceanfront
structures, and personal property land, structures, and
personal property

3. Stimilation of the local economY through 3. Discouragement of tourism and
economic investment with resulting increase economic investment, and decline
in employment opportunity in employment opportunity

Recreational and Esthetic 1. Attraction and accommodation of Wre 1. Further reduction of recreational
Resources recreational uses with increased capacity capacity of beach
of beach

2. Temporary inconvenience to beach users 2. No adverse esthetic iq)act beyond
during construction existing conditions.

Biological Resources 1. Slight adverse impact to benethic 1. No change from present conditions
organisms in the borrow grea

2. Unquantifiable mortality of benthic
invertebrates of beach intertidal
community by covering with fill
material. Rapid recovery shoUd Occur-

3. Minor and temporary negative impact due
to elevated turbidity during disposal
for construction or maintenance.

Cultural Resources 1. Possible discoveries and recoveries 1. Potential resource impacted by
natural channel migration or
severe storms

2. Potential resource impacted by natural
channel migration or severe storms

EIS-8

TABIZ 2

CaWative Impacts of Alternatives -continued

Resource Proposed Action No Action

'dater Qaality 1. Temporarily elevated turbidities over existing 1. No change aver existing
conditions during cot truction and maintenance conditions

2. Small additional amount of material
placed in %spension during construction
and maintenance. Ihis would be
temporary.

Ibreatened and Endangered Species 1. The threatened loggerhead sea 1. Status quo maintained
turtle may be affected if project
construction and maintenance occurs during
the nesting season. A monitoring and
nest relocation program would be
implemented if beach nourishment
overlaps the nesting season.

EIS-9

4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.01 Geographic Setting. Topsail Island is 21.7 miles long and is bordered
on the southwest by New Topsail Inlet and on the northeast by New River Inlet.
The general orientation of the island is N 43 E which exposes it to waves
propagating from the east-northeast clockwise around to the southwest. The
island has a concave seaward shape between the bordering inlets which is
typical of most North Carolina barrier islands.

Topsail Island is located about 25 miles northeast of Wilmington and 20 miles
south of Jacksonville, N.C. It includes the communities of Topsail Beach,
Surf City, and West Onslow Beach. The island varies in width from 900 to
6,000 ft. The primary dune system is narrow and varies in elevation from +10
feet NGVD (National Geodetic Datum -1929 m.s.l.) to +25 feet NGVD.

4.02 Socioeconomic Resources. On Topsail Island there are high quality
seashore areas available for recreation activities, i.e., sunbathing, surf
fishing, walking, jogging, bird watching, shell collecting, etc. The northern
half of the island (West Onslow Beach) is sparsely developed, and the southern
half of the island (Surf City and Topsail Beach) is highly developed with
summer resort housing. Tourist and beach populations support the local economy
which thrives on a seasonal basis. Success of the local economy is highly
dependent upon the recreational beaches and continued biological productivity
of nearby waters, as well as other recreational and esthetic resources of the
area which draw people to Topsail Beach.

4.03 Esthetic Resources. The high esthetic values of Topsail Island and
vicinity are evidenced by the popularity of the area for tourism. The total
environment of barrier islands, oceans, estuaries, and inlets attracts many
visitors to enjoy the total esthetic experience created by the sights, sounds,
smells, winds and ocean sprays.

The various elements of the total landscape found on Topsail Island are:
beach, developed areas, estuary, mainland, inlet, dunes, and marsh. Topsail
Island can be broken into three main visual elements: first, commercial
building sites and highways; next homes; and finally, natural areas - be they
"Areas of Environmental Concern" or undeveloped portions of Topsail Island.
In the West Onslow Beach portion of Topsail Island, except for one development
at the northern end, one finds integrity of the landscape witnessed by natural
undisturbed vegetation and architecture that fits the existing landforms. In
Surf City, the conditions are more cluttered. There are many house trailers
in this area which seem to be almost stacked on top of each other. The City
of Topsail Beach is an area with many well maintained beach cottages and year-
round homes. The exception is found near the southern end of Topsail Island
in the region of the existing finger canals of the City of Topsail Beach. The
ocean is eroding away the existing beach, beachfront homes, and a motel.
There is the potential, due to storm action, for a breach in the island in the
vicinity of the three canals on the south end.

EIS-10

4.04 Biological Resources. Topsail Island is separated from the mainland by
marshes and sounds. It consists of a high energy beach system, dune ridges
behind the beach, flats which support grasslands, shrub thickets, and/or
maritime forests, and the estuarine environment containing high and low marsh,
tidal flats and open water with submerged bottoms. The estuary serves as a
nursery ground for numerous marine species. The barrier island serves as a
buffer which protects the estuary from the ocean environment.

The adjacent marshes and sounds support a rich mixture of wildlife. Terns,
gulls, sandpipers, willets, rails, oyster-catchers, marsh hawks, kingfishers,
mockingbirds, and painted buntings are seen in the area. Many other birds,
reptiles, and small mammals frequent Topsail Island and associated wetlands.

Colonies of nesting birds are sometimes found in the study area on dredged
material disposal islands which offer isolation and suitable nesting sub-
strate. These colonies are places where large numbers of sea birds (primarily
terns and gulls) nest in close association with one another to rear their
offspring. Colony areas are especially sensitive to the disruptive influences
of man. A simple disturbance such as a roaming dog or a picnicking family can
cause abandonment of the entire colony site by the birds.

The use of the study area by mammals (except man), reptiles, and amphibians is
poorly understood, and little data for the project area is known to exist;
therefore, species residence is somewhat speculative. In general, tidal
marshes are important wildlife habitats. The dense plant growth in these
areas provides excellent cover for many animal species. The vegetated dredged
material disposal islands in the marshes should serve as upland refuges
although they offer little food in the form of nuts or berries. The dunes are
a harsher environment but do harbor animal species, as evidenced by the small
mammal tracks which can be found in the sand early in the morning before the
winds begin to blow. The maritime shrub thicket and forest provides an impor-
tant resting and feeding area for migrating birds during the winter. Animals
which are known to inhabit the dune-marsh complex in other areas include the
raccoon, rice rat, terrapin, and otter.

Wildlife on the island has faced a reduction in available habitat during the
recent past. Developed wildlife habitat is probably irreversibly committed to
human habitat.

Topsail Sound and New River Inlet support significant quantities of sport and
commercial marine species, including blue crabs, scallops, flounder, trout,
mullet, croaker and spot. Practically all of the sounds and creeks landward
of Topsail Island are designated as primary nursery grounds for shrimp by the
State of North Carolina. Oyster and clam harvesting takes place in the es-
tuarine waters of Topsail Island and New River Inlet.

The proposed borrow area is mainly an intertidal area with some shallow water
habitat. Sample data from the overall borrow area indicate that a small
number (both species and population) of polychaete and oligochaete bottom-
dwelling worms inhabit the area. There were no grass beds present in the
area.

EIS-11

More detailed descriptions of the fish and wildlife habitats of the study area
can be found in appendix B of the main report. Appendix B of the main report
contains the "West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet Study, Draft Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report" dated August 1986 prepared by the U.S . Fish
and Wildlife Service.

4.05 Water Quality. The tidal saltwaters of New River Inlet from the
Atlantrc Ocean to the AIWW, New Topsail Inlet from the Atlantic Ocean to the
AIWW, and the AIWW and several small bays and sounds are classified "SA" by
the State of North Carolina. Best usage of class SA waters includes
shellfishing for market purposes, primary recreation, fishing, and secondary
recreation. Waters of this area generally meet the designated classification,
although there are areas of localized degradation, depending on proximity to
human settlements, as is evidenced by the "closed to shellfishing" signs along
the AIWW.

Several point source discharges occur in streams draining into the AIWW and
New River. Other pollution sources include leakage from faulty operation of
septic tanks and leaching fields and sewage discharge from commercial and
pleasure boats, and urban and rural runoff.

The water bearing groundwater units on Topsail Island are the surficial
aquifer and the cretaceous aquifer. The cretaceous aquifer is used as the
water source for the various communities located on Topsail Island. The Town
of Topsail Beach has deep wells on the island. Surf City's wells are located
on the mainland across the AIWW near Highway 210. West Onslow Beach is sup-
plied by the Onslow County water system which has its wells inland. There is
a threat of contamination to the surficial aquifer with the continued use of
septic tanks (Shiver,1987).

Forty representative samples from the borrow area were analyzed for grain
size. The borrow area was found to contain good quality beach sand. The
amount of silt and clay in the borrow area constitutes less than 5 percent of
the total volume of material in the borrow area.

4.06 Cultural Resources. From archeological investigation of coastal North
CarolirTa' and other coastal areas of the southeast, it is known that upland
oceanfront archeological sites are uncommon and are usually poorly preserved
with little historical association or context remaining. No archeological
sites have been recorded from the study area and, should any be present, it is
likely that they have been severely damaged by modern human activity. A
review of the National Register of Historical Places indicated that there are
no historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion.

The New Topsail Beach project area (herein referring to the vicinity of the
inlet and sound) was documented in 1984 by the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Research Branch. In An Historical Overview of New
Topsail Inlet, Wilson Angley has documented European settlement of Topsail
Inlet beginning in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. The sound and
inlet served as an early artery for trade, with New Topsail Sound providing
anchorage for the many landings and settlements which grew up on its northern

EIS-12

shore. The inlet was designated as an official inspection station for New
Hanover County, Brunswick, Wilmington and New Exeter in 1755. Trade remained
active although limited from this time throughout the Civil War. Plantations
and other private holdings exported commodities, naval stores and timber
products and, during the Civil War, the sound became a salt production center
of sufficient importance to warrant two Union attacks on local plants. The
area's early commercial success has been limited by shallow depths through the
inlet gorge and the shifting nature of the inlet and sound shoals. This
condition, of course, persists to the present day. Angley has documented a 4-
mile northward migration of the inlet for the period 1755 - 1865, at which
time the migration abated. Vessels lost prior to 1865 at the inlet, there-
fore, are likely to be south of the project area. Shipwrecks in and near the
inlet and sound have occurred primarily as a result of the difficulties of
navigation. Shipwrecks documented near the inlet and sound by the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit in-
clude:

EL SALVADOR (Spanish) ashore at inlet, 8-18-1750.
TWO BROTHERS schooner at inlet, 12-10-1797.
SUPERIOR schooner ashore near inlet, 11-24-1841.
ADELAIDE schooner Topsail Sound, 10-22-1862.
UNKNOWN schooner aground at inlet, 1-21-1863.
INDUSTRY schooner 5 miles north of inlet, 2-2-1863.
ALEXANDER COOPER schooner Topsail Sound at Sloop Point, 8-22-1863.
PHANTOM blockade runner, south side of inlet, 9-23-1863, location known.
W.J. POTTER schooner inside inlet on north side, 1878, vessel saved
W.H. MARSHALL brig sunk off inlet, 4-25-1878.
SUMNER schooner aground, 1919. Equipment and cargo salvaged.
UNKNOWN wreck north side of inlet, location known.

Of these 12 vessels, the locations of two, PHANTOM and an unknown wreck, are
known and are safely beyond the area of impact; two others, EL SALVADOR and
TWO BROTHERS, can be assumed to be out of the area of impact, since they are
documented as having sunk at New Topsail Inlet, which, at the time of sinking,
would have been further sou-th than its current alignment; one vessel, the W.J.
POTTER was saved, and one other, the W.H. MARSHALL is recorded as having sunk
offshore. This leaves six vessels whose locations are questionable on the
basis of current documentation, and it is possible that other undocumented
losses have occurred in the area as well.

EIS-13

4.07 Endangered Species. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service has provided the following
list of endangered and threatened species to be considered.

LISTED SPECIES Scientific Name Status

finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E
humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E
right whale Eubaleana glacialis E
sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E
sperm whale Physeter catodon E
Florida manatee Trichechus manatus E
green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Th
hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E
Kemp's (Atlantic) Lepidochelys kempi E
ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E
loggerhead sea turtle Caretta care-tta Th
shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E
piping plover Charadrius melodus Th

The whales have been documented from North Carolina in the waters off the
coast outside of the project impact zone (Cooper et al., 1977). There are no
records for the Florida manatee from the project area.

The only sea turtle known to frequent Topsail Beach and vicinity is the log-
gerhead sea turtle. The loggerhead sea turtle has been documented as having
nested on Topsail Beach (Henson, 1987). Development on beaches has been
documented to discourage nesting by the loggerhead sea turtle (Marine Turtle
Recovery Team, 1984). However, nesting on Topsail Beach persists in spite of
development. Beaches in the region with little or no development receive
substantially more nesting (Henson, 1987).

The green and hawksbill sea turtles are not known to frequent nearshore waters
of the Topsail Beach area. These species and the leatherback and Kemp's
(Atlantic) ridley sea turtles are known from offshore waters outside of the
impact area.

The shortnose sturgeon is not likely to be found in the Topsail Beach area
because there is no coastal river associated with this project. The piping
plover has not been documented to nest on Topsail Beach. This species is a
winter resident of the area (Potter et al., 1980). The adjacent beaches are
undisturbed and may offer suitable habitat for the species.

EIS-14

4.08 Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
requires that the State develop a management plan to assure a coordinated
approach to coastal development. This is accomplished through two mechanisms:
the formulation of local land-use plans articulating the objectives of local
citizens and translating them into desired future land-use patterns, and the
designation of areas of environmental concern (AEC) for the protection of
areas of statewide concern within the coastal area. The local land-use plans
for the study area are: 1) Onslow County, N.C., Land Use Plan, 1981; 2)
Pender County, N.C., Land Use Plan, 1981; and 3) The Town of Topsail Beach,
N.C., Land Use Plan, 1987.

Based on shoreline changes that have occurred between 1963 and 1983, the
average erosion rate along the southern two miles of Topsail Beach was 4.5
feet/year. In 1963, New Topsail Inlet was located approximately 2,200 feet
further north than it is today.

5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

5.01 Introduction. Positive and negative effects on all resources impacted
by the proposed project were summarized in table 2 which appears in Section 3.
Net effects on area resources over the life of the project are expected to be
beneficial.

5.02 Socioeconomic Resources. The proposed berm, dune and terminal groin
project would have beneficial impacts on socioeconomic conditions. A con-
siderably larger expanse of beach available during both high and low tidal
conditions would be far more attractive to tourists who, if present in larger
numbers, would stimulate the local economy. The greater protection afforded
to beachfront property would encourage greater investment in and better main-
tenance of these properties. The benefit-cost ratio for this project is 1.4
to 1.

5.03 Recreational and Esthetic Resources. Greatly improved recreational
opportunities would be available to beach users through expansion of the beach
area. the esthetic quality of Topsail Island will be impacted by the noise
and visual intrusion of the dredge and associated pipes and equipment during
construction and maintenance of the project. This impact is not considered
significant. The presence of a dredge will be periodic and temporary.
Additionally, a dredge and associated pipes and equipment are periodically
seen in New Topsail Inlet, Banks Channel, and Topsail Beach during maintenance
of the existing navigation channels with disposal on Topsail Beach.

EIS-15

5.04 Biological Resources. Construction and maintenance of the-project
should take place during the period of low biological productivity (15
November to I May). The major impacts associated with this type of operation
include:

A. Increased turbidity in the surf zone

B. Effects on the benthic communities.

During disposal operations, there will be an increase in the turbidity of the
surf zone in the immediate area of sand deposition. This increase may cause
the temporary displacement of various species of sport fish, causing a nega-
tive impact to surf and pier fishing in the area of deposition.

Although a considerable body of information is available on the effects of
dredging on benthic communities, much less is kn 'own about specific environmen-
tal consequences of beach nourishment (Nelson 1985). The disposal operation
may also have a negative impact on the intertidal macrofauna as was documented
in A Study of the Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment With Dredged Material
of the Intertidal_Zone by Reilly and Bellis, 1978. As stated by Reilly and
Bellis (19785, "Beach nourishment virtually destroys existing intertidal
macrofauna; however, recovery is rapid once the pumping operation ceases. In
most cases, recovery should occur within one or two seasons following the
project completion." The impacts to intertidal macrofauna and subsequent
reduction in surf feeding fish should be minimized by avoiding disposal during
the summer months.

Within the borrow site, existing shallow water and intertidal habitat will be
converted to deep water habitat, and resident fauna will be lost. Limited
sample data from the overall borrow area indicate that a small number (both
species and population) of polychaete and oligochaete bottom-dwelling worms
inhabit the area. Since stable, productive bottom is being avoided, there
should be very little impact associated with the borrow area. A stable bottom
community is not expected to occur in the project area with or without the
project because a suitable substrate for population by benthic organisms is
lacking. A buffer zone will be left between the borrow area and the existing
marsh along the shoreline to reduce the potential for erosion of the marsh.

The proposed groin should have no significant adverse impacts to either fish
or wildlife since it will be located on a high energy sand beach. In all,
approximately 0.1 acre of beach and ocean habitat will be converted to rocky
shoreline with construction of the groin. Minor losses of coquina clam, mole
crab and ghost crab habitat will occur. These losses should be offset,
however, by provision of a stable substrate upon which a diverse assemblage of
fouling organisms (algae, barnacles, hydrozoans) can attach (U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, 1986).

The other biological resources of the area (See Section 4.04) should not be
impacted by the project. The pipeline route will follow existing waterways or
roads from Banks Channel to the beach. If necessary, the pipeline will be
burlapped and welded with straps to provide maximum protection against
leakage. Negative impacts associated with pipeline routes would be minor and
temporary.

EIS-16

5.05 Water QualitX. The proposed project will result in elevated turbidity
and suspended solids compared to the existing non-storm conditions of the surf
zone in the immediate area of sand deposition. Due to the low percentage of
silt and clay in the proposed borrow area (<5%), this impact is not expected
to be greater than the natural increase in turbidity and suspended material
during storm events.

Under Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, the require-
ment to obtain the State Water Quality Certificate is waived if information on
the effects of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States, including the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines,
is included in the EIS on the proposed project, and the EIS is submitted to
Congress before the actual discharge takes place and before Congress
authorizes the project or appropriates funds for construction.

The impacts associated with the discharge of dredged material into waters of
the United states are discussed in the Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) evalua-
tion (attachment 0.'

5.06 Cultural Resources. Based on the existing documentation (See Section
4.06), reconnaissance-level remote sensing investigations have been undertaken
for shipwreck resources within the proposed borrow area, the only project
feature likely to impact shipwrecks. The reconnaissance indicates that no
resources are present within the borrow area. Beachfront erosion, inlet
migrations, and limited project dimensions in the most recently formed beach
areas indicate that reconnaissance will not be necessary for the area of the
beach fill or terminal groin.

5.07 Endangered Species. Except for the loggerhead sea turtle, the species
on the list in Section 4.07 are not known to frequent Topsail Beach and
vicinity. In order to minimize the impact of beach nourishment on nesting sea
turtles, nourishment sand should match natural natural sand as closely as
possible (Naqvi and Pullen, 1982). The potential borrow area was found to
contain good quality beach sand. The amount of silt and clay in the borrow
area appeared to be minimal, constituting less than 5% of the total volume of
material in the borrow area. This is very similar to the beach sand already
present.

Nourishment for construction and maintenance should take place between 15
November and 1 May to avoid impacts to loggerhead sea turtles . This species
may be affected if project construction and maintenance occurs during the
nesting season. A monitoring and nest relocation program will be implemented
if beach nourishment overlaps the nesting season.

5.08 Coastal Zone. Review and determination of consistency with the N.C.
Coastal Management Program is required because the proposed action directly
affects the coastal zone (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). A
consistency determination is included as attachment 2. The proposed action is
consistent with the approved coastal program of the State of North Carolina.

EIS-17

The beach next to the groin will be artificially filled with sand during
construction of the project. Therefore, sand transport will still take place
around and over the groin. The groin may cause some reshaping on the inlet
side of the groin because of modifications in tidal currents and wave conditi-
ons. The impacts are expected to be minor without significant loss of land
area.

5.09 Relationship Between Short-Terra Impacts andLong-Term Benefits and
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. Short-term impacts
associated with construction activities are discussed in Sections 5.01 through
5.08. The same short-term impacts would occur during each renourishment for
maintenance of the project. This project will have very little impact upon
long-term productivity. There are no significant long-term impacts associated
with this project. If the project was abandoned, the project area would
return to preproject conditions in a very short period of time. The borrow
area will trap sands after use and bottom topography would return to
preproject conditions if its use was terminated. Without additional sand on
the beach, erosion would continue.

There would be irreversible and irretrievable commitments of materials, fuel,
and manpower resources from other activities to construct and maintain the
project. The prestressed concrete sheetpiles could not be recovered if the
project was abandoned.

This project will have negligible adverse impact on fish and wildlife.

