Cee iRes < MR 81-6 Analysis of Coastal Sediment Transport Processes From Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina by T. C. Winton, |. B. Chou, G. M. Powell, and J. D. Crane MISCELLANEOUS REPORT NO. 81-6 JUNE 1981 | i Ot DOCUMENT distribution unlimited. Prepared for U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Kingman Building Tae: Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060 os OSs Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from: Nattonal Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Divtston 5285 Port Royal Road Springfteld, Virginia 22161 The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. Swot DOCUMENT COLLECTION = Z EMCO IA niin MN UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1 MR 81 ; alee 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER MR 81- Aa &. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED ANALYSIS OF COASTAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT PROCESSES Miscellaneous Report FROM WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH TO FORT FISHER, NORTH CAROLINA ~ AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S) TeC. Winton, IeB. Chou, GeMe Powell and DACW 72-79-C-0001 J.-D. Crane - PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Gainesville, Florida 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS F31232 12. REPORT DATE June 1981 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 205 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) UNCLASSIFIED 15a. DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report) 17. 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES | 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Beach fills Sediment budgets Carolina Beach, North Carolina Wave refraction Longshore transport Wrightsville, North Carolina 20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necesaary and identify by block number) A comprehensive engineering analysis of the coastal sediment transport processes along a 42-kilometer segment of the North Carolina shoreline from Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher is presented. Included in the analysis is an interpretation of the littoral processes, longshore transport, and the behavior and success of beach nourishment projects at Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, North Carolina. (Continued) DD en, 1473 Evrtiow oF 1 Nov 65 1s OBSOLETE ' UNCLASSIFIED / SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) UNCLASSIFIED —— eee SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) The historical position of the MLW, MSL, and MHW contours, relative to a fixed base line, is plotted for the period between 1964 and 1975. An equiv- alent volumetric erosion or accretion between successive surveys is deter- mined by multiplying the average excursion distance of the contours by a constant of proportionality. The plots of excursion distance versus time for the MLW, MSL, and MHW contours also show the time response of the beach fills. This response is described by a mathematical function. The alongshore components of wave-induced energy flux are also deter- mined within the study area through wave refraction analysis. This informa- tion, together with the information on volumetric change, is used in a sediment budget analysis to determine the coefficient of alongshore sediment transport and the inlet trapping characteristics. 2 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) PREFACE This report is published to provide coastal engineers with a comprehensive engineering analysis of coastal sediment transport processes along a 42- kilometer segment of the North Carolina shoreline from Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher. Included is an interpretation of the littoral processes, long- shore transport, and the behavior and success of beach nourishment projects at Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches. The work was carried out under the evalua- tion and shore protection structures program of the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). The report was prepared by T.C.e Winton, I-B. Chou, GeM.e Powell, and J.D. Crane of Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE), Gainesville, Florida, under CERC Contract No. DACW 72-79-C-0001. The authors acknowledge the efforts and many helpful comments provided by Dre Re Weggel, Chief, Evaluation Branch, CERC, Dr. T.Y. Chiu, University of Florida, Department of Coastal Engineering, and the staff of the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. G. Hawley and Dr. R. Weggel were the CERC contract monitors for the report, under the general supervision of N.E. Parker, Chief, Engineering Development Divisione Comments on this publication are invited. Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress, aproved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, ggth Congress, approved 7 November 1963. TED E. BISHOP Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director ICIUIL IV VI \W/dkge APPENDIX A (pyeilea} [esl MEE ye les) CONTENTS CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI1)ecccccceccccccce EN TPRODU GiplONeieicveleletelevoletcloteloisioleloileleiclclelslelelelele! elelelalelelelelecleleleclelelelelelsieloieie STUDY IARI Avelevereiielteloteretotolercielelelerctateterelevelelere ioleicteletoteloietelere: ciclebotoreloietetatetetsietets DATA. (HO MAKHMLONG GS OOOOOODOOOOUOOODOOODOOOODOOOOOODOOOO0UO 000000000000 Ie Beach Paeorwlapodadouoooooo dco KOKO OODOOOdGOOO00000G0000450000 Die Wave DDT eE TOICIOICIOIOIOICIOIOIOIOICIOCICIOIOIOIOIOIOICIOIOIOICIOIOICICICICIOOICICIOIOIOIIOIOICIOICIOIOIOIOG Se Beach Sand Datadecccccccccscccscccccsccccccccccccccceccccecce ANALYSIS OF BEACH PRFILE DATAcccccccccccccccccsccccccccccccccccce 1. Excursion Distance Techniqu€ecceccccccccccecccecccssccccveccce 2. Historical Events Affecting Excursion Distance Analysiseeo. 3 EXCursiony DictancemAnaliysticliclelstereleclelcleletelelole clokeloleleletelereketstelalets 4. Beach Behavior from 1965 to 19/5eccccccccccccccecccccccccce LONGSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.cccccecccccccceccccccccccce Le Imtroductione cccoeccccccccccccccceccccccceseccceccccccecccee 2. Wave Refraction AnalySiSeccecccccccccccccecrccccccscsvcecece 3. Energy Flux Computationeccccccccecccccscccccccccccccccccece 4. Longshore Sediment Transport Modelececccccccccccccvccccccce 5 Sediment Budgeteccccccccccccccccescccccscsccescvcesccccccce BEACH-F ILL PERFORMANCE ccc cccccc ccc ccc cc cc ccc esc e sec ese cece ccccce SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS tile teleieisrc le cieleie elec eee) cl slelelelelelelsiolelersiojeieleicieiclelelsic LITERATURE GIDE D sveteretoteleloiejeleloleveveleelelete/cleleleleieleleleleleleleleisielolelsiclelcicletelelelels WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTSecccccccecccccccccccce CAROLINA BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTSecccccccccccecccccccccccce MASONBORO BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS. ccccccccscccccccccccccce KURE BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS.cccccccccccccccercccescccccce FISHER BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTSeccocccecccccccccccccccccvccce COMPARATIVE SHORT BEACH PROFILESeccccccccccccccccscccccvccscccccce WAVE REFRACTION PLOTS ecceccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccce TABLES li (Cross! references) Lormbeach; profdlie dalkale/s sis/ecc sveteleleletelcversioveletcievelclerelorelerelers 2 Repetitive short and long profiles measured along the study aredecececee 3 Beach sand grain-size Galtalercielslcicicioleleleleieielelelevoleteleleleie)elevs! cfeieleleleleloteleieieieleleleie 4 Beach-fill CWaAllNTAlETOMievereleleveloleieleielsleieleieieteleleleiessceleicieleleieleicielolcieloleleieleleleielelelejiels Page 8 9 10 18 18 18 23 DD) 25 25 27 45 62 62 62 70 73 78 82 92 96 99 125) 145 158 170 182 196 21 23 24 26 CONTENTS TABLES-—Continued Historical events affecting beach volumes during study period, NEDSS — NOs etelielchebenctelovonetekeretelelclelollelciclelciclelcicleieleicleicleleleieleloletolel clcleleicleieeicleieicleleielere Volumetric and excursion losses due to rise in MSLececreccececccecccce Average long-term excursion rates along Wrightsville Beach.eccesccccece Seasonal variation in MLW, MSL, and MHW position along Wrightsville Beache cccccccccccccc ccc cece cece esses rc es er ees e sees eecscecceceseees Wrightsville Beach, 1970 beach-fill dataccccccccccccccccccccccccccccce Average long-term excursion rates along Carolina Beacheeceecccccccccccce Seasonal variation in MLW, MSL, and MHW positions, Carolina Beacheeecee 1965 to 1971 beach-fill data, Carolina Beachecccccccvcceccccccccccccece Statistical wave climate parameters for the study areacccecccecccccece Selected seasonal wave parameters used in the wave refraction ANALYSIScccccccccccccccvcecvccccceccsccvecvecescccce secre c seco soe sele Predicted and measured distribution of wave energy at Wrightsville Belalclitiotever el olelieceiolonolelelclelererelelleisiicleleleieleleleiejelcleleleleleielesleeleloiohelcleleieleielelerc)clelelejeieieiere Value of 8 for Wrightsville and Carolina BeacheSeccccceccccccccccccce Annual volumetric changes in beach cell volume and losses due to sea level rise and Wave OVErtOPpPpinge ececccccccccccccccccccccccccccsccccce Energy flux values at cell boundarieSeccccccccccccccscccccccccccccccce Efficiency factors a for Wrightsville and Carolina Beach sediment DUdZeECScccccccccccccccccesecccsesccevcvevcccc reves cee seo scec eve se cecs Granulometric data for Wrightsville Beach 1970 beach fillecscccccsccce Average granulometric data for Carolina Beach 1965 beach fill......... FIGURES Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina study aredececocecoce Aerial photo map of study area from Figure Eight Island to Masonboro Beach, North GEheollainewmoog OOOO OU OO DOOD COOLIO OUDUOCODOOOUDDOUOD OOO OOOO OO Aerial photo map of study area from Masonboro Beach to Carolina Beach, North GalIrOlGiimiavercrerciovcleseieieeleieieleleleieicicletsieleievelelclelere)eleelelelelaleiiejs|e/ejelsleiele Aerial photo map of study area from Carolina Beach to Fort Fisher, Norah Garcollisitialevereeleieiel eve).eleiele/evele)is/e/elelereloleleveleleieleielelslejerelelelelciels\clleie/eleleleleie/e) ele. Aerial photo map of study area from Fort Fisher to Cape Fear, North Gai Olblimalterctersiorclererelelellclofeie/clelclcielelel ele) clievoleleicicisiclelslclcievelclcletelsielale!ejeleiersieleie Profile station location map, WBl to MB2J7cccccccccceccccccccevccccccce Profile station location map, MB28 to FB2lecccccccececceccccccceccccce Page 29 4l 50 Bll 53 58 59 61 65 66 67 76 78 81 81 84 itt iL 13 14 15 17 19 20 Bill 32. 33 CONTENTS F IGURES--Continued Page Distribution of beach fills along study areasccocccccccccccccesccsscces 26 Comparative short profiles, Wrightsville RYEKE NG OOOOOOCOO0O00DO000000000 Comparative long profiles, Wrightsville Beacheeccccecccccccccccccscccoce Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance from from from from from from from the the the the the the the Schematization of Definition sketch base base base base base base base line line line line line line line to to to to to to to stated stated stated stated stated stated stated contours contours contours contours contours contours contours at WBl5cccccccccccccecce At CB/leccecccccccccccce at MBl7eccccccccccccecce At KBl7.ccccccccccccccoe at FBlOcccceccccccccccee at WBl5ccceccccccccccccce at GiV/logodaaosb0Dd0G000 beach-fill TESPONSCeceeceececcescsceccecxreccccccsccsrccccccce for beach-fill responSececccccccccccccccccsecccecccece Semilog plots of excursion distance versus time after fill placement for profile WBS ievetoveveteveleteletelictelelelcticlolotetel cletcicl cietcleleleteleleheliolervsletelelelelolelcloleteietotalels Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB3ccccccccccccccccce Distance from the base line to stated contours at WBlOcccecceccccccccccce Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB4/7ecccececccccccccce Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Carolina Be achicteteleielatelorerere eleleleleleleieiclelelelelelelele lcjeleieleielelelclelelelelelsleleleleleisielele)cleileieleieleieieleleleie Relative seasonal change in beach slope for Wrightsville Beacheececccecc. Semilog plots of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for MHW, MLW, and MSL contours (1970 beach fill) eccccecccece Distance Distance Distance from from from Comparison of Wrightsville Semilog plots the the the base base base measured line to stated contours line to stated contours line to stated contours and computed volumetric at GRP odGd00OGO0GOCOO00000 at COAG ob 600000000 000000 at GBs ieretererelereretelehevetetere change along AEVAlIG GO ACO OOOO OOUD OOOO DOOOOUGOOOOCOOOOOOODOOD OOOO 0000000 of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for 1965 beach filleccccccccccccccecccrccvecccccereccscccccsese Semilog plots of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for 1971) beach) ELD. ccicic cle vicicie 0.001000 vclelcloic cee cclciele ie ceceicice Wave directions used in refraction analySiSececccccecceccccceccccccccce 30 Shit 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 43 43 46 47 49 50 Syl 52 55 56 Sy 58 59 60 64 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 CONTENTS F IGURES--Continued Page A three-dimensional line drawing representation of the offshore bathymetry (view looking onshore from Southeast) ecccceccccccccccvccsscce 08 Wave refraction diagram for a medium period wave (T = 10.5 seconds; H = 1.40 meters from the CASit)lovekelovevereiolelel eloherelevelerevoiciclercherelicheisionstercreleieieleverere 71 Wave refraction diagram for a medium period wave (T = 10.5 seconds; H = 1.40 meters from the east) with crossed wave waves eliminated..... /1 Northerly and southerly components of longshore energy flux along study ALTCAc cececcceccx.ccececseccevs eve ee eee eeeeevveesLexeF022eLEF22022000000 74 Net annual longshore energy flux along study aredecceccercccccccccccccce J4 Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Wrightsville IBe'alClivetetoteletetetelorelelelelcloioioicletelelsiotevevercreloleleterevoicleler clelclclevcieletetevevelerate Hi Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Carolina Beale ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cece ccc cscs cee sccescccccccscccsccce J/ Beach-cell schematizationecececccccvcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccce OU Sediment budget schematics for Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach... 80 Wrightsville Beach 1970 beach fillecccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccces B3 Response of foreshore slope after Wrightsville Beach 1970 beach fill... 86 View of Wrightsville Beach looking north-northeasteccccccccecsccccccsccce 88 Views of Carolina Beach shoreline before and after construction of 1965 beach-fill PLO JECCeccececccecccccvcveccccc vec scevcc ccc cc ccc c ccc cle 91 CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows: Multiply inches square inches cubic inches feet square feet cubic feet yards Square yards cubic yards miles square miles knots acres foot-pounds millibars ounces pounds ton, long ton, short degrees (angle) Fahrenheit degrees by 2504 2-54 6.452 16.39 30.48 0.3048 0.0929 0.0283 0.9144 0.836 0.7646 1.6093 259.0 1.852 0.4047 1.3558 1.0197 28.35 453-6 0.4536 1.0160 0.9072 0.01745 By) x 1073 To obtain millimeters centimeters square centimeters cubic centimeters centimeters meters Square meters cubic meters meters Square meters cubic meters kilometers hectares kilometers per hour hectares newton meters kilograms per square centimeter grams grams kilograms metric tons metric tons radians Celsius degrees or Kelvins! lt) obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use formula: C = (5/9) (F -32). To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: Ke = 5 G32) 2 Selle ANALYSIS OF COASTAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT PROCESSES FROM WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH TO FORT FISHER, NORTH CAROLINA by T.C. Winton, I.B. Chou, G.M. Powell, and J.D. Crane I. INTRODUCTION This report presents a comprehensive engineering analysis of the coastal sediment transport processes along a 42-kilometer segment of the North Carolina shoreline from Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher. Included in the analysis is an interpretation of all available data describing the littoral processes, longshore transport, and the behavior and success of beach nourishment projects at Wrightsville Beach and at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. Several coastal engineering studies have been conducted within the study area to assess the nearshore coastal processes and shoreline erosion trends. Vallianos (1970) investigated the influence of the manmade Carolina Beach Inlet on the volumetric erosion trends of the Masonboro and Carolina beach shorelines. He presented a preliminary assessment of the impact of Masonboro Inlet north jetty on the longshore transport trends for Wrightsville and Masonboro beach shorelines, and an evaluation on the performance of the 1965 Carolina Beach beach fill. Jarrett (1977) conducted a study for the 30-kilometer segment of shoreline from Wrightsville Beach to Kure Beach in relation to an environmental assessment of coastal erosion as affected by Carolina Beach Inlet. He estimated the annual rate of littoral transport between nine littoral cells by using a calibrated energy flux-wave refraction sediment budget approach. Jarrett refined Vallianos' (1970) bypassing rates for both Masonboro and Carolina Beach Inlet and reassessed the magnitude of the impact on shore process of manmade changes occurring during the study period. The results of this study are also available in reports by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1976; 1977). The U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1974), presented historic shoreline changes in the vicinity of Fort Fisher between 1865 and 1973. Several plans were recommended to protect the historic Fort Fisher battlements from critical dune erosion. Large quantities of data, some of which are not available to previous investigators, were evaluated during this study. Much of the field data were collected from 1964 to 1975 for shoreline erosion studies conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, and in part for the Coastal Engineering Research Center's (CERC) Beach Evaluation Program (BEP). Profile surveying and the collection of other data used in this report were coordinated by CERC. Data evaluated include repetitive beach profiles, sand data, bathymetry surveys, wave gage records, dredging records, meteorological records, coastal structure design, coastal geomorphological studies, shoreline erosion studies, aerial photography, and beach photography. Appendixes A to G present a graphic description of the shoreline changes along the study area between 1964 and 1975. These plots allow a quantitative assessment and interpretation of beach response to seasonal climatic changes, storm events, beach-fill projects, and coastal engineering structures. Long-term trends are identified and used to establish a sediment budget model of Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches. The analysis of the excursion distance response of the mean low water (MLW), mean sea level (MSL), and mean high water (MHW) contours of profiles along Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches permitted the formu- lation of a mathematical description of post beach-fill performances. All analyses and interpretations of results are included in this report. Supplementary data are provided in eight unpublished volumes (I to VIII) which are available from the CERC technical library. Volume I contains five sections: Section A provides a beach profile documentation for the entire study shoreline; Section B presents storm histories (accounts of the major storms occurring in the study area); Section C provides a wave refraction analysis of the area including wave gage data for selected wave spectra plots, selected data from CERC's Littoral Environment Observation (LEO) program, and wave refraction plots; Section D presents plots and tabulated values of the gross northerly and southerly, and the net longshore energy flux distribution; and Section E provides data on volumetric changes which occurred within all inlets along the study area. Comparative short and long beach profiles, beach profile data, MSL excursion rate tables, MSL volumetric change plots and tables, and selected sand data are presented for Wrightsville Beach (Vols. II, III, and IV), Masonboro Beach (Vol. Vv), Carolina Beach (Vols. VI and VII), Kure Beach (Vol. VIII, Sec. I), and Fort Fisher (Vol. VIII, Sec. J). II. STUDY AREA The study area is part of the tidewater region of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, consisting of a series of low, narrow, sandy barrier islands and peninsular beaches located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The islands front the Atlantic Ocean just north of Cape Fear and are separated from the mainland by either the Cape Fear River estuary or by Myrtle Grove, Masonboro, Greenville, and Middle Sounds. The five coastal sites in the 42-kilometer study are (from north to south) Wrightsville Beach, Masonboro Beach, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Fort Fisher. Figure 1 shows the study area and the location of the five study segments. The beach sands are generally fine and composed of quartz sand with a shell content ranging from 0 to 42 percent. The direct sources of littoral materials for the study area are the adjacent beaches, dunes, and bluffs (direction of transport depending on direction of wave attack) as a result of erosion, and the nearshore ocean bottom areas, from which material is brought onto shore. A complete description of the geomorphology and geologic history of the study area has been summarized by Pierce (1970). ° WILMINGTON WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH STUDY SEGMENT MASONBORO BEACH STUDY SEGMENT CAROLINA BEACH FISHING PIER FISHERMAN’S STEEL PIER CAROLINA BEACH STUDY SEGMENT f CENTER PIER? | 4] KURE BEACH KURE BEACH STUDY SEGMENT FORT FISHER BEACH SCALE STUDY SEGMENT (kilometers) Figure 1. Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina , study area. Based on data recorded by CERC's wave gage located at Wrightsville Beach, the annual significant wave height is 0.76 meter (2.5 feet). Wave observations along Wrightsville Beach indicate that 98 percent of the observed wave energy approaches from the eastern and southeastern quadrants. The dominant direction of littoral transport is from north to south; however, reversals in transport direction along the beaches do occur. The mean and spring tidal ranges are 1.2 and 1.4 meters, respectively; the difference between MSL and MLW is 0.57 meter. Wrightsville Beach is about 6.75 kilometers in length, with an average dune height of 4 meters above MSL. The beach faces approxi- mately east-southeast, has an average beach slope from MHW to the -6.0 meter (MSL) depth contour of 1 on 37.2, and contains beach sedi- ments with a mean grain size of 0.27 millimeter. The ocean shoreline of Wrightsville Beach was modified in 1965 by the construction of a hurri- cane and storm protection project. Initially, 2,288,000 cubic meters of fill material was placed along 5,100 meters of beach north of Masonboro Inlet with artificial dune heights constructed to an approximate eleva- tion of +2.5 meters (MSL) for storm protection purposes. The northern transition section included the closure of Moore Inlet, which had previously separated Wrightsville Beach from Shell Island. In spring 1966, an additional 244,000 cubic meters of fill material from the Masonboro Inlet was placed between Johnnie Mercer's Pier and Crystal Pier. In October 1966, a final deposition of 32,100 cubic meters of material from the estuarial area behind Shell Island was placed along the northernmost 610 meters within the town limits of the Wrightsville Beach project shoreline. In 1970, a renourishment of the central shoreline of Wrightsville Beach was required. A total of 1,053,600 cubic meters of fill material obtained from a shoal in the Banks Channel and the sound area behind Shell Island was placed on the beach, beginning at a point approximately 1.83 kilometers north of Masonboro Inlet and extending to the northern city limits of Wrightsville Beach. Figure 2 is an aerial photo strip map showing the Wrightsville Beach shoreline. Masonboro Island is bordered by Masonboro Inlet to the north, and by Carolina Beach Inlet (opened in 1952 by local interest groups) to the south (Figs. 2 and 3). It is a very narrow, low-lying uninhabited island approximately 12.5 kilometers long with a shoreline orientation from north-northeast to south-southwest. The natural dune heights along the island range from 3 to 10 meters (MSL), and the median grain size is 0.34 millimeter. The average beach slope is approximately 1 on 59. Carolina Beach is located just.south of the Carolina Beach Inlet and extends about 4.3 kilometers southward to Kure Beach (Figs. 3 and 4). The northern end of Carolina Beach has experienced high erosion rates since the opening of Carolina Beach Inlet (Vallianos, 1970), which have affected the efficiency of a hurricane and shore protection project constructed in 1965. The 4.27 kilometers of shoreline fronting the town of Carolina Beach was nourished with about 2,014,000 cubic meters of fill material obtained from the Carolina Beach harbor. However, by 1967, erosion of the northern 1.2 kilometers of the project beach was so severe that emergency action was required. Approximately 314,000 cubic 12 JOHNNIE. iW MERCER’S mPIER °. | BEACH eat iN 2 Figure 2. Aerial photo map of study area from Figure Elght Island to Masonboro Beach, North Carolina. IASONBORO BEACH CAROLINA BEACH INLET Figure 3. Aerial photo map of study area from Masonboro Beach to Carolina Beach, North Carolina. CENTER PIER @ACAROLINA BEACH eee SS secu es eas Figure 4. Aerial photo map of study area from Carolina Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina. meters of fill material was distributed there and 83,400 cubic meters of sand was placed to form a new 520-meter transition section from the original northern limits of the project beach. A temporary wooden groin was constructed at the transition junction between the two fill sites. Despite the 1967 emergency action, serious erosion continued, requiring the supplemental emergency construction in 1970 of a 335-meter rubble-mound seawall extending southward from the northern boundary of the project. In conjunction with the seawall construction, 264,500 cubic meters of fill material from the sediment trap located inside Carolina Beach Inlet was placed along the northern 1.2 kilometers of shoreline. By late spring 1971, the southern 3.47 kilometers of the project beach had been partially restored with approximately 581,000 cubic meters of material from a borrow area located in the Cape Fear River. The rubble-mound seawall was extended an additional 290 meters southward in 1973. The severe erosion trend of the northern project limits continued despite the numerous remedial measures taken. Kure Beach has a shoreline about 4.25 kilometers in length, and is situated between Carolina Beach to the north and Fort Fisher to the south (Fig. 4). The city of Kure Beach and the unincorporated towns of Wilmington Beach and Hanby Beach are located in this segment. Dune heights average 2.5 meters above MSL along this segment; beaches have a median sand grain size of 0.30 millimeter and an average beach profile slope of 1 on 30. The beaches along this shoreline remained relatively stable during the study period. 3 Fort Fisher, the southernmost segment of shoreline studied, is approximately 6.25 kilometers long and extends southward from Kure Beach to just north of New Inlet (Figs. 4 and 5). The mean grain size of the beach sand is 0.27 millimeter and the average slope is approximately 1 on 36. The northern 1.6 kilometers of shoreline is a sandy beach, mostly undeveloped, which varies in width from 27 to 55 meters. This section remained relatively stable during the study period. The central stretch of beach contains the historic remains of a Confederate Army fortification known as Fort Fisher, which was built adjacent to New Inlet. Since the closure of this inlet in 1883, rapid erosion exposed an outcrop of coquina rock located adjacent to the remains of the fort (Fig. 1). The sandy beach fronting Fort Fisher varied in width from 0 to 45 meters during mean tide levels, and the sand bluff along the backshore continued to erode at a critical rate, thus requiring con- struction of an emergency rubble revetment. In July 1965, additional rubble was placed along both the northern and southern flanks; 11,500 cubic meters of sand was also placed along 213 meters of shore north of the revetment. In May 1967, an extratropical cyclone caused severe erosion to the 1965 emergency fill which required placement of another 11,500 cubic meters of sand along the same beach section. In 1970, further emergency measures were implemented by placement of a limestone revetment along a part of the upland bluff which had previously been protected by the beach fills. The southernmost 4.58 kilometers of shore is an accreting sandspit characterized by low topography and a sandy beach with widths between 60 and 275 meters. The study area and the beach-fill projects are further described in Vallianos (1970), U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1970, 1974, and 1977), and Jarrett (1977). 16 Figure 5. Aerial photo map of study area from Fort Fisher to Cape Fear, North Carolina. 17 III. DATA COLLECTION 1. Beach Profiles. The sediment budget analysis performed in the study area was based on the beach profile data provided by CERC. Beach surveys were taken at 241 stations along the shoreline, and each profile was perpendicular to the local shoreline. The survey stations were numbered sequentially from north to south and were prefixed by the abbreviation of the corresponding beach name; e.g., WB for Wrightsville Beach (50 stations), MB for Masonboro Beach (31 stations), CB for Carolina Beach (119 stations), KB for Kure Beach (20 stations), and FB for Fort Fisher Beach (21 stations). Station CB2 would therefore represent the second station from the north in Carolina Beach. Figures 6 and 7 show the relative locations of all the stations. The beach surveys were conducted by contractor for U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, from 1963 to 1975. Most profiles were measured by level and tape and extended to only about 2.4 meters (8 feet) or less below MSL. These profiles were referred to as short profiles. Long profiles were measured to a depth of 12.2 meters (40 feet) using a depth sounder. Table 1 shows the survey stations, along with CERC's station reference codes, which indicates long profiles by the letter L. About 2,952 repetitive beach profiles were taken during 399 surveys, including 2,815 short profiles and 137 long profiles. Table 2 shows the number of short and long profiles for each beach. Table 2 and Figures 6 and 7 show that Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches have much better temporal and spatial resolution than the rest of the study area. Of the entire beach data, 89 percent of the profiles were taken on Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches. The Fort Fisher Beach, Kure Beach, and Masonboro Beach profile data were of insufficient quantity to permit a valid. analysis. All data are available in supplementary data Volumes I to VIII from the CERC library. 2. Wave Data. The wave climate data for the study area are from the following sources: (a) A CERC wave gage, located on Johnnie Mercer's Pier at Wrightsville Beach, which operated from March 1971 to February 1975. The gage was located in 5.2 meters (17 feet) of water, and the recorded wave data represent approximately all waves reaching Wrightsville Beach from all seaward directions. However, wave direction could not be differentiated by the gage. The wave gage data for this study with selected wave spectral plots are presented in supplementary data Volume I. 18 WB 5 B7 WB9 WB 10 WRIGHTSVILLE ie ss BEACH W812 (WB) WB 14) MASONBORO BEACH (MB) SOUTH JETTY MASONBORO 8EACH (MB) Figure 6. Proflie station location map, WB1 to MB27. 19 MASONBORO BEACH (MB) ™528 CAROLINA ....c891; CB 93 BEACH cB94 (CB) es CB 96 FORT FISHER (FB) F815 cB 97 FB 16 CB 98 FB17 cB 99 Figure 7. Proflie station location map, MB28 to FB21. 20 Table 1. Cross references for beach profile data. Transect} Transecd Profile distance) bearing | bearing (ft) | degrees} (degrees)| bai Transec@ Trensec Profile distancd bearing| bearing (degrees (ft) |(degrees 17227002 oso | 34.55) 123.32;uso4a wLol7 1S 1 3) 27004 2020 10.03]111.78)nS026 BLOOD 2] 190004 | 700 | 27.52]117.52|u$043 ULor6 1S 2 4129000 |2000 | 20.17/111.73| 4S027 A 3] 109¢00 | 997] 27.60/117.60 1s 3 a = 31002 |1998] 23.55]/112.69) "S028 ALO UB 4/179¢67 | 999 | 27.50] 117.98) US042 1S 4 AB 26|330+00 | 100] 23.62]113.62 UD S]169+08 | 104 | 34.22)117. 68] BSO4aI AD 271331900 [3900] 22.06]113.62|MS029 UB 6/1468°04 | 250] 67.77/106.88 1s § AB 281370299 [1899 | 19.65)109.45/ AS030 UB 7/166e86 | 106 | 16.98]104.88/US040 LOIS 1S 6 AD 29/389¢98 [2002] 19.671109.67/ ASO31 ALON UB 8) 16S+00 | S14] 16.80] 106.08) USOs? AB 30/410200] 96] 19.45]109.4S]mLO12 UB 9/1S9+86 | 4646 | 16.57]106.S7/US03B8 15 7 AD 33) 41096 2858) 19.65)/109.65) ASO32 UB 1011SS5+00 | $40 | 20.52] 106.57] uSo3? CD 1)199¢99] 999] 35.73]104.05] cS0S2 CS200000 UD 11] 1a9ees | 9S | 27.27/117.27/Us036 15 B CD 2/190°00 | S00] 14.05/104.05/CS0S1 CLOIS 63190400 UD 12]145+00 | 490 | 27.27]117.27] USO3S CB 3} 18S*00 | $00] 14.05]104.05| 185400 UB 13} 140+20 | $20 | 31.06/121.08/usSoz4 15 9 CB 4/100¢00] 283] 14.05)104.05] csoso CS100000 UB 14/13S¢00 | 479 | 39.08/121.08] USO33 . CB $/177¢S0| 250] 4$.95/104.05] 177950 UD 15/130%21 ozs | 31.10/121.90) S032 BLON4 15 10 CB 6117500 | 250] 14.05) 104.05) 173+00 UB 16/119°96 | 468 | 30.42)/120.62] uSO31 15 11 CD 71172950 | 249] 14.05]104.05/172050 Ud 17/119928 | 428 | 36.62/120.42/USO30 1S 12 uanPii920 Cd OL 17001 | 251] 14.05/104.05)/CS049 UD 10/115%00 | $03 | 30.62]/120. 42] uso2e CD 9} 167030 | 250} 14.05/104.05) 167050 UD 191109997 | 497 | 30.62/120.62) S028 18 13 CD 10) 165400 | 250] 14.05)104.0S/CS048 142°50 UD 20/10S%00 | $03 | 30.62]120.462| US027 CB N11 342950 | 249) 14.05 )104.05 UB 21] 99997 | 297 | 30.42/120.42] uS026 BLOIT 15 14 CB 12/160+01 | 251) 14.05/104.05}CS047 CLOI4 UB 22] 97600 | 200 | 30.62/120.42| uso2S CD U311E7 650 | 249) 14.05)104.05) 157450 UB 23) 9S+00 | 264 |] 30.62/120.62|uSe24 CD 14/1850 | $00] 14.05/104.05/CS046 UD 24) 92636 | 239 | 38.281125.281US023 CD 1S/1S0+01 | 251] 14.05}104.05/CS04S CLO1S UB 25| 89¢97 | 197 | 35.28/125.28)us022 13 15 CB 16/147950 | 50] 2.55/104.05/CS044 UB 26! €8+00 | 300 | 38.28/1235. 28] uso2) CB 17) 14700 | 199 | 14.05) 104.05) 147900 UD 27] 8S*00 | 200 | 3$.28/123.28] use20 CD 10/1459) | Si | 14.05)104.05)CS643 CLO12 UB 28] 8300 | 294 | 35.28 /12S.28/uUSOI? CD 19/144eS50 | SO} 14.05)104.05)1440S0 UB 29] BO+I6 | 298 | 3S.28]125.27] USO18 BLO12 18 16 CD 20) 144000 | 150 | 14.05) 104.05/ 14400 UD 30) 77618 | 218 | 33.27 1128.27) uso? Cd 21;142050 | Se} 14.05] 104.0S|cso42 UD 31) 75200 | 300 | 38.27 |125.27} usO16 CD 22/142000 | 25 | 14.05]104.05]142900 UB 32] 72600 | 202 | 33.27 ]128.27/ ULONS CD 23} 141075 | SO] 14.05]104.05 CBGRS+OON UB 33] 69698 | 499 | 38.77|123.77| USONS ULOIO IS 17 CD 24/141¢25 | 25] 14.05/104.05 CPGR4¢SON UD 34] S000 | 100 | 35.77 }123.77| uso14 CD 25]141+00 | 25] 14.05/104.05/cSoat UB 3S} 64000 | 400 | 3S.77]128.77]} ULoO? CB 26}140e75 | SO] 14.08]104.08 CBGR4*O0N UB 36] 60°00 | 400 | 30.93 /120.83}uso13 15 18 CB27/140%25 | 25] 14.05]104.05 CBGRI¢SON UD 37] Seeeo | 100 | 30.83 1120.83] uLoos CD 20/140°00 | 25] 14.05/104.0S/CS040 CLON! UB 38) SS5+00 | $02 | 30.83]120.83) usor2 Cd 29/139%75 | 25] 14.05]104.05 C3GRI+OON UD 39| 49298 | 198 | 30.72]120.72/ USO! 19 19 Cd 301139050 | 25] 14.05)104.05/139990 CIGR2¢7SN UD 40] 48%00 | 300 | 30.72]120.72| BL007 CB 311139925 | 25] 14.05]104.05 CBER2°500 UD 41} 45200 | $03 | 30.72]120.72] uso10 CB 32/139¢00 | 25 | 14.05]104.0S/CS039 CDGR2°250 UD 42] 39997 | 474 | 30.58 ]120.58/US00? GLO0s 1S 20 CB 33/138075 | 25 | 14.05]104.05]. CBGR2+008 UD 43] 3$¢23 | S10 | 33.48 ]123. 48} uso0e Ch 34/1389S0 | 25 | 14.05]104.08 CBGR1IE7SN UB 44] 30%13 | 153 | 33.47 ]123.47]US007 ULoOS 1S 21 CD 3S}/138025 | 25] 14.051104.05 CBGRI*SON UB 4S] 2060 | 3460 | 33.471123. 47] US006 15 25 UpcP29+00 CB 361138000 | 25 | 14.051104.05/CS038 CBGRI¢2SH UB 46) 25°00 | 498 | 33.47 1123.47] uSoOS CB 37113775 | 25 | 14.05}104.08 C3GR1+008 UB 47) 20902 | $02 | 32.37 ]122.43} uSe04 ULOO4 15 22 CB 381137990 | 25} 14.08]104.08 CBGRO*7SN UD 48) 1S¢00 | S00 | 32.37]122.43]us0e3 UL003 CB 39]137025 | 25] 14.05]104.0S CBGRO+SON UB 49) 10400) 650] 32.43] 122.43) USOG2 ULOO2 13 23 CB 404137200 | 15 | 36.73/106.03)/CS037 CBGRO+2S5H UD 50] 350 [31460] 40.23) 121.90] USGI wLOO! 15 24 CB 41 /136e8S | 10 | 36.731108.03 OoOONFACE AB 1] 7600] 300] 40.23] 125.73] nS004 CB 42/136e75 | 10 | 36.73]108.03 CBEK0+00 AD 2] 1000 |1000 | 32.47] 128.73] ASOOS CD AT}13606S | 15 | 36.73)108.03 Qe00SFACE HB 3] 20200 ]1000| 32.47] 122.47] nS006 CD 44/130050 | 25 | 36.73 }108.03/CS036 CBGRO+25§ AD 4] 3000/1000] 32.460] 122.67| AS0O7 CD 45/136e25 | 25 | 346.73/108.03 F CDGRO+S0S HBS} 40°00] 800) 32.60] 122.47] nS0O8 CB 46/1346*00 | 25 | 36.73]108.03/CS03S C3GR09755 AD 6] 48°00] 200] 32.68] 172.48] ASOO9 ALOO! CB 47 /13S+75 | 25 | 36.73]108.03 CBGRI+00S AB 7) $0+00] $70] 32.468| 122.48) AS010 CD 48/135+S0 | 25 | 36.73 /108.03 CBGR1¢23S MB 8) SSe70] 430) 34.60] 122.48| nSON! ALOG2 CD 49 /13S025 | 25 | 36.73 /108.03 CdGRI+SOS AD 91 6000] 900] 34.66) 124.60] nSO12 CB SO}13S°00 | 25 | 22.00)110.02/CS034 CLotod MD 10{ 64900] 599] 34.601/124.40/ MSOI3 ALOOS CB S14 134075 | 50 | 22.00/112.00 CBGR2+00S AB 11] 6999) 201 | 34.62] 124.40| nSO14 CB S2)134030 | 25 | 22.00 }112.00 CBGR2+S08 AD 12] 72600] 799] 34.62/124.60)ASO1S ALOOS CD S3}134625 | 25 | 22.00 1112.00) C8033 AD 13] 79999 1001 | 24.63]/124.62/ MS016 ALOOS CB S4/134e00 | 75 | 22.00)112.00 CBGRI+00S AB 14] 90600 |2245] 26.95]124.63] AS017 ALOOS CB S3}133*25 | 2S | 22.00)112.00 CBGR3*50S AB 1S] 110400 |1800 | 23.37/109.73| aSo1e Cd S56/133906 | 40 | 22.00 1112.00)/CS032 C3G23+73S AB 161130¢99 11900] 25.721114.67| RS019 CB S7/132%60 | 10 | 22.00 {112.00 COFP13260 AD 17/149999 12090] 15.63] 108.72/ S020 ALOO7 CB 581132650 | $0 | 22.00 112.00 /CS031 MD 18/170%00 [2000] 24.22/111.50] nS021 Cd SP }132000 | 30 | 22.00)112.00/08030 AD 19] 190¢02 [2035 | 17.411 113.72] nS022 1B) OO SIGE) 11 USO) ee) ME) UCT) ND 20| 210004 [2060 | 23.06]112.75| nS023 ALOOD 1B ON) MeO) 1200) OO BECO) SOE EM AB 21| 23000 |2008 | 12.73]1168.75|HS024 CB 621128400 | 50 | 22.00 /112.00/128+00 AD_22] 230%08 |1996} 21.78]111.70) S02S CD 634127650 | 150 | 22.00 }112.00/C8023 Note--Coastal structures at profiles WB17 (Johnnie Mercer's Pier), WB45 (Crystal Pier), CB42 (groin), and CB57 (fishing pier). 2 | Table 1. Cross references for beach profile data--Continued. No. |dfietencd bearing | bearing distance] bearing | bearing | (£0) |(degrees)(d grees)| 3 | (ft) [(degrees)(degrees Cd 64) 126%00/ 100 126000 csoor CLoO! CB 63/125*00| 100 €S027 cLooe $00? CB 661124000) 100 cS006 CB 67/123¢00/ So cS00s CD 68/122¢S0| so} 2 C5004 Cd 69/122+00| 100 cee CD 70/121¢00] 100 atoales boi BS Udo) 000 KS001 -S#00 -$+08 CS-S+00 CD 72)}119900] 100 €S119+00 4 CPKDBLSSO Cd 73) 119+00 so S002 CD 741112930) SO Yok KS0CI -10400-10+00 £5-10+00 CB 7S/117%00; 100 CS117+00 ? KS004 -15¢00-1S411 C5-15000 CB 76/116000} 100 KSOCS -20+00-20¢16 C5-20¢00 CD 77111S+00] 100 CS$023 CLO0S KS006 £L001 CB 701314900] 100 114200 KS007 CB 791113+00| So €3113+00 S006 CD 8O/112¢S0] So 112¢S0 CS1129S0 kS009 KLOO2 C3 B1,112+00) 100 ¢so22 ; kS010 CD 82}111900! 100 CS111+00 ° kSo1 CD 83/110+00] 100 €S021 CLOOS ° KSO12 KLOO3 CB 841109%00) 100 £310900 7638} ESO13 CB 8s|108%00/ so re CB 86/107250] 350 oy CD 871107600! 100 €$107%00 2 65]Rs017 Cd 881105900| 100 KSOIB cB eis 100] 2 - KS019 CB 90|104¢00| 150 TFS001 CB 91}102+S0] So FS002 FLOOT CB 92/102900] 199 FS003 CD 93}100001] 401 €S01% CLoe4 FS004 CB 94] 96%00) 600 96900 F500S FLOO2 CB 9S] 90°00 ]1000 csore FSO06 CB 96] 80°00 ]1005 cs017 FS007 CD 97) 70900] 998 CS016 CLOO3 eee FSove Cd 98] 60°02]1003 csois 5? F6009 CD 99] 49999! 