EIS-18

LIST OF PREPARERS

6.00 The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this
Environmental Impact Statement:

Professional
Name Expertise Experience Discipline

Christina E. Environmental 2 yrs., Chief, Environmental
Correale Impact Environmental Sciences
(Supervisor of Assessment, Resources Branch
EIS Preparation) Water Quality Wilmington Dist., 7 yrs.
Chemist, Ch.,Water
Quality Sec., Wilm. Dist.
5 yrs. Chemist, Envir.
Resources Br. Wilm. Dist.

John Baden Plant 2 1/2 yrs., Environmental Biology
(EIS Coordinator) Ecology Biologist, Federal Power
Commission 1 yr, Biologist,
Savannah Dist. 2-1/2 yrs.,
Environmental Specialist, Ft.
Eustis, Virginia, 9 yrs.,
Biologist, Wilmington Dist.

Ronald G. Fascher Coastal 8 yrs., Plan Formulation Civil
(Study Manager) Engineering, and 11 yrs., Coastal Engineering
Water Engineering, Wilmington
Resources District; I yr., Omaha
Planning District; 4 yrs., Officer,
Engineering Department,
Heavy Cruiser, U.S. Navy

Richard H. Kimmel Archaeology 11 years, Environmental Archaeology
(Cultural Resource Resources Branch
Studies Coordinator) Wilmington District; 2
yrs., graduate research,
UNC-Chapel Hill; 1.5 yrs.,
Institute of Archaeology
and Anthropology, USC; I yr.,
misc. archaeological studies.

Trudy Wilder Water 15 years, Environmental Water
(401, 404 & Quality Resources Branch, Quality
Consistency Wilmington District
Coordination)

EIS-19

7.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7.01 Public Involvement. Local interests have actively pursued greater protec-
tion from hurricane waves and flooding so as to reduce their detrimental
effects, and control of beach erosion to arrest recession of the shoreline (Land
Use Plan Update, the Town of Topsail Beach, N.C., 1981). Numerous field trips
have been made to Topsail Beach by personnel of Wilmington District, Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to document erosion and flooding
along the southern end of Topsail Island since 1977.

The Wilmington District has coordinated this study with various Federal, state,
and local agencies having concerns about hurricane protection, beach erosion
control, and the environmental impacts of any potential improvements (see main
report). The policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to develop water
resources plans with a continued interchange of ideas, information, and results
with affected citizens of the study area, the state involved and other Federal
agencies. To date, the Wilmington District has accomplished this through many
informal contacts, by attending local meetings with U.S. Representatives, and by
making presentations at the Wilmington District Coastal Conferences (October
1978, April 1979, and November 1980).

A Notice of Intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement appeared on
Thursday, August 4, 1988, in the Federal Register (Vol. 53, No. 150) inviting
comments from all agencies, organizations, and interested parties.

7.02 Required Coordination. The coordination required for the proposed project
is outlined by the applicable environmental requirements listed in table 1. The
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seg, require-
ment that the Corps of Engineers coordinate and obtain comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has been satisfied by the draft Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report presented in appendix B of the main report. Informal
consultation under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, is ongoing with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.
A cultural resources assessment and reconnaissance have been coordinated with
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology
Unit, and will be formally coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation during
EIS review, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, codified at 36 CFR 800. Federal consistency under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, (attachment 2) will be satisfied, if the
State of North Carolina concurs with the consistency determination. The project
involves a discharge of fill material into the waters of the United States which
is in compliance with Section 404(b)(I)t Public Law 95-217 (attachment 1). A
Section 404(a) (PL 95-217) public notice will be sent out concurrent with this
environmental impact statement.

EIS-20

7.03 Statement Recipients. This statement is being circulated for review and
comment to concerned agencies and the public. Statement recipients are listed
in table 3.

TABLE 3

Recipients of this Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
N.C. Clearinghouse and Information Center
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Greensboro Area Office
U.S. Department of Commerce
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Maritime Commission
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Izaac Walton League
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society
N.C. Wildlife Federation
Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Sierra Club
Oceanic Society
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
University of North Carolina, Wilson Library
Library at Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Randall Library
N.C. State Library, Documents Branch
Onslow County Board of Commissioners
County Manager, Onslow County
Daily News, Jacksonville, NC
Pender County Board of Commissioners
County Manager, Pender County
Mayor, Topsail Beach
Mayor, Surf City

7.04 Public Views and Responses. The Corps of Engineers and public concerns
that had a major influence on the study were those listed in Sections 2.02 and
2.03. The original public concerns in Section 2.02 were translated along with
Corps of Engineers concerns into the planning objectives found in Section 2.03.

EIS-21

8.00 References:

Cooper, J. E., S. S. Robinson and J. B. Funderburg,editors. 1977. Endangered
and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State
Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 444 pages.

Henson, Tom. 1987. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Nongame
Biologist. Personal Communication. September 1987.

Marine Turtle Recovery Team. 1984. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles. Edit.
by S. R. Hopkins and J. I. Richardson. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, D. C. 355 pages.

Naqvi, S. M. and E. J. Pullen. 1982. Effects of Beach Nourishment and
Borrowing on Marine Organisms. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Misc. Rept. 82-14.

Nelson W. G. 1985. Guidelines for Beach Restoration Project. Florida Sea
Grant College, Sea Grant Project No. R/C-4 Grant No. NA80aa-D-00038.

Potter, E. F. , J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Tuelings. 1980. Birds of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 408 pages.

Reilly, F. J. and V. J. Bellis. 1978. A Study of the Ecological Impact of
Beach Nourishment with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone. Inst. for
Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina Univ. Tech. Rept. No. 4.

Satilla Planning. 1987. Land Use Plan Update, the Town of Topsail Beach.

Shiver, Rick. 1987. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
Wilmington Regional Office. Personal Communication. September 1987.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet
Study, Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Division of
Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, N.C.

EIS-22

INDEX

Study Documentation Page Numbers
Environmental
Subject Impact Statement Main Report

Affected environment 10 27
Alternatives 6 30
Areas of controversy 3 47
Comparative impact of
alternatives 8 49
Cultural resources 12 28
Environmental conditions 10 27
Environmental effects 15 43
Esthetics 10 45
List of__preparers 19
Major conclusions and findings 3 56
Marine resources 11 27
Need for and objectives of
action 5 13
Planning objectives 5 20
Plans considered in detail 6 30
Plans eliminated from
further study 6 30
Public concerns 6 30
Public involvement 20 47
Public views 20 4T
Relationship to environmental
requirements 4 43
Required coordination 20 47
Socioeconomic resources 15 50
Significant resources 10 27
Statement recipients 21
Study authority 5 1
Summary I
Table of contents 2
Unresolved issues 3
Water Quality____ 12 27
Without conditions (no action) 10 21

EIS-23

ATTACHMENT 1

SECTION 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) EVALUATION

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET (TOPSAIL BEACH)
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION

November, 1988

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Location. Southern end of Topsail Island, Pender County, North
Carolina.

B. General Description. The project will consist of construction and
maintenance of a 13-foot mean-sea-level (m.s.l.) dune, and a 9-foot m.s.l.
storm berm fronted by a natural beach berm at elevation +7 feet m.s.l. The
fill width is 160 feet wide over a distance of 10,250 feet leading into a
transition zone of 7,150 feet to the north for a total fill length of 17,400
feet. A single terminal groin will be constructed and maintained at the
southern end of the beach fill to prevent excessive or unacceptable erosion
losses in the area of the main beach fill.

The terminal groin will involve construction of a horizontal section, at
+7 feet m.s.l. extending from a landward anchorage point 260 feet seaward to
approximately the intersection with the +7 m.s.l. contour of the beach fill.
From this point, the groin will slope I vertically to 12 horizontally down to
an elevation of 0 feet m.s.l. for a distance of 84 feet-and then horizontally
at this elevation to approximately -10 to -11-foot m.s.l. in the ocean for a
distance of 666 feet. The terminal groin will be constructed with prestressed
concrete sheetpiles and scour protection will be provided by a rubble toe.
The total length of the groin is 1,010 feet.

Approximately 3,240,000 cubic yards of coarse to medium sand will be
removed during initial dredging of Banks Channel, located behind the southern
end of Topsail Island, and discharged along the ocean shoreline of Topsail
Beach to construct the berm and dune. Maintenance or annual nourishment of
the project is projected to be 126,000 cubic yards of material. Renourishment
of the project will be done every four years for a total of approximately
504,000 cubic yards of material per maintenance event. See plate No. 3 of the
main report.

The pipeline route will be carefully selected to minimize impacts. if
necessary, the pipeline will be burlapped and welded with straps to provide
maximum protection against leakage. If dune vegetation is lost, affected
areas will be restored and replanted to reestablish preproject conditions.

C. 'Authority and Purpose. The purpose of the proposed work is to reduce
the adverse effects of hurricane flooding and erosion and reduce the potential
of new inlet breakthrough adjacent to the canals at the south end of Topsail
Beach. The proposed work is being conducted pursuant to resolutions of the
Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives, as
discussed in the environmental impact statement.

eis-1-1

D. General Description of Fill Material.

1. General Characteristics of Material. The material to be dis-
charged on the beach is predominantly medium to coarse grain sand. The
terminal groin will be constructed of concrete sheetpiles, granitic stone and
marine limestone.

2. Quantity of Material (cu. Xds.). Initial beachfill will require
discharge of about 3,240,000 cubic yards of material. Annual maintenance is
projected to be about 126,000 cubic yards and renourishment, every four years,
is projected to be about 504,000 cubic yards. Approximately 7,134 linear feet
of concrete sheetpile, 4,800 tons of 1,600 lb granitic stone, 3,200 tons of
6,400 lb granitic stone, and 2,700 lbs of marine limestone will be used to
construct the terminal groin.

3. Source. Material to be discharged on the beach will be obtained
from existing shallow water and intertidal habitat of the most southern por-
tion of Banks Channel, located behind Topsail Island. No marsh vegetation is
involved. Concrete, stone, and marine limestone, needed for construction of
the terminal groin will be obtained from local sources.

E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site.

1. Location. Refer to I. B. General Description and plate No. 3 of
the main report.

2. Size. Discharge of material on the beach will begin at the
proposed groin at the southern end of the island, and will proceed in a north-
erly direction for a distance of 10,250 feet leading into a transition zone of
7,150 feet for a total disposal area of 17,400 feet. See plate 3 of the main
report.

3. Type of Site. Unconfined beach, surf zone, and nearshore ocean.

4. Type of Habitat. Ocean beach consisting of medium to coarse sand,
ocean surf zone, and nearshore ocean.

5. Timing and Duration of Discharge. Discharge of fill material will
occur between 15 November and 1 May to avoid the nesting season of the logger-
head sea turtle and shorebirds. The piping plover has not been documented to
nest on Topsail Beach. If it becomes necessary to discharge on the beach
during the nesting season, a monitoring program will be implemented to assure
no impacts to the loggerhead sea turtle nests result.

F. Description of Discharge Method. A hydraulic pipeline dredge will be
used to discharge fill material on the beach and in the surf zone. Bulldozers
and other earthmoving equipment will be used to construct the berm and dune
and to grade the material. If necessary, a berm will be constructed to con-
trol the flow of effluent. Construction and maintenance of the terminal groin
will be accomplished by bulldozers, cranes, and other earthmoving equipment.

eis-1-2

II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS

A. Physical Substrate Determinations.

1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. The substrate elevation and slope
will be altered by the construction of the 13-foot m.s.l. dune, the 9-foot
m.s.l. storm berm, reshaping of the beach and construction of the terminal
groin.

2. Sediment Type. The fill material is predominantly medium to
coarse sand which is compatible with the existing substrate and granitic stone
and concrete.

3. Fill Material Movement. Some lateral movement of material will
likely occur as a result of the combined effects of currents, water circula-
tion, wind, and wave action. The beach area next to the groin will fill with
sand due to construction of the beach fill. Very little movement of material
should occur in the area of the groin.

4. PhXsical Effects on Benthos. The discharge of fill material
will smother benthic forms in the immediate vicinity of beach fill.
Repopulation should begin soon after the disposal operation ends. The con-
struCtion of the terminal groin will result in smothering of benthic
organisms; however, organisms adapted to smooth substrate should populate the
area. Turbidity related impacts are expected to be minor due to the coars-
eness of the material.

5. Other Effects. None.

6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. A berm may be constructed
along the mean high water line to help reduce turbidity. Nesting seasons for
shorebirds and sea turtles will be avoided.

B. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations.

1. Water.

a. Salinity. No significant effect.

b. Water chemistry. No significant effect.

c. Clarity. Clarity will be reduced locally and temporarily due
to a slight increase in turbidity.

d. Color. No effect.

e. Odor. No effect.

f. Taste. Not applicable.

g. Dissolved gas levels. Not applicable.

eis-1-3

h. Nutrients. No significant effect.

i. Eutrophication. No significant effect.

j. Other as appropriate. Not applicable.

2. Current Patterns and Circulation.

a. Current patterns and flow. The current patterns and flow in
the vicinity of the terminal groin will be altered. The change in current
patterns and flow will be localized in the vicinity of the terminal groin at
the southern end of the beach fill.

b. Velocity. No significant effect.

c. Stratification. No effect.

d. Hydrologic regime. See II.B.2.a. above. No adverse changes
to the hydrologic regime should occur.

3. Normal Water Level Fluctuations. No effect.

4. Salinity Gradients. No effect.

5. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II.A.6. above.

C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.

1. Expected Change in Suspended Particulate and Turbidity Levels in
the Vicinity7.-A local,- temporary, and minor increase in turbidity a7d -par-
ticulates will occur due to the proposed discharge and groin construction. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur.

2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties
of the Water Column.

a. Light penetration. A slight reduction in light penetration
will occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the proposed action.
Turbidity will quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the work.

b. Dissolved oxygen. A slight decrease in dissolved oxygen
concentrations may be associated with the proposed action resulting in a
minor, local, and temporary effect. Dissolved oxygen should return to ambient
levels soon after completion of the work.

c. Toxic metals and organics. No effect.

d. Pathogens. No effect.

e. Esthetics. No significant effect.

f. Others as appropriate. None.

eis-1-4

3. Effects on Biota.

a. Primary production, photosynthesis. A slight reduction may
occur due to minor turbidity.

b. Suspension/filter feeders. No significant effect.

C. Sight feeders. Turbidity is not expected to be high enough
to significantly affect sight feeding organisms.

4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II.A.6. above.

D. Contaminant Determinations. The discharge will not introduce, relo-
cate, or increase contaminants.

E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations.

1. Effects on Plankton. Turbidity associated with deposition of
material may have a slight effect on plankton; however, the effect is not
considered significant.

2. Effects on Benthos. See II.A.4. above.

3. Effects on Nekton. No significant effect.

4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web. Deposition is expected to have a
minimum adverse effect on the aquatic food web through smothering of benthos.
Repopulation will occur rapidly upon completion of the work. No long term
impacts are expected.

5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites.

a. Sanctuaries and refuges. Not applicable.

b. Wetlands. No effect.

c. Mudflats. No effect.

d. Vegetated shallows. No effect.

e. Coral reefs. Not applicable.

f. Riffle and pool complexes. Not applicable.

6. Threatened and Endangered Species. Discharge of material during
construction and maintenance will occur between November 15 and May I of any
given year and will avoid adverse impacts to the loggerhead sea turtle. If
discharge becomes necessary during the nesting season, a monitoring program
will be established to assure no adverse impacts to the loggerhead sea turtle
occurs.

The piping plover has not been documented to nest on Topsail Beach;
therefore no effect on the piping plover is expected to occur.

eis-1-5

7. Other Wildlife. No effect.

8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II.A.6. above.

F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations.

1. Mixing Zone Determination. The mixing zone is expected to be
minimal due to the coarseness of the material.

2. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards. In compliance with Section 404(r) (PL 95-217), a section 401 (PL
95-217) Water Quality Certificate is waived.

3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics.

a. Municipal and private water supply. No effect.

b. Recreational and commercial fisheries. The proposed dis-
charge of dredged material and groin construction may temporarily displace the
surf-feeding fish populations. However, surf-feeding should return to normal
upon completion of the project.

c. Water-related recreation. Due to the timing of the project,
the effect on water related recreation is expected to be minimal.

d. Esthetics. Minor increased turbidity will reduce the es-
thetic appeal of the beach and nearshore zone with respect to beach-oriented
recreation for the duration of the discharge operation.

e. Parks, national and historic monuments, national seashores,
wilderness areas, research sites, and similar preserves. Not applicable.

G. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. No
significant effect.

H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. No
secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated.

III. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE

A. No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to
this evaluation.

B. There are no practicable alternative discharge sites which would have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and still achieve the project
objectives of beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection.

C. Under Section 404(r) (PL 95-217), the requirement to obtain the State
Water Quality Certificate is waived. The proposed discharge is in compliance
with the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.

D. The proposed discharge will not harm any endangered species or their
critical habitat or violate the protective measures for marine sanctuaries.

eis-1-6

E. The proposed placement of fill will not result in significant ad-
verse effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private
water supplies, recreation and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic
life and other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant adverse
effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and
recreational, esthetic, and economic values will not occur.

F. Appropriate steps will be taken to minimize potential adverse im-
pacts of the fill material on the aquatic ecosystem.

G. On the basis of this analysis, the proposed discharge sites for fill
material are specified as complying with the requirements of the Section
404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) guidelines.

eis-1-7

ATTAC101ENT 2

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET (TOPSAIL BEACH)
BEACH EROSION.CONTROL AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

DATE: November 1988

PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The project will consist of construction and maintenance
7 a 13-foot mean-sea-level (m.s.l.) dune and a 9-foot m.s.l. storm berm
fronted by a natural beach berm at elevation +7 feet m.s.l. The fill width is
160 feet over a distance of 10,250 feet leading into a transition zone of
7,150 feet to the north for a total fill length of 17,400 feet. A single
terminal groin will be constructed and maintained at the southern end of the
beach fill to prevent excessive or unacceptable erosion losses in the area of
the main beach fill.

The terminal groin will involve construction of a horizontal section, at
+7 feet m.s.l. extending from a landward anchorage point 260 feet seaward to
approximately the intersection with the +7 feet m.s.l. contour of the beach
fill. From this point, the groin will slope 1 vertically to 12 horizontally
down to an elevation of 0 feet m.s.l. for a distance of 84 feet and then
horizontally at this elevation to approximately -10 to -11-foot m.s.l. in the
ocean for a distance of 666 feet. The terminal groin will be constructed with
prestressed concrete sheetpiles and scour protection will be provided by a
rubble toe. The total length of the groin is 1,010 feet.

The pipeline route will be carefully selected to minimize impacts. If
necessary, the pipeline will be burlapped and welded with straps to provide
maximum protection against leakage. If dune vegetation is lost, affected
areas will be restored and replanted to reestablish preproject conditions.

The proposed project at Topsail Beach is consistent with the Coastal
Management Program of the State of North Carolina. The following information
supports the consistency determination:

A. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's): The proposed activity will take
place in the estuarine system and the ocean hazard system and will affect the
following AEC's:

Estuarine Waters. The proposed activity is defined as a second priority
use of this AEC and is consistent with the management objectives.

eis-2-1

,Public Trust Areas: The project is an acceptable use within public trust
areas * The project will not be detrimental to the biological and physical
functions of the estuary.

Estuarine Shorelines: The project will not have any significant impact on
this AEC. A buffer zone will be left between the borrow area and the existing
marsh along the shoreline to reduce the potential for erosion of the marsh.
The use of the selected borrow site will not weaken or eliminate natural
barriers to erosion and is consistent with the management objective.

Coastal Wetlands: No impact to coastal wetlands is expected to occur.
The pipeline route will not cross coastal wetlands.

Ocean Erodible Area: The discharge of material on the beach including the
crossing of dunes by the pipeline will not cause any significant adverse
effect to ocean erodible areas. The beach area next to the groin will fill
with sand due to construction of the beach fill. Therefore, sand transport
will still take place around and over the groin. The groin may cause some
reshaping on the inlet side of the groin because of modifications in tidal
currents and wave conditions. The impacts are expected to be minor without
significant loss of land area.

High Hazard Flood Areas. Discharge of material on the beach would provide
temporary protection for high hazard flood areas.

Inlet Hazard Areas. The discharge of material on Topsail Beach and the
construction of the terminal groin will help to control beach erosion. The
possibility of a breakthrough in the vicinity of the finger canals and long
feeder channel north of the inlet may be avoided by nourishment and main-
tenance of the unvegetated beach area and the ocean shoreline.