990 csoi4 1.31 ]F 5010 CB100| 40%03] 403 cSo13 cLooz Say, C3101] 34900] 599 csot2 FHNSP3600 AES beat CB102] 30¢01| 44s cson pena £3103] 26200] 200 2600 Esois €B104] 24°00] 200 ? 24200 rseté Cd10S| 22400] 199 22°00 x FS017 C3106] 20°01 | 201 cs010 iseacalieveliage gelrserg FLoos £B107| 18900} 200 1800 : 649292 200s | 26, S019 €D106] 16+00! 100 16000 69063 FS620 C3109} 1S$*00] 100 cs009 740006 .OO}FSO21 FLOOS Cd110] 14900] 200 ? 14°00 CBII1 | 12900] 200] 17. 12900 Note--Coastal structures at profiles CB101 (Fisherman's Steel Pier) and KB2 (Center Pier). 22 Table 2. a short and long profiles measured along the study area. | First survey (yr) | a No.) {| Profiles (No.) f [short | tone | | __Short | Long || Short | Long | Short [ Long |] - Pe wiite Surveys (No. )_ Masonboro Carolina Kure Fort Fisher (b) Visual observations by U.S. Coast Guard personnel from the Frying Pan Shoals Light Tower. The wave data with the monthly wave statistics were provided by CERC. (c) Long-term deepwater wave statistics provided in the Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations (SSMO) (U.S. Naval Weather Service Command, 1975). (d) CERC's wave observation program at Wrightsville Beach provided visual observations of wave conditions, recorded daily at Johnnie Mercer's Pier between June 1970 and December 1973. CERC provided the monthly statistical analysis of these shore-based wave observations including breaking wave height, period, and direction. The wave data collected at Wrightsville Beach during the study period are available in supplementary data Volumes II, fii, and IV. 3. Beach Sand Data. Beach sand data for certain profiles within the study area from 1969 to 1971 were provided by CERC. Samples were collected along the profile azimuth from the. dune crest, the berm, and at MHW, MSL, MLW, -1.8 meters (-6 feet) (MLW), -3.66 meters (-12 feet) (MLW), and -5.49 meters (-18 feet) (MLW). Frequency of sand sample collection was not con- sistent from beach to beach or from profile to profile. The sand was analyzed for basic engineering properties including grain-size distribu- tion, median grain size, standard deviation, fall velocity, and compo- sition. Grain-size analyses are summarized in Table 3. The complete sand data are presented in supplementary data volumes for each beach segment (except for Kure Beach). 23 Table 3. Beach sand grain-size data. Station RPrRENrFNHrENNHF NEN HYOGO AO Eo) S&S RFPNOOrFOFKF FO SrSLOROL ORO, OC OLOre©) 1 = mean value of p. 2 = standard deviation of p. NOTE--®= -log,D, where D = sand diameter in millimeters. 24 IV. ANALYSIS OF BEACH PROFILE DATA 1. Excursion Distance Technique. If successive aerial photos of a beach face are compared with each other and a change in location of the beach is noted, then this change is indicative of either a period of erosion or accretion. Horizontal displacement of the planform position of any one point on the beach, from one survey to another, is the excursion distance for that point for the survey period. On an accreting beach, the excursion distance of a point relative to its initial position is positive, and on an eroding beach, it is negative. The rate of change of the excursion distance with time is the excursion rate. If successive beach profiles are reduced to a common base line, the excursion distance of each point on the profile indicates the magnitude of the onshore-offshore movement. The relative magnitude of the excur- sion distances between two or more points on the same profile identifies and quantifies the change in beach slope between those points. Beach excursions can be converted to volumetric changes for the entire active profile by applying to the excursion distances a volumetric equivalent factor. This factor was developed from measured changes at two piers located along Wrightsville Beach (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wil- mington, 1977), which showed that for a closure depth of approximately 8.23 meters, each meter of excursion was equivalent to 8.23 cubic meters of change for the entire active profile per meter of beach front. Equivalently in English units, for a closure depth of 27 feet, each foot of excursion was equivalent to 1 cubic yard of change for the entire active profile per foot of beach front. Consequently, excursion distance analysis is a simple but powerful technique which is used to identify and quantify both long-term beach changes and the response of a beach to short-term impacts resulting from storm activity, beach fills, and other man-induced changes. 2. Historical Events Affecting Excursion Distance Analysis. Meaningful interpretation of excursion distance plots can only be performed if known short-term or sudden impact events are identified and accounted for within the analysis. In order to do this, all major erosion-causing storms and all man-related activities which cause erosion-accretion during the study period must be abstracted from the historical records. Table 4 lists all beach-fill changes reported along the study area beaches from 1965 to 1974. The initial fill excursion distances in the table were estimated by applying the volumetric equivalent factor of 8.23 cubic meters of change for each meter excursion per meter beach 25 *(TamM) Bexe Apngs jo pue uzayzi0u way 899UB 3810, *(LL61) 339238F PUB (4161 ‘OLET) YOIUTETIH ‘I>1338Tq JeSUTBUg Amy *s°7 BDI EEC, poppe queujere1 suojsemn] SR ae ge Ree Ea i SE ET COC ESL TES ee OLeL = Su0T Ao TBdtdo1IBIPS (96, AB OF ANP TITJ weeq C96T 03 S80] arenas 9°9 00S‘TT 02 O'EE-L°ZE =: L9GT_*9°0 J3™q Bors Boye peseyd [113 weog quaMQeto1 07 PEPpe sTqqU TEUOTITPpy 9°9 00S‘TT oz Oee-L°7E 8=— S96T ATIF = ByBTA JOg 1188828 punonayqqni jo uct sua py 00€ 7980-475) 6'Z7-9°7Z_—s ELET *3deS 0 O1T OOO'STE O0S"E SITHO-1Z8) $°9Z-0°EZ 1L6t Aen T1eses8 punonspqqui jo uorjzaTdupy , 0 — See YSHO-91ED »-9'ZT-SZ°ZZSs«OLET “28 T1t+ 000‘€1Z z°s- 000‘zs 7°97 000°soz = «OZZ*T = SBHD-9TED §= S*EZ-S7°7Z_—«OLGT °F Sesso] Buys. oy 0 6°21 00z ‘72 004 €600-12E) L°€7-O'EZ ~«=—s_s«B9GT.- “BW O°1T+ Ly 008'9z €°st 000‘88 00 €609-148D LE 2-0°EZ L961 ABW O°Ez SLO'IEZ Ozz*T «= S@AD-BIGD = S*EZ-S7°7Z_—sLOGT “IEW SOI+ OSz*LST Ve Ov °LST €°02 oov'€s 00s QIGI-ZIGD SZZSLIZ «= LOGT “IEW z°ze+ 0°Sz- Sz‘ L419 LS yseelO'? 9 Sézy STTED-91G 9 S°9%-Sz°7Z SGT * adv Buyyjo1e) OS*TE+ 00008 CLEe- 9S8°ELS 7°69 009'Eso’T §OSB°T IZaMSTEM 9°SL°Z LET MIAds s°9 SEIZE 0s9 T7aH-61GM =O SE"E = «9961 “PO LS OOL*HEZ'Z 6 L- 009‘TE€ 8°01 080°%Z «= OSL°Zs SHAMGIGM = T°9-SEE (996 Batads 9961 Brads ur AQaf gy Jo uoTIeTduDD 9°45 TLO°062'Z OET'S = OSMEGM = OTL-6°T 696 Bitads By [TAS IYStIy a —@ my i ap eae z fac ke 3 ae) al 71 ‘2 £i¢)2y lew aeeS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW = = & (=) tL] 4 OQ = Gis = wn (=) Oo 6Y BS BG 6? BS BY 7O wl ve fies 74 Ys TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR Sees = TANCE 100 a aa a "7 §3) | TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Figure 16. Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB 15. 38 {(M) OISTANCE (M) STANCE OT (M) DISTANCE my ct i WN @ " ~o Se a — wR ® © ate dc 65 BG 6? Bo 64 7O Gal BE Hes) Fy Wey” Wideletel CENTER os MA 65 BG B? BB Ba 70 Wl 72 Ts 74 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MSL 65 65 BF A 6a FO Bil 72 7a Fu TIME {YEAR} CONTOUR = MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Figure 17. Distance from the base line to stated contours at CB 71. 39 “SASSA00OUd WHAL ONILNASSYdaY AdO1S LNVLSNOO -esuodseJ |j\j-yoeeq jo uonezpeweyos gi en6}4 (4A) SIAL Z| poad awn I1ly. yoeaq n= O=4L | 11 povied awn ‘SSOT TVILINI 3O GOlW4Sd Y3ALAV NIVS 1T1la-HOWad LAN | Vid HOW3d 3HO4348 S3ASSO1 WY3L-SNO71 ONILNSASSYd3ay “-DNO1 OL 3NG S3SSO1 4dO01S LNVLSNOS Ey NOISUNOXa TII4 AVILINI *SSO1 1114 TVILINI 40 GOlYad ONIYNG IWIYALVW 40 SSO7 Cidv¥ JONVLSIC NOISHNDXA 40 The long-term change for most beaches in the study is negative, which signifies a long-term erosional trend. This is due primarily to the inability of the beach to return to its original position after a particularly severe winter storm period or after a very severe isolated storm (e.g., a hurricane or tropical storm). During stom activity, sediment is eroded off the upper section of the beach profile and transported either alongshore in the littoral drift or offshore. Particularly severe storms can result in sediment being transported sufficiently far offshore to preclude its return to the beach face under more favorable conditions, thus resulting in a sediment deficit and, hence, erosion. Also important during the erosional phase of beach behavior is the continual exposure of "fresh" beach sediment which may not have the appropriate sediment distribution/characteristics for the dominant wave conditions. This means that under erosional conditions, sorting losses can continually occur (resulting in long-term losses), the magnitude of which is dependent upon the degree of mismatch between the distribution of the exposed sediment to that which is more suitable for the wave conditions. Another cause for the long-term erosional problem is a rise in sea level position. Based on an equilibrium bottom profile, Bruun (1962) quantified the volumetric erosion loss per unit length of shoreline (V) as V = (e + d) (X) (1) where X is the rate of shoreline recession, e is the berm crest MSL, and d is the limiting depth between nearshore and offshore processes. Limiting depth (d) is approximately -8.2 meters (MSL) based on inspection of long profiles from Wrightsville and Carolina Beach data. Horizontal distances to this depth for the control cells are presented in Table 6. The rate of shoreline recession is expressed by ab Cr) a where a is the rate of local sea level rise, and b is the distance from the initial shoreline to the limiting depth. Table 6. Volumetric and excursion losses due to rise in MSL. Excursion rate due to sea level rise (m/yr) Volumetric loss/unit lgth of beach Distance (b) to limiting depth of Littoral Cell -8.2 m Wrightsville Beach =0. 10 Masonboro Beach -0.10 Carolina Beach -0.09 Kure Beach Fort Fisher Beach 4| The rise in MSL during the study period, based on the averaged trends at Portsmouth, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina (Hicks, 1972), was approximately 0.37 centimeter per year. The computed annual rate of volumetric and excursion loss due to the rise in sea level for the five beaches is given in Table 6. The rapid loss of beach material immediately after the placement of a beach fill can be split into two components--a long-term component due to the ongoing long-term processes, and an initial component due to enhanced sorting by slope readjustment. The continual sorting type losses are obviously compounded by beach-fill activity when sediment which has a different distribution to the native beach sediment is used as the fill material. Not only is the magnitude of the sorting losses higher because of the generally greater mismatch between the new distribution and the desired distribution, but also the rate of loss is increased due to the increased exposure rate to wave activity as a result of sediment movement due to slope readjustment. The long-term component can be represented by the slope of the line of best fit through all data points after time t=t; (Fig. 18), such that at any time, t, l_ = at (3) where 1; is the long-term excursion loss (gain) at time t, and a is the slope of the linear section of the excursion distance plot. Data from this study indicated that after 1 to 2 years following beach-fill completion, the beach face generally eroded back during a winter storm period to its approximate prefill position. Both Figures 16 and 17 show this behavior and subsequent accretion of the beach face during the ensuing summer period. This means that after approximately 2 years most of the beach-fill material has been exposed to the sorting action of wave activity and for this period on (i.e., the time during which the long-term excursion rates were calculated), the enhanced losses due to the sorting of beach-fill material should have been minimal. To quantify the initial loss component, the long-term component was subtracted from the excursion distances (shown by the dashline in Fig. 19). The time scale was reset to zero at the time of fill (t=0), and so the initial loss of beach fill after time t was S,. Values of S (Fig. 19) for varying time increments up to t=t; were plotted on semilog paper. Figure 20 shows the results of these plots for the MLW, MSL, and MHW excursion curves of WB15. The results from this profile are typical for all profiles and indicate that the initial loss component due to sorting and beach-slope adjustment can be mathe- matically represented by an exponential equation of the form S. = Ge Celene) for 0 < ce ty (4) 42 EXCURSION DISTANCE = initial fill excursion = total excursion loss at time t total fill excursion remaining after time t long-term excursion loss (gain) at time t fraction of fj lost at time tj initial excursion loss at time t due to slope readjustment and sorting time at which essentially all initial losses due to slope readjustment and sorting have occurred effective life of beach fill Se smu feces | fees | as ees mee tet eee t=0 TIME (yr) t=ti t=te Figure 19. Definition sketch for beach-fill response. BEACH EXCURSION (m) Figure 20. 1 0 TIME AFTER FILL PLACEMENT (yr) Semilog plots of excursion distance versus 1 0 1 time after fill placement for profile WB 15. 43 where k is the slope of the line of best fit of the semilog plot of S versus t, f; is the initial fill excursion, C is the fraction of £; lost after initial losses (i.e., at t=t;), and S is the cursion loss at time t due to sorting and slope adjustments of a ach fill. Note that the exponential form of equation (4) implies that the initial losses, although very small, continue indefinitely. However, excursion plots indicate that after 1 to 2 years the excursion loss ue to slope adjustment and initial sorting cannot be separated from the easonal and long-term losses. Hence, for practical reasons, the The total excursion loss, D,, at time t after fill placement, is the sum of equations (3) and (4). Dis (1-10) -") + at (5) or, the total beach excursion relative to the prefill position, E,, at any time t after a fill, is i. Se Ee 10% | sat: (6) Equation (6) is an important tool which can be used to evaluate historic beach fills and to design future ones. This equation-can be used in two ways. First, if a given design lifetime of a fill is required, substituting E,=0 and t equal to the desired design life, then equation (6) is solved to give the initial fill excursion (and volume). Second, for a given volume of fill, or alternatively, for a given initial excursion, the time t=t, at which the beach returns to its prefill position (E,;=0) can be determined (i.e., the "useful life" of the fill can be determined). These calculations can be used to guantify the effectiveness and value of a given beach fill. However, the assumption made within these interpretations of equation (6) is that the beach fill has lost its effectiveness as soon as the beach face between the MLW to MHW contours returns to its initial, prefill position. It must be noted that in addition to providing a horizontal xcursion of the beach face, beach fills provide, either directly or indirectly, three other functions which retain their value even when the initial excursion is lost. The direct value is that the elevation of the berm(s) and sometimes dunes is increased during beach-fill opera- tions so that a larger volume of material seaward of the backdune is available to absorb the erosional tendencies of storm waves. This pro- vides an additional degree of protection to the backshore which was not present prior to the fill placement. Indirectly, beach fills result in an increase in sand on downdrift beaches, and produce slight decreases in the nearshore to offshore bathymetry due to the redistribution of beach-fill material offshore as a result of slope readjustment and 44 sorting. These decreased depths provide an added measure of protection to the beach by forcing waves to break farther offshore. Individual designs of, and the nature of the sediment used in each beach fill, dictate the degree to which these factors benefit the beach area. Consequently, they will not be further addressed in this analysis, but must be kept in mind when dealing with the design or evaluation of a beach fill. An interesting feature of Figure 20 is the relative magnitude of the k values (the decay rate) of the MLW, MSL, and MHW curves. The greater the k value, the faster the rate of initial loss (erosion). Conse- quently, the results show that the MHW contour eroded at a faster rate than the MSL contour, which in turn eroded at a faster rate than the MLW contour. In other words, the slope of the beach face readjusted itself and became less steep during the initial loss period. 4. Beach Behavior from 1965 to 1975. (a) Wrightsville Beach. The behavior of Wrightsville Beach in response to coastal processes during the 1965 to 1975 decade is best described by conveniently dividing Wrightsville Beach into three sections--the northern, central, and southern sections. The northern section can be characterized as a slowly accreting beach with the rate of accretion falling from a maximum of 1.8 meters per year at Mason Inlet to near zero about 1.75 kilometers farther south. Figure 21 shows the excursion plots for WB3, typical of the beach behavior in this northern section. Superimposed upon the average accreting excursion is a seasonal variation of approximately 20 meters. The minimum excursion distances occur during the first three (winter) months of the year and the maximum from July to September. Figure 21 shows that the beach in this section is able to respond to storms, particularly noted are those in February and March of 1973, and to rebuild itself without artificial renourishment. Between the points 1.75 and 5 kilometers, the central section of Wrightsville Beach has been eroding constantly since 1965. The excur- sion plots for WBl16 (Fig. 22) are typical of the area of maximum erosion experienced around the northern area of the town of Wrightsville Beach. Beach fills in 1965, 1966, and 1970 were placed to protect this town; however, the continued high erosion rate nullified those efforts. The data are too sparse to obtain seasonal variations before 1970, but since that time the seasonal excursion within the central section was approximately 25 meters. The behavior of the southern 1.5-kilometer section of Wrightsville Beach has been dominated by the construction of the northern jetty on Masonboro Inlet. During the first 4 months in 1966 (prior to the 1966 beach fill), the nearshore zone of the beach immediately north of the nearly completed jetty accreted by up to 40 meters, especially the MLW and MWL contours of profiles WB49 and WB50. This accretion fillet 45 M) ( DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE Woe 71 72 7 TIME (YEAR: CONTOUR = MEW Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. MTG 71 We 74 74 75 ole 3 Widelshay CONTOUR = MLW TIME (YEAR: HIN EW BSE fas ' 74 ya Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Figure 21. Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB 3. 46 [M) 120 DISTANCE 20 (< (M) OISTANCE (M) OTSTANCE Ses ees Grea Bey GG rE Sie Rl cea TIME (TEAR) CONTOUR : MLW TIME (YEAR! GENTGUR: sa MSi 4 65 66 Bi? 66 Bu fu Gal fe 73 74 HS IEEME* vee Ri CONTOUR : MHW Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Figure 22. Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB 16. 