With respect to the general and specific use standards for the estuarine
system AEC's (15 NCAC 7H .0208):

1. The project is water dependent. (a)(1)

2. The need for the proposed activity is well documented in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet
(Topsail Be @h), Pender County, North Carolina, dated November-F9-88.
(a)(2)(A)

3. The alternatives considered in detail were the proposed action and no
action. (a)(2)(B)

4. The proposed activity will not violate water and air quality standard-
s. A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate for beach fill and
terminal groin construction has been requested from the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management. (a) (2)(C)
5. The proposed activity will not cause any major or irreversible damages
to documented archeological or historic resources. (a)(2)(D)

eis-2-2

6. The activity will cause a temporary and minor increase in siltation
immediately adjacent to the area being dredged and near the area of deposi-
tion. (a)(2)(E)

7. The proposed acitivity will not create stagnant water bodies.
(a)(2)(F)

8. Life cycles of estuarine resources are not expected to be sig-
nificantly affected by the proposed acitivity. (a)(2)(G)

9. The proposed activity will promote navigation and the use of public
trust and estuarine waters. (a)(2)(H)

10. The dredging and discharge are consistent with standards for the ocean
hazard system as defined in 15 NCAC 7H .0300. (a)(2)(1)

11. The activity will not alter or affect productive shellfish beds,
submerged vegetation, or regularly or irregularly flooded marsh areas. (b)(1)

12. Dredged material will be discharged on the ocean beach of Topsail
Beach. (b)(2)(A-G)

13. The area being dredged is presently open to shellfishing. The beach
discharge site is presently not classified for shellfishing. No adverse
impacts to shellfishing are anticipated. (b)(2)(H)

Concerning general use standards for the ocean hazard system (.0306):

1. 15 NCAC 7H .0306 (a)(1-5): Not applicable (a)(1-5)

2. The existing dunes will be reworked to create artificial dunes and
storm berms. The added elevation and mass of the fill will reduce the amount
of landward retreat of the beach during storms and would decrease the si ze of
the wave capable of propagating across the island. (b)

3. The terminal groin is integral to a project with an overriding Federal
interest in flood control and consequent public benefits. It will not in-
crease existing hazards or damage natural buffers and will not promote growth
and development in the ocean hazard area. The groin has been designed to
withstand flooding and erosion. (c)(1-4)

4. The proposed action will not cause major or irreversible damage to
valuable documented historic, architectural, or archeological resources. (d)

5. 15 NCAC 7H .0306: (e) Not applicable. (e)

6. 15 NCAC 7H .0306. M Not applicable. M

7. The proposed action is consistent with general management objectives
for ocean hazard areas set forth in 15 NCAC 7H .0303. (g)

8. This action will not create undue interference with access to or use
of public resources. (h)

eis-2-3

9. The proposed action incorporates all reasonable means and methods to
minimize adverse impacts. (1) (1-3)

10. 15 NCAC 7H .0306 (j): Not applicable. (j)

11. 15 NCAC 7H .0306 (k): Not applicable. (k)

Concerning specific use standards for the ocean hazard system (15 NCAC 7H
.0308):

1. Beach nourishment is a preferred erosion control measure. The con-
struction of the terminal groin will protect the southern end of the beach
fill from excessive erosion and is therefore an acceptable alternative.
(a)(1)(A)

2. The construction of the terminal groin will not adversely impact on
the value and enjoyment of adjoining properties or public access to and use of
the ocean beach. (B)

3. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(a)(1)(C); Noted. (C)

4. The proposed action will not interfere with public access to and use
of ocean beaches. (D)

5. Only minor erosion is expected to occur on the inlet side of the
terminal groin. (E)

6. The project has been designed to include sound engineering and will be
certified by a licensed engineer prior to construction. (F)

7. The beach is used for nesting purposes by loggerhead sea turtles and
shorebirds. The project will be constructed and maintained between November
15 and May I to minimize impacts to wildlife. (G)

8. The project will be timed to have minimum significant adverse effect
on biological activity. (H)

9. All littoral property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the
project site will be notified of the proposed activity. (I)
10. The project is consistent with the general policy statement in 15
NCAC: 7M .0200. (J)

11. Prior to project construction, all exposed debris will be removed
from the area. (K)

12. The terminal groin will be properly marked. (L)

13. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(a)(2) & (a)(3): Not applicable. (2,3)

14. The material to be used for beach nourishment is compatible with
existing grain size. Material will be removed from an area where minimal
environmental impacts will occur. (4)

eis-2-4

15. Existing material and material from the borrow area will be used to,
construct the proposed berm and dune. Bulldozers and earth moving equipment
will be used during construction. A slope of adequate grade will be main-
tained so as not to endanger the public or public's use of the beach.
Adjoining property owners will be notified of the proposed activity. The
purpose of the berm and dune are beach erosion control and hurricane wave
protection. The dune will be vegetated to aid in erosion control and stabi-
lization of material. (5)(a)

16. The activity will not exceed the lateral bounds of the Federal
project without obtaining permission from the adjoining land owners. (b)

17. Concurrence with this consistency determination will be obtained from
the N.C. Division of Coastal Management prior to beginning work. (c)

18. The activity will not significantly increase erosion on neighboring
properties and will not have a significant adverse effect on important natural
or cultural resources. (d)

19. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(a)(5)(e): Not applicable. (e)

20. The construction and maintenance of the berm and dune will be aligned
to the greatest extent possible with existing adjacent dune ridges and shall
be of the same general configuration as adjacent natural dunes. (b)(1)

21. Proposed nourishment of the project will require broadening and
extending the dune in an oceanward direction. (b)(2)

22. Damage to existing vegetation will be minimized. The dune will be
planted with dune grasses. (b)(3)

23. The material used is compatible with existing substrate and will be
obtained outside the ocean hazard area. (b)(4)

24. No dunes will be created in the inlet hazard area. (b)(5)

25. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(b)(6): Not applicable. (b)(6)

26. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(b)(7): Not applicable. (b)(7)

27. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(c)(1) through (3): Not applicable. (c)

28. 15 NCAC 7H .0308(d)(1) through (10): Not applicable. (d)

Concerning use standards for the inlet hazard areas (15 NCAC 7H .0310):

1. 15 NCAC 7H .0310(a)(1)(2)&(3): Not applicable. (1)(2)(3)

2. Established common-law and statutory public rights of access to the
public trust lands and waters in the inlet hazard area will not be eliminated
or restricted. (a)(4)

3. The construction of the terminal groin within the inlet hazard area
will aid in stabilization of the publicly supported project. (a)(5)

eis-2-5

4. 15 NCAC 7H .0310(a)(6): Not applicable. (6)

5. 15 NCAC 7H .0310(b): Not applicable. (b)

B. Land Use Plans. The project is located entirely in Pender County, North
Carolina. The Land Use Plan for Pender County, dated 1981, classifies the
beach discharge area as "conservation" which provides for effective long-term
management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas, and the area to be
used as a borrow site as "water."

C. State Guidelines:

1. For AEC's see paragraph A.

2. For land use plans see paragraph B.

3. General policy (15 NCAC 7M):

(a) Shoreline Erosion Policies (15 NCAC 7M .0200). The project
involves discharge of dredged material on the ocean beach. Discharge of
suitable material on the beach is consistent with State policy endorsing beach
nourishment as the preferred method of controlling erosion.

(b) Shorefront Access Policies (15 NCAC 7M .0300). Discharge of
material on the beach will enhance public access to and use of the beach.

D. Other State Policies: Other State policies found in the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program document that were specifically reviewed were:

1. Coastal Area Management Act of 1974.

See paragraphs A and B above.

2. State Dredge and Fill Law

See paragraph A (Areas of Environmental Concern) above.

3. North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.

Work will be accomplished in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement Between the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control
Commission and the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated
December 23, 1985.

4. Water Quality Regulations: A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality
Certificate has been requested from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management.

eis-2-6

E. Conclusion: Based on the above information, I have determined that the
proposed dredging of Banks Channel with discharge of material on Topsail
Beach; construction and maintenance of a dune and storm berm fronted by a
natural beach berm; and construction and maintenance of a terminal groin are
consistent with the Coastal Management Program of the State of North Carolina.

Attachment Lawrence W. Saunders
Chieft Planning Division

DATE:

Paul W. Woodbury
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

DATE:

eis-2-7

APPENDIX A

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX A

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

Item Page No.

Letter dated 21 December 1987 from Town of Topsail Beach A-1

Letter dated 28 January 1987 from Senator Paul S. Trible, Jr. A-3

Letter dated 3 February 1987 from Senator John W. Warner A-5

Letter dated 30 January 1987 from Congressman Tim Valentine A-7

Letter dated 17 February 1987 from Congressman H. Martin Lancaster A-8

Letter dated 13 February 1987 from Congressman Michael Bilirakis A-9

Letter dated 16 January 1987 from Senator Jesse Helms A-14

a-i

OWP4 OF
or copeAlu
to L.1 14 A
C A Post Office Box 3089
10 Topsail Beach, North Carolina 28AA5
Telephone (919) 328-5841

December 21, 1987

Col. Paul W. Woodberry
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28402

Dear Col. Woodberry:

At the suggestion of Mr. Ron Fascher of your staff, I am corresponding with you
to inform the Corps of Engineers of the committment on the part of the Town of
Topsail Beach to do everything possible to fulfill any necessary local obligation
of funds required in connection with the development of your proposal to renourish
and reconstruct approximately three miles of beach strand in our community.

We first became aware of the feasibility study connected with this proposed project
in the latter part of 1986 and the early part, of 1987. At that time, we were
experiencing some of the worst beach erosion in the history of the Town. We had
inquired as to any assistance which could be provided by the Corps of Engineers
and we were then informed of your long range plans.

I cannot express to you the urgency of the need for a shoreline protection project
at Topsail Beach such as the one you are currently considering. Our understanding
of the current proposal is as follows. Two proposals are currently under
consideration. They range in costs from approximately $9.1 million to $14.5 million.
We further understand that federal government funding of projects such as this is
approximately 60% to '65% of the total project costs. The remaining 35% to 40% is
generally raised at the local and state levels of government.

As I started earlier, the Town of Topsail Beach stands ready to assume the burden
for providing the non-federal share of funds for this proposed project. We realize
that acquiring the non-federal portion of these funds will 'not be easy, especially
for a municipality as small as ourselves. We hope to convince the State of North
Carolina to participate in the cost of the project as well. Regardless, the Town
of Topsail Beach finds itself in the unenviable position of having to commit itself
to acquiring the non-federal portion of the necessary funds, or face the loss of
the lifeblood of this community. We can only hope that our beach Strand, and, in
turn, our economy,can survive until the proposed project construction period.

We had hoped to provide you with a resolution from the Topsail Beach Board of
Commissioners which gave you a more formal pledge of our support for your proposal.
Unfortunately, we have found ourselves between monthly Board meetings and in the
midst of the holiday season. It is difficult at this time of year to get the
members of the Board of Commissioners together in a special called meeting to

A -1

Col. Paul Woodberry
December 21, 1987
Page 2

consider formal action. If you feel it -is necessary to have such a resolution
passed, please contact our Town Manager, Mr. Tony Caudle, at the Topsail Beach Town
Hall and he will make the necessary arrangements. I must forwarn you, however,
that many of our Board members take extended vacations at this time of year, and
many times* it is difficult to hold even our regularly scheduled meetings, much less
a special called meeting.

Please do not interpret the lack of a formal resolution as a lack of committment
to our portion of the propose d project. The current Board of Commissioners is
firmly committed to the protection of our shoreline. This community stands firmly
behind your proposals and will provide any assistance, financial or otherwise, which
is within it power to control.

If you should have any further questions or concerns about this issue, please feel
free to contact me, or any of the staff members, at the Topsail Beach Town Hall.

Thanking you for your assistance in this matter I am:

Very truly yours,

Milton R. "Kip Oppegaard
Mayor, Town of Topsail Beach

,/CC: Mr. Ron Fascher, Chief
Plan Formulation Branch

PAUL TRIBLE
VIRGINIA

'Zcnifeb zictiez

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510

January 28, 1987

Colonel Paul Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Colonel Woodbury:

Attached is a copy of information I recently
received from William and Doris McDaniel regarding
Topsail Beach in North Carolina.

I would appreciate your reviewing the concerns
expressed herein and advising me of any action which has
been taken or is contemplated which would be helpful.

Please return your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with the attached enclosure at your
earliest convenience.

S'ncerely,

Paul Trible
PT:sb
Enclosure

12624 Winfree Street
Chester, VA 23831

January 18, 1987

The Honorable Paul S. Trible, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Trible:

The residents and property owners of Topsail Beach, NC are in
need of Your assistance.As you know, on December 2, 1986 and
on January 1, 1987 Topsail Beach was devastated by abnormall y
strong northeast winds. This
high tides and exceptionally
resulted in severe beach erosion. The greatest degree of damage
was to the public beach strand, which lost between 30 and 60
feet.The result has been that there is little or no public
beach strand left.

We are residents of Virginia who own a house on Topsail Island,
North Carolina. Many Virginia families use our house in North
Carolina and have until this time enjoyed the beautiful beach
there.

We are attempting to persuade the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to provide Topsail Beach with a badly needed beach renourishment
project. A project such as this requires that the Corps
institute a pipeline dredging project, taking the sand out of the
Topsail Inlet and Pumping it through a large tube to be placed on
the beach strand. The Town has approached the Corps about this
type of project several times before only to be to1d that it
Would be too costly to justify the benefits of this project.

We understand that a similar Situation exists on the Virginia
coastline. It would be greatly appreciated if YOU Could make a
contact to the Army Corps of Engineers possibly persuading them
to make an exception to their regulations to alloW for the
budgetary confines of smaller beach communities.

We have also written Senators Helms and Sanford of North Carolina
about the problem and would appreciate any help YOU Could give
them.

Sincerely,

Dot-is and William 0. McDaniel
Property Owners
1303 Carolina Blvd.
Topsail Beach, NC

A-4

JOHN W. WARNER ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
VIRGINIA CHAIRMAN, STRATEGIC AND THEATER NUCLEAR FORCES
SUBCOMMITTEE
235 FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
180 WEST MAIN STREET
ABINGDON 24210 CHAIRMAN, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
703/628-8:158 SUBCOMMITTEE

805 FEDERAL BUILDING Hit RULES AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10
NORFOLK 23510 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
804/4413079

U.S. PARCEL POST BUILDING
1100 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND 23219
804/7712579 February 3, 1987

Colonel W. A. Hanson
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Dear Colonel Hanson:

Your consideration cf the attached correspondence
from a constituent will be appreciated. Please return

your finding and \views, in duplicate form, to the
following address :

Office of Senator John W. Warner
805 Federal Building

200 Granby Mall
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Thank you for your time and courtesy.

Sincerly,

12624 Win-free Street 40
Chester, VA 23831
January 18, 1987

'The Honorabie John W. Warner
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510

Dear Senator Warner:

1he residents and property owners of Topsail Beach, N%:_ a!e in
need of your assistance. As you know, an December 22. and
on JanUarv 1, 1967 Topsail Deach -was devastated by abnormally
hiqh tides and exceptionally stronq northeast winds. This
resulted in severe beach erosion. The greatest degree of damage
was to the public beach strand, which lost between 30 and 60
feet. The result has been that there is little or no public
beach strand left.

We are residents of Virginia who own a house on Topsail Island,
North Carolina. Many Virginia families use our house in North
Carolina and have until this time enjoyed the beautiful beach
there.

We are attempting to persuade the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
to provide Topsail Beach with a badly needed beach renourishment
project. A project such as this requires that the Corps
institute a pipeline dredging project, taking the sand out of the
Topsail Inlet and pumping it through a large tube to be placed on
the beach strand. The Town has approached the Corps about this
type of project several times before only to be told that it
would be too costly to justify the benefits of this project.

We understand that a similar situation exists on the Virginia
coast.line. It would be greatly appreciated if you'could make a
contact to the Army Corps of Engineers possibly persuading them
to make an exception to their regulations to allow for the
Ludgetary confines of smaller beach communities.

We have also written Senators Helms and Sanford of North Carolina
about the problem and would appreciate any help You could give

Sincerely

Doris and William 0. McDaniel
Property Owners
1303 Carolina Blvd.
Tc-psail Beach, NC 4P

r4 -

TIM VALENTINE WASHINGTON OFFICE.
SECOND DISTRICT ED NAGY
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

MEMBER: 1107 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
COMMrTTEE ON WASHINGTON, DC 20515
PUBLIC WORr-' AND TELEPHONE (202@ 225-4531
TRANSPORTATION Congress of the Unitet @*tates
SUBCOMMITTEES. DISTRICT OFFICES
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION A.8 SWINDELL IV
AVIATION %Ouse of Representattes DISTRICT ADMINISTRAT E ASS STANT
IV

C3MM=':F ON SCIENCE
AND TECHN@L@)GY WaShiHotfflv PC 20515 121 EAST PARRISH STREET
DURHAM NC 27701
SUBCOMMITTEE& TELEPHONE (919) 54 i-5201
NATURAL RESOURCES. AGRICULTURE
RESEARCH AND ENVIRONMENT
ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION 219 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET
ROCKY MOUNT NC 27BOI
SCIENCE. RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY January 30, 1987 TELEPHONE. J919) 446-1147

Colonel Paul Woodbury
District Engineer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Dear Colonel Woodbury:

I have been contacted by residents and property owners of
Topsail Beach, North Carolina, who are greatly concerned about
the severe public beach erosion and private property damage
caused by recent storms.

As you know, the entire 6.5 mile length of Topsail Beach'is
now left with little or no public beach strand during high tides.
In fact, two miles of that shoreline has no public beach area at
all.

I am advised that Topsail Beach approached the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers in the past regarding a possible beach
renourishment project but that the Corps felt it could not
justify the cost to the Office of Management and Budget and,
therefore, suggested that the Town pay a contracted price for the
service. Because Topsail Beach cannot finance a project of that
magnitude, the economy of the Town and surrounding areas will
suffer unless a way is found to finance a beach renourishment
project.

I would appreciate any assistance the Corps might be able to
provide the citizens and homeowners of Topsail Beach and Pender
County in alleviating the recent devastation.
Sincerily,

Tim Valentine

TV/jb

MARTIN LANCASTER
30 DISTRICT. NORTH CAROLINA

Conarta of the MOO Otateg
JDouze of Rtpreantatiba
NabiTtoon, 30C 20515

February 17, 1987

Colonel Paul Woodbury
U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Colonel Woodbury:

Thank you for visiting with me in my office. I am very anxious to receive
from you your letter spelling out the alternatives and their costs which I
might consider for Topsail Island. I am also anxious to have something
definitive from you with regard to dredging the back channel and using
that small amount of fill as stopgap replenishment of the beach at the
southern end of the island. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible.
I will be meeting with the people on Topsail Island very soon and need to
be able to give them some answers or at least some hope.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Silcerely,
A

H. rtin Lancaster
Member of Congress

HML:dd

P.S. After dictating this letter, I received your letter of February 11. 1 am
disappointed that your letter says so little. It was my understanding that you
were going to provide for me the cost figures for a "rush job" on the project.
While it is unlikely that I will,have the clout to speed up the process, I want
to at least give it a try. Being on the Public Works Committee may enable me to
get early authorization of the project and earlier funding. It was also my under-
standing that you were going to provide me an estimate of the local government's
share, so that I could be preparing those people to meet that obligation. I had
also thought that you were going to tell me more about the channel dredging and the
use of that spoil for stopgap beach replenishment. If you are reluctant to put
all of those figures in writing, a personal briefing at which I can take notes will
suffice. However, I do have a meeting scheduled with the people on Topsail Island
and would like to be able to tell them something. Please expedite getting that
information tome, either in writing or orally.
H. r

Congress of the United States

House of Representative

Washington, D.C

February 13 87 87
....................19 ........
Army Corps. Of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for
your consideration. Please investigate the
statements contained therein and forward me
the necessary information for reply, return-
ing the enclosed correspondence with your
answer. Please respond to my Clear-
water Office--Attention: Maureen Ahearr
Yours truly,

Re: Walton, Richard

M. C.

Michael Bilirakis, M.C.
1100 Cleveland Street Suite 1600
Clearwater, FL 33515-6993
Ninth District
Comm (813) 441-3721 FTS 821-7420

FEB

January 21, 1987
The Honorable Michael Bilirais
1130 Lonaworth House office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bilirais:

I am enclosinq a copy of a letter we have written to
both United States Senators from the State of North
Carolina. It is self-explanatory.

If there is any assistance vou could give us in this
matter, believe me, it woula be greatly appreciated.
As a resident in Florida with us, you surely know what
havoc hiah tides and strong winds play on our beaches!

Fortunately, here in Florida, most of the major beaches
both on the West Coast and East Coast enjoy a much
broader tax base because of the high population and
multitude of businesses in the surrounding areas.