47 extended northwards with time into the area of beach fill and, soon after the completion of the jetty in spring 1966, the southern end of Wrightsville Beach had accreted by approximately 30 to 40 meters. From 1968 until the end of the study period, the accretion fillet underwent only minor changes with seasonal fluctuations of 15 to 25 meters. Figure 23 shows typical excursion plots of WB47. The long-term excursion rate values for the entire beach are shown in Table 7. The average erosion (excursion loss) per year along Wrightsville Beach due to the rise in sea level is 0.10 meter (see Table 6). This value must be subtracted from the measured excursion rates to determine the average annual loss of beach excursion due primarily to longshore processes. These values are shown in Table 7 and are plotted in Figure 24. The average variation in seasonal excursion remained fairly constant along the entire beach, with a maximum variation occurring at MLW and a minimum at MHW. The difference in the seasonal excursions between MLW-MSL and MHW-MSL gives an indication of the average change in beach- face slope from winter to summer beach profiles. Table 8 gives the average excursion values from 325 observations along Wrightsville Beach; Figure 25 provides a visual interpretation of the relative change in seasonal excursion distances. There were insufficient data points to quantify the response of Wrightsville Beach to the 1965 and 1966 beach fills. However, Figure 26 shows the semilog plots of the initial excursion loss after the 1970 beach fill. These plots show the combined results from eight profiles and are slightly different from Figure 20. The values of excursion loss at time t after beach-fill placement have been normalized by dividing them by the total initial excursion loss, ¢€f;, and hence, the results from many profiles can be combined to compute the average exponential decay constant. Table 9 gives these values for the MLW, MSL, and MHW contours, together with values of C, the proportion of the MLW to MHW fill excursion which is lost due to sorting and slope adjustment, the initial fill excursion, and the average long-tem loss rate. The relative differences in magnitude of the k values for the | three contours (shown in Table 9) indicate that the MSL contour eroded faster, on the average, than either the MLW or MHW contours, thus producing, as expected, a concave beach profile. The average long-term excursion rate of -3.8 meters (erosion) per year for all three contours indicates that once long-term slope readjustments occurred, the average beach slope did not change from year to year. (b) Carolina Beach. Like Wrightsville Beach, three sections of Carolina Beach (northern end, north-central, and southern half) were affected differently by the action of the coastal processes from 1965 to US) 7/5%e The northern end extends from Carolina Beach Inlet southward for 1.5 kilometers to the 22-kilometer point (measured from the northern 48 iM) DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (M1 OTISTANCE CONTOUR = MLA fom on i=) on Cc =p Cc a A. A aR z al ae fe i ESn ol bore) BG 7 eb Sogo) Siem Ona Pie vos) ee Gis Wie delrina CANTOUR = MH} Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Figure 23. Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB 47. 49 Table 7. Average long-term excursion rates along Wrightsville Beach. Avg Profile Distance from Avg excursion station north study excursion rate due to long- boundary rate shore processes (m/yr) (m/yr) 0. 32 -1.1 0. a7 1.8 Tp 8) 1.4 ie .6 0.7 the 9 -0.8 The .6 -1.5 7 3 -1.2 ae .0 4.4 on .6 -4.5 2. .8 -5.7 30 wl -5.0 Be al -4.0 30 aD -4.1 3: 3 -4.2 4. 3 -1.2 4. ail -2.0 4. afk 5. a3 - 2 5. .6 Be .0 6. 5 6. il 6. a 2profiles within inlet shoals. eee COMPUTED VALUES USING B = 1500 ecaosceso <= COMPUTED VALUES USING 8 = 900 Macessesesscrees COMPUTED VALUES USING B = 300 a © , °, MEASURED DATA VALUES 2) NOTE: UNITS OF B= E “ | N-yr ANNUAL VOLUME CHANGE PER UNIT LENGTH OF BEACH (m3/yr/m) DISTANCE ALONG BEACH (km) Figure 24. Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Carolina Beach. 50 Table 8. Seasonal variation in MLW, MSL, and MHW position along Wrightsville Beach. Contour Avg seasonal Excursion minus excursion MSL excursion (m) (m) MLW 28.9 MSL MHW WINTER PROFILE SUMMER PROFILE Figure 25. Relative seasonal change in beach slope for Wrightsville Beach . 5! “(113 YDBEQ OZEL) SANOJUOD TSI PUB ‘AATIN ‘MHI 405 juewedeid j]|) eye EL, SNSJEA GDUB}S|p UOSINDXe Pez}jeWIOU jo sjojd Bojjwes “gz eunb)4 (4A) W114 Wald BWIL sz oz st on 5'0 ty) to z'0 t0 Jnowuod MHIN Gd =) ZONVLSIO NOISHNDX3 G3IZIWWWYON £0 v0] ® ie) 8 is) ) ° gv v (4A) 1115 Y3L5v 3WIL SZ 4 Sit OL go 0) z0 JNOYUOD MTA OQ (=) Sf (=) JONVLSIG NOISHNDX3 G3AZINWWYON i i) @ oO B fe) C) oO v v 52 4 4 ° © o ® ° ® 0.5 9 b ° w NORMALIZED EXCURSION DISTANCE 0.2 0 1s —— to 15 2.0 25 TIME AFTER FILL (yr) Figure 26. Semilog plots of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for MHW, MLW, and MSL contours (1970 beach fill). --Continued Table 9. Wrightsville Beach, 1970 beach-fill data. Avg Avg Initial Contour . exponential long-term beach-fill decay constant excursion excursion f; _(k) (m/yr) (m) limit of the study area). Similar to the northern end of Wrightsville Beach, this section of Carolina Beach slowly accreted during the study period with a maximum rate of 15 meters per year at the tip decreasing to near zero at 22 kilometers. As shown in Figure 27, this area responded naturally to storm-induced erosion and, consequently, no beach fills were placed during the study period. The average seasonal excursion was 12.8 meters for the northern section. The north-central section extends from the 22- to 23.5-kilometer points and encompasses both the only significant change in beach orientation along Carolina Beach and the northern end of the town of Carolina Beach. This section suffered the highest measured annual erosion rate of the entire study area, and estimates of that rate vary between 5 to 40 meters per year. The range is large, and errors in the estimation of the excursion rates from the excursion distance plots probably account for some of the scatter in the rate values. Because of the high erosion rates, and since the northern end of the town of Carolina Beach is exposed to this erosion (see Fig. 4), six beach fills were placed in this section between 1965 and 1971, three of which were connected with the experimental deposition basin in the throat of Carolina Beach Inlet. The excursion distance plots for CB64 (Fig. 28) reveal rapid erosion after each beach fill and the continued loss of beach material despite the beach-fill activities. The seasonal excursion distance within this area is about 19.5 meters. The southern half of Carolina Beach experienced mild erosion rates of approximately 5 meters per year. Beach fills in 1965 and 1971 provided protection to the southern end of the Carolina Beach township because the net excursion in 1974 was still positive; i.e., more sand was placed on the beach by the beach-fill projects than was eroded away during the 1965-74 period. Figure 29 shows an example of the excess in excursion distance for CB119 and also shows that the average seasonal variation along this section is relatively small with a mean value of approximately 7.6 meters. The long-term excursion rates for the entire beach are shown in Table 10. The representative value of average annual excursion loss along Carolina Beach due to the rise in sea level is 0.09 meter (see Table 6). This value must be subtracted from the measured excursion rates to determine the annual excursion loss due to longshore processes. Representative values are given in Table 10, and a complete set along Carolina Beach is plotted in Figure 30. Table 11 shows the average MLW, MSL, and MHW seasonal excursion values for the entire beach and the relative differences in seasonal variation between these contours. The average change in beach slope at MSL from a summer profile to a winter profile was 0.2°, i.e., 1 on 286. Figures 31 and 32 show the semilog plots of the normalized initial excursion loss values versus time after fill placement for the 1965 and 1971 beach fills, respectively. Since there is a lack of data for the 1971 fill, all MLW, MSL, and MHW values from profile CB93 were combined 54 (M} DISTANCE (MJ DISTANCE (M1) DISTANCE o8 6& re 71 He 3 74 68 63 me Al fe ws 74 Sle; ERI CUNTBUR = MSL ale Ablelalay) CONTOUR : MHW Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Figure 27. Distance from the base line to stated contours at CB 2. 95 {M) TANCE c oo] OL 70 Gi ve as 74 [YEAR] GG NaS ial st Ll (M) DISTANCE (M3 DISTANCE a B CONTOUR : MHW Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Distance from the base line to stated contours at CB 64. 56 (MJ DISTANCE M) { DISTANCE M) [ OISTANCE 60 leew @ @ oo oo — jae mo i) om -~J om oo mm jie) | oO ~-] ~-J Po ~J Lu | = MESURE R Ry CONTE Ui MS Note: Circles indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. Dashline indicates line of best fit of average excursion distance. Figure 29. Distance from the base line to stated contours at CB 119. 57 ANNUAL VOLUME CHANGE PER UNIT LENGTH OF BEACH (m°/yr/m) ACCRETION EROSION Table 10. Average long-term excursion rates Profile station lRased on a 0.09-meter loss in along Carolina Beach. Distance from Avg north study excursion boundary rate ee Avg excursion rate due to long- shore processes! (km) a (m/yr) i (m/yr ) 2profiles within inlet shoals. cecccccece +e. COMPUTED VALUES USING B = 400 ——==— = COMPUTED VALUES USING B =300 en asceo=s= COMPUTED VALUES USING 8 = 200 o—»——— MEASURED DATA VALUES 3. NOTE: UNITSOF B ARE | ——— N-yr excursion due to a rise in sea level. 0 1 2 3 4 5 DISTANCE ALONG BEACH (km) Figure 30. Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Wrightsville Beach. 58 NORMALIZED EXCURSION DISTANCE Table 11. Seasonal variation in MLW, MSL, and MHW positions, Carolina Beach. Avg Excursion minus Contour seasonal MSL excursion excursion (m) (m) MHW © CB 106 4 CB 117 0 05 15 0 05 15 0 05 15 TIME AFTER FILL (yr) Figure 31. Semilog plots of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for 1965 beach fill. 29 2.0 NORMALIZED EXCURSION DISTANCE 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TIME AFTER FILL (yr) Figure 32. Semilog plots of normalized excursion distance versus time after fill placement for 1971 beach fill. 60 to calculate the exponential decay constant for the sorting and slope adjustment losses. Table 12 contains all relevant data for the 1965 and 1971 beach fills that could be confidently extracted from the excursion distance plots. Table 12. 1965 to 1971 beach-fill data, Carolina Beach. Avg SaAye Beach fill.|| Avg exponential decay count (k) initial long-term Ele excursion excursion Gye? (c) Masonboro, Kure, and Fort Fisher Beaches. Because of insuffi- cient and nonconsistent temporal distribution of excursion distance data, beach response in terms of long-term erosional-accretional rates, beach fills, and storm events cannot be described for Masonboro, Kure, or Fort Fisher Beaches. Therefore, only a brief statement concerning the relative difference in excursion distance between the first and final data points can be made; however, because of seasonal variation and possible poststorm excursions, even this may be misleading. From 1966 to 1973, the erosional loss at Masonboro Beach was generally 10 to 30 meters. However, two profiles (MB2 and MB5), which are located in the vicinity of the only significant change in beach angle along Masonboro Beach, show losses of 80 to 100 meters. The excursion differences for most profiles fall within the possible range of seasonal or poststorm excursion ranges and, consequently, the actua_ long-term loss on Masonboro Beach may not be reflected by the above values. The availability of excursion distance data for Kure Beach and Fort Fisher Beach is even less than that for Masonboro Beach, with data collected only from late 1969 to early 1973. Differences in excursion positions between those dates for both beaches vary from +5 to -20 meters, but again, estimated seasonal variation from two profiles of 10 to 15 meters makes any conclusion on the long-term response of these beaches impossible. 6| V. LONGSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS 1. Introduction. The procedure to mathematically predict the volume of sediment in the littoral drift requires knowledge of the magnitude and direction of the energy flux due to waves breaking along the study area beaches. To determine this quantity, a wave climate representative of the annual wave conditions measured or experienced in offshore waters must be established. The wave climate, in this case in the form of a set of wave heights with different periods and directions, must be "routed" towards shore by a wave refraction model until the waves break on or near the beach. Information on their breaking angles (relative to the beach orientation), breaking wave heights, and wave speed at breaking are determined and used to establish the longshore components of the energy flux for both the northeriy and southerly directions. The quantity of sediment carried by the littoral drift in each direction is found by multiplying the magnitude of the energy flux by a conversion factor (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977). However, uncertainty exists in the exact value of that factor (Vitale, 1980), and therefore, it will be recalculated for this study area by comparing the known time rate of volumetric change at Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach to the predicted values of the energy flux at those beaches. The recomputed conversion factors will be used to estimate the annual northerly and southerly longshore transport quantities and the volume of material lost into the adjacent inlets. 2. Wave Refraction Analysis. (a) Wave Climate. Wave climate was determined from a joint probability evaluation of wave gage data at Johnnie Mercer's Pier and wave observation data from Wrightsville Beach. The directional distribution of wave height and wave period, calculated from the wave observation data, was assumed to hold for the Johnnie Mercer's Pier data. Consequently, wave angles at the gage were statistically correlated to the wave observation data observations. The SSMO and Frying Pan Shoals wave data were not used due to a lack of confidence in data recording (Harris, 1972). Under random sea conditions, the distribution of the values for wave height, period, and direction is continuous. However, to perform the wave refraction analysis, a representative set of wave height, period, and direction conditions was needed. Consequently, the distribution of wave height was divided into three ranges and the period into six groups with midrange values of 3, 6.5, 8.5, 10.5, 12.5, and 16 seconds. The angles of wave approach were also divided into four sectors (northeast, 62 east, southeast, and south), with the wave statistics from the inter- mediate directions (north-northeast, east-northeast, etc.) being incor- porated proportionately into the four primary directions. Figure 33 shows these approach angles relative to the shoreline orientation. The distribution of wave height was converted to an equivalent distribution of wave energy (wave height squared) and divided into three ranges. The wave height corresponding to each of the midrange values of wave energy was then determined. The offshore wave height and approach angle corresponding to each of the three nearshore wave heights were calculated for each period and nearshore angle condition. Both the offshore wave direction and refraction coefficients were determined by using Snell's Law, and the shoaling coefficients were calculated by the ratio of nearshore and offshore depths. The offshore wave heights cor- responding to each of the three nearshore wave heights were calculated by dividing the nearshore height by the product of the refraction, shoaling, and friction coefficients. Explanation of the development of the friction coefficient is detailed later in Section (c). The three offshore wave heights used in the analysis were 0.52, 1.40, and 2.47 meters. The probability of occurrence (expressed as a percentage) of a wave approaching the study area from each of the four directions, with a wave height and period falling within one of the three height ranges and six period ranges (i.e., 72 different cases), was calculated from the data sets for each season; i.e., winter (December, January, and February), spring (March, April, and May), summer (June, July, and August), and fall (September, October, and November). This information is presented in Table 13. The percentage of occurrence of many of the wave height-period- direction combinations is less than one. To reduce excessive and unnecessary analysis costs, it was decided that satisfactory results could be achieved by using only enough wave combinations so that, for each season, 95 percent of occurrence by wave energy of all possible combinations of height, period, and direction was modeled. Selection of seasonal wave types was based on the summation of percentage of occurrence by wave energy of those wave conditions with the highest . percentage until the 95-percent criterion was satisfied. Summation to 95 percent by wave energy resulted in a representation of the wave climate by approximately 98 percent of the observed wave types. Table 14 shows the offshore wave climate chosen to represent the average seasonal conditions measured along the study area. The average annual climate is represented by the arithmetic average of the seasonal values for each combination of wave height, period, and direction. The final step in the selection of the wave climate data was a calibration check using the wave refraction model. The annual wave climate sets were refracted toward shore and combined according to their percentage of occurrence (see Section V, 3). The directional distribution of the wave energy at Wrightsville Beach was compared to 63 “s|SAJBUB UO}OBJO) U] POSN SUONDEI|P EABAA a SATIN SL 0 Giz SL SYSLAWOTIN 02 10) OL 0c A1VOS (M1W)1334 NI SHNOLNOD SYOHS44O "ee eunby4 Vans Nvd ONAUS @), COR yy ~ ( 64 “UOTITpuod aARM STZTOAds yey Jay aduaI1INII0 JO quesiad Jeuosess ayy JO UOTIEUMUNS 7 *spuooes uf pofied enemy 26 °6 9 ce : Z10| Lot : — | oo] 92°z ive |— | 15:0} 96°2 90°vt | 12°60 | se°z | os TT 09°6 | 90°0 | zz’z| ze"Z zit] — | 92°47} 10°2 foz"6s | vS°0 | sey Ly" Ly) s8°0 | — tO} 22°0 VAIL |= | VAT 7t | 220 | — | 001 Sec | — L7°€ | 86°6T CZ LT} 2E°O | 89°C | C24 GE°ST | — 66° | 9€ OT (AS A COMen = Be | — €€°@7 | 9€°0 €£0°41 | 92°0 48°91 | 90°0 08°O | — A 4O°T | — so°e | — OTe | 12°0 zz°8 | STO} 89°C 06°6_} 70°0 [in'z [ ov't | zs'0) qZSePoyu ION Eek] -eoae Apnjs oyj 10z sio}owered ojJeUTTO eaeM TeOTISTIeIS “ET STIPL 65 *spuodes UT potied @AeM 1 €0°0 | L€°O | SH zO°0 | 8€°0 | 92°0 0s°0 | 06°0 oleic (W) 2Y43TeYy saey (W) 243TeY sae ySeoyqNos *stsA[Teue UOTIOEAJOA APM 9Y} UT poesn stojoweied eAeM TeuUOSeYS pajdeTSS ‘HT eT] 66 the measured distribution calculated from the wave observation data. Considering the errors inherent in the visual data collection method, in the data analyses techniques, and errors resulting from presenting the continuous distribution of wave approach angles as approach sectors, Table 15 shows a favorable comparison. Table 15. Predicted and measured distribution of wave energy at Wrightsville Beach. Sector bisector (rel. to North) Measured (b) - Bathymetric Data. The wave refraction model requires knowledge of the general bathymetry offshore from the study area to accurately refract the approaching wave sets. The bathymetric data was provided on a 150-meter (500-foot) square-grid spacing which extended from the MLW position of the shoreline to a depth of approximatley 20 meters (65 feet), 15 kilometers (9.4 miles) offshore. The nearshore depths were interpolated from the long beach profiles and the greater offshore depths were measured from 1978 National Ocean Survey (NOS) nautical charts. The offshore bathymetry of the study area is quite irregular and a qualitative graphical representation of it is shown in Figure 34. This figure is a three-dimensional line drawing display of the data generated by a computer graphics program, and consequently the offshore representation is quite accurate. However, the interpolation scheme used by this program distorted the shoreline position, and a dot screen pattern has been included to alleviate this visual distraction. (c) Wave Refraction Model. The numerical model used for the wave refraction analysis is a modified version of the wave refraction model developed by Dobson (1967). Dobson's model requires the wave ray to originate in deep water, a condition which is not always practical (or economical relative to computer costs) for long-period waves. There- fore, a subroutine was added to account for the refraction and shoaling of the wave ray which occurs in the deeper offshore regions. This routine assumes that bathymetry in the offshore region has straight and parallel contours. Snell's law is used to compute the refraction coefficient and the change in the wave angle at an economically more reasonable "offshore" boundary