Topsail Beach is a very small community and desparately
needs help!

Thank you for anything you can do.
Sipceyely,.

cha3@d C. Walton, Sr.
G orgette B. Walton
5008 Headland Hills
Tampa, Florida 33625

THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO BOTH SENATOR JESSE HELMS AND
SENATOR TERRY SANFORD AND TO REP. H. MARTIN LANCASTER.

January 21, 1987

As a Property owner in Topsail Beach, N. C., I am writing
to reauest your assistance.

As you know, on December 2, 1986 Topsail Beach was de-
vastated by abnormally high tides and exceptionally strong
northeast winds. This resulted in severe beach erosion.
I understand private property damage was more than 5 million.
However, greater damage still occured to the public beach
strand, which lost anywhere between 30 and 60 feet in one
24-hour period.

lie can only imagine what additional damage was caused by
the storm of December 31-January 1.

obviously, there is little to no beach left durina high
tides and, in a two mile stretch, there is NO public beach
area at all.

Ile must take action to replenish and renourish our beaches,

the Pender County area will be affected. Estimates given to
me indicate that approximately 45% of Pender County ad valorem
6ax base is located in Topsail Township. If beach@ronthomes
are lost, the tax base will be significantly reduced.

The primary attraction to this area is, of course, its
beautiful beaches - the question is, Will the seasonal trade
still come without them? The lost of associated business and
tax revenue would have a devastating impact.

The Town has tried to work with the U. S. Army Corps of Enqineers
to replenish the beaches, but apparently the Corps felt a project
of this magnitude could not be justified to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. The Town of Topsail Beach does not have the
means to pay the estimated $300,000.00 to $500,000.000 to pay for
this service.

Perhaps with your assistance these agencies could be persuaded to
make an exception to their regulations, or to change their reg-
ulations to allow for the budgetary confines of smaller beach
communitics.

We purchased our property in Topsail Beach with the plans
of spendina our retirement years there. I an sure many
people who come to this lovely area have the same idea.

Please help us make our dreams come true. Please help
the present residents keep their homes. Please help
the businesspeople keep their businesses. And please
help the State of North Carolina keep one of the most
beautiful spots on the Atlantic Ocean.

Thank you for your help and cooperation!

Sincerelv

Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Walton, Sr.
5008 Headland Hills
Tampa, Florida 33625

and
115 McLeod Ave.
Topsail Beach, N. C. 28445

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 1.
2.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
3.
WASHINGTON, OC 20310-0103 4.

C
26 FEB 87

Honorable Jesse Helms
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515-3302

Dear Senator Helms:

This is in response to your letter of January 16,
1987, concerning beach erosion at Topsail Beach, North
Carolina.

Since Topsail Beach is not an authorized Federal
beach nourishment project, the Army Corps of Engineers
does not have authority to program funds or participate
in a beach nourishment project at this site. However,
Section 933 of the Water Resources Development Act
(Public Law 99-662) provides authority to dispose of
dredged material on beaches, at the request of the
State, if local interests agree to provide 50 percent of
the added cost. I am now in the process of developing
policy guidance implementing that section of the Act,
and I have asked the Corps to review their activities
around Topsail Island to determine if such a cooperative
effort is possible.

I will inform you of the findings of the Corps
investigation.

Sincerely,

(signed) JOHN S DOYLE JR.

Robert K. Dawson
Assistant Secretary of the Army
cf: SASG (Civil Works)
Wilmington District
South Atlantic Division
DAEN-CWZ-X/DAEN-CWO-M
DAEN-CW-SA (FILE)
SACW (Read, signer)
Document #141, 61,5
REVISED RK/tr/19Feb87; retyped ele/24Feb87
CN: 7020302

A-13
Wilmington Dist

JESSE HELMS
NORTH CARDL%%A

Umoted ifttes @$Mtt
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10

January 16, 1987

The Honorable Robert K. Dawson
Assistant Secretary of the Army
Civil Works
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310-0103

Dear-Bob:

I enclose copies of two letters from friends
of mine, and I hope you folks will take a look at
them. Also, at the appropriate time, I would like
to talk with you about the situation at Topsail
Island, North Carolina.

One of the letters is from a distinguished
member of North Cdrolina's Supreme Court, Justice
Louis B. Meyer; the other is from Alex Brock,
executive secretary and director of the North Carolina
Board of Elections.

Let me emphasize at the outset that I have some
apprehension about contacting you, inasmuch as my wife
owns a cottage on the island. However, her cottage
is not on the ocean side of the island; it faces the
inland waterway, and no damage has occurred to her
property. So I am not asking for personal assistance.

Having said that, and assuming that it can be
agreed that there is no conflict of interest involved
in my contacting you, both Mr. Justice Meyer and Mr.
Brock have accurately described the distress among a
large number of good citizens who own property fronting
the Atlantic Ocean.

What I am asking is this: I will be most grateful
if your folks will carefully review this situation and
then meet'with me and/or Mr. Wayne Boyles of my staff.
Needless to say, I hope some appropriate and proper way
can be found to lend a hand to the people at Topsail
who have been hit so hard.

Secretary Dawson
January 16, 1987
Page Two

Many thanks, and kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

JESSE HELMS:pd

jkvprrtm (4v=t
AbW of Nort# 4arafina

CHAMBERS OF Box 1641
JUSTICE LOUIS S. MEYER January 7, 1987 ZIP CODE 27602

PERSONAL

The Honorable Jesse Helms
United States Senator
4213 Dirksen Building
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Senator Helms:

In the ordinary course of life's ups and downs, I am
generally able to take care of my own problems and not burden
official Washington with them. As a matter of fact, I believe
this is the first letter I have ever written to seek the
assistance of a federal agency in a matter in which I have been
personally involved. I am, unfortunately, as it has turned out,
the owner of an "ocean front" cottage at Topsail Beach, North
Carolina. You will note that I did not use the term "beach
front" cottage, as that would be an inaccurate description since
there is, in fact, no beach left upon which to front. At this
writing, the water from breaking waves at high tide runs well up
under my house. During the period of,.s,yzygy which was from
approximately November 30, 1986, through January 5, 1987, in
addition to the extreme high tides, we suffered two periods of
heavy winds which wreaked havoc along the south end of Topsail
Beach. During that period, I lost forty feet of dune, two sets
of steps, a walkway, the entire fully furnished first floor of my
beach cottage (which I have had to tear out completely), a great
deal of property valuation, and a lot of hair, tears, and sweat.
Besides the loss in value to the building and the loss of the
entire contents of the first floor, I have, to this point, paid
out of pocket approximately $4,500 to shore up the second floor
and tear out the entire downstairs. Though I have not yet heard
from my-federal flood insurance program claim, it is my
understanding that the agency is denying coverage for all losses
below the floor of the second story, or as they say, below "the
first elevated floor."

I tell you all of this not simply because it happened to me,
but because it happened to many, many property owners on the
southern end of Topsail Island in the incorporated Town of
Topsail Beach. The.extent of the damage is absolutely
unbelievable. As badly as the property owners have themselves
suffered from the recent storms and flooding, the greatest degree
of damage is to the public be,-ch strand. There is, in fact,
little or no public beach strand left during high tide for the
entire six and one-half mile length of Topsail Beach. My house

1-4 - / @,
NOT PRINTED OR MAILED AT STATE EXPENSE

The Honorable Jess, Helms
Page 2
January 7, 1987

happens to be located in the most heavily damaged area,
consisting of about two and one-half miles in length where there
is no remaining public beach area at all. I am enclosing a
picture of my own beach house, which graphically illustrates the
present situation.

Some man-made dunes were pushed up after the November 30,
1986, storm, but they were completely destroyed in the January 2,
1987, storm. Unless the beaches of the Town of Topsail Beach are
restored and renourished, it will not be only the property owners
who will be losers, but all the people of Pender County. if
steps are not taken to accomplish a beach renourishment project
immediately, the entire economy of Pender County will be
drastically affected, Loss of homes on the beach front will
significantly reduce the tax base of both Topsail Beach and
Pender County. Estimates vary, but approximately 45 percent of
the Pender County ad valorem tax base is located in Topsail
Township. The overall economic effect of the loss of beach
strand in Topsail Beach cannot be accurately predicted, but when
one considers that an average daily seasonal population of 8,000
to 10,000 persons is drawn to this community, the loss of
associated business and tax revenue would have a more devastating
impact. The primary attraction that this area has to offer, as
you well know, is its beautiful beaches, and when that attraction
is gone, so will be the associated economic benefits.

The Town of Topsail Beach has, in the past and in an attempt
to avert these tragic losses, approached the United States Corps
of Engineers about a possible beach renourishment project. The
Corps has informed the Town that it could not justify to the
Office of Management and Budget a project of the magnitude that
would be necessary. The Corps has informed the Town in the past
that the Town could pay a contracted price for this service,
which would range anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000. The little
Town of Topsail Beach simply does not have the wherewithal to pay
or the ability to raise that amount of money for contract
dredging. The community is composed primarily of residential
structures, and this type of property does not produce the amount
of tax revenue that would support such an expenditure. Topsail
Beach, like the other smaller beach communities, simply cannot
raise the necessary funds to save the public beaches and
apparently cannot qualify for a Corps project under existing
regulations.

On behalf of all the residents of Topsail Beach, I request
that you inform the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of
Management and Budget of our plight and the need for a project to
replace and renourish the public beach areas of the Town.
Topsail Island, at the point of the most severe damage, is very
narrow (approximately two blocks wide), and it seems quite
feasible to pump sand for that short distance from the sound onto
the beach or to pump it from Topsail Inlet. Both the narrow

The Honorable Jess, Helms
Page 3
January 7, 1987

sound and the inlet are clogged and choked with huge sandbars,
and a beach renourishment project would serve the additional
purpose of opening the sound and inlet. A similar, and very
successful, project was completed in recent years in the Atlantic
Beach area. Hopefully, through your help, the Corps will be
persuaded to come to the assistance of the Town of Topsail Beach.

I I express to you, in advance, my sincere appreciation for
your kind consideration in contacting the Corps of Engineers and
the Office of Management and Budget.

Very truly yours,

Lo is B. Meyer

LBM/ppb

Enclosure

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

SUITE $01 RALEIGH BUILDING
ALEX K. BROCK 5 WEST HARGETT STREET TELEPHONE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601 (919) 733-7173
DIRECTOR
January 8,, 1987

Senator Jesse Helms
United States Senate
4213 Dirksen Building
Washington, D. C. 20501

In re; Topsail Beach

Dear Jesse:

As you probably have heard Doris and I purchased a home at
Topsail Beach with the intent to retire there and make it our perma.
nent home for about 9 months out of the year.

We selected Topsail Beach because it appeared to be the only
remaining 'unspoiled' area'on our coast. The town is small and we do
not have a significant commercial tax bass. Nevertheless., if the
government is serious about proteating coastal areas then we d"perately
need help for our little island.

An you muat know the several recent storm have devastated the
southern and of Topsail Beach and even though the twn has made a
valiant effort to restore the sand dunes that aro routinely ravaged,
it simply is not enough. We need an infusion on sand that can only
be accomplished by dredging the sound and pumping it to the bare area
of our beach. There is ample sand in the sound and there Is usually
a dredging unit tied up at a dock built for such purpose at the southern
tip of the island.

In the past, efforts made to solicit assistance from the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers has been dismissed an unjustifiable. A beach
renourishment project is sorely needed and the Corps of Engineers has
the equipment available. It is my opinion that positions can be
changed when desperate conditions exist. We are in desperate straits
and need the assistance that your office can provide. There simply
must be some facet of government able to change policy when such a
natural resource is threatened.

We will sincerely appreciate your office looking into the possi-
bility of securing a degree of modification of what appears to be
0

unreasonable intrar,@gent regulations.
0

Senator Jesse Helms
Page 2
January 8, 1987

With sincere thanks for your consistent concern and attention.,
I am

Very truly yours,

Alex K. Brock
P. 0. Box 2682
Raleigh, N. C. 27602

A-20

APPENDIX B

Draft Coordination Act Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

.. wjc

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET STUDY
DRAFT FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT

Prepared by
David H. Rackley

Under the Supervision of
L. K. (Mike) Gantt
Field Supervisor
m=
IF

Released by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh, North Carolina
August, 1986

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 3
General Description of Study Area .................................. 3
Authority .......................................................... 3
objectives ................................ o ........................ 4

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM ........................................... 4

EVALUATION METHODS ............... o .................. o ................ 4

DESCRIPTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND THEIR HABITATS ...... o .......... 5
Beach .............................................................. 5
Dunes .............................................................. 6
Grassland ................ o... o ...................................... 7
Maritime Shrub Thicket/Maritime Forest ............................. 8
Regularly Flooded Saltmarsh ........................................ 11
Irregularly Flooded Saltmarsh ...................................... 12
Intertidal Flats ........................................... o ....... 13
Submerged Estuarine Bottom ......................................... 13
Fishery Resources of Adjacent Estuarine and Ocean Waters ...- ..... 14

NATIONAL RESOURCE SPECIES .............. o ............... o .....o ....... 19

ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................. o ................ 20

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS ....................... o.......... 22
1. Dredge-Maintained Ocean Bar and Interior Channel
at New River Inlet ............................................ 22
II. Stabilization of New River Inlet with Dual Jetties ............ 22
III. Beach Erosion Protection at Topsail Beach ................... o. 22
IV. Combined Hurricane Wave and Beach Erosion Protection .......... 23

PROJECT IMPACTS
Future Environmental Conditions without the Project ................ 23
Future Environmental Conditions with each Alternative .............. 25
I. Dredge Maintained Ocean Bar and Interior
Channel at New River Inlet ................................. 25
II. Stabilization of New River Inlet with Dual Jetties ......... 26
III. Beach Erosion Protection at Topsail Beach .................. 29
IV. Combined Hurricane Wave and Beach Erosion Protection ....... 33

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT OF 1982 ...... o ......................... 34

MITIGATION ........................................................... 35

DISCUSSION ........................................................... 36

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 37

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................... 40

b -11

Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page

1. Map of Topsail Island .......................................... 3-m

2. Map Showing Location of Fishing Piers .......................... 4-M

3. Map of Borrow Area for Alternatives II and III ................. 23-M

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Commercial Fish Landings For Selected Species .................. 16

2. List of Juvenile Fishes and Invertebrates From
Topsail Island and Vicinity .................................... 17

LIST OF APPENDICIES

Appendix Page

A. Division of Marine Fisheries Oyster Lease Maps
for Topsail Island Area ......................................... A-1

B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter Addressing
Coastal Barrier Resources Act .................................. B-1

C. Location Map of Lands within the Coastal Barrier
Resources System ............................................... C-1

D. Birds of Coastal Onslow County
(prepared by Gilbert S. Grant ) ................................ D-1

OF
- I- el United States Department of the Interior
-V
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Division of Ecological Services
P.O. Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039

September 12, 1986

Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Colonel Woodbury:

Attached is the Service's Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
for the West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet Study, Onslow and Pender
Counties, North Carolina. This report identifies fish and wildlife
resources located in the project area and the potential effect of the
various study alternatives on these resources. This report is provided in
accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and our FY 86 Transfer Funding
Agreement and Scope of Work.

A copy of this report is being provided to the appropriate State and Federal
review agencies, and their comments will be incorporated as soon as
available. Any comments which you or your staff wish to provide should be
received by September 30, 1986 so they may receive adequate and timely
attention in preparation of the Final FWCA report. Technical questions
should be directed to the attention of David Rackley of my staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report.

Sincerely yours,
LX K@
L.K. (Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor

D' RA FT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Topsail Island and its adjacent wetlands and waters provide a large, diverse
and high-quality habitat base for fish and wildlife which are of ecological,
economic and social importance at local, regional and national levels. High
value habitats include maritime forests, maritime shrub thickets, tidal
marshes and estuarine bottoms. Consumptive and non-consumptive uses include
commercial and recreational fishing, birdwatching, nature study and
management of threatened and endangered species. The greatest threat to the
continued existence of fish and wildlife and their habitats on Topsail
Island is the continued development of condominiums, second homes and
businesses--all of which result in the direct loss or major alteration of
fish and wildlife habitat, increase pollution and cause piecemeal reductions
in water quality and resource abundance.

The West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet Study is being performed under
authority of U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works Resolutions which
authorize the study of inlet stabilization at New River Inlet and beach
erosion control and hurricane protection of West Onslow Beach. The four
alternatives being considered are: stabilization of New River Inlet with
dual jetties; improved navigation at New River Inlet through expansion of
the existing navigation channel; and the creation of a navigation channel
through Kings Creek; beach nourishment at Topsail Beach including
construction of a terminal groin; and beach nourishment/groint construction
and dune restoration at Topsail Beach.

Each of the four alternatives has been evaluated by the Service. With
exception of the jetty alternative and creation of a navigation channel at
Kings Creek, we believe that with appropriate mitigation no significant
adverse environmental consequences will occur. Mitigation recommendations
are contained in the report; they require no major modifications or
expenditures of the various alternatives which the Service believes are
environmentally acceptable. The jettey alternative and the Kings Creek
excavation work are environmentally unacceptable due to potential habitat
losses involving submerged aquatic vegetation and beach and dune habitats.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On August 30, 1978 John 0. Fussell, III prepared under contract to the
Service, a detailed description of the flora and fauna of Bogue Banks, North
Carolina. Since then, we have frequently called upon John for assistance in
determining the occurrence of resident and migratory wildlife on North
Carolina's barrier islands. Such was the case in preparing this report.
Without John's earlier work on Bogue Banks and his assistance in
extrapolating data from that report for use on Topsail Island, our
description of existing fish and wildlife would be sketchy, at best. We are
grateful to John for his valued input.

INTRODUCTION

Topsail (Ashe) Island is located in Onslow and Pender Counties in
southeastern North Carolina along the Atlantic Coast. The study area
includes all of Topsail Island and extends approximately 22 miles from New
River Inlet to the east to New Topsail Inlet to the west. The island varies
from about 6,000 feet (average width) including wetlands, to 900 feet
(average width) if uplands only are considered. Island elevations range
from near sea level to about 25 feet above sea level. The island is aligned
in a northeast to southwest direction and is bounded on the west by New
Topsai 1 Inlet, on the east by New River Inlet, on the south by the Atlantic
Ocean, and on the north by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW),
wetlands, and several small bays and sounds (Figure 1). Historically, the
island has been characterized by low density development consisting of
vacation homes and cottages, but new and very dense development is occuring
at a steady and rapid rate. Major ecosystems include wetlands, shrub
thickets, dunes and beaches; these support an ecologically diverse and
economically important resource of local, regional and national
significance.

New River Inlet is approximately 1,200 feet wide and provides for the
exchange of waters between the ocean and local estuaries. An existing Corps
of Engineers' navigation project provides for a channel 6-feet-deep and
90-feet-wide from the AIWW through New River Inlet to deep water in the
Atlantic Ocean. The inlet is utilized for navigation passage by commercial
and recreational vessels and by assault craft associated with training at
nearby Camp LeJeune Marine Base.

New Topsail Inlet is also utilized by commercial fishing and recreational
vessels. It serves as an important link between the Atlantic ocean and
protected estuarine waters which lie behind the barrier islands. New
Topsail Inlet, which is approximately 1,000 feet in width, is maintained by
the Corps of Engineers at a depth of 8-feet and a width of 150-feet
(authorized dimensions). The AIWW, which extends the length of the island
and is intersected by both New River Inlet and New Topsail Inlet, is
approximately 90-feet wide and 12-feet deep (authorized dimensions).

The West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet Study is being performed under
authority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works Resolution adopted
June 24, 1970 pursuant to stabilizing and deepening New River Inlet and the
Committee's June 23, 1971 Resolution which authorizes a survey of beach
erosion control, hurricane protection and related purposes at West Onslow
Beach. The Service has participated in the planning process and submitted
Planning Aid Reports on July 1, 1981, April 7, 1983 and May 11, 1984. A
Reconnaissance Report which recommended initiation of this detailed phase of
the study was issued in February 1982 by the Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers.

This report is submitted under authority of Section 2(b) of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
and should be incorporated into the Corps of Engineers planning process.

171

0 o-,

r%
0

-4:

la,

GAml

wEST ONSLO
'fill,

*J.

SURF CITY

...... TOPSAIL BEACH

NEW rOPSAII INifr

1 0

This report will be submitted for review by the N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development including the Division of Marine
Fisheries, the Division of Coastal Management and the Wildlife Resources
Commission. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency also will be requested to cooperate in the
review. The report identifies known and potential impacts associated with
the various alternatives being considered, and it should be used to develop
fish and wildlife preservation, protection and enhancement measures. In
addition to fulfilling responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, this report also serves to fulfill U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service responsibility in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536).

The objectives of this report are to:

� Provide a brief yet complete description of existing fish and
wildlife conditions within the project area;

� Assess the environmental impacts of the project; and

� Provide recommendations which will minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife, and enhance those resources when possible.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Navigational difficulties currently limit utilization of New River Inlet by
commercial fishing vessels, particularly shrimp trawlers. Larger vessels
utilizing the inlet must schedule trips around the tidal cycle to insure
adequate navigational depths. At New Topsail Inlet, navigation passage from
inside the Inlet to the AIWW is limited by shallow depths and constant
shoaling. In this location, the principal effect is the limitation of
recreational boating use of the most direct navigation pathways.

Recent and rapid erosion of the ocean shoreline from just east of the Jolly
Roger Fishing Pier (Figure 2) to New Topsail Inlet has resulted in property
damage and jeopardizes many existing structures. In addition to property
losses, beachfront erosion has eliminated or reduced severely the
recreational and aesthetic value of the area for such uses as swimming,
sunbathing, fishing and birdwatching. The erosion has eliminated or reduced
beach use by nesting sea turtles and by shore birds as a resting and feeding
site.

EVALUATION METHODS

There are no comprehensive biological inventories or studies from Topsail
Island. Accordingly, our description of the island's biota is based on four
days of personal observations in the field, extrapolation from the

J;- 6,

4-m Figure 2

NOR-- :A=,:), R4A

OCLAJ* CM roWso, n"

ACE"CH ftowxv@ VIONTI: PrEf

ONMANS Cow's

S-&A,.V-E fft@ 'S 'Mhl-C VMS

IM, Cr-. FUNW. SVIZ

MLLV KOGFA

OTC
WUA"" 1@w

Figure 2. Fishing Piers located on Topsail Island

5*
literature (Fussell, 1978; Reilly and Bellis, 1978; Peterson and Peterson,
1979; and others), and from personal communication.

Limited benthic samples were taken from selected sites in the vicinity of
New River Inlet and Topsail Sound including Kings Creek. On tidal flats
samples were taken with a shovel and washed onsite using a 1.0 mm sieve.
Subaqueous samples were taken with a ponar grab-type sampler which in coarse
sand extracts a 6 in.2 sediment sample approximately 3 inches in depth.
These samples also were washed in the field using a 1.0 mm sieve. organisms
retained in the sieve were identified in the field to the lowest possible
taxon and released. Quantitative measurements were not made, and
qualitative evaluations consisted of examination of biota for commercially
important species, submerged aquatic vegetation, rare or species of special
ecological significance and populations which may indicate the presence of
highly productive bottoms.

DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND THEIR HABITATS

For purposes of this report, Topsail Island has been divided into nine
habitat types. These are: beach, dunes, grassland, maritime shrub thicket,
maritime forest, regularly flooded saltmarsh, irregularly flooded saltmarsh,
intertidal flats and submerged estuarine bottom. Each of these habitat
types, along with their associated flora and fauna, are described in this
section.

Beach

Reilly and Bellis (1978) separated the beach into six zones based on the
extent and degree of wave action at each location and on the flora and fauna
found at each site. These include:

� Upper beach--This includes the zone between the high tidemark
and the primary dune which is inhabitated principally by ghost
crab (Ocypode quadrata), beach flea (Talorchestra megalo-
phalma) insects and pioneer plants, such as sea rocket (Cakile
endentula).

� High tide driftline--This is the line of detritus that marks
the highest point to which the preceding high tide advanced.
This area is utilized by foraging birds, ghost crab and small
invertebrates such as amphipods and insects.

� Wet zone--The moist area of beach located between the high
tide drift line and the saturated zone comprises the wet zone.
Inhabitants include Haustorius canadensis (amphipod), the
polychacte worm Scolelepis squamata, foraging shore birds, and
in late summer, the mole crab (Emerita talpoida) and coquina
0 clams (Donax spp.).

,9-7

� Swash zone--This is the area of beach which is alternatively
covered and exposed by wave uprush and retreat. Although
dominated by mole crab and coquina clams, it is utilized by
most of the previously mentioned beach species during some
phase of the tide or time of day.

� Surf zone--This is the submerged portion of the beach which
lies between the swash zone and the near shore breakers.
Active feeding by Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus),
summer flounder (Paralichtys dentalus), Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus) , spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
wi@`Iting (Menticirrhus spp.), Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia) and crevalle jack (Caranx hippos) occurs in this
zone.

Beach use by feeding avifauna is principally limited to the high tide drift
line and swash zone. Characteristic beach avifauna inhabitants include:
willet (Cat"trophorus semipalmatus), sanderling (Calidris alba), black
skimmer (EyaShops niger)', semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) ,
boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major); laughing gull (Larus atricilla),
herring gull (Larus argentulus) ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) ; royal
tern (Sterna maxima), sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), common tern
(Sterna hirundo) and gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica). Bird nesting
on the beach is uncommon although records (Parnell and Soots, 1978) indicate
that prior to extensive human intrustion and ocean front development the
upper beach was an important nesting site for the least tern (Sterna
albifrons). A list of the birds of coastal Onslow County (Grant, 1975) is
provided in Appendix D.

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act, continues to nest on Onslow Beach and Topsail Island
despite deteriorating conditions on Topsail Island. Although recent nest
counts are not available for Topsail Island the Recovery Plan for Marine
Turtles (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984), states that an average of 10 sea
turtle nests were observed during the period 1975-80 on Topsail Island, and
the maximum number of nests observed during that period was 22. These
values seem low in comparison with nearby Onslow Beach where the Marine
Corps maintains accurate nest counts and manages a highly successful sea
turtle management program. Currently, that program provides annual
protection for approximately 63 loggerhead sea turtle nests, based on our
analysis of recent nesting records. Sea turtle nesting usually occurs in
the upper beach zone above the normal high tide line.

Dunes

Dunes are formed when sand deposited on the beach backshore is blown by
prevailing winds and is slowed by and deposited in vegetation tolerant to
salt spray and sand burial (Leatherman, 1979). Dunes are an important
component in the barrier island system since they deflect salt spray and
allow the development of shrub thicket and maritime forest which increases
barrier island resistance to wind erosion. Dunes are major storage centers

'04

for beach sediments, and they absorb and dissipate storm waves. The dunes
are a part of the sand sharing system which allows barrier islands to
survive rising sea level and the tremendous energies of the ocean (Godfrey
and Godfrey, 1976; Leatherman, 1979). In this sand sharing system an
equilibrium is reached as sand grains move from offshore bars, to beaches,
to dunes, and back again in response to wind, wave, current and tidal
effects. In intense storms the barrier dunes may be eroded and breached by
overwash surges. This allows the island to migrate landward by moving
sediments from the oceanfront toward the sound. Overwash migration is not
the dominant process by which most barrier islands move landward since far
greater quantities of sediment are moved into sound waters by way of inlet
formation (Parker) Brower and Frankenburg, 1976, Leatherman, 1979).

The dominant dune plant on Topsail Island is the sea oat (Uniola paniculata).
It is resistant to salt spray and drought conditions and, because of its
ability to grow upward with the sand it collects, it is a major dune builder
(Fussell, 1978). Other common dune plants are pennywort (Hydrocotyle
bonariensis), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), sea elder (Iva
imbricata), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), spurge (Euphorbia
ammannioides), evening primrose (Oenothera humifusa), and sandspur (Cenchrus
tribuloides).

Animals are generally scarce in this dry, relatively unstable environment.
Due to dryness, amphibians are absent (Fussell, 1978).' Reptiles such as the
six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) and the eastern glass
lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis) are common and some species of snakes,
especially the black racer (Coluber constrictor constructor) and coachwhip,
probably occur. Topsail also may provide habitat for an undescribed species
of glass lizard (Ophisaurus sp.) which is currently under study by the N.C.
State Museum of Natural History (W.M. Palmer, Curator of Lower Vertebrates,
personal communication, May 12, 1981). Small rodents are probably present
since barn owls (Tyto alba) regularly patrol the dunes in winter (Fussell,
1978). On Masonboro Island, which is located a few miles to the south of
Topsail Island, the house mouse was regularly observed in the dune system
(Hosier and Cleary, 1977), and may occur on Topsail Island. In winter, the
dunes are extensively visited by migratory birds. Flocks of red-winged
blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) feed on sea oats, and American kestrels
(Falco sparverius) search for prey (Fussell, 1978). The savannah sparrow
(Passerculus sandwichensis) is common in winter. The Ipswich race (P. S.
princeps) of this species is thought to winter in the larger expanses of
dunes on Bogue Banks (Fussell, 1978) and may occur on Topsail Island.
American Goldfinches (Carduelis tristis) are less common but sometimes occur
in small flocks that feed on sandspurs and other seeds. Palm warblers
(Dendorica palmarum) may be common, especially along the dune-maritime shrub
thicket border. In summer and fall, barn swallows (Hirundorustica) and tree
swallows (Iridoprocne bicolor) feed on insects above the dunes (Fussell,
1978).

Grassland

In terms of size, open grassland is the principal upland plant community on
Topsail Island. Origins of this habitat type are uncertain but are probably
related to man-caused disturbance of shrub thickets and to natural grass
establishment in areas of accretion and overwash. Grasslands may extend
from the front or backslope of the dune berm to the sound. On Topsail
Island, grasslands extend the entire length of the island and are most
conspicious from the former Dolphin Pier (Figure 2) west to New Topsail
Inlet and from the intersection of N.C. 50 and S.R. 1546 east to New River
Inlet.

Grassland vegetation consists primarily of grasses, sedges and a few forbs.
with the sea oat being dominant. Common vegetative associates of the
grasslands include pennywort, seaside goldenrod, broomsedge (Andropogon
scoparius), sea elder, saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) and panic
grass (Panicum amarum).

When human and natural disturbance are minimized, the grasslands and high
marsh begin to support s cat tered wax myr t I e ( Myr i c a c e r i f e ra ) ,
groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), and sea elder. As they continue to
build, shrub thiTket and maritime forest ultimately may develop in
well-protected areas.

Island grasslands are able to support higher densities of resident animals
than dunes. Birds inhabiting the grassland include many of the
aforementioned dune dwellers as well as eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), boat-tailed grackle and marsh hawk
(Circus cyaneus). Nesting willet also may occur in those areas where
disturbance is minimal or lacking. Topsail is the northern most recorded
nesting site of the ground dove (Columbina passerina) (D.S. Lee, N.C. State
Museum of Natural History, personal communication, June 1, 1981). Mammals
characteristic of this area include marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) and
cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus). In summer, tree frogs (Hyla spp.), toads
(Bufo spp.), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), six-lined
racerunner, glass llizard, corn snake (Elaphe gutt t@)' eastern coachwhip
and black racer may occur.

Maritime Shrub Thicket/Maritime Forest

Maritime shrub thicket and forest habitats occur on the more stable upland
flats and dunes of Topsail Island. With decreasing frequency of overwash,
barrier islands support maritime shrub thickets and eventually forests
(Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976; Leatherman, 1979). Woody growth usually starts
on the sound side of the island and spreads seaward as dune development
allows for greater stability and protection from salt spray. On Topsail
Island the shrub thicket is generally five-to-ten feet high with a much
denser understory than the forest. It is also more prevalent than the
maritime forest. The maritime forest ranges in height from 10 to about 40
feet and usually lacks a well-defined understory.

The maritime shrub thicket is most extensive along that portion of the
island which lies between'the former Dolphin Pier and New.River Inlet. it

is often the principal vegetative cover-type of natural and man-created
islands located adjacent to Topsail Island. The dominant plants of the
shrub community are red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), live oak (Quercus
virginiana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Herculpq-club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) is also common and vines are an
especially-prominent component of this community (Fussell, 1978). Common
vine species are: grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Rhus radicans),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), peppervine (Ampelopsis
arborea), and greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox and S. auriculata).

The shrub thicket is an important nesting, feeding and resting site for many
resident and migratory birds. Migrating birds are especially abundant in
September and October. Common winter inhabitants of the shrub thicket
include the yellow-rumped warbler (Demdroica coronata), cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Carolina wren (Thyrothorus ludovicianus), rufous-sided towhee
(Pipilo erythrophthalmus) gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), brown
thrasher, song sparrow (Melospiza meloida), yellow-throated warbler
(Dendroica dominica) and savannah sparrow (Fussell, 1978). After extreme
cold weather in late winter, American robin (Turdus migratorius) and cedar
waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) should be abundanl@_`based on Fussell's (1978)
observations at Bogue Banks. Cardinal, Carolina wren, and towhee are common
nesters as are gray catbird and brown thrasher which are more common in
winter. Boat-tailed and common grackles may nest in small colonies in the
shrub thicket. The painted bunting (Passerina ciris) and prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor) also nest here (Fussell, personal communication, May,
1981).

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are
common in the barrier island shrub thicket, as is the mars@'rabbit along the
shrub thicket-marsh border (Fussell, 1978). The most common reptile is the
Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis). The sixlined racerunner, eastern
glass lizard, black racer, rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are probably common based on observations by Fussell
(1978) at Bogue Banks.

Numerous man-made dredged material and natural islands occur in Topsail's
adjacent waters. These islands are predominately vegetated with shrub
thicket comprised primarily of wax myrtle and red cedar; live oak is less
common. Most of these sites are relatively isolated and reptiles are
probably scarce. Bird life is similar to that found in Topsail Island's
shrub thicket (Fussell, 1978).

In North Carolina, maritime forests are not abundant. On barrier islands
they are found on stabilized relict dunes or well-protected flats where they
are shielded from salt spray, sea water flooding and moving sand (Bellis and
Proffitt, 1976; Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976). The land area of North Carolina
occupied by maritime forest is probably smaller than that of any other
important coastal ecosystem. This forest type exists today in Duck Woods,
Nags Head Woods, Buxton Woods, Ocracoke Island, and parts of Core Banks,
Shackelford Banks, Bogue Banks, Bear Island, Topsail Island and Smith island.
Only a portion of Buxton Woods, Nags Head Woods and Bear Island are

protected through ownership by Federal, State or private conservation
agencies. The remaining maritime forests are privately owned and are
subject to increasing development pressure. The ecological s-ignificance of
the maritime forest is not well-documented and in the southeastern United
States, has been studied only superficially (Johnson, Hillstead, Shanholtzer
and Shanholtzer, 1974; Bellis and Proffitt, 1976). At current rates of
development and loss, most of North Carolina's maritime forest habitat will
be largely eliminated or functionally useless as a separate entity of the
barrier island environment before its ecological significance is understood
(Bellis and Proffitt, 1976).

Maritime forest soils are relict ocean sediments and contain few mineral
nutrients. Those nutrients which are available are highly mobile and prone
to loss from the system by leaching. Most of the mineral elements required
by the forest are derived from salt spray. Sodium, magnesium and chloride
ions are present in excess of concentrations required for normal plant
growth. Nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and potassium tend to be present in
minimal amounts and often are tied up in plant stems and leaves (Bellis and
Proffitt, 1976). After stem and leaf drop, the plant bound ions become
soluble, are leached rapidly and are lost from the forest system if not
absorbed by the root mat or retained in the forest floor humus. The root
zone thus acts as an ion filter in which scarce ions are absorbed and
recycled and excess ions are transmitted below the root zone. Nitrogen is
captured into the system from the atmosphere by nitrogen fixing bacteria
living within wax myrtle roots (Bellis and Proffitt, 1976).

Figures are not available on primary productivity of maritime forests.
Bellis and Proffitt (1976) state that the productivity appears to be low;
however, Godfrey and Godfrey (1976) state that in protected areas tree
growth is rapid. The long growing season, water and available nutrients
from salt spray are adequate to produce trees of 30 cm. DBH in 50 or 60
years (Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976).

The maritime forest and especially the seaward edge of the salt spray shear
zone have several adaptations to strong winds and salt spray. The apical
dominance of branches is curtailed since the terminal buds are destroyed
commonly by salt spray. This stimulates lateral buds and creates a dense
canopy of many short branches (Bellis and Proffitt, 1976). Such a canopy
provides an effective wind break and, although seemingly delicate, can
resist even hurricane winds.

The primary value of the maritime forest is its role in the stabilization of
the geologically unstable barrier island environment (Bellis and Proffitt,
1976). Other direct benefits include:

�accumulation and storage of freshwater;

�mineral ion retention; and

�production of soil by trapping blowing sand and deposition of
humus.

The dominant tree in the Topsail Island maritime forest is the live oak.
Other prominant species include laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), eastern red
cedar, yaupon, white poplar (Populus alba), iron wood (Carpinus
caroliniana), wild olive (Osmanthus americanus) and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) . Less common species present include dogwood (Cornus florida) and
hickory (Carya sp.). Maritime forests located close to the seaward edge of
the salt spray zone are almost always dominated by live oak and red cedar,
however, laurel oak and saplings of the above-mentioned species may be
collectively abundant. Although some vestige of maritime forest extends
almost the entire length of Topsail Island, the most conspicuous and well-
developed region extends from approximately the New River Fishing Pier west
to the former Dolphin Fishing Pier (Figure 2). In this zone the frontal
dune is high, and stable relict dunes exist. Trees in this area are
estimated to be 60 years in age indicating that this portion of the island
has been relatively stable for many years.

The maritime shrub thicket and the maritime forest usually coexist in close
proximity to one another. In most cases the shrub maritineforest is
surrounded by shrub thicket. Because of the floral similarities and similar
habitat value, the faunal composition of the maritime forest is similar to
that of the shrub thicket.

Regularly Flooded Saltmarsh

Regularly and irregularly flooded saltmarshes are noted for their high level
of primary productivity (Keefe, 1972; Turner, 1976). Saltmarsh productivity
is enhanced by tidal flux which circulates water throughout the marsh
bringing in nutrients and carrying away waste products (Odum and Fanning,
1973) . The interaction of fresh and saltwater in marshes tends to
precipitate nutrients from the freshwater (Bolster, 1976). Marsh plants,
bacteria, and algae have short life cycles and their nutrients are
frequently recycled and used by estuarine consumers (Teal and Teal, 1969).
In North Carolina the primary productivity of saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora) usually falls in the range of 329 to 1296 g dry wt/m2/yr while
black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) production lies between 560 and 1960 g
dry wt/m2/yr (Keefe, 1972). As the marsh plants die they begin to
disintegrate under the force of wind and tides. As they drop to the mud
surface, they are decomposed largely by microbial action. The high caloric
value, high protein content and microbial load of the detritus exported by
tides provide a food source of high nutritional value to consumers in the
estuarine food chains (de la Cruz, 1973). Because of less frequent
inundation, the irregularly flooded saltmarsh contributes its detritus to
the estuarine system in larger pulses than regularly flooded marsh.

Saltmarshes protect uplands from damage by estuarine f lood waters
(Silverhorn, Davies and Barnard, 1974). The marsh vegetation slows water
velocity and dissipates wave energy. This decrease in velocity reduces
sediment suspension and allows sediments to be deposited in the marsh.
These sediments are trapped by the dense roots and stems of the marsh
vegetation and may be eventually incorporated into marsh plant tissue.

,P-1-3

Saltmarsh cordgrass is the dominant vascular plant of the regularly flooded
saltmarsh. From New Topsail Inlet east to a point approximately 5.5 miles
from that inlet, the sound shoreline is extensively bulkheaded and supports
only isolated areas of marsh fringe approximately six-feet-wide or less.
Beyond this area, except where altered by man, large expanses of saltmarsh
cordgrass-dominated, regularly flooded saltmarsh and irregularly flooded
saltmarsh extend out to the dredged material islands which border the AIWW.
These wetlands are intersected by a labyrinth of tidal creeks and
straight-line mosquito control ditches.

Macroinvertebrate population size within the regularly flooded saltmarsh is
limited by environmental extremes in salinity, temperature, and exposure.
The fiddler crab, Uca pugnax, is the most ubiquitous macro invertebrate.
Another fiddler crab, Uca pugilator, oysters (Crassotrea virginica) and the
marsh periwinkle (Littorina irrorata) also are common.

Few vertebrate animals use the monotypic saltmarsh cordgrass community alone.
One notable exception is the clapper rail (Rallus longirastris). The
regularly flooded marsh in association with tidal creeks and mudflats
supports a much larger species assemblage and includes the diamondback
terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), banded and redbellied water snakes (Nerodia
(=Natrix) fasciata and N. erythrogaster), eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivoru;') -,raccoon -river otter (Lutra canadensis), and many species of
herons, egrets, ibises, ducks, and shorebirds. Seas*ide and sharp-tailed
sparrows (Smmospiza maritima, A. caudacuta) are most common where there is
adjacent high marsh (Fussell, 197iT).