for the model. The partially refracted wave ray is then used as the starting condition for Dobson's numerical model which integrates the wave ray through shallower regions toward the 67 *(ySB@YyINOS WOs E1OYSUO Hu}yOo] MeIA) AnewAyyeq e1oysyjo eyy Jo Uo}ejUeSeides BHujmeip eul| j|eUCjSUEWIP-eely) yY “HE ein6)4 00°S (AVIW/4) Hldaa 68 MSL shoreline. For this study, the numerical model offshore boundary extended to about the 20-meter (65-foot) depth contour (MSL), about 15 kilometers (9.4 miles) offshore. A second modification to the original program was the addition of a subroutine to account for energy losses due to friction. The wave height, H, at any point along the wave ray can be represented by H = Ho: Ky Kg Kg (7) where H, is the deepwater wave height, K, is the refraction coefficient, K, is the shoaling coefficient, and K>- is the friction coefficient. s Dobson's (1967) original model calculated both the refraction and shoaling coefficients. The additional subroutine calculates the fric- tion coefficient by integrating an expression developed by Skovgaard, Jonsson, and Bertelson (1975) along the wave ray from deep water to the point of interest (optionally the point of wave breaking). The integra- tion is carried out using a trapezoidal integration scheme. The local bottom friction factor is calculated from the local wave conditions by a numerical algorithm developed by Fritsch, Shafer, and Crowley (1973). The expression for the wave friction coefficient, as given by Skovgaard, Jonsson, and Bertelsen, further requires a value for the equivalent (Nikuradse) bottom roughness. A field observation on a sandy coast by Iwagaki and Kakinuma (1963) found that the bottom roughness ranged from 1 to 2 centimeters. For this study, the value of equivalent bottom roughness was determined from the calibration of offshore SSMO wave height (wave energy) data which had been routed inshore to wave height (wave energy) data measured at Johnnie Mercer's Pier gage. Although some uncertainty exists with the SSMO data, as noted in Section 2(a), it was used here in a simple test to determine whether or not the literature values for bottom roughness were applicable on this part of the coast. A value of 1.5 centimeters gave the best results for the comparison of computed and measured wave energy at the beach, and this value falls within Iwagaki and Kakinuma's range of values. The effect of including bottom friction in the wave refraction model is a reduction in the wave height and, therefore, wave energy as the wave ray progresses into shallow water. It has no effect, within the limits of the linear theory used by Dobson (1967), on the direction of wave propagation; however, reduction of the wave height does affect breaking conditions, as a wave with a reduced height can propagate closer to shore before breaking. For waves in shallow water, solitary wave theory defines the breaking condition H i= 0.78 (8) where H is the local wave height, and d is the local water depth. The third modification to Dobson's model was a routine to stop integration of the wave ray when the ratio of wave height to local water 69 depth exceeds 0.78. To determine the depth at any point along the wave ray, the model uses an algorithm which fits a polynomial to the depth of the surrounding square of eight grid points (relative to that wave ray). Under the rapidly varying bathymetric conditions which exist within the study area, the algorithm often computed nonrepresentative depth values which in turn resulted in offshore wave breaking and caustic (wave crossing) conditions. To help alleviate this problem, the depth grid spacing was increased from 150 meters (500 feet) to 300 meters (1,000 feet), and this modification resulted in a significant reduction in the number of offshore caustics and wave breaking. In addition to this problem, diffraction (i.e., the lateral spreading of energy along the crest of a wave), an important process in "smoothing-out" peaks in wave energy (and height), is ignored by Dobson's model. Figures 35 and 36 are two computer-generated wave refraction diagrams for a wave approaching from the east with an offshore wave height of 1.4 meters and a period of 10.5 seconds. Figure 35 shows that many of the wave rays cross before reaching the beach or break offshore. Since each wave ray is propagated independently toward the shoreline, the model is "unaware" of the possibility that any two or more wave rays may cross. Linear wave theory is not valid under these conditions; therefore, all wave rays which crossed before reaching breaking condi- tion must be eliminated from the analysis. Figure 36 shows the same wave propagation as in Figure 35; however, all crossed wave rays have been eliminated. The energy, and therefore, wave properties like height, celerity, and angle along a wave crest between two adjacent noncaustic rays, was assumed to be proportional to the energy values of these noncaustic rays. Hence, breaking wave conditions at all locations along the beach were found by linearly interpolating the values between adjacent noncaustic wave-ray locations. Another shortcoming of Dobson's (1967) model is that the influence of tidal jets and currents near inlets on wave refraction is not considered. Together with the fact that bathymetric changes are rapid in the vicinity of inlets, the resulting values of wave height, angle, and celerity at those locations must be considered with some skepticism. Computer plots showing the results of the refraction analysis for 1.4-meter waves for each wave period and for all four wave approach angles are contained in Appendix G. The difference between the results of waves having the same period and approach direction, but differing in height, is simply a slight difference in the breaking position of the wave along the same wave-ray path. 3. Energy Flux Computation. The longshore component of wave energy flux, P)], is defined as (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977; Vitale, 1980) P, = Te Hcy sin 24 (9) 70 "PO}BUIWIO SEABAA CAPM PESSO9 YM (yste@ EY Woss SsE]EW OP" L=H ‘spuodes S°O1 =1) EAB pojied wnipew B Jo} WesBelp uojoByes GABAA “QE EsNBI4 IN ‘WIHSIS 1uOd 2 Od JN ‘HIWIG Jun * BY JN “HIWIH UNI WU) © 89 IN “HB3G OUNBNOSUH * BY pee tre aes JINVISIOA "HOW9A PITIASINOIUM # GH o°st oe *(\SB@ OY) LOL} SIEJEL Oy" | =H ‘Spuoses G°OL = 1) eABM pojied winjpew e@ so} weibeIp uonoesjes @ARAA “SE OsNBiZ IN “w4IHSia 4HOd 2 OI Jw “HIWIB BuNy « BY NOLLULS LSOM-NUIHIWON Lo SiWbIS NIDTUO NOLLOLS LSOW-NUBHIUON LO SLUwES HEDTND IW “HUAN UNI Wus? * 89 IN “N30 OUNUNUSUH * BH (W321 39WO11¥) ete IN ‘HIUIA JIUASINALUR & OR 0-S6 0-06 0-s2 ‘0 0"s 0°08 We in \ TI where H is the wave height, Cg is the wave group velocity, and a is the angle the wave crest makes with the shoreline. Usually the breaking wave characteristics (Hp, Cg}, and ay) are used to represent the wave energy flux entering the surf zone. Each wave type was refracted toward shore by the refraction model. The breaking wave values of Hj, C,, and approach angle, a} were deter- mined at each breaking wave-ray location, and then interpolated at beach stations every 250 meters along the study area. The shoreline (plan) angle at each of these 250-meter locations was measured from aerial photos and the value of a then determined. The longshore component of wave energy flux at breaking was calculated using equation (9) at each 250-meter beach station, and was then multiplied by that wave type's percent occurrence. A positive value of P, represented a component of wave energy flux in a southerly direction and a negative value represented a component in the northerly direction. As each wave type was refracted toward shore, and the longshore component of wave energy flux was calculated, the percent contribution to either the northerly or southerly components of the annual longshore flux was summed, by direction, with the contribution from the other wave types. The resulting totals at each 250-meter beach station represent the northerly and southerly longshore components of the annual wave energy flux. The spatial variation of these totals was significant, and the sudden changes in magnitude were not representative of the actual energy flux conditions. Several factors which contributed to this problem were: (a) The refraction model used a static representation of shoreline conditions and bathymetry. As soon as a concentration of wave energy in shallow water occurs in the prototype, erosion results and bathymetry changes to reduce the energy concen- tration; i.e., nature tends to smooth out sudden changes in concentrations of wave energy, but the model cannot. (b) The resolution of the computational grid cells close to the beach were not fine enough to allow for the rapid changes in bathymetry and beach planform. (c) The energy flux values are proportional to the product of the sine and cosine values of the wave approach angle relative to the beach shoreline. Consequently, subtle errors in offshore angles can result in significant errors in the energy flux computation at the beach face. (d) Diffraction effects and the influence of tidal currents were not included. ee To overcome these problems, i.e., to remove the rapid fluctuations without significantly altering the longer term trends, a nine-point running filter was applied to the results of the energy flux computa- tions. The running filter averages the values from nine points (in this case, nine 250-meter points are equivalent to averaging over a 2-kilometer stretch of beach) and assigns that average to the middle point. The filter is then moved to the next (middle) point and averages its value with the four values on either side, etc. Figure 37 shows the filtered results of the northerly and southerly components of the annual longshore energy flux; Figure 38 combines both components and shows the net annual longshore energy flux acting along the study area. 4. Longshore Sediment Transport Model. The accepted practice for computing the longshore sediment transport rate has been to use an empirical relationship between the longshore. component of the energy flux entering the surf zone and the volume of sand moved. This dimensional relationship is given in the Shore Pro- tection Manual (SPM) (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977) and can be expressed as 3 3 M Mies N-M Q yEul 9 Hees N-yr pte s-M Gioa) or 3 3 yd fa yd- s BtESlib OH ere 7,500 Tose (er lealneess (10b) where P;_ is the energy flux factor and Q is the longshore sediment transport rate. This equation was developed from field observations in which wave height characteristics were represented by only one value-- the significant wave height. In this study, actual longshore energy flux components were cal- culated for a set of wave types which were subsequently summed together according to their percent occurrence. Consequently, this calculation of the longshore energy flux is not compatible with equation (10) above; hence, the dimensional constants given in the SPM cannot be directly applied or compared. Jarrett (1977) performed a refraction analysis similar to that performed in this study and found a value for the constant by correlating measured volumetric changes along Wrightsville Beach to computed energy flux values at each end of the beach. Jarrett's successful results showed that the same type of relationship which is given in the SPM exists between the computed values of the Iongshore energy flux and the sediment transport rates. Therefore, that relationship is used in this study and is expressed by Ail Lediass LF ON rel Belle, (P1yP2)b | a: By) (G2) ‘geese Apms Buoje xn ABseue esoysbuo, jenuue jeN “gE eunby)4 ON ‘W3SHSIS LHOI= 84 ON ‘HOV38 JUN = ay ON ‘HOWSE WNITOUVS = 89 NOILVIS'L SiO ON ‘HOV38 OXOSNOSVW = SW S LSOWNYSHLYON LV SLYVLS NID ON ‘HOVSE STIASLHDIUM = 8M (W¥aL3WOT) JONVLSIA oor ose 0°0€ 0'sz 0°02 o'st oor os oo 0's- SY¥3L3WO1lM v i) Sal 319s ‘eeie Apnys Buoje xnjy ABseue esoysBuo] jo syueuodwod Ajseyynos pue Ajieyion “Ze esnb)4 NOILVLS LSOWNYAHLYON LV SLYVLS NIDINO (YaLaWO1M) JONVLSIG 0°0v ose O°0e 0'sz 0°02 O'st oor os 00 0°S- su3a13WOmW 0 St 3qvos m Zz m -@D ©) < Bil i= c =< 2 n = = “a ad = = v fe) 2 4 ° 4 = mi 77) fo) ¢ =] =z HLNOS 3H1 OL 'SOd (W/S/W-N) XN14 ADYIN3 74 where n is the number of wave types used to represent the seasonal or annual wave climate, P,. is the longshore component of wave energy flux (at breaking), pj is the percent occurrence of that wave type, Q is the long-term longshore sediment transport rate, and B is the dimensional constant (found from correlation) relating Q to Ply: The dimensions of each term are shown in brackets. A sediment budget approach can be used for the correlation of Q and Pj. For a beach cell, as shown below, Qj, represents all long-term sources of sediment supplied into the cell-per-unit time and Qoyt¢ all long-term losses from the cell-per-unit time. The difference, Qout-Qin>s represents the long-term change in beach volume for ‘that cell. The longshore components of wave energy flux, as calculated in Section V,3, are Ply and Pi» and their respective beach coordinates are Xj and X9. aT] 2) Qin —> [beach cell]— > Qout From equation (11), Qe ut ae a B [P11 P19]. ret UL rs ne long ength of beach, then -term erosion or accretion rate per uni cf es Same ea XX) and hence, ae Pipetalg eal or 12 q = B Ail L 3 A In the limit, asAX — 0 q dP, LoS B axa (12) At any point along the beach, $ can be determined from the ratio of the long-term erosion-accretion rate to the spatial gradient’ of the longshore component of wave energy flux. ho Values of measured q; were taken from all profiles along the beeches away from the immediate area of inlet influence. Unfortunately, due to the insufficient temporal and spatial distribution of profile data, volumetric change data for Masonboro, Kure, and Fort Fisher Beaches were not calculated. Only values for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches, in Tables 7 and 10, were compared to predicted values. A plot of qy; and B (dP,}/dX), versus beach distance X, was drawn by choosing a value of B which produced the best correlation between the two lines. To eliminate sudden computational fluctuations before comparison with measured q,; values, the B dP, /dx values were iltered to produce smoothly varying distribution. Figures 39 and 40 show the results of these comparisons for Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, respectively. Although consid- erable scatter in the values of q; is obvious, especially along the northern Carolina Beach region, the general trends of both the computed and measured volumetric change values are similar along each beach. meenin the limitations of the analysis, it appears that a value of > =300 m 3-s/N-yr provides the best fit for Wrightsville Beach with a ae ‘ta scatter of +33 percent. For Carolina Beach, the best-fit value is 8 =900 m3-s/N-yr with a data scatter of +66 somes These results as summarized in Table 16, show a large ‘possible range in values of B. Assuming that equation (11) is a valid representation of the relation- ship between the longshore sediment transport rate and the longshore component of wave energy flux, then two possible conclusions can be made. First, the value of B is highly localized and strongly dependent on the local physical characteristics of the beach and sediment properties. Table 3 shows that the sediment characteristics do change along these beaches, and differences in offshore beach slopes between Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach were discussed in Section II. The second possible conclusion, and probably the more dominant one for this study, is that the value of B is very sensitive to the method of com- putation of the variables in the rates qyz,/(dP j/dX). In particular, errors inherent within the refraction analysis technique can result in significant spatial variation of the energy flux and hence in the dP,/dX values. This variation is then reflected in the spatial variation of the B values. Table 16. Values of B for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches. ; ; 3 Values of B in units of m-s/N-yr | __Best fit | Lower bound | Upper bound | whe eee 1,500 Wrightsville |__Carolina COMPUTED VALUES USING 8 = 1500 eeweeeencne = COMPUTED VALUES USING B = 900 eeeeeeeeeseeeees* COMPUTED VALUES USING 8 = 300 o—————— ° , °, MEASURED DATA VALUES ° oe NOTE: UNITS OF B= [=] N-yr ACCRETION EROSION ANNUAL VOLUME CHANGE PER UNIT LENGTH OF BEACH (m3/yr/m) DISTANCE ALONG BEACH (km) Figure 39. Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Wrightsville Beach. veceeee seeees COMPUTED VALUES USING B = 400 ———— = _—— COMPUTED VALUES USING B =300 ==e2==— COMPUTED VALUES USING 8 =200 —-—————> + ~MEASURED DATA VALUES 3. NOTE: UNITSOF B ARE |—— N-yr e oe Bore o o es of CL hl 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ANNUAL VOLUME CHANGE PER UNIT LENGTH OF BEACH (m3/yrim) DISTANCE ALONG BEACH (km) Figure 40. Comparison of measured and computed volumetric change along Carolina Beach. Thal Comparison of the results of this study with those of Jarrett's (1977) are encouraging. Although Jarret calculated his B value based only on the midsection of Wrightsville Beach, his value of B= 418 m3-s/N-yr is approximately equal to the upper limit of the value of B for Wrightsville Beach as predicted by this study. 5. Sediment Budget. To illustrate the application of the sediment transport model in estimating the northerly and southerly longshore transport rates and the quantity of material lost into the adjacent inlets, sediment budgets using littoral cells of finite length along Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches were performed. Each beach was divided into the three cells which, as described in Section IV, 4, best represent the long-term volumetric changes along those beaches. Losses from the active profile due to a rise in sea level, losses from the beach due to inlet trapping, and losses or gains in each cell due to longshore sediment transport were all considered. The long-term excursion rates which were used to determine the annual volumetric beach change for each cell were calculated by eliminating identified excursions, both within the project boundaries and along downdrift beaches, due to the placement and subsequent initial erosion of beach fills. Consequently, the contributions to, and the commensurate offshore losses from, the overall sediment budget due to beach-fill operations were addressed and do not need to be further incorporated into the sediment budget equations. Aeolian losses were considered inconsequential (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977) and also were not included. An inherent assumption within this approach to developing a sediment budget is that offshore losses due to ongoing sorting of freshly exposed beach face is minimal. This assumption is addressed later in Section VI and was found to be valid. Based on the concept of maintenance of an equilibrium profile under rising sea conditions (Bruun, 1962), the annual volumetric loss of sediment due to a sea level rise is shown in Tables 6 and 17. Losses due to wave overtopping occurred only along the northern section of Carolina Beach. Aerial photos taken in May 1964 and November 1974 were used to estimate the bayward excursion of the bayside shoreline. Results from that analysis indicated that approximately 4,600 m3/yr was lost from the oceanside of Carolina Beach (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977). Table 17. Annual volumetric changes in beach—cell volume and losses due to sea level rise and wave overtopping. Change in beach- Loss due to Loss due to cell volume sea level rise | wave overtopping Gore Wer IG ha) Wrightsville (north) -24,430 Wrightsville (central) -77,530 Wrightsville (south) -12,370 Carolina (north) +104,500 Carolina (central) -269,750 iCaroliwan south) el OT SO The sediment budget equations for a typical beach cell (see Fig. 41) are: Sediment sources: Qn-1,n Qa necn tb) Sediment losses: Qn,n-1l * Qnjn+1 + Sn + OTp > Annual volumetric beach change: vn = Qn-1,n *+ Qo41,n 7 Qn yn-1 ~— Qoynt1 7 Sly - OTp (13) where n, n-l, and ntl are individual beach cells, SL, is the annual sediment loss from cell n due to the rise in sea level, OT, is the annual sediment loss from cell n due to wave overtopping, and Qn, nel is the annual longshore sediment transport from cell n into cell "ntl. Equation (11) is used to predict the quantity Q between littoral cells located on a continuous beach; however, a problem with this formulation arises when a cell boundary borders an inlet, weir jetty, headland, etc. In these situations, the actual quantity of sediment moving in the littoral drift may be less than that predicted by equation (11) and so a modification must be incorporated into the sediment budget equations. The actual longshore sediment transport rate, Q,, is related to the potential longshore Creel transport rate by the "efficiency factor," a, such that Qa = 2 (BP) (14) Along straight and continuous beaches, the value of a must be unity; however, at inlets and other sediment traps, its value is less than or equal to one. In extreme cases of total sediment removal, the value of a is zero. The solution of all sediment budget equations for a set of littoral cells defines the values of @ at each cell boundary. The sediment budget schematizations for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches are shown in Figure 42. The values of the northerly and southerly components of the longshore energy flux at each littoral cell boundary are shown in Table 18. The values of B used in the longshore sediment transport equations were-B =300 for Wrightsville Beach and B=900 for Carolina Beach. The measured volumetric change within each cell, the annual volumetric loss due to sea level rise, and the loss due to wave overtopping are shown in Table 17. The sets of a@ values at each inlet boundary (i.e. »@)\2 and @2,1; 44,5 anda5,4; and @7,8 and a@g,7) cannot be Gaeauely determined (there are more unknowns than equations) and therefore, the values of one efficiency factor of each pair must be assumed. For an unimproved inlet (i.e., no jetties, weirs, etc.), it was assumed that all sediment contained within the littoral drift system entered the inlet cell. In this case, the northerly longshore transport from the northern ends of Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches was assumed to enter Mason and Carolina Beach Inlets, respectively. Consequently, a2,1 and ag,7 were set equal to one and the sediment budget equations solved resulting in the values of @ 1,2=0.09 and a7_g=0.31. 