Irregularly Flooded Saltmarsh

Black needlerush, saitgrass (Distichlis spicata) and saltmarsh hay (Spartina
patens) occupy major portions of the irregularly flooded saltmarsh zone on
Topsail Island. Adams (1963) lists "tide-elevation influences" as the
primary factor controlling marsh plant distribution. Various other
physical, chemical and biological influences affect vascular plant
distribution in the estuaries. These include salinity, substrate, acidity,
available nutrients, disruption, and plant competition. Although a
consistent vegetative distribution pattern was not observed in the high
marsh, we believe that a typical upland to water's edge vegetative transect
would most often reveal the following distribution pattern:

Juncus roemerianus-->Distichlis spicata/Spartina RLtens-->Spartina alterniflora

Where large areas of irregularly flooded saltmarsh exist, they are utilized
by several species of birds such as clapper rail, sharp-tailed sparrow
(winter only), seaside sparrow, and long-billed marsh wren (Cistothorus
palustris). The long-billed marsh wren is the most characteristic species
of the black needlrush marsh. Other birds use the irregularly flooded marsh
in conjunction with adjacent saltmarsh cordgrass marsh. They feed mainly in
the saltmarsh cordgrass but can retreat into the black needlerush during the
periods of high tide. Marsh rabbits inhabit the irregularly flooded marsh

as do marsh rice rats (Oryzomys palustris). The canebrake rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus) occurs along the marsh/upland interface.

Intertidal flats

Intertidal flats are an important component of the estuarine environment,
and although reliable data are unavailable for North Carolina, Petersen and
Petersen (1979) estimate that intertidal flats in North Carolina probably
produce close to 200 g carbon m2/yr. Algae produced on intertidal flats are
directly consumed by deposit feeding and suspension feeding invertebrates
(Petersen and Petersen, 1979). The flats enhance water column productivity
by increasing the euphotic zone and rapidly recycling mineral nutrients.
Intertidal flats concentrate organic detritus from saltmarshes and seagrass
beds and provide the substrate where this material is transformed into
animal biomass. Some of this animal biomass, such as oysters and hard
clams, is of direct commercial importance, while the biomass of other
benthic invertebrates is important to higher level consumers such as blue
crab, shrimp, shorebirds and larger bottom feeding fishes. Many shorebirds
are totally dependent upon the intertidal flats as feeding grounds.
Intertidal flats are the initial habitat for many postlarval and juvenile
fishes and crustaceans since they provide protective shallow habitat and
abundant food.

Submerged Estuarine Bottom

Submerged bottoms in' the adjacent estuarine waters of Topsail Island may be
separated into five fairly distinct ecosystems. These are: coarse sand
bottoms, sand/silt bottoms, silt bottoms, bottoms which support submerged
aquatic vegetation and bottoms which support oyster reefs. Other benthic
ecosystems, such as those covered by shell and riprap also may occur but are
relatively uncommon and comprise only a small portion of the total area of
submerged bottom.

From a habitat value perspective, the silt and sand/silt bottoms, the oyster
reefs and the submerged aquatic habitats are most productive. Coarse sand
bottoms are usually located in the area of inlets. Bottom scour caused by
high current velocities limit faunal occurrence in these locations to a few
opportunistic or specialized species which can endure a rigorous physical
environment (Boesch and Rackley, 1974). With exception of isolated
populations of benthic infauna which may be of scientific interest, these
areas are most important as pathways for finfish shellfish migrations and as
locations where tidal flushing, navigation, and fishery resource harvest
occur.

The ecological significance and productiveness of oyster reefs, beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation and sald/silt estuarine bottoms is well
recognized and documented (Bahr and Lanier, 1981; Thayer and Kenworthy,
1985; Peterson and Peterson, 1978). These areas are generally recognized as
the subaquatic sites in estuaries where faunal diversity and population size
are greatest and where relative habitat value associated with estuarine
feeding, cover, and rearing are greatest. A partial list epibenthic and

J@ /5-

benthic fauna from eelgrass (Zostera marina) of the east coast of North
America prepared by Thayer (1984) contains 74 species. Macrofauna found in
Georgia oyster reefs by Bahr et al. (1981) includes 42 species.

The distribution of oyster reefs, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation and
producive silt/sand bottoms in the project area is rather broad with
exception of submerged aquatic vegetation, which is limited to a small site
in Topsail Sound and a larger area in the lower New River outside of the
project area. Evidence of the wide distribution of oyster reefs in
estuarine waters adjacent to Topsail Island is presented in the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) oyster lease maps (Appendix
A).

Fishery Resources of Adjacent Estuarine and Ocean Waters

There are no published studies on the occurrence or abundance of fishery
resources in the vicinity of Topsail Island. The area has been periodically
sampled by the NCDMF: however, their data have not been published or
extensively analyzed. It is apparent from the NCDMF studies that the creeks
and sounds landward of Topsail Island are extremely productive nursery
grounds for several fish species and are utilized by commercial and
recreational fishermen (Rich Carpenter, NCDMF, personel communication,
April, 1981). These areas support species of commercial and recreational
importance, such as spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), sea
trout (Cynoscion hebulosus, Cynoscion regalis) and blue Tli-sh(Pomatomus
.saltatrix). In addition, shrimp (Penacus aztecus, P. setiferus) blue crab
.Callinectes sapidus, hard clam (Merceneria merceneria) and bay scallop
(Argopecten irradians) are harvested in the area.

A small but significant bay scallop fishery exists in the vicinity of
Chadwick Bay, and in the lower New River where submerged aquatic vegetation
exists. Bay scallops also are found and harvested in association with
submerged aquatic vegetation on the northwest end of Topsail Sound. During
the Janu.ary through February harvest period of 1981, a total of
approximately 5,450 bushels of scallops were harvested from those areas and
a small site located near Bear Inlet (Rich Carpenter, NCDMF, personal
communication, April, 1981).

The hard clam is common in most tidal creeks, sounds and the AIWW in the
vicinity of Topsail Island. Hard clams are harvested year round and are
principally taken by hand rake except in the AIWW where hydraulic dredges
are used. Catch data for the entire project area are not available. In
1985, 11,148 pounds of hard clam meat, with a dockside value of $39,438 were
taken from Stump Sound. Topsail Sound produced 18,430 pounds of hard clam
meat valued at $63,000 during the same period (NCDMF, 1985).

Oysters are abundant in estuarine waters behind Topsail Island. Oysters are
taken from about October 1 through March 1 depending on harvest dates
established by the NCDMF. The oyster population is primarily intertidal
from New Topsail Inlet east to about Surf City. From Surf City east, the

opopulation is largely subtidal except in the vicinity of New River Inlet
where it is intertidal. Although both intertidal and subtidal oysters are
harvested commercially and for recreation, the intertidal oysters are the
principal recreational species-. In 1985, approximately 7,182 pounds of
oyster meat valued at $13,712 were taken by commercial fishermen in Topsail
Sound. During that same period 10,906 pounds value at $23,432 were
commercially harvested in Stump Sound (NCDMF, 1985).

The North Carolina shrimp harvest is based entirely on brown shrimp (Penaeus
aztecus), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) and white shrimp (Penaeus
setiferus). Traditionally, the brown shrimp dominates the North Carolina
commercial catch (66 percent) and is followed by the pink shrimp (24
percent) and the white shrimp (9 percent), respectively (Dennis Spitsbergen,
NCDMF, personal communication, April, 1981). Although sounds and inlets in
the project area are utilized by all three species, only the pink shrimp and
brown shrimp occur in large numbers. Pink shrimp prefer higher salinities
and sandier substrates than either the brown or white shrimp, and are more
common in Topsail Sound and the AIWW since sandy bottoms and higher
salinities are prevalent there.

Most of the sounds and creeks which border Topsail Island are designated by
the NCDMF as primary nursery grounds for shrimp. Shrimping in these areas
is prohibited to prevent taking undersized shrimp and to to protect bottom
habitat. Exceptions include Banks Channel, Virginia Creek, Stump Sound and
Old Topsail Creek, which are secondary nursery grounds and open to shrimp
harvest. In 1985, 31,225 pounds of shrimp valued at $82,510 were harvested
from Stump and Topsail Sounds (NCDMF, 1985). Shrimp harvest seasons are
governed by shrimp population size, and most commercial harvesting occurs in
late June and September. Pink shrimp are harvested in November if the
population size is adequate to support this harvest.

Blue crab are taken by part-time commercial crabbers and by recreational
fishermen in practically all adjacent estuarine waters. Only one commercial
crab-shedding operation exists in the area. NCDMF catch data for 1985 show
that 27,479 pounds of blue crab with a dockside value of $5,000 were taken
from Topsail and Stump Sounds.

Commercial and recreational fishing for finfish is important. Spot, summer
flounder, Atlantic croaker, bluefish, striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) gray
seatrout and whiting (Mentichirrhus spp.) are the principal species taken.
NCDMF catch data for these and other species in 1985 are presented in Table
1. The total commercial catch for the aforementioned species of finfish for
1985 was 106,510 pounds with a dockside value of $41,491 (NCDMF, 1985).

In addition to being a site of direct harvest, project area estuarine waters
provide important nursery ground habitat for many species of finfish and
invertebrates which are of known ecological and/or economic significance. A
list of those species, as taken in 1981 early spring samples by the NCDMF,
is provided in Table 2.

-17

Table 1. Commercial landings for selected finfish species in 1985 from
Stump and Topsail Sounds, North Carolina.*

STUMP SOUND

Species Pounds Value

Croaker 3,701 1,457
Flounders, Fluke, Unclassified 10,084 8,209
Mullets 6,416 1,229
Sea Trout, Grey 6,463 2,168
Spot 8,023 1,981
Miscellaneous Finfish 12,703 3,271

TOPSAIL SOUND

Species Pounds Value

Bluefish 6,431 922
Croaker 6,541 2,769
Drum, Red 2,292 673
Flounders, Fluke, Unclassified 10,862 8,798
King Whiting 4,218 1,629
Mullets 7,942 1,591
Pigfish 1,625 302
Sea Trout, Grey 9,449 3,218
Sea Trout, Spotted 1,481 1,193
Spot 8,102 2,033
Miscellaneous Finfish 177 48

*Data source: N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, 1985 catch statistics.

Table 2. Juvenile fishes and invertebrates taken in the vicinity of Topsail
Island, North Carolina in early spring, 1981.*

Croaker (Micropogon undulatus)
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Flounder (Summer) (Paralichthys dentatus)
Flounder (Southern) (Paralichthys lethostigma)
Flounder (Ocellated) (Ancylo setta quadrocellata)
Flounder (Windowpane) (Scophthalmus aquosus)
Flounder (Fringed) (Etropus crossotus)
Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides)
Striped mullet (MuRil cephalus)
Oyster toadfish (Nian-us-tau)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Striped cusk eel (Rissola marginata)
Rock sea bass (Centropristis philadelphica)
Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus)
Atlantic spadefish (ChaJ-odipterus faber)
Inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens)
Pigfish (Orthopristis chryoptera)
Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysura)
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda)
Gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis)
Blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plagiusa)
Naked goby (Gobiosoma bosci)
Ladyfish (Elops saurus)
Chain pipefish (Syngnathus louisianae)
Spotted hake (Urophycis regius)
Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)
Hogchoker (Trinec tes meculatus)
Striped searobin (Prinotus evolans)
Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus)
Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum)
White shrimp (Penaeus setiferus)
Grass shrimp (Palemonetes spp.) (3 species)
Mantis shrimp (Squilla sp.)
Mud crab (Neopanopde texana sayi)

*Based on 1981 NCDMF data, obtained by a 0.25 inch mesh size trawl; 5 min.
tow. Rich Carpenter, NCDMF, personal communication, April, 1981.

The nearshore ocean from the surf zone to several kilometers offshore also
serves as habitat for fishery resources that are utilized by both the
private and commercial sectors. The nearshore fishery, both commercial and
recreational, is largely dependent on summer flounder, sea trout, Atlantic
croaker, mullet, bluefish, spot, shrimp, whiting and Florida pompano
(Trachinotus carolinus). While no studies exist concerning the occurrence
of these species in Topsail Island nearshore waters, studies of surf zone
fishes on barrier islands in South Carolina (Cupka, 1972;- Anderson, Dias,
Dias, Cupka and Chamberliain, 1977) and Georgia (Miller and Jorgensen, 1969;
Dahlberg, 1972) found that the above species are abundant during certain
seasons of the year. Commercial haul seiners, sink netters and trawlers
presently utilize nearshore waters or have utilized them in the past (Rich
Carpenter, NCDMF, personal communication, May, 15, 1981). While no recent
data are available on the utilization of Topsail Island by haul seine
fisheries, that fishery is dependent upon the seasonal presence of large
schools of mullet and spot and is probably similar to South Carolina's
fishery which is conducted primarily from September through December
(Sandifer, Miglarese, Calder, Manzi and Barclay, 1980).

Seven commercial fishing piers extend into the nearshore ocean and sound
waters of Topsail Island (Figure 2). A survey of the ocean pier fishery
along the northern coast of South Carolina (Hammond and Cupka, 1977), whose
results are probably applicable to the Topsail Island pier fishery, found
that the majority of the catch was composed of fishes in the Scianid family
which includes spot, Atlantic croaker, kingfishes (whiting), seatrout and
silver perch. Smaller catch percentages of jack, bluefish, and sea catfish,
also were recorded. The fishery was highly seasonal with 61 percent of the
catch occuring in April, July and October.

NATIONAL RESOURCE SPECIES

Species which the Service regards as National Resource Species, due to their
high biological and or public interest (Federal Register 48 (237), December
6, 1983 inhabit portions of the study area. These species and their
habitats are as follows:

Species Location

American woodcock (Scolopax minor) Feeds in damp woods
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Feeds in coastal waters, nests in
dead pine trees at West Onslow
Beach
Clapper rail (Rallus longirostris) Feeds and nests in coastal wetlands
Least tern (Sterna albifrons)* Feeds in coastal waters. Observed
nesting in vicinity of New River
Inlet and New Topsail Inlet
Seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) Feeds and nests in coastal wetlands
Canvasback (Avthva valisineria) Feeds in coastal waters
Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Feeds in coastal wetlands and
waters
Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) Feeds and nests near forests and
old fields
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Feeds in coastal wetlands and
waters
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Common except on beach
Pintail (Anas acuta) Feeds in coastal wetlands and
waters
Black duck (Anas rubripes) Feeds and nests in coastal wetlands

*Additional information on the least tern is provided on page 28.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Federally threatened loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) has been
documented to nest on beaches in and adjacent to th@ -West Onslow Beach and
New River Inlet Study Area.

In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service has responsibility for
marine species and should be contacted regarding endangered and threatened
marine species that may be present in the area affected by the action.

Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
requires Federal agencies or designated non-Federal representatives
proposing a major Federal action to conduct and submit to the Service a
biological assessment to determine the effects of the proposal on listed and
proposed endangered and threatened species. The biological assessment shall
be completed within 180 days after the date on which initiated or within a
time frame mutually agreed upon between the agency and the Service and
before initiating the proposed action. If the biological assessment is not
begun within 90 days, this list must be verified informally (via phone) with
the Service prior to initiation of your assessment. The Service does not
feel that we can adequately assess the effects of the proposed action on
listed and proposed endangered and threatened species or critical habitat
without a complete assessment. When conducting a biological assessment, the
Service recommends that the Federal agency or the designated non-Federal
representative:

1. Conduct a scientifically sound on-site inspection of the area affected
by the action, which must, unless otherwise directed by the Service,
include a detailed survey of the area to determine if listed or proposed
species are present or occur seasonally and whether suitable habitat
exists within the area for either expanding the existing population or
potential reintroduction of populations;

2. Interview recognized experts on the species at issue, including those
within the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, State conservation agencies, universities, and others who may
have data not yet found in scientific literature;

3. Review literature and other scientific data to determine the species'
distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements;

4. Review and analyze the effects of the action on the species, in terms of
individuals and populations, including consideration of the cumulative
effects of the action on the species and habitat;

5. Analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures;

6. Conduct any studies necessary to fulfill the requirements of (1) through
(5) above;

7. Review any other relevant information.

2-'2-

Should you require additional information on this subject, please contact
Mr. John Fridell or Ms. Nora Murdock in the Asheville Endangered Species
Field Office, FTS 672-0321, commercial 704/259-0321.

A f t e r the - as s e s sment has been completed and reviewed , it is the
responsibility of the Federal agency to determine if the proposed action
"may affect" any of the listed species or critical habitats or if it is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat proposed
for such species. If the determination is "may adversely affect" for listed
species the Federal agency must request in writing formal consultation from
the Asheville Endangered Species Field Office. Requests for formal
consultation must include: (1) a description of the action to be
considered; (2) a description of the specific area that may be affected by
the action; (3) a description of any listed species or critical habitat that
may be affected by the action; (4) a description of the manner in which the
action may affect any listed species or critical habitat and an assessment
of any cumulative effects; (5) reports including any environmental impact
statement, environmental assessment, or biological assessments prepared; and
(6) any other relevant available information on the action, the affected
listed species, or critical habitat.

In addition, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of proposed endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, the
Federal agency must confer with the Asheville office for assistance in
identifying and resolving potential conflicts at an early stage in the
planning process.

If this proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, the requirements of Section
7(c); i.e., species list, biological assessment, do not apply. However, the
requirements are still applicable to (1) determine if the proposed action
"may adversely affect' listed species or critical habitats, (2) determine if
the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat, (3) request formal consultation for "may affect"
actions, and (4) confer with the Asheville office if the proposed action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.

Attention is also directed to Section 7(d) of the Act, which underscores the
requirement that the Federal agency and/or the permit or license applicant
shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources
during the consultation period which, in effect, would deny the formulation
or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives regarding their
actions on any listed endangered or threatened species.

@9 -13

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

I. Dredge Maintained Ocean Bar and Interior Channel at New River Inlet

Although a selected plan of action has not been developed at this time, the
continued maintenance and possible expansion of project dimensions at the
New River Inlet ocean bar and interior channel is anticipated. The ocean
bar extends from the ocean gorge to the shallow waters of the inlet. The
interior channel extends from the ocean bar to the AIWW. The following
dimensions are under study:

Ocean Bar Interior Channel
Depth (MLW) Width Depth (MOW) Width
6 feet 150 feet 6 feet 90 feet
8 feet 150 feet 7 feet 90 feet
10 feet 150 feet 8 feet 90 feet
12 feet 150 feet 10 feet 90 feet
14 feet 150 feet 11 feet 90 feet

Dredging of the ocean bar will be by hopper dredge with disposal in the
nearshore zone along West Onslow Beach or by sidecasting with disposal in
the inlet. Materials to be excavated consist primarily of coarse sand and
shell fragments. Similar materials will be removed from the interior
channel and disposal will take place on existing driedge material disposal
islands located on either side of the inlet channel. Dredging will occur on
an annual basis. Volumes of excavated materials have not been specified at
this stage of planning.

II. Stabilization of New River Inlet with Dual Jetties

Preliminary drawings and other information call for the construction of two
rubble-mound jetties approximately 2,200 and 4,200 feet in length, located
along the inlet's western and eastern shores, respectively. The western
jetty will be situated perpendicular to the shoreline and parallels the
western shore of the inlet. A 1,600-foot-wide section adjoins that jetty
along its western edge and forms a deposition basin from which a dredge can
safely operate while performing maintenance sand bypassing. During sand
bypassing, the dredge will enter the deposition basin through an opening in
the west jetty. Dredged materials will then be pumped by pipeline, across
and beneath the inlet to Onslow Beach where it will be deposited along the
beach zone. Approximately 120,000 cubic yards of accreted sands will be
bypassed annually in this direction. No east to west bypassing
(backpassing) is anticipated. The east jetty generally parallels the ocean
shoreline across the inlet for approximately 2,200 feet before turning
seaward and paralleling the west jetty. Spacing between the jetties will be
approximately 1,500 feet. In conjunction with this alternative, the
existing navigation channel will be expanded from 90-feet in width to
300-feet and will be increased in depth from 6-feet to 12-feet.

III. Beach Erosion Protection at Topsail Beach

This alternative provides beach nourishment at Topsail Beach and the
placement of excavated materials along the westernmost end of Topsail Island.
Approximately 17,500 linear feet of beach extending from New Topsail Inlet
to the east will be affected, with the westernmost 10,250 feet consisting of
full project dimensions and the remaining 7,250 feet consisting of a
transition section. Projects under consideration include 100-foot-wide bern
at +7 msl, and a 200-foot-wide berm at +7 msl. A terminal groin is to be
located just to the west of the last finger canal at Topsail Beach.
Material for the bern will be obtained from Topsail Sound (Banks Channel)
and will be excavated and redeposited by hydraulic pipeline dredge.
Reshaping of the dredged materials by a crawler-type tractor is anticipated.
The terminal groin structure will be constructed of granite rubble. The
width, length and elevation of the groin are undetermined at this time. A
map showing the location of the borrow area is shown in Figure 3.