79 SLn littoral cell n-i n+1 AVn. Qn-1,n | Qn,n+1 OTn Figure 41. Beach-cell schematization. WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH CELLS SL2 SL3 SL Qaa { Q3,2 t Qa,3 { Qs,4 = << — <—— ----4 r---- cc = Mason North WB Central WB South WB | Masonboro | i Masonboro Inlet \ | Inlet I 9 Beach 1 I ! aie © dh i! @ © © EOE ys pie VO) ee es —_—> — _—_ Qi,2 Q2,3 Q3,4 Qa,5 = NORTH — CAROLINA BEACH CELLS SLs SLo SLi0 Qs,7 Qo,s { Qio,9 t Qi1,10 lene Saree Seer [ease -3;~ a ——— RE + ee ee = Masonboro j |} Carolina | North CB Central CB South CB pen cure land) Fort Beach { Beach Inlet} Fisher Beaches Ci On 9) onus BE AE nan fe me J Ut NNO) tc Py ER ES We Q7,8 | Qa,o Qo9,10 Qi0,11 OTs Note: Arrows indicate direction of sediment movement. Figure 42. Sediment budget schematics for Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach. 80 Table 18. Energy flux values at cell bamdaries. Beach cell Cell Cell Gross northerly flux |] Gross southerly flux h | No. || bamdaries Notation | Magnitude Notation | Magnitude Ca | (N-n/s/m) i Northern boundary (Mason Inlet) Wrightsville (north) | | 0.0-2.5 Wrightsville (central) | 2.5-4.8 Wrightsville (south) | | 4.8-6.7 Masonboro Inlet | 6.7-7.2 Carolina Beach Inlet “| 19.7-20.5 Carolina (north) | | 20.5-21.5 Carolinat(central)). 01 } 21.5-24.3 Carolina (south) | | 24.3-27.3 Kure and Fort Fisher | | 27.3-42.0 These values indicate that approximately 90 percent of the potential southerly longshore sediment transport remained trapped in Mason Inlet and 70 percent remained in Carolina Beach Inlet. The north jetty at Masonboro Inlet was completed in spring 1966 and consists of a rubble-mound outer section and a low concrete sheet-pile inner or weir section. The design of this weir jetty and the dredging of material from the deposition basin on the inlet side of the weir have caused a reduction. in the northward sediment bypassing to near zero (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977). Therefore, @5 4 was set equal to zero and the solution of the sediment budget equations gave Ay 5=0.64. This means that approximately two-thirds of the potential littoral drift passes over or around the weir jetty into Masonboro Inlet and one-third remains trapped on the southern end of Wrightsville Beach, providing a source of material for northerly transport. Table 19 gives the @ values for the Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach sediment budgets. Table 19. Efficiency factors @ for Wrightsville and Carolina Beach sediment budgets. Beach cell Southerly transport Not ation Mason Inlet Wrightsville (north) Wrightsville (central) Wrightsville (south) Masonboro Inlet Carolina Beach Inlet Carolina (north) oOo on WW fF WH & Carolina (central) Carolina (south) pS - oO Kure and Fort Fisher 8| Analyses were performed to include Masonboro, Kure, and Fort Fisher Beaches into one continuous sediment budget analysis; however, the lack of reliable long-term volumetric change data along those beaches meant that large and somewhat arbitrary changes in either the volumetric excursion rates, energy flux values, or B values were needed to balance all sediment budget equations. Because of these changes, the results were not meaningful and are not presented. VI. BEACH-FILL PERFORMANCE All beach fills placed along the study area between 1965 and 1975 were discussed in Section II; Table 4 and Figure 8 of Section IV show additional detailed information on their location and time of placement. The beach fills are also discussed in Vallianos (1970), U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1970, 1974, 1977), and Jarrett (1977). Information presented in this section is based on the quantitative interpretation of the excursion distance analyses of the 1970 beach fill on Wrightsville Beach and of the 1965 and 1971 beach fills on Carolina Beach. There was insufficient repetitive profile information for the other fills to allow excursion analysis and subsequent fill performance evaluation. The 1970 beach fill along the central part of Wrightsville Beach was the best documented (in terms of repetitive beach surveys before and after placement of fill material) beach-fill project, and the excursion distance plots of profiles WB13 to WB29 (App. A) show the response of the beach to this fill. Sequential profiles showing the post-fill behavior at profile WB-15 are presented in Appendix F. All relevant data from all of these plots are summarized in Figure 43 which shows the spatial variation along the beach of the initial fill excursion, the percent total initial losses, the net excursion after initial losses, the long-term erosion rate, and the value of the exponential decay constant, k. All values in the figure are averaged from the MLW, MSL, and MHW excursion distance plot of each profile located along the central section of Wrightsville Beach. The average initial fill excursion, as defined by the first measure- ments taken after fill placement, was 76.6 meters, and the distribution of the fill along the beach was almost triangular. The maximum initial excursion was approximately 125 meters in the middle and the excursion at the project boundaries was approximately 50 meters. Figure 43 shows that beach excursions were measurable along the beaches on either side of the project boundaries soon after the initial fill placement. These edge excursions indicate that some of the material placed within the project limits of the fill quickly spread laterally to the adjacent beaches. The average fill excursion remaining on the beach face, after all initial losses had occurred (approximately 2 years), was 15.5 meters with a maximum retention of 29 meters in the middle of the fill. This means that 80 percent of the initial fill was lost due to sorting, slope readjustment, and lateral spreading. The southern end of the fill experienced the highest initial loss of 90 percent where only 5 meters of excursion remained after approximately 1.5 years. 82 |~ > <= & Ww = < c wn n ° 4 = c Ww fi. Oo Ze fo} a “Illy YoBeq O26} Yyoeeg eIIIASUBL MA “eb esnB}4 (Ww) HOVAE SDNOTW JONVLSIG “W114 HOW 4O SAIUVGNNO NOISSG SLVWIXOUddY =k S3SSO1 TVILINI HSLISV NOISHNDXS LAN cseeseeeere 3LVYSSOTWYSL-ONOT eo SASSO1 IVILINI % NOISHYNDOXINNAIVLIN = -——_—_—_— 4 eaeeeene §3SSO1 IVILINI LN3083d (4) 3ONVLSIO NOISUNIXS 83 During the calculation of volumetric change between two subsequent profiles, based upon the application of the volumetric equivalent factor to the MLW-MHW contour excursions of those profiles, an assumption of self similarity in profile shape was employed. In other words, volumetric changes were assumed to occur only as a result of horizontal displacement of the profile and not to the redistribution of material from the upper beach face offshore, a phenomenon which occurs during the slope readjustment phase of the beach-fill response. Consequently, the total initial volumetric loss for the fill may be slightly less than the 80 percent value; however, the average initial loss in beach face position is still 80 percent of the fill excursion. The adjustment during the design phase of the project for the expected sorting losses was accomplished by applying a factor known as the critical ratio (or beach-fill factor) to the required volume of beach fill. The critical ratio is simply an estimate of the quantity of borrow material required to yield 1 cubic meter of beach material having granulometric characteristics similar to the native beach. The value calculated for the Banks Channel borrow site, and which was applied to the Shell Island borrow material, was 2.5 (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington 1977). This means that 2.5 cubic meters of fill material was required to produce 1 cubic meter of fill material on the beach after sorting; i.e., a 60-percent sorting loss was expected. A modification to the original fill-factor formulation was developed by James (1965) and has now been incorporated into modern beach-fill design practices (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977). Granulometric data from profiles taken in July 1969 just before the fill and samples taken from profiles along the fill just after placement are shown in Table 20. These values were used to calculate the adjusted fill factor, Ra, from Figure 5.3 of the SPM. The value of the adjusted fill factor was Ra=3.0, which implies that 66 percent of the initial fill was lost to sorting. The new adjusted fill factor predicted larger sorting losses than did the older fornu- lation; however, both methods predicted losses that were lower than that measured. Assuming that these formulations are correct, then losses in addition to sorting (slope readjustment, lateral spreading, etc.), are Significant and must be included in the beach-fill design. Table 20. Granulometric data for Wrightsville Beach 1970 beach fill. omposite omposite Granulometric Profile mean grain standard conditions size pt deviation G (in phi units) | (in phi units) Before fill July 1969 Prefill composite values enero Ba te ns ee After fill Aug. Prefill composite values 84 The values in Table 20 were also used to calculate James' (1974) renourishment factor, Ry=1.9. This factor expresses the ratio of the retreat rate of the beach after fill placement to the retreat rate before beach-fill operations. However, in its derivation, James (1974) assumed that the postfill retreat rate was linear and not exponential. Therefore, its value cannot be compared to the results of this study. The relative changes in the upper beach-face angle (from MHW to MLW) after fill placement were measured for profile WB17. Figure 44 shows that immediately after placement the average beach face angle was 1 on 57, which was flatter than the prefill angle of 1 on 35. The beach angle changed fairly rapidly during the first 6 months after placement, and after 9 to 12 months, the difference in the average beach angle at that time and the long-term beach face angle was less than the expected difference due to seasonal fluctuations. It is apparent that a signifi- cant proportion of the upper beach slope adjustments and sorting losses occurred during the first 9 to 12 months. After that period, the upper beach face retreated with a fairly constant slope. The value of the exponential decay constant, determined from the average of the individual k values for each of the MLW, MSL, and MHW excursion plots from each profile, was k=0.66. Substituting this value into equation (4), together wieniGeone and S-=0.95CE;, gave t;=1.8 years; i.e., effectively all initial losses due to sorting, slope adjustment, and lateral spreading occurred during the first 1.8 years after fill completion. Substituting k=0.66, €=0.8, and Er=0 into equation (6) produces t=4.06 years. This means that the beach face eroded back to its original prefill position 4.06 years after fill completion, and that the beach-fill project effectively "bought" this time for the beach segment within the project boundaries by artificially placing sand on the beach. This is in agreement with observed behavior. Between October 1970 and December 1974, an estimated 91 percent of the initial beach fill was lost (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977), and the sequential beach profiles in Appendix F show that by April 1974 the location of profile WB15 was approximately in its pre-1970 beach-fill position. Only a few percent of the initial fill was retained above the MHW contour after 4 years and, unfortunately, little information is available to describe the changes in offshore bathymetry. Downdrift beaches benefited from the fill due to alongshore transport away from the fill site. However, quantification of this benefit was not possible due to the masking effect of the seasonal variations in beach position. Assuming that only slope and sorting adjustments occurred during the first 9 to 12 months, then solving equation (4) for S; at t ,=0.75 and ty=1.0 indicates that 54 to 62 percent of the total initial fill volume was lost to sorting and slope adjustment. This range compares favorably with the values of 60 to 66 percent sorting loss estimated by the adjusted fill factor and critical ratio techniques, respectively. The rate of initial loss of beach material was not constant along the length of the beach-fill project. The k values calculated for 85 "11) YOBeq OZEL Yoweg ejjJAS}YBLM seYyYe edojs esoYyse0j jo esuodsey ‘py e1nb)4 (4A) SWIL @ 3d01S SHOHSSYHOS HOS HOLINS NOILINISAG (ZG NO L) @ uei‘3d071S JHOHSAYOS 86 profiles near the ends of the fill tended to be slightly higher than those for profiles located in the middle. This implies that the ends of the fill eroded at a slightly faster rate than did the center, which can be expected since the relative changes in beach angle and nearshore bathymetry at the ends are greater than the relative changes in the center, and thus cause greater concentration of wave energy and sediment transport. Together with the fact that 20- to 30-meter excursions occurred on either side of the fill soon after placement, this informa- tion supports the concept that significant quantities of fill material spread laterally from the fill ends. It should be noted, however, that nonhomogeneity in the fill material properties may have been the real cause of the variation in the rate of initial lose along the project length. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material was obtained from a shoal in the Banks Channel, and the balance which was extremely fine sand of poor beach-fill quality was obtained from the sound area behind Shell Island (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977). The most significant feature of the variation in long-term excursion rate along central Wrightsville Beach is that the rate calculated for the 1965 to 1975 decade (i.e., 5 years before and 5 years after fill placement) was significantly higher in the vicinity of the fill than along adjacent beach sections. This means that the reason for the high erosion rates, which existed before and probably resulted in the need of the 1970 fill, still existed after 1970 and caused high annual sediment losses to the fill. There are two possible causes for these localized higher erosion rates. In 1965, the north jetty of Masonboro Inlet was completed and effectively cut all northward sand transfer from Masonboro Island to Wrightsville Beach. Consequently, Wrightsville Beach suffered higher erosional losses since 1965 due to the partial lack of sediment supply. South of the fill the growth of the accretion fillet may have offset the increased erosional trends; however, the same is not true for the area adjacent to the north fill—boundary. An oblique aerial photo of Wrightsville Beach taken between 1968 and 1969 (Fig. 45), shows a significant deviation in the present-day shore- line alinement near the center of the island. The uniform-width dark band between the beach and the seawardmost houses is the grassed part of the constructed dune of the 1965 beach-fill project. The misalinement of the north end of the Wrightsville Beach fill, relative to the present tendency of the shoreline, resulted from Moore Inlet which, prior to its artificial closure in 1965 as part of the overall beach nourishment plan, was located just north of arrow A. The closure of Moore Inlet eliminated the interaction between tidal and littoral forces in this area, which had existed since 1887 and which had combined to form a seaward concavity in the shoreline alinement immediately south of the inlet. Erosion prior to the 1965 beach fill exposed the northern building line of the township of Wrightsville Beach and so the aline- ment of the 1965 beach fill was forced to follow this line, thus causing a bulge in the resulting beach planform. Arrow B points to profile 87 "ySBEYLOU-YYOU Hulyjoo] yoeeg ej)|AS}YBjJM JO Me|A “Sp eunB}4 #13 INI OUOSNOSVW 17 1NI NOSVI 88 WB36, the approximate start of the alinement problem. Between 1965 and 1970, the beach on the north side of the Masonboro Inlet jetty accreted, however, the central island bulge and alinement problem remained. The 1970 beach fill was placed approximately between arrows A and A', thus reinforcing the beach alinement problems. The greater relative change in beach planform and nearshore bathymetry in the central section of the island from 1965 to 1975 resulted in higher wave activity and erosional trends. Natural beach processes tend to focus on and smooth out irregular- ities, thus creating a smoothly curving beach as is idealized by the dashline in Figure 45. The high rates of erosion and initial losses associated with the 1970 beach fill may not be typical of all beach fills, but may have been partly caused by the exposure to increased wave attack due to the misalinement of the beach planform. The resulting implication means that if improvement in performance of a future beach fill located in the same area is desired, then additional fill should be placed along the adjacent beaches, as shown by the dot-dash line in Figure 45, to remove the alinement problem. This, however, may not be an economically feasible solution. Information obtained from the postfill beach response was used to examine the assumption in the sediment budget analysis that offshore losses due to sorting of freshly exposed beach material were minor. Equation (6) showed that 4.06 years after the fill placement, the beach returned to its prefill position and with approximately the same near- shore profile (Fig. 44). This means that whatever came into the fill area during the 4.06-year period was transported out by the end of that time. The sources of sediment include longshore transport into the fill region, material placed during the beach-fill operations, and material brought ashore by seasonal onshore transport. Losses of sediment include longshore transport out of the fill region, losses due to sorting of the beach fill, seasonal losses due to offshore transport, losses due to the rising sea level, overwash, and aeolian processes. Since the pre- and end-of-period profiles had approximately the same shape, the net volumetric