IV. Combined Hurricane Wave and Beach Erosion Protection

This alternative involves the same area and work as identified in the beach
erosion alternative . In addition, a 13-foot msi dune, a 15-foot msl dune
and a 20-foot msl dune are being considered. The borrow source for this
alternative is the western end of Topsail Sound (Banks Channel) (Figure 3).

PROJECT IMPACTS

It is necessary to distinguish between environmental change which is
anticipated without the project and that which is expected with each of the
various alternatives. To accomplish this, a discussion of future conditions
without the project is presented, followed by a discussion of future
conditions with each alternative.

Future Environmental Conditions Without the Project.

Natural plant communities, fish, wildlife and water quality in and around
Topsail Island are expected to decline significantly in future years.
Current development trends in the Onslow County portion of Topsail Island
are such that near maximum density residential development is expected in
all non-wetland areas. Somewhat similar conditions are anticipated in the
Pender County portion of the island with regard to development of
non-wetland areas. In Pender County however, the lack of large tracts of
land owned by a single individual or company limits the number of
opportunities available for multifamily developments. In addition, more
prudent development, such as that found at the Channel Bend Development, is
occurring. Channel Bend is a low density, single family unit residential
development which retains a significant portion of the local maritime forest
community and its aesthetic appeal. Even though wildlife values in these
areas are greatly diminished in comparison with natural unaltered maritime
forest ecosystems, they are much greater than the near zero value associated
with the high density, multif amily- type development which is occurring at
West Onslow Beach.

2 3 -

Fioure 3. Approximate limits of norrow site for Alternatives III and IV.
WEI' 491

arm
Ael

f
-OW

. . ........

Conversion of grassland, maritime shrub thicket and maritime forest to
residential and commercial use is proceeding at a rapid rate islandwide.
Based on present trends, it is reasonable to assume that most of the
non-wetland portion of Topsail Island will either be developed or designated
for development within the next ten years. Consequently, the Service
believes that suitable upland habitat for wildlife feeding, nesting and
cover will be restricted eventually to a narrow fringe of wetland/upland
transition where development related disturbance is not a limiting factor.
A few wildlife species will benefit from the anticipated development of the
island. These include the house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) and possibly the raccoon. Beach inhabitants such as the ghost
crab and nesting loggerhead sea turtles will probably decline in numbers as
a result of human encroachment and disturbance. The quality of the island's
natural aesthetics will be significantly reduced by the removal of natural
vegetation and the obstruction of ocean and marsh views by buildings.
Future opportunities for public use of beaches and other natural habitat for
sightseeing, bird watching, nature study and recreational fishing will be
restricted to those who can afford ocean and sound real estate and to those
who can gain beach access via public access points provided by the local
municipalities and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
There are currently 90 public access points on Topsail Island, but
designated parking spaces are limited to 359.

The future quality of fishery resources in the vicinity of Topsail Island is
largely dependent upon management practices employed by State agencies such
as the NCDMF, the amount of fishing pressure upon the resources and the
effect of upland development. If management decisions regulating catch
size, season, or size limits are not periodically reevaluated and updated,
fishery resources can be expected to decline as coastal use increases.
Fishing pressure on certain stocks ultimately may increase to the point
where non- reproductive age classes comprise the bulk of a particular species
population. This could result in the elimination of certain commercial
fisheries. Nearshore fishery resources may also be potentially affected by
periodic events, such as oil spills, particularly with increases in shipping
traffic offshore.

If water quality continues to decline as a consequence of high density
development, the utility of estuarine nursery habitats to juvenile fishes
and shellfish will decline. Groundwater pollution from septic systems,
already at high levels on portions of Topsail in the vicinity of Surf City,
can be expected to increase as development proceeds, contributing to further
contamination of estuarine areas and potential closure of more estuarine
shellfish areas. Presently, there are no sewage treatment facilities on
Topsail Island with exception of the high density development area at West
Onslow Beach. Sewage treatment in that area is provided by private
interests and has been cited recently by the State for non-compliance with
discharge regulations. The town of Topsail Beach, Surf City and Onslow
County are participating in the 201 Facilities Plan which proposes the
construction of a combination gravity/ pressure collection system with a
series of pumping stations and forcemain. The immediate benefit of a

p - -2-7

regional sewage treatment facility to ground water and estuarine water
quality should be significant. Over the long term, however, it is probable
that the treatment facilities will facilitate development and increase
residential and commercial building density.

In addition to the potential loss of upland habitats and water quality
degredation, increased development will place greater pressure on adjacent
wetland habitats with regard to their excavation and filling for water
access and other amenities. The cumulative effect of channel excavation,
disturbance by increased recreational boating and wetland shading by piers
and docks, may cause a significant loss of biological productivity, though
unquantifiable. For example, in a slightly turbid estuary, dredging may
easily exclude benthic communities from the euphotic zone and create zones
where circulation is reduced and pollutants are concentrated causing large
areas to become anoxic and devoid of beneficial plants and organisms.

More pressure also may be brought to bear upon Topsail Island resources if
intense development in nearby communities such as Wilmington, Wrightsville
Beach and Hampstead continues. Intense development in those areas could
insure that, as more users seek areas with aesthetic and recreational
qualities, Topsail will eventually evolve into an area which lacks many of
the qualities which made it desirable initially.

Future Environmental Conditions With Each Alternative

I. Dredge Maintained Ocean Bar and Interior Channel at New River Inlet

The environmental consequences associated with the dredging of North
Carolina's inlets are relatively minor when performed as .-@utine maintenance
using sidecast and/or hopper dredges. Unstable inlet bottoms usually do not
provide suitable habitat'for complex and abundant assemblages of
macrobenthic flora and fauna (Boesch and Rackley, 1974). Since these
bottoms are usually comprised of coarse materials, such as sand and shell
fragments, dredge-related turbidities are almost always of minor,
short-lived consequence to fishery resources. Further inside the inlet
where stable substrates occur, highly diverse and productive benthic
communities may exist. For example, stable shell bottoms, tidal flats, and
undisturbed channels which were studied in the vicinity of Masonboro Inlet
in association with the Wrightsville Beach Corps Project displayed features
such as high species diversity, the occurrence of uncommon species and high
concentrations of certain opportunistic species which have narrow habitat
requirements (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979).

Based on the relative paucity of non-motile bottom dwelling organisms within
the inlet, the Service anticipates no significant loss of fishery or
wildlife resources in association with either continued or expanded
excavation at New River Inlet provided the material is disposed of in an
appropriate upland site. Similarly, nearshore disposal by hopper dredge and
open water disposal in the inlet by side-cast dredge should have only
minimal adverse effects which are of short-term consequence. The adverse
impacts include brief periods of minor turbidity increases and minor losses

associated with sessile and slow-moving animals which are unable to avoid
excavation and disposal activities.

The disposal of dredged materials inside the inlet could have a significant
adverse effect if existing dredge material islands are expanded onto stable
bottoms which may support diverse and productive benthic communities or if
additional disposal sites are needed within the estuary. The deposition of
additional dredged materials on existing disposal islands without further
encroachment into the estuary or associated wetlands should have no
significant adverse effect since the islands are not utilized by colonial
nesting waterbirds. Minor wildlife habitat losses will occur since portions
of the islands are vegetated with shrubs and grasses which support raccoon,
marsh rabbit, and other species. Utilization of the vegetated portions of
the islands by migratory passerine birds also may be eliminated; however,
this impact should be lessened by the availability of similar habitat on
Onslow Beach. Further, this impact should be limited in nature since the
disposal sites have a finite period for which they can be used for dredged
material disposal. At the end of that period they are expected to succeed
vegetatively to grassland and maritime shrub thicket.

Based on the Service's October 6, 1982 inspection of the dredge material
islands located at Camp LeJeune on the eastern side of New River Inlet, we
found no opportunity for wildlife enhancement in association with local
dredged material disposal. The close proximity of the' islands to wetlands
and major land forms provide easy access for raccoon and other small mammals
that prey on colonial nesting waterbirds--a species that can frequently
benefit from selected dredge material disposal.

Long-term, major adverse impacts could occur if open water disposal on
stable estuarine bottoms were to take place once the existing upland
disposal sites are filled to capacity. This action is not presently within
the realm of feasibility since existing State law and other State and
Federal environmental guidelines and regulations prohibit such action. The
most probable solution to long-term disposal needs in areas such as New
River Inlet is beach front disposal. The effect of this disposal is
addressed in our discussion of the Beach Erosion Protection alternative.

II. Stabilization of New River Inlet with Dual Jetties

Anticipated impacts to fishery resources caused by channel maintenance and
jetty construction per se should not be significant since submerged bottoms
upon which these activities will occur are highly dynamic and generally do
not support large, complex or economically important benthic communities.
Channel maintenance and jetty construction will eliminate bottom dwelling
amphipods, polychaete worms, and other invertebrate species which inhabit
the rigorous inlet environment. With channel excavation and maintenance,
changes in the benthic community will be similar to those experienced under
the existing maintenance scheme which involves the complete removal of all
species not capable of escaping the dredge, followed by recolonization by
species from surrounding bottoms. Jetty construction will convert shifting
sand bottoms to solid substrates which are expected to be colonized by a

more diverse and productive species assemblage comprised of such organisms
as barnacles, hydrozoans, algae, mollusks, crustaceans and others. The
jetties and their associated biota should attract nearshore fishes which
will utilize the jetties as a forage site. In addition to the normal
nearshore sandy bottom icthyofauna, such species as black seabass
(Centropristis striata), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), sheepshead
(Archosargus probatocephalus), Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber),
gray tiggerfish (Balistes capriscus), planehead filefish (Monacanthus
hispidus) and others should be attracted to the jetties.

Recreational fishing opportunities may be enhanced with the jetties provided
adequate public access, including fisherman walkways and parking, is made
available and sand bypassing activities do not significantly reduce
recreational surf fishing at West Onslow Beach. Enhancement will take the
form o f: 1) increased boater use which coincides with an increase in
protected open coastal waters provided by the jetties; and, 2) increased
opportunity to take locally uncommon fish species which are attracted to the
jetties. Without adequate public access, jetties could reduce sport fishing
opportunities by further restricting public access to beachfront lands
occupied by the jetties, the associated deposition basin and the sand bypass
zones.

Beach maintenance operations associated with the jetties could have a major
adverse environmental impact. In addition to beach closure and the loss of
fisherman access, sand bypass operations may cause disruption of the
nearshore aquatic and beach environments. Species which would be
principally impacted include the mole crab, coquina clam and possibly the
ghost crab. Species inhabiting both accreted materials which must be
bypassed, and the feeder beaches on which the material will be placed will
be most significantly affected. Large scale mortality of these species
could occur unless sand bypassing is performed during the time of year when
biological activity is low, typically between December 1 and February 28 of
any year. Secondary impacts on other species, such as birds and fishes,
also may occur since many of those species rely almost entirely on the mole
crab as a food source. Fishes such as Florida pompano, spot, gray trout and
whiting, which forage extensively in the surf, could be significantly
impacted as could other common surf species such as the anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli), killifish (Fundulus maialis) and Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia).

The jetties may adversely affect larval fish and shellfish recruitment in
adjacent estuarine waters. Since the larvae of many finfish and shellfish
species must leave the ocean environment and enter coastal estuaries for
growth and development, any alteration of inlet hydrology could affect their
estuarine recruitment. A literature review of larval fish and shellfish
movement through Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, including potential effects
of inlet stabilization by jetties, indicates that summer flounder, spot,
gray sea trout, penaid shrimp (three species), and blue crab could be
affected by jetty construction at Oregon Inlet (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1980). Since these same species occur at New River Inlet, jetty
construction at that site could impact their larval recruitment.

High density development at the eastern end of Topsail Island has
significantly reduced the wildlife habitat value of that area. Based on the
rate and density of existing and ongoing development, it is not likely that
jetty construction will affect the number of structures built in the
vicinity of the jetties since it is expected that most developable lands at
the east end of Topsail Island will be developed prior to completion of the
jetties . One possible exception is the immediate western edge of the inlet
which, if stabilized, could provide access to existing dredged material
disposal islands located along that shoreline. However, based on present
developmental rates and other considerations, we no longer regard
jetty-induced secondary development to be a potential problem as identified
in our April 7, 1983 Planning Aid Report.

The least tern is known to nest on barrier beaches and dredge islands.
Portions of Topsail Island and surrounding areas including Alligator Bay,
Sloop Point and Topsail Beach have in the past been important nesting sites
for the least tern as well as several heron species (Parnell and Soots,
1979). Currently, least tern nesting is severly limited by a lack of
suitable habitat which is free of predators and human interference. Recent
field investigations performed by Service and Corps of Engineers biologists
indicate that dredge spoil islands in the vicinity of New River Inlet are
both accessible to predators and, for the most part, densely vegetated with
undesirable ground cover for least tern nesting. Residential development,
disturbance by humans, and predation severely limit or preclude least tern
nesting at West Onslow Beach. On U.S. Marine Corps lands at Onslow Beach,
nesting was reported in 1983 (Charles Peterson 'U.S. Marine Corps, personal
communication), but the size and success of the colony is not known.
Overall use of that beach, as a nesting site, is limited due to human
disturbance and predation. With the jetties, nesting may be disrupted
during construction, maintenance and during sand bypassing. Since the least
tern nesting season generally coincides with sea turtle nesting, impacts to
both species could be reduced by restricting construction and maintenance
activities to the winter months.

The most significant known impact of ocean inlet jetties is their potential
to disrupt the littoral movement of sand resulting in the erosion of
downdrift beaches and increased barrier island overwash. Lacking adequate
and timely sand bypassing, the effects of accelerated erosion and overwash
could eliminate sea turtle nesting sites and possibly render the beach
unsuitable for sportfishing and other recreational uses. In the event that
erosion were to threaten dwellings and other property, the beach would
possibly be subjected to further disruption by man's efforts to stabilize
the shoreline through use of heavy equipment, sandbags, or other means of
shoreline stabilization such as groin construction. In a severe situation,
adjacent estuarine bottoms could be dredged in order to obtain needed fill
material.

The degree of impact caused by accelerated barrier island overwash would
largely depend upon its location and magnitude. Along heavily developed
areas, impacts would be limited principally to beaches, dunes and manmade

structures. In undeveloped areas, island overwash could affect beach, dune,
shrub thicket, maritime forest and coastal wetland habitats. In the case of
normal seasonal overwash, impacts are usually considered temporary and of
limited adverse environmental consequence except in those situations where
sea turtle nest losses are significant. Infrequent elimination of birds,
small mammals and reptiles from isolated portions of the barrier island
should cause no long-term adverse impact. Any extended increase in beach
and dune overwash could effectively eliminate barrier island plant and
animal communities along the affected shoreline, causing a significant
reduction in the island's wildlife population.

A significant maritime forest extends east from the intersection of S.R.
1568 and State Highway 210 for a distance of approximately 2.5 miles.
Beyond this point the maritime forest is fragmented due to development, and
is imminently threatened by on-going and anticipated development. Based on
current development trends, it is expected that most maritime forest within
the impact zone of the jetty alternative will have been eliminated prior to
completion of the jetties. However, in the event that barrier island
overwash occurs in the vicinity of maritime forest habitat, those animals
which could not excape or survive the flood would be lost. This could
include such species as the northern black racer, copperhead (Agkistrodon
constortrix constortrix) and small mammals such as the least shrew
(Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), rice rat and the
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinusT. Impacts to the maritime shrub thicket
fauna would be similar since that community generally supports similar
ground dwelling fauna. The long-term effect of maritime forest and shrub
thicket overwash is not certain due to the infrequent occurrence of this
event.

Island overwash involving coastal wetlands could be significant since such
overwash generally results in sand deposition on the marsh surface. In
those areas where materials deposited by overwash are above the plane of
most seasonal or irregular flooding, established high marsh wetlands may be
converted to upland. These areas may then be further altered by man,
through development, or they may become naturally vegetated by such species
as salt myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and
southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).

Deposition of overwash materials on regularly flooded wetlands would have an
effect similar to that found on the irregularly flooded marsh. In addition
to conversion to upland habitat, the regularly flood marsh may be converted
to irregularly flooded marsh. In this later case, saltmarsh cordgrass
wetlands would be converted to black needlerush, saltgrass and/or saltmeadow
cordgrass dominated wetlands.

III. Beach Erosion Protection at Topsail Beach

With certain precautions, project area fishery resources are expected to
undergo little long-term alteration as a result of this alternative. In the
immediate vicinity of the borrow site, existing shallow water habitat will
be converted to deep water habitat, and resident fauna within the borrow

site will be lost. Species composition within the borrow site is not known
but is largely controlled by sediments, currents, disturbance, oxygen
availability and other physical and chemical characteristics. Limited
sample data from the overall borrow area indicate that a small number (both
species and population) of polychaete and oligochaete bottom-dwelling worms
inhabit the area. Periodic maintenance excavation will preclude the
establishment of an enduring stable bottom community, however, such
communities are not expected to occur in the project. area with or without
the project due to the lack of suitable substrate for colonization by most
benthic fauna. Minor turbidity and siltation may occur during the
excavation process. This can result in localized short-term adverse impacts
such as gill erosion in fish and pseudo-feeding in invertebrate filter
feeding organisms, such as shellfish and certain polychaete worms.

The excavation of stable tidal flats and estuarine bottoms could result in
significant fishery resource losses. As described in Peterson and Peterson
(1974) these habitats, when stable, are frequently colonized by large and
diverse populations of invertebrate worms, mollusks and crustaceans.
Inhabitants such as the hard clam and blue crab are of direct commercial
importance while other species are of indirect economic importance as
components of the estuarine food chain. These species are ultimately fed
upon by such species as spot, Atlantic croaker, gray and spotted seatrout,
and summer flounder. Fishery resources located in the vicinity of the beach
nourishment site will be subjected to burial and increased turbidity levels.
The magnitude of impact resulting from the proposed work will depend on
several parameters including quantity and quality of the dredged material,
frequency of disposal, areal extent of the disposal and the time of year
that disposal occurs.

Generally, beach disposal can adversely affect benthic communities and
higher trophic level organisms that use these communities. Direct
mortalities occur from burial; changes in sediment characteristics may
prohibit reestablishment of certain species or populations; and turbidity
may destroy adjacent animal populations. only one quantitative study on the
effects of beach disposal is applicable to the site in question. In this
study, Reilly and Bellis (1978) sampled two beaches in North Carolina, one
of which was nourished from December 1977 until June 1978 (with several
interruptions) and one of which received no nourishment and served as a
control. Both beaches were sampled before, during, and after nourishment
from January 1977 through September 1978. Besides the direct mortality of
benthic invertebrates from burial, Reilly and Bellis noted other major
ecological consequences of beach nourishment on beach and nearshore
organisms. They summarized their findings as follows:

Beach nourishment was found to affect organism density and
community structure both during and after nourishment. Organisms
on the beach at the time of nourishment were killed; however, the
effects of nourishment were not limited solely to the beach or to
the nourishment area. Other effects included: failure of adult
intertidal organisms to return from their near-offshore
over-wintering refuges; reductions in organism densities on

"p - 33

adjacent unnourished beaches; and inhibition of pelagic larval
recruitment effort. The nourished beach recovered slowly. During
this period, secondary productivity remained low and measures of
community structure indicated low diversity. Low secondary
productivity resulted in a reduced utilization of the nourished
beach by migrating consumers of commercial and sport interest.

Pre- and post-nourishment population studies of dominant beach organisms by
Reilly and Bellis resulted in findings which may relate to the project in
question and to beach disposal and nourishment in general. The summary
findings are:

� Mole crabs and coquina clams are the primary food source of
many commercially and recreationally important fishes --
over 100 gut content examinations were performed and all
fish examined contained either one or both of these species
in significant amounts.

� The adult mole crab population never returned to the
nourished beach -- Reilly and Bellis believed these adults
were killed in their nearshore over-wintering grounds due to
increased turbidity.

� Both the nourished and unnourished beaches* showed a rapid
recovery of mole crab densities with the onset of spring,
however, the population at the nourished beach lagged behind
the unnourished beach by more than a month. T h i s
recruitment lag resulted from failure of adults to return
and breed on the nourished beach. Young-of-the-year from
pelagic larval stocks recolonized the nourished beach.

� Mid-summer studies of comparative densities of mole crabs
were similar for both beaches, but the size class
composition was drastically different. Absence of larger
class sizes (adults) at the nourished beach resulted in a
significant reduction in available biomass of this important
food organism at the nourished beach.

� Neither adult coquina clams nor their young stages were
observed at the nourished beach during the first spring
recruitment following nourishment -- no coquina clams were
found until nearly two months following cessation of
nourishment activity.

� Adult coquina clams were killed in their offshore wintering
ground by burial and high turbidity.

� Coquina clams that repopulated the nourished beach were
post-metamorphal adults which had diffused from another beach by
littoral drift and not individuals from pelagic larval stocks.

19 ---Z@ 4

Nourishment activities, probably high turbidities specifically,
prevented the normal recruitment of pelagic larvae.

Coquina clams are a major source of secondary productivity having
been reported to contribute up to an order of magnitude greater than
any migratory consumer and up to 12 percent of total available
secondary productivity -- absence of this clam from a large area of
beach for any extended period of time could have serious ecological
consequences.

Haustorius canadensis, another important prey organism,
displayed a slow recovery rate on the nourished
b e a c h .This is probably due to the fact that amphipods
brood their eggs and young, thus have no pelagic larval'
stage. On beaches where the major organism is one whose
entire life history occurs within the beach system (as with
Haustorius spp.), recovery of secondary biomass will be
slow; thus, local sport and commercial fishing may be
affected.

Low secondary productivity of the nourished beach resulted
in a reduced utilization of the beach by migrating consumers
of commercial and recreational value such as flounder,
whiting, Atlantic croaker, spot, Florida pompano, and
cravelle-jack.

The magnitude of the above impact depends on the degree of impact avoidance
action taken by the Corps. Significant fishery resource losses are
anticipated if the work is performed during periods of high biological
activity and if the borrow site is located in an area which supports
productive bottoms. Conversely, only minor impacts are anticipated if
borrow materials are obtained from relatively nonproductive bottoms and if
the work takes place during periods of low biological activity.

Impacts to wildlife are generally limited to areas in which the pipeline
crosses wetlands herbaceous and grass habitats, dunes and the beach
disposal site. ;each disposal may alter bird feeding in the surf zone by
attracting certain species and discouraging others. Shorebirds such as
wimbrel (Hudsonian phaeopus), red knott (Calidris canutus) and sanderling
may be adversely affected since their food sources ( intertidal
invertebrates) may be burried. Gulls, such as the laughing gull and herring
gull, may temporarily benefit from the work since the dredged materials will
contain benthic invertebrates which will be made available during beach
nourishment.

No significant vegetated wetlands or upland plant communities are located in
the vicinity of this alternative with exception of a few small areas of
smooth cordgrass wetlands located in the vicinity of the Jolly Roger fishing
pier along Topsail Sound.

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was not observed in the vicinity of the
anticipated borrow site (Figure 3). Loss of the SAV would represent a
significant resource loss since these habitats provide important cover,
feeding and nursery sites for a diverse assembladge of f ish and
invertebrates (Thayer, et all., 1984). These SAV beds may be of particular
importance since they represent the only SAV found in Topsail Sound and may
play a role in the future expansion of this important habitat type in the
study area. In connection with this alternative, a cursory inspection of
Kings Landing Creek was made with regard to its possible use as an
alternative navigational route between New Topsail Inlet and the AIWW. This
inspection revealed numerous widely scattered SAV beds. Based on the known
value of estuarine SAV, dredging in this area would result in the loss of
important fishery resources and should be avoided.

The proposed groin should have no significant adverse impacts to either fish
or wildlife since it will be located on a high energy sand beach. In all,
approximately 0.1 acre of beach habitat will be converted to rocky
shoreline with construction of the groin. Minor 'losses of coquina clam,
mole crab and ghost crab habitat will occur. These losses should be offset,
however, by provision of a stable substrate upon which a diverse assemblage
of fouling organisms (algae, barnacles, hydrozoans) can attach.

The proposed work may temporarily disrupt recreational fishing activities in
the project area. The principal effect of any disruption will occur on the
ocean beach where surf fishing takes place during the period April
15 through December 15 of each year. Estimates on anticipated fisherman day
losses are not available; however, significant losses are not anticipated
since other sites are available for this activity. If the project is
designed so that added parking and beach access, including access to the New
Topsail Inlet shoreline, are provided, then considerable recreation-
enhancement opportunities will be provided. In the event that lands located
immediately adjacent to the worksite are not acquired by the Corps of
Engineers or the project sponsor then those lands may be retained in private
ownership, and public access to the project site may be prohibited or
restricted.

IV. Combined Hurricane Wave and Beach Erosion Protection

The environmental impacts associated with this alternative include those
associated with the beach erosion alternative. In addition, further
excavation of estuarine bottoms for dune construction materials and
alteration of existing frontal dune habitats will be required. The added
excavation should result in a magnitude of increase of the above-described
impacts. As with the beach erosion protection alternative, a significant
loss of fishery resources is possible if stable, productive bottoms are
excavated. This impact is not expected, however, since avoidance of those
areas is anticipated.

With exception of a small stretch of vegetated dune located in the vicinity
of the Jolly Roger Pier, no significant vegetative frontal dunes exist in
this portion of the project area. Construction of the proposed dunes would

create additional grassland habitat which could be utilized as a resting and
forage habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. No significant adverse
impacts, long-term or short-term, are expected. This alternative could
increase oceanfront commercial and residential development if the project is
designed such that the existing frontal dune is relocated in an oceanward
direction. Under present State law, oceanfront development is allowable
within a specified distance from the vegetated duneline. Other development
(non-oceanfront) is not expected to result from this alternative since
development on other portions of the island is expected to proceed in
accordance with influences associated with non-project related economic and
social considerations.

At the present time, approximately eleven public beach access points are
located in the area of this alternative. These sites should not be
adversely affected by the alternative in question unless additional
beachfront development is permitted. In this case, the availability of
these sites could be jeopardized. A significant public benefit could be
accrued from this alternative if all opportunities for limited private use
of the created beach, berm and dune are eliminated through public
acquisition of lands located between the beach and the roadway. In addition
to assuring public use and access to project lands, adjacent lands could be
used to expand existing public parking spaces from approximately 39, in the
vicinity of this alternative, to several hundred. Access to Topsail Inlet
by foot and four-wheel drive vehicles could also be assured through the
acquisition of adequate adjacent lands.

In conclusion, significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources
are possible with this alternative. Based on the Wilmington District's
overall record with regard to this type of activity, we believe that it is
prudent to assume that every reasonable effort will be made to perform work
during periods of low biological activity and that important habitats such
as SAV beds and stable productive bottoms will be avoided. Accordingly, any
direct project-related impacts associated with this alternative should be
minimal.

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT OF 1982

By letter dated November 16, 1983 (Appendix B), the Service provided interim
guidance for compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA).
Although modification of the CBRA to include additional lands is being
considered, no changes in the CBRA or in the various project alternatives
being considered have occurred since preparation of that letter.
Accordingly, the findings and recommendations contained in our November 16,
1983 letter remain in effect. Although the Service has not been officially
consulted, we understand that the U.S. Marine Corps has at least tentatively
advised your staff that they do not consider jetty construction at New River
Inlet to be essential to the Nation's security as discussed in Section 6(a)4
of the CBRA. In view of this determination, it appears that the jetty
alternative is not allowable on Onslow Beach under Section 5.(a)(3) of the
CBRA. In this regard, and as stated in our November 16, 1983 letter,
,V -37

responsibility for consultation between the Service and the Defense
Department (Marine Corps) lies with the Defense Department (Marine Corps).

Anticipated changes in the CBRA presently involve the addition to the
Coastal Barrier Resources System of protected lands such as those managed by
the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not
expected to affect lands within the study area. A copy of our maps showing
lands within the Coastal Barrier Resources System is provided in Appendix C.

MITIGATION

The purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal
Register 4605: 7656-7663, January 23, 1981) is to assure consistent review
of the impacts of land and water development projects on fish and wildlife
resources and effective recommendations for the mitigation of resource
losses . The policy identifies resource categories of fish and wildlife
habitat based on the value of the habitat type and its replaceability. In
applying the Mitigation Policy to this study, the Service places all
maritime forest habitat and SAV habitat in Resource Category 1. The
designation criteria for Resource Category 1 is that "Habitat to be impacted
is of high value for evaluation species and is unique and irreplaceable on a
national basis or in the ecoregion section." Service guidelines for
Resource Category I require that ". . . all losses of existing habitat be
prevented as these one-of-a-kind areas cannot be replaced. Insignificant
changes that do not result in adverse impacts on habitat value may be
acceptable provided they will have no significant cumulative impact."

All remaining natural habitats are placed in Resource Category 2 in
accordance with the Mitigation Policy. Resource Category 2 habitats are
those which are of high value for evaluation species and which are scarce or
becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion. The Service's
Mitigation Policy for this resource category calls for no net loss of
in-kind habitat value. After minimizing habitat losses through avoidance,
unavoidable losses should be replaced with similar habitat values so that
populations of the species associated with the habitats will remain
relatively stable over time. Specific ways to achieve this include: 1)
physical modification of replacement habitat to convert it to the same type
lost; 2) restoration or rehabilitation of previously altered habitat; 3)
increased maangement of similar replacement habitat so that the inkind value
of the lost habitat is replaced; or 4) a combination of measures.

The mitigation recommendations which follow provide for fish and wildlife
protection through impact avoidance and minimization. In the event that
they cannot be fully implemented, then additional recommendations involving
creation of replacement habitats, habitat restoration or increased
management may be required with regard to Resource Category 2 habitats. We
know of no prudent and successful means to mitigate for the loss of maritime
forest and SAV habitats.

With implementation of the mitigation recommendations, fish and wildlife
enhancement is possible in association with the beach, berm and dune
restoration alternatives since additional habitat will be created.
Accordingly, we endorse those alternatives with appropriate mitigation.

DISCUSSION

Of the various alternatives under consideration, only the jetties appear to
have potential to cause a significant, long-term adverse environmental
impact. In the event of chronic or even brief periods of beach erosion at
either West Onslow Beach or Onslow Beach, a significant loss of fish and
wildlife habitat would result. Further, the jetties also could improve
access to existing dredge material islands located along the western shore
of the inlet. Additional human access to those areas could result in
further loss of wildlife habitat and the degredation of estuarine water
quality in association with land clearing and development-related
activities.

Based on these potential impacts, the jetty alternative is of great concern
to us and without reasonable assurances regarding impact avoidance, is
environmentally unacceptable at this time. Assuming that our concerns
regarding beach erosion and access to nearby dredge'material islands are
alleviated, then the jetty alternative could be acceptable with respect to
fish and wildlife protection and preservation.

Service concerns regarding the dredging, beach erosion and the beach erosion
and hurricane wave protection alternatives are such that they can be
alleviated by incorporating prudent design, construction, maintenance and
operation features. These features involve time of year restrictions,
avoidance of biologically productive bottoms and acquisition of adequate
project lands to ensure reasonable public access to oceanfront and inlet
lands. Specific recommendations regarding these features are provided in
the "Recommendation" section of this report. Based on our experience with
similar projects such as the Atlantic Beach Channels Study, the Wrightsville
Beach, Beach Erosion and Hurricane Protection Study, and based on the
cooperative spirit of your planning staff on this study, we believe that
reasonable environmental protection can be effectuated with the non-jetty
alternatives. Both time of year restrictions, which will preclude work
during spring and summer, and the avoidance of productive estuarine bottoms,
are essential impact avoidance features. We are convinced that Topsail
Island @@illcontinue to undergo rapid and extensive development and that the
dredging and the shoreline protection alternatives will have no major effect
with regard to secondary growth with possible exception of some additional
beachfront development in connection with the establishment of a new frontal
dune.

Only the jetty alternative is affected by the CBRA since that alternative
alone involves lands located within the Coastal Barrier Resource System . In
accordance with the CBRA, the suitability of constructing jetties is

dependent upon their National security significance as determined by the
U.S. Marine Corps. Pending receipt of a well-substantiated need in this
regard, we must assume that the jetty alternative is not in keeping with
provisions of the CBRA and therefore, according to the Act, Federal
expenditures for construction is prohibited.

The need for avoiding productive estuarine bottoms is based on the abundance
of literature which documents the value of this habitat type for species
which are of great ecological and economic significance. The delineation of
productive bottoms is based on cursory field observations and benthic
samples made by Service and Corps of Engineers' biologists. Justification
for restricting the work to periods of low biological activity is based on
the need to avoid disruption of sea turtle nesting and on the need to avoid
periods of recruitment by mole crab and coquina clam since these spec'ies are
important to higher trophic levels of the nearshore fishery. Consideration
was given to recreational fishing which occurs largely during the period
April 15 to December 31 of each year. These considerations dictate,
ideally, that beach and dune restoration work should be limited to the
period of December 15 through February 28 of each year. Since these time
limits are generally too restrictive, they are viewed as target dates only;
final dates should be developed by the Corps and the Service based on
detailed project plans, when developed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

With incorporation of the following specific mitigation recommendations, the
dredging and the beach front restoration alternatives are environmentally
acceptable with the exception of dredging Kings Creek. Since beach, berm
and/or dune restoration could provide additional wildlife habitat and
increased opportunity for recreational fishing, we could endorse a decision
by the Wilmington District to construct either the beach erosion protection
alternative or the combined beach erosion and hurricane wave protection
alternative.

In order to effect fish and wildlife resource conservation and to fulfill
the public trust in this issue, the following mitigative measures should be
incorporated into the selected plan of action:

1. Dredged materials excavated in association with navigational
maintenance will be deposited on existing dredge material
disposal sites when a pipeline dredge is used. Dredged
materials excavated by hopper dredge will be placed in the
nearshore ocean zone and as close to the beach as possible.

2. Borrow materials needed for the beach and dune restoration
alternatives will be obtained from estuarine bottoms which
do not support environmentally significant plant or animal
communities as determined by the Service.

J9 -q 0

3. Excavation of borrow materials and beach and dune
restoration work will be limited to the period December 15
through February 28 of any year unless otherwise specified
by the Service and the Corps of Engineers.

4. To preclude private use of publicly funded beach and dune
restoration sites, undeveloped ocean front property located
adjacent to restored beaches and dunes will be maintained,
to the maximum extent practicable, as public lands for the
life of the project.

5. Beach access and parking will be provided to the maximum
extent practicable; access by pedestrians and off-road
vehicles to public trust lands and waters in the vicinity of
Topsail Inlet will be provided.

6. No excavation will take place in Kings Creek.

In the event that the jetty alternative becomes the selected plan of action,
Service review of the detailed plan will be necessary. Accordingly, we
further recommend that we be advised of any future or additional planning
effort by the Wilmington District involving the jetty alternative.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, D. A. 1963. Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in North
Carolina. Ecology 44: 445-456.

Anderson, W. D., Jr., J. K. Dias, R. K. Dias, D. M. Cupka and N. A.
Chamberlain. 1977. The macrofauna of the surf zone off Folly Beach,
South Carolina. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-740. 23 pp.

Bahr, L. M. and W. P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs
of the South Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS-81/15. 105 pp.

Bellis, V., and E. Proffitt. 1976. Maritime forest. Pages 22-27 In R. Alden,
D. Brower, B. J. Copeland, D. Frankenburg, and F. Parker, (eds.).
Ecological determinants of coastal area management, Vol. 2 --
appendices. University of North Carolina, Sea Grant Publication
UNC-SG-76-05. 392 pp.

Boesch, D. F. and D. H. Rackley. 1974. Final Report on the Environmental
Effects of the Second Hampton Roads Bridge - Tunnel Construction.
Report to the Virginia Dept. of Highways. Prepared by Virginia Inst.
Mar. Sci. 97 pp.

Bolster, K. 1976. Salt marshes. Pages 88-110 In R. Alden, D. Brower, B. J.
Copeland, D. Frankenburg, and F. Parker, (eds.). Ecological
determinants of coastal area management, Vol. 2--appendices.
University of North Carolina, Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-76-05. 392
PP.

Cupka, D. M. 1972. A survey of the ichthyofauna of the surf zone in South
Carolina. S.C. Marine Resources Cent., Tech. Rpt. No. 4. 19 pp.

Dahlberg, M. D. 1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal fishes. Fish.
Bull. 70: 323-355.

de la Cruz, A. 1977. Productivity in coastal marshes. In coastal marsh
productivity: a bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services. FWS/OBS 77/3. 300 pp.

Fussell, J. 0., 111. 1978. Bogue Banks study: a description of vegetative
communities and annotated lists of amphibians, reptiles, birds,
mammals, and endangered and threatened species. Report to U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv., Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 115 pp.

Godfrey, P. J. and M. M. Godfrey. 1976. Barrier Island ecology of Cape Look-
out National Seashore and vicinity, North Carolina. U.S. Natl. Park
Serv., Sci. Monogr. Ser. No. 9. 160 pp.

Hammond, D. L. and D. M. Cupka. 1977. An economic and biological
evaluation of the South Carolina pier fishery. S.C. Mar. Res. Cent.
Tech. Rep. No. 20. 14 pp.

Hopkins, S.R. and J.I. Richardson (eds.) 1984. Recovery plan for marine
turtles. National Marine Fisheries Service. 335 pp.

Hosier, P. E. and W. J. Cleary. 1977. A resource inventory of Masonboro
Island, North Carolina. Unpublished report. University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. 35 pp.

Johnson, A. S., H. P. Hillstead, S. F. Shanholtzer, and G. F. Shanholtzer.
1974. An ecological survey of the coastal region of Georgia. U.S.
Natl. Park Serv. Sci. Monogr. Ser. 3. 233 pp., as cited in Russell,
1978.

Keefe, C. W. 1972. Marsh production: a summary of the literature. Cont.
Mar. Sci. 16: 163-181, as cited in de la Cruz, 1977.

Leatherman, S. P. 1979. Barrier Island Handbook. Nati. Park Serv. Co-
operative Res. Unit. The Environmental Institute. University of
Massachusetts at Amherst. 101 pp.

McIntyre, A. D. 1969. Ecology of marine meibenthos. Biol. Rev. 44:
245-290, as cited in Reilly and Bellis, 1978.

McIntyre, A. D. and D. J. Murison, 1973. The meiofauna of a flatfish
nursery ground. U.K. 53: 93-118, as cited in Reilly and Bellis, 1978.

Miller, G. L. and J. C. Jorgenson. 1969. Seasonal abundance and length
frequency distribution of some fishes in coastal Georgia. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. Data Rept. 35. 102 pp.

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 1985. Summarized landings for
Topsail Sound and Stump Sound by species. Statistical data provided by
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 2 pp.

Odum, E. P. and M. E. Fanning. 1973. Comparison of the productivity of
Spartina alterniflora and Spartina cynosuroides in Georgia coastal
marshes. Bull. Ga. Acad. Sci. 31: 1-12.

Parker, F., D. Brower, and D. Frankenburg. 1976. Ecological determinants
of coastal area management, Vol. 1-an overview. University of North
Carolina. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-75-05. 140 pp.

Parnell, J. F. and R. F. Soots, Jr. 1979. Atlas of colonial waterbirds of
North Carolina estuaries. University of North Carolina. Sea Grant
Publication UNC-S6-78-10. 269 pp.

Petersen, C. H. and N. M. Petersen 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats
of North Carolina; a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office
of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/39. 73 pp.

Reilly, F. J., Jr. and V. J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact
of beach nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal zone.
East Carolina University Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources,
Tech. Report No. 4. 107 pp.

Sandifer, P. A., J. V. Miglarese, D. R. Calder, J. J. Manzi, and L. A.
Barclay. 1980. Ecological characterization of the sea island coastal
region of South Carolina and Georgia. Vol. III: biological features
of the characterization area. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., office of
Biological Services. FWS OBS 79/42. 620 pp.

Silverhorn, G. M., G. M. Daives and T. A. Barnard, Jr. 1974. Coastal
wetlands of Virginia. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point. Spec. Rpt.
46.

Teal, J. M. and T. Teal. 1969. Life and death of a salt marsh. Little
Brown and Co., Boston. 278 p.

Thayer, G. W., W. J. Kenworthy, and M. S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of
eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/02. 147 pp. Reprinted Sept. 1985.

Turner, R. 1976. Geographic variations in salt marsh macrophyte production:
A review. Cont. Mar. Sci. 20: 47-68, as cited in Petersen and Petersen,
1979.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Literature review for the assessment of
larval fish and shellfish movement through Oregon Inlet and the-
potential effects of inlet stabilization by jetties. Contract No.
DACW54-80-Q-0024. Prep. by Applied Biology, Inc. Atlanta, GA for
Wilmington Dist. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 59. pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on the study of beach erosion and hurricane protection at
Wrightsville Beach by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Division of Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office,
Raleigh, N.C. 23 pp.

J@j A I
@@ ll@
@ f
@@JT @@RV I
I @J@lj
I J@
I
ll@ ll@ @@ 11 @
3 6668 14104 0180