changes due to slope readjustment were zero. Over an even 4-year period, seasonal changes should approximately balance out, and so within the limits of accuracy of this study, the net on/offshore contribution was set to zero. Volumetric gains from the beach fill (BF) were determined from surveys, and associated sorting losses (sorting) were calculated using the adjusted fill factor (Ra). Losses due to sea level (SL) were calculated by use of Bruun's (1962) formulation. Aeolian and washover losses were near zero. Since the net volume change at the end of the 4.06-year period was zero, then the net volumetric change due to alongshore transport of the boundaries (Q;,-Qo5yt) must equal the difference between these _ldentified sources and sinks since the fill area was away from active inlets, jetties, etc.; i.e., Qe Os ue tek ees ORt ine, cola 0 or Qe POnutes DeLRAga roe © 89 Substituting in values from Tables 4 and 6 and with Ra=3, the annual volumetric change due to alongshore transport was Qin ~ Qout = 86,125 m>/yr From equation (11) Chen = @orne = (8) Cian a Pie aed and from Figure 38 re ont Py = -300 N-M/S-M anes Eione B =287 m3-s/Nyr and hence Within the limits of accuracy of both the data and technical analyses, this simple postfill sediment budget determination, where all contributions to the sediment budget were quantified, produced a value of B which was very close to that calculated earlier (mean value of B = 300) when using long-term beach response characteristics and where the losses due to sorting of "freshly" exposed native beach material by ongoing erosion was assumed to be small. Since the calculated values of B are similar and they come from analyses of two distinct phases of beach response, these results support the contention that ongoing sorting losses during the long-term response phase are minimal. Analysis of the spatial variation of the beach response to the 1965 and 1971 beach fills along Carolina Beach was not possible because of insufficient profile information. Results for the 1965 fill, as shown by the beach photos in Figure 46, were determined from MLW, MSL, and MHW excursion distance plots for profiles CB106 and CB107 which were less than 0.5 kilometer apart. Consecutive profiles at CB97 were used to determine the response to the 1971 beach fill. The average exponential decay constant, the average initial fill excursion, and the average long-term erosional rate are given in Table 12. Substituting these val- ues into equation (4) indicates that most initial losses occurred during the first 1.5 to 2 years following both fills, in agreement with observed behavior (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1970). Using the values contained in Table 12 and assuming € =0.8, equation (6) predicts that 2.4 years and 2.25 years after the 1965 and 1971 fill projects, respectively, the beach face eroded to approximately its original prefill position. These values are in reasonable agreement with recorded observations on the loss of beach fill during the 2 years following each fill (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977). Granulometric data taken immediately after fill placement in 1965, and taken again 2 years later, are shown in Table 21. These data were used to calculate a critical ratio of 2.1 for the fill material, and thus an expected 55 percent volumetric loss due to sorting (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1970). Results from profile CB106 tend to show that 50 percent of the initial excursion was lost during the first 1.5 to 2 years, close to the design value. The adjusted fill factor and James' (1975) renourishment factor were evaluated from the same data and were found to be Ra=1.02 and Rj=0.25, respectively. For the 1965 Carolina beach-fill data, the adjusted fill-factor techniques predicted a value of expected sorting loss significantly lower than both 90 1h \ THOR iu. ay After restoration (1965) Figure 46. Views of Carolina Beach shoreline before and after construction of 1965 beach-fill project. Table 21. Average granulometric data for Carolina Beach 1965 beach fill. Granulometric Composite Composite conditions (date) mean grain standard size Ut deviation C (in phi units)](in phi units) Spring 1965 (time of fill) | 0.96 | iW) May 1967 (2 years after fill) 1.69 | 0.91 the value calculated by the critical ratio technique and the actual measured loss from one profile. Granulometric data were not available for the 1970 Carolina beach fill. With only data from two beach fills, a relationship between the exponential decay constant k and granulometric properties of the beach fills was not investigated. Sal VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS During the period from 1964 to 1975, 2,952 repetitive beach profiles were recorded at 241 stations between Wrightsville Beach and Fort Fisher Beach. The total length of Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches represented only 32 percent of the total length of the study area, but nearly 70 percent of all beach profile stations and 89 percent of the total number of recorded profiles were located along these two beaches. Of the nearly 3,000 profiles, only 4 percent extended beyond the MLW position to approximatley the -10 meter contour. As a consequence, volumetric changes representative of actual changes occurring between successive surveys could not be calculated by simply measuring the change in area under the measured profile curves because significant changes occur below the low water line. The positions of the MHW, MSL, MLW, -1.83 meters (-6 feet), -3.66 meters (-12 feet), and -5.49 meters (-18 feet) contours were plotted relative to a fixed base line, for all profiles. The excursion distance of each contour between successive profiles is indicative of volumetric change, the magnitude of which is found by applying a volumetric equivalent factor, calculated from changes in area under some profiles which repetitively extended out into deeper water, to the mean excursion distance value. Due to the poor spatial and temporal distribution of profiles along Masonboro, Kure, and Fort Fisher Beaches, only profiles from Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches were used in the analysis of beach response and volumetric changes associated with storms and manmade influences. The results indicate that the average seasonal changes along Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches, measured 24 and 17 meters, respectively, were significantly larger than the long-term loss (erosion) rate for 1 year. In addition, the response of these beaches to storm-induced erosion or beach-fill placement was, in many instances, very short in duration and therefore difficult to identify in many of the excursion plots which had poor temporal resolution. Most of the beach profile data are not a result of one coordinated and well-planned study, but rather from several independent and over- lapping studies. The following recommendations on the distribution of beach profile surveys are based on comparison of adjacent profiles and are made so that the most efficient use of manpower and money can be incorporated into future beach studies. The spatial separation of profiles should be in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 kilometers, if possible, along straight or smoothly varying stretches of beach. Profiles should be spaced closer in areas of abrupt changes in beach planform (e.g., inlets, headlands, etc.) or in areas where historic observations indicate large relative changes in beach position. The profiles must be measured with sufficient frequency so that seasonal fluctuations and longer term trends can be identified and separated. To accomplish this, some stations (e.g., every fourth) must . be surveyed frequently, no more than 1 or 2 months apart, and the inter- mediate stations should be profiled at least twice a year (surveyed at the same times each year). 92 Some of the profiles which are surveyed frequently must be surveyed out beyond the MLW position to approximately the position of the -10 meter contour. These long profiles are necessary to establish the actual volumetric changes for the entire active profile, and hence, used to calculate the volumetric equivalent factor applied to the intermediate profiles. If the seasonal variation in beach excursion is larger than the long-term trends, then profile data must be collected for a minimum of 2 to 3 years for both processes to be quantified. Greater variability in the data necessitates longer collection periods. For projects with tight budget constraints, a few profiles located in key positions and surveyed frequently will provide a better data base than more profiles surveyed infrequently. Wave gage data collected at Johnnie Mercer's Pier and LEO data from Wrightsville Beach were combined to develop a wave climate representa- tive of the wave conditions found along the study area. This data was refracted in to shore and the breaking wave conditions were used to calculate both the northerly and southerly components of longshore energy flux. The spatial gradient of these values along Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches were compared with the long-term (nonseasonal) volumetric changes, and the empirical factor, $B, which relates the longshore sediment transport rate to the longshore component of energy flux was calculated. By choosing a best-fit value of § =300 and B =900 m?-s/N-yr for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches, respectively, plots of predicted and measured volumetric change due to longshore sediment transport along each beach showed similar trends, although the absolute magnitude at any beach location was different. To improve the accuracy of the energy flux computation in future studies, the following recommendations on desirable refraction model characteristics should be utilized or developed. (a) Variable grid cell spacing should be used to allow coarse-sized computational cells in deep water and finer cells in the nearshore region where greater relative changes in bathymetry can cause instability problems. (b) The effects of diffraction and tidal currents on wave propagation should be included. (c) The dynamic interrelationship between both the nearshore bathymetry and shoreline planform, and the sediment transport potential of the incoming waves should be incorporated. The present static boundary condition representation of the shore- line, used in refraction analysis programs, does not allow for any change in shape in the shoreline due to increased sediment transport capabilities as a result of increased (focused) wave activity. Thus changes in refraction patterns and beach approach angles due to beach response between different sets of wave types used to represent seasonal or annual conditions should be included. 93 Until these improvements can be incorporated, the results of this study indicate that the additional expenses incurred due to the use of a large number of wave rays and high resolution in the bathymetric data cannot be justified. Sediment budgets were developed for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches. These two beaches were each divided into three littoral cells in which the response of the beach to all natural and man-influenced changes was fairly similar. Long-term volumetric changes were assumed to be the result of differences in longshore sediment transport rates, sediment loss to wave overtopping, and to sea level rise. Losses due to ongoing sorting of beach sediment were considered minor. Values of wave energy flux at each cell boundary were multiplied by the empirical factor ( which relates the longshore transport potential to the long- shore component of wave energy flux. An additional efficiency factor, @ which relates the actual volume of sediment transported to the potential amount as predicted from the energy flux analysis, was included in the sediment budget equations. The value of a along a smooth and uninter- rupted coastline was assumed to be one and at positions where a coastal structure (e.g., the north jetty weir at Masonboro Inlet) or where geologic control (availability of sediment supply) prohibit transport, the value of @ was assumed to be zero. The solution of the sediment transport equations resulted in @ values which indicated that only two-thirds of the gross southerly transport along Wrightsville Beach spills over the north jetty weir into Masonboro Inlet and one-third is either trapped along the southern end of Wrightsville Beach or locally transported northward by wave energy reversals. At the northern ends of Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches, only 10 and 31 percent of the potential volume of sediment is transported out of Mason and Carolina Beach Inlets, respectively. If better volumetric change data had been available for Masonboro Beach, then the influence of Masonboro and Carolina Beach Inlets in terms of their inlet trapping potential on the supply and storage of sand have been determined. Analyses of the beach profiles taken along Wrightsville Beach after the 1970 beach fill indicate several components of beach response. The first component was a long-term loss rate of -3.8 meters per year which was approximately equal to the long-term loss rate during the 5-year period prior to the 1970 fill operations. This rate was much higher in the immediate vicinity of the fill than along adjacent beaches both during the prefill and postfill periods, and indicated that the fill placement did not reduce or eliminate the problem which resulted in the need for a fill, but rather provided recreational opportunity and "bought- time" for the properties behind the project boundaries. In addition to the long-term component, an exponential loss of beach-fill volume was recorded during the first 1.5 to 2 years. Excur- sion plot analysis showed that about 80 percent of the total initial fill was eroded during this period of rapid initial loss, and that severe storm erosion was not the primary cause for the very high initial loss rate. The first set of profile measurements taken after fill completion indicated that the fill material was placed at a beach angle shallower 94 than the existing 1970 prefill beach slope. During the first 9 to 12 months the MHW-MLW beach slope steepened (and retreated) in response to the seaward sorting of fine sand grains and to the readjustment of the profile slope to the prevailing wave conditions. After this period, the upper beach face retreated with only minor changes in beach slope due to seasonal wave climate influences. Sediment characteristics of the fill and native beach material were used to calculate a value for the adjusted fill factor of Ry=3.0. This value indicates that 66 percent of the fili material can be expected to be lost due to sorting; however, comparison with measured results indicates that this calculation underestimates the initial loss percentage. In addition to the sorting and slope readjustment losses, significant quantities of fill material were lost due to the lateral spreading of material onto adjacent beaches. An oblique aerial photo taken before the 1970 beach fill showed that the placement of the fill could only have reinforced the beach alinement problem along Wrightsville Beach. Since 1965, the beach section which suffered the localized and high erosion rates protruded from the generally smooth, curving beach planform. It was concluded that the relative change in beach planform and nearshore bathymetry resulted in an increase in localized wave activity, sediment transport potential, and erosional trends, and that this phenomena would continue until the relative change in beach shape is eliminated. Therefore, it appears that the continual renourishment of this section perpetuated the problem of increased localized wave activity. This study showed that beach losses in addition to the expected losses due to sorting and slope readjustment occurred during the initial 1.5- to 2-year response phase. It appeared that lateral spreading of the fill material onto adjacent beaches, due to the forced protrusion of the beach fill out beyond the general beach alinement, resulted in these additional significant losses. 95 LITERATURE CITED BRUUN, Pe, “Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Shore Erosion,” Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Diviston, Feb. 1962. DOBSON, R-eSe, “Some Applications of a Digital Computer to Hydraulic Engineer- ing Problems," TR-80, Office of Naval Research, June 1967. FRITSCH, F.N., SHAFER, ReE., and CROWLEY, W.P., “Algorithm 443, Solution of the Transcendental Equation w e” = x," Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 16, Noe 2, 1973, ppe 123-124; errata, EINARSSON, Be, “Remark on Algorithm 442," Commuinicattons of the Assoctatton for Comput- ing Machinery, Vole 17, Noe 4, 1974. HARRIS, DeL.e, “Characteristics of Wave Records in the Coastal Zone,” R 2-73, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Vae, Octe 1973. HICKS, S.D., and SHOFONOS, W., “Yearly Sea Level Variations for the United States," Journal of the Hydraultes Divtston, Sept. 1965. IWAGAKI, Y, and KAKINUMA, T., "On the Bottom Friction Factor of the Akita Coast," Coastal Engineering tn Japan, Vol. 6, 1963, pp. 83-91. JAMES, WeRe, “Techniques in Evaluating Suitability of Borrow Material for Beach Nourishment,” TM-60, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va, 1975. JAMES, WeR.-, “Borrow Material Texture and Beach Fill Stability,” Proceedings of the 14th Internattonal Conference on Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. II, 1974, pp. 1334-1344. JARRETT, J.T., “Sediment Budget Analysis, Wrightsville Beach to Kure Beach, North Carolina,” Coastal Sediments, American Society of Civil Engineers, New! York, Nove 1977, pp. 986-1005. KOMAR, P.D., Beach Processes and Sedimentation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976. LANGFELDER, L.J-e, “Coastal Erosion in North Carolina," Proceedings of the Coastal Processes and Shore Protestion Seminar, Mar. 1970. MOGEL, TeRe, and. STREET, ReL., “Computation of Longshore Energy and Littoral Transport,” Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Coastal Engineering, Vole 2, 1 970K pps 1699-9) li/i6 PIERCE, JeWe, “Holocene Evolution of Portions of the Carolina Coast," Bulletin of the Geologic Society of America, Vol. 81, Dec. 1970. SKOVGAARD, O., JONSSON, I.G., and BERTELSEN, J.A., “Computation of Wave Heights due to Refraction and Friction," Journal of the Waterways and Har- bors Division, New York, Vole 101, WW1, 1975, pp. 15-32. THOMPSON, E-F., “Wave Climate at Selected Locations Along U.S. Coasts,” TR 7/-1, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va-e, Jan. 1977. 96 UeSe ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, “Documentation of CERC Beach Evaluation Program Beach Profile--Line Locations at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, Fort Belvoir, Va., 1973. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, Shore Proteetton Manual, 3d ede, Volse I, II, and III, Stock Noe 008-022-00113-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977, 1,262 pp. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "Carolina Beach and Vicinity, North Carolina," letter from the Acting Chief of Engineers, Department of Administration, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1961. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina," letter from Secretary of the Army, Washington, DeC., Mar. 1962. U.eS. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, “Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina,” Design Memorandum, Wilmington, N.C., July 1964. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, “Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina-- North Jetty,” Design Memorandum, Wilmington, N.C., 1965. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, "Carolina Beach Harbor, North Carolina, Survey Report,” Wilmington, N.C., Jane 1966. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, “Investigation of Beach Erosion, Carolina Beach, North Carolina,” Wilmington, N.eC., 1970. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, "Fort Fisher and Vicinity, North Carolina, Feasibility Report of Beach Erosion Control,” Wilmington, N.C., July 1974. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, "Carolina Beach Inlet, North Carolina, Draft Feasibility Report on Improvement of Navigation," Wilmington, N.C., 1976. U.S.e ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, “The Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina South Jetty General Design Memorandum,” Wilmington, NeC.e, Octe 1977. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, “Specifications for Dredging Deposi- tion Basin, Carolina Beach Inlet, North Carolina,” Wilmington, N.C., 1967. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, SOUTH ATLANTIC, “National Shoreline Study-- Regional Inventory Report,” South Atlantic-Gulf Region, Atlanta, Ga., Aug. 1971. U.S. NAVAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMAND, “Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Obser- vations, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts," Vole 3, 1975. VALLIANOS, Le, “Recent History of Erosion at Carolina Beach, North Carolina,” Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Coastal Engineering, Vol. 2, 1970, ppe 1223-1242. VITALE, P., “A Guide for Estimating Longshore Transport Rate Using Four SPM Methods,” CETA 80-6, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va-e, Apr. 1980. 97 ery 1 ii fal * A egie= ‘ yet ee i cs ay ig dees APPENDIX A WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS 99 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE {M) 110 DISTANCE jo) — — sig RS 70 zal We vs 74 75 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW tial 72 vs 74 VS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = =MSE 79 qd UG TIMES Gee Ry CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB 1 100 (M) DISTANCE M) ( OISTHANCE M) ( DISTANCE 100 20 6S 70 Va UG v3 74 fe) TIME (YEAR) CONTGUR : MLW (eS) oO a 69 70 a 7 73 74 aS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL (S} Cc oO : wee 70 71 72 ie 7 75 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW SSTANEE TE ROM Whe BASE ENE Ee Sarasa CUNT OURS (Al WE “2 101 M) ( DISTANCE rau) al $2 73 74 75 MEER Ry CONTOUR : MLW (M) DISTANCE 70 al 72 ? Uwe AUER CONTOURS MS 74 72 Cu —— (M) DISTANCE ie) CONTSUR = MRM Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTGURS AT WB 3 102 (M) (oa) (=) i) = [) we Ge (== Ww (=) = 70 al 72 73 74 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW = pao 29} (=) ny) = G aa | el w oO a 70 71 He 2. 74 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR + MSL = tani =] (S) uJ —- Q x aaa va) oO 2 ae 71 Ie eS ry TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW OISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTGURS AT WB 4¥ 103 =<] an (M) DISTANCE {M) DISTANCE (M) L10 DISTANCE WieWe Winerlay CONTOUR : MLW no 71 Te 73 7 S TIME (YEAR] CONTOUR = MSL 30 79 Pe Ue us 7y 75 IME CnERRy CONTAUR : MHW DISTANCE: FROM: THE BASE LINE TO STATED EONTOURS AAT ANB i46 104 (M) 150 OLISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OLTSTANCE 50 65 66 G6? 68 6Y 70 71 ne vs 74 TIME (EAR CONTGUR : MLW 150 50 65 66 6? 68 BY 70 cal 72 as} 74 TIME (YEAR) EGNTGURT = MSE 150 ao 66 6? 68 69 70 71 ve ds) 7Y Wives rE RRy CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE T@ STATED CONTOURS AT WB 105 vs M) ( DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE DISTANCE iM) 65 665 67 68 69 70 att Ue 73 74 475 VGH Uidetalay CONTOUR : MLW "685 66 6? 68 69 70 val UG 3 7y a 120 TIME SS KeARA CONTOUR = MSL TIME MRE RR CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB 9Q 106 (M)} DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DOLISTANCE 64 65 66 57 63 69 7O V1 Wie vS 74y TIME ACVERR) EGNTGUR = MLW 64Y 65 66 5? 58 69 70 Wal Ue TS) fy TIME {YEAR) EONTOUR = MSE TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE ‘FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS..AR: WBO 11 107 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE ] {M OTSTANCE 5Y 65 66 67 63 639 7o ral Hie HS 74 Wale Wiehe) CONTOUR =: MLW 6Y B35 66 G? 68 BY 70 val ve vs} 74 Tel ME OnE RR) CUNTOUR = MSL 64Y 65 66 6? 68 SS) 70 Halk fa WS) 7Y ; Teil (telsliay) CONTOUR = MHW DISTANEESRROMPTHE BASE EINEY TO" STAMEDIEONTOURS AI IHB 108 3} (M) = ny) (oy = jam = un [j= oO . BY 65 ia) 6? 68 89 7O ral we eS 7Y Gs TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW = . = eo) a = a 2 * a 2 Py ae cr _o ae ee = Cnn, 2 : 1s R R se u eB Co ~a- = 5 a) - ad BS BB bo? Ba 69 TO val we ies, F4 Hei TIME (YEAR) CANT Sev Sie 100 aa tS ig] . i W f at TANCE *: ™y ™ f | ¢ ki f TIME WwEAR) CONTOUR =: MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local stom. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE. BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB 15 109 (M} LU & pres, lac | aed in o Ga NE k6S" GRO BI SA) ST PTI OTA NTI Wh TE TIME YEAR) CONTGUR = MLW =o w ee r {Ons SS A Pe] t — Y--—— fret oh ~ a ' ar ui | asc | z a =) : ES By MES VSS eG Ne epee Tole Tae Pe Ts We. WS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL de es Od LL} C aa | a (ca sh} a4 BS 66 6? BG Bo 7U Hal ie V3 74 Tis “ANTOUR = MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shertly after a focal storm Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTQURS AT WB 16 te) (M) DISTANCE (M) 120 DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE 120 BY 6S 65 67 68 69 rae) HAL he vs 74 PINE SyEA hi CONTGUR = MLW 20 64 65 665 Bb? boee a9 70 ee v2 a3 74 TIME (KERR GONTEGURE SS MS BY 65 66 67 Bia] 63 70 At fe Us 74 feiMles AO lelalay CONTGUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB 11 u @ Soa m@ one Zny @ ae (M) E C DISTAN M) ( DISTANCE M) ( OLISTANCE 110) G4 65 66 6? 68 69 7Q fl ve es 74 Weite Catala CONTGUR = MLW 64 55 66 Bb? 68 69 70 el fe rs 74 Pie EAR CONTOUR = MSL BU 65 BG a7 63 639 70 mal ve Us) 7U nee ielelny) CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB Yi 19 (M) DISTANCE (M) 200 (M) 200 OISTANCE DISTANCE 64 59 BG 6? 58 649 70 Wal ve val 7y ie Gives Crea Ry CONTOUR : MLW ie oe" i eye ae ak) BY 55 BE G? 68 BY 7U eal He a3 7y ds TIME (YEARI EGNTGUR@s MS 54 BS BG a? be (are) 70 71 72 73 Fu #5 TIME IlYEAR} CONTGUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TU STATED CONTOURS AT WB 21 We) [M} DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE (M) OLTSTANCE BY 65 66 67 68 6g 70 Wal fe 73 74 #5 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW 64 65 BG 6? 68 6Y 70 Hal ie Us: 74 va TIME (YEAR) CUNTOUR = MSL 64 5} 5) 66 6? 56 69 7Q Call ie ve 74 eS eles tetany CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE 710 STATEOQ CONTOURS AT WB 25 114 (MJ DISTANCE (Md DISTANCE (M) 100 DISTANCE 100 0 100 a) 6Y 63 TIME 70 (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW 68 EY re) EME OVER CONTOUR : MSL wp) (= 639 Telhe 70 (YEAR) CONTOUR : peal MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE fO STATED CUNTOURS HT WB 115 2 (re g i] (M DISTANCE sTANCE (M) oles oO iS iy) ul ti oi Oo) ~~] oy co BY rae) ok 72 Ve 74y ga Wades (Otel CONTOUR = MLW Bu B5 BG 67 68 69 70 Fl ies vs 74y va) IME WEAR GUNTUR MS BOE 562 56 Be 63 BY 70 al es te fy v2 TIME SORE CONTOUR = MHW DISTANGES FROM THE-BASE LINE 1G STATEO CONTOURS AT WBE 33 16 M) [ OISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OTSTANCE 110 30 64 65 66 6? tat 69 “al Tink ie 73 74 vs TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW Bu Bo BG 6? Be 69 70 At Hee eS 74 va) RIMES Urea Re CONTAUR = MSL TIME lLYEARI CENTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTQURS AT WB 36 117 STANCE (M) 5 DT ] (M DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE a m a 64 65 66 67 58 Bg 70 el We 73 74 isl (UME GEAR CONTOUR : MLW oO m o 64 65 BG am 68 BY dal wh Ue Zs 7Y tS Welle HOMER CONTE = MSE Q Mm = wa ee ore) nae RB ae, 2 Lt 5 Baw ne 7 an , i @ fs =) BY 65 BG Bb? 53 69 ra) Tk Ue HS *y *5 TIME (YEAR! CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TQ STATED CONTOURS AT WB 39 118 (MJ DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE DISTANCE ([M) SSm Go rook DBs. Gin Foe OS ov eer I Vie sas TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR +: MLW GS ei) eet ico mengES TIME, hERRI CONTSUAR, s MSE 90 BS Gee Foe (6Gey Oigve OOmay OS pail, auael ie, ahh TIME, (reARd CONTOUR =: MHW OISTANCESE ROM. THE BASE LINE Oo SSTATED, CONTOURS A TH. WB We (M) i TANCE DIS (MJ 110 DISTANCE STANCE (tM) 110 > ra) DI BY 65 66 6? 68 BY 7Q Uk ie HS 7y aS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW a wn " eo wae a a at CRO lal “— Bu 65 BG 6? Bé BY 70 7l 74 Ha) ene Mella EGNTEUR Ss MSE ~ no oS [m) BY 55 56 B? BE 4 Bs 70 rial ie us 74 HS TIMES GEAR CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE’ TE STATED GON TOURS A We eee 120 (M1) OLSTANCE (M) DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE 110 1a TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW 64 BS BG ity 68 BY 70 "al ie 43 Ri tis TIMES ERR CONTOUR = MSL 2 .: " nyo A ee awe ee nthe ON mh Sa A cre an a =) ~ 3u 65 a5 67 68 6Y FAG Bik fe es FU eS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT WB 4S 121 (M) Lu iz = wn (=) a3 Bu 65 BB 67 68 Eg rau el 72 3 74Y Ys TIME (y2AR) CONTOUR = MLW 26 a wl DISTANCE al aes NE @, \ \ f | ! 1 | 1 | | | I T | 5 i a@/i BS Set BS Be eis wi ES | ya wal aetna ts | eS TIME (tYEAR) EGNiG UR saeMSe (M) LYO DISTANCE Esp, (CUS Sai are mba Sige GS: sod Oumar te HS i Bel CENTOUR =: MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TQ STATED CONTQURS AT WB U7 122 M) ( DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 180 BO BY 65 6G BY) 68 59 70 rel ve va 74 TIME -tYEAR) CONTOUR = MLW a co re 64Y B5 ale 6? 58 69 70 Hall he 73 7y ive Sireainy BONG hres) MS (© ra Q co z CGS Ee: LS? NGS —toGu eal Syke mere n tai hsiene ert TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MH‘ DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATEO CONTOURS AT WB 4g 123 (M) DISTANCE (M] DISTANCE STANCE (M) Dik oO oO ow 2 6Y B5 5G B? ina 64 HY al ie va 74 #2 Wiel etl CONTOUR = MLW Oo Ss ov a 64 65 6G 6B? 68 BY 70 7l ie aS) 7u aS Pelle Wisely) SENG aM Sie a a ay 6Y 65 BG 6? BS 54 70 al fe eS 7u a5 (OME Ms GER) CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE AREM THE BASE LINE TEV SHAT EOE ENOU RS Fle NBs 7st) 124 APPENDIX B CAROLINA BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS 125 M) ( OLSTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE om = @ 67 68 69 70 Uh PiMES (WEAR) CONTOUR : MLW Q = re 67 68 69 70 as TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR Ss eMSle = = 67 68 59 ra) ral TENE TEAR) CONTOUR : MHW CVC ES ae he Mate Tere UE See) Web ias Ip ela 1 72 ie 72 if =, | oO + as >t en | x et Lo OS, 5 Seelte s ,* OQ Se | 57 38 5S a Fal Ve HS} 74 TIME {YEAR} a CONMEURT 2 MIEW a. | (o} vu) HP z | ] ce ® : wm T a S | ano oS a ws) pp So? 68 53 ee all ve Ts 74 TIME (YEAR: CONTAURT Ss EMSS (tM) DISTANCE ff —-— Ba 67 “68 BS 70 a ve ins 74 TIME, Crean CONTOUR =: MHW Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB 2 27 (M) OISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE 20 67 58 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW | Il HUME) EAR EANTGUR = MSIE 60 6? 58 he EAR) CONTOUR : MAW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE 7G STATED CONTOURS 128 AT CB 10 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE iw " a a ae i ® 66 67 53 6g 70 Hal #E TIME (vEAR CENTOUR : MLW 66 Bb? 68 69 ae all UG EME REAR CONTOUR = MSL Pie VER Ry CONTOUR = MHW PS TAGE TRROMS THE TESSE ETE TERSTATEDS CHnNiGURSTAIIEB aS 129 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OLTSTANCE B5 66 67 66 69 PLM ER EAR) CONTGUR = MLW aa. 66 67 58 63 TIME (YEAR) : CONTOUR = MSL 67 5d 6Y TIME VERB) CONTOUR : MHW 65 BE DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TE STATED EGNTGURS -ATSCB 16 130 {M) DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE (Md OLISTANCE wes 56 ay 5B 63 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW 1 a ae = | a : ® x ® | . _ a a LE! ey 65 66 6? 68 6S TIME {YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL QO ae] 65 66 67 6B 69 TIME (YEAR) CGNTGUR = MHW DISTANCE FREM: THE BASE EINE TOySTATED CONnCURS AlaeBr 21 131 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE tM) DISTANCE 110 30 oO wo ~J (ea 66 5? 68 TIME (YEAR) CANTBUR = MLW a 30 68 ai 68 69 79 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR + MSL = Si 9) @ : " © G6 6? 68 B49 7] Wieile= (Meha CONTOUR =: MH ES NG intl) Vile Se Ns el SAE eNOS tl ile Se 132 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE DISTANCE (M) oO = = 65 66 67 68 63 EME SyERR) CONTOUR : MLW 400 BS 66 67 68 69 TIMEY (rERR CONTOUR = MSL 400 65 66 6? 68 69 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE T@ STATED CONTOURS AT CB 4O 12) 70 70 (M) DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 100 56 67 100 66 67 100 DISTANCE FROM THE 68 69 Wnt. delalny CONTOUR =: MLW 68 69 TIME. (7EARI CONTOUR =: MSL 68 69 TIME EAR) CONTOUR = MHW BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB 4u 134 70 70 70 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE a = na mt a ee ok a iS) 2 a 55 66 G? TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW cS) = 0 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = M a r- VIMe ea EAR CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE EROM THE. BASE. LINE Te Shalev CONTOURS Ail, 135 Cc: B o3 (M] DISTANCE (MM) I OLSTAN (M) OISTANCE 80 B5 BE B? 68 63 70 a tH Wtetelay. CONTOUR =: MLW ~ ine) i) in om ai Mm —l BY 68 59 70 71 ie TIME (YEAR) CONTGUR = MSL 55 BB BF Be BY TIME (YEAR) CONTEUR =: MHW ced} (a) ~~ aA J ie) DISTANCE BROMe THE SBASE EINE Wes SiiRiED CONTOURS? Ail eB 6: 136 {MJ STANCE OT (M) DISTANCE (MM) STANCE OT So oa & a] Le ®: w 5 z a 5 5] a 65 56 b7 58 Bg 7O Wi Fe qa 74 TIME (YEAR) GaN DER MLW CONTOUR =: MAW Note: Clreles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time at which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB 6Y 137 STANCE (MI S OT TANCE (MM) OL: TANCE tM) OT: DIN @. " By ne Na na : ® © | m co eT ie TE 65 55 5? 56 £9 7O Gil WE eS 7Y TIME (vERRI CENTOUR = MLW Se Re 2 aN > x | = ae ® ©, @ Ce [E} . Bo 56 B? BB 649 70 Gl fe 73 7Y TIME (YEAR: CONTAUR MSL C+ 65 BE B? ai Ba 70 71 72 72 7u TIME ] w ot a meee ores ere Say es MES 66 5? inital 649 70 Fl We ws Fy TIME rear CONTOUR = MSL D ne . uw oa i Ly ® ae @ ® ™ nj ‘ CONTEURF = MAW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB 96 140 (M) CE DISTAN (MJ OISTANCE (M) DISTANCE as ” ri] Oo hil a Tp ® oO ee 66 B? 68 AY rae Pal He Wee WER CONTOUR : MLW BS BE Be 68 ag] 7O wal We TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL BS 56 B? B8 63 70 pal ve TIME Seat CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS 141 AilpeGB 199 74 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE M) ( DULSTANCE 65 665 57 66 69 70 al He 73 74 TPIME GEAR) CONTOUR = MLW 55 66 6? 68 649 70 ial 72 Ws ?7y HS detain CONTOUR = MSL “BS 6G B? Be 63 70 Gal me Ge 7uy uve rer RI CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM TRE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT. CB 106 142 (M) DISTANCE TANCE (MI) DIS (M) OTSTANCE 70 cs B6 Bu BS Bg 70 7 72 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW ~-J ime) BS BB B7 BS 69 7O 71 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL bo] Aa) BE 5? 68 69 7O vA Uz Tie Ove AR CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS 143 Ailgee Ba lr, (MJ DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) TANCE S Ol a) wo a *s5 ‘nm @ | 2 ® 5 a (©) z ew ra | zB S a alk oe 65 BB B7 68 69 70 7 fe HS us Peele. sWielsiay) CIN GIA O° iatSil a oO (==) 55 BB Be Be Ba 70 Fil q TIME (YEAR: CaNTAUR 2 MHA Note: Circles Indicate profiles measured shortly after a local storm. Arrows Indicate the approximate time st which beach fills were placed. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TG STATED CONTOURS AT CB 119 144 APPENDIX C MASONBORO BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS 145 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) STANCE DL G8 Ip eine CONTOUR 68 TIME CUNTOUR a8 TIME CONTOUR MB [YEAR) MLW (YEAR) Mok (TEAR) MHW 1 70 70 70 (M) OTSTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 230 130 65 &9 73 VIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW oO 4.) mM Cd = (=) ns) TES 69 73 RIVE (reRha CONTGUR Se ceM Sie (S) ry md (=) mm an ss) 64 73 Pie rere CONTGUR = MHW MB OVSTANEE EREM TES SAS et E She eS Ae ee Nimes (M) DISTANCE (M) 280 DISTANCE M) ( OLTSTANCE 280 250 639 Us) le = Elan) CONTGUR = MLW = 69 vS TIME SMEAR) CONTOUR = MSL 6Y us TIME TERRI CONTOUR = MHW MEG iS DISTANCE FROM THE BASE 147 (M) DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE (M1 OTSTANCE oO ~~ ay |) (>) mM 56 67 68 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW oC f~ i ee oO mM “66 57 68 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL Oo t~ 2=.4| fg UCR eo 66 Bi 6B TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW MBO? LINE TO STATED CONTOURS tM) “DISTANCE (M] i TANCE c OL (M) 160 OLSTANCE 160 80 aa) 6g 71 (M) DISTANCE Hiei LanelAlay) CONTOUR = MLM yall ile lela) a Cen Way BSE, ral (M) DISTANCE Ge (tM l OLSTAN YS iPiME tCEaR) COMTAUR =: MAW DISTANCE FREIM Volz SESSEUME 9 yu 148 Ww 7 7 un co SSE) fl aS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: -5.49 M in oy) aw fs Pos “65g ill 43 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: -3.66 M uw cd Cd un [~ “6g 71 73 TIME (YEAR) CONMGU Fae ee sah STATED CONTOURS AT MB 14 (M) (=) Od ieee io) =z Ge jE Ww Oo fa 69 Fl TS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW 26 Cd ei OQ me GIs = Sys en (=) (=) “6g 71 73 TIME (YEHR) CONTOUR : MSL =s tay] uJ -- = x a= wo (=) a 5g oall v3 TIME (YEHRI] CONTOUR = MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT MB 16 149 iM) OISTANCE (M) TANCE OL: (Md OLSTANCE Co gq a = ay ie uw q = ke WwW ao (=) Se “69 wi 73 TIME tTEAR) CONTOUR = MLW (=) = = aa a uw [c5) = La] _ ; Z = = meg Gil 73 VIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL a = =H rs ke a) {3} = mci: 7 Ws TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MHW “ DISHANEE RROM. MRE (BASE se tiNES Sie 150 ons) (ca 7m Bg wai 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : -S.49 M Cc ca Od (=) Od “Eg 71 re TIME {YEAR CONTOUR : -3.66 M uy) a 7 uw? jem) —69 7L 73 ewes Wer GIN GU Sete eae Sah STATED CONTOURS AT MB 1? (M) © © ny = <— jou he La w a = o 69 fal WS TIME Sven Re CONTGUR = MLW = Sf) (2) ul —- S = — a (=) a 6Y Wil nS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL = ioe (=) uj - =) = oc ee on) : - i eo (=) J © 69 Fol Ne Cae TIME (YEAR) CANTAUR = MHW OISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT MB Ng) 151 _{M) DISTANCE (M) OLSTANCE IM) DISTANCE 9D 90 390 Sa L] L | 69 ral is ee ele) CONTOUR’: MLW a OE 6g fl eS TIME {YERR) CONTOUR = MSL a 63 tal a3 UME Chee BH CANTOUR MH (M) OLSTANCE (M) OLISTANCE (M) STANCE OL: un ca av 2 i NE al 73 TIME (YEAR) EGNTGUR = —s2uoM Lo = a Q mn 7 8S Wil is che tA lAlAy CONTOUR = S15 (56). 1H S) in . ie Ss mm peg) ai Wa TIME Se(BA Ra CONTOUR : =1.83°M DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE T@ STATED CONTOURS AT MB 20 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE iM) OISTANCE = = oO — SS — uw 2 ) x re Lad wn o Fe 69 Gal Wa TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW a = =) a LW we) = = ds wn a — = 69 Pl HS TIME [YEAR! CONTOUR = MSL a = (=) — jo) om iva = fa a o rs) 69 Falk Ha} TiME“rEAR) CONTOUR = MHW DT STINGESRROM: ne BRS ei TNE) TG 153 ip) up) mM ip) WwW ‘5g 71 Ws TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = -5.49 M (=) mM Lae S mM —69 7) 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : -3.66 M Ww ~m NJ e ee =g9 71 73 TIME -CCEAR) CONTOUR a 1S) M STEEDS RENTER Sr El oh ress (M) DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 40 lay) mt = WD 73 Wes itelaliny) CONTOUR +: MLW a ww Ww ms EME. ERR CONTOUR = MSL Hal HS TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW MBean DT SiANGESGhOM The SBASE 154 (M) S i) ny = G x fe Oo iP 69 cl We} TIME (TEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW = = (=) (=) iy = (5) x = Ww oe o a i) mace wal 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MSL = j=) (@) (OW ee x (= Ww i B69 Bo TS, Viele Oeste CONTAUR = MH MB 2? LINE TO STATEO CONTOURS (M) oO 2 uj — (>) aes cE — Ww [=] 2 63 71 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW = <— (>) oO 1 rey a =z xc i @ ——~ (=) o 69 ral 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MSL = oath ES) oO ines) iw Pra, jag | ond ut o w - oO moe 71 73 PEMES OnE RR: CONTOUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT MB 28 155 (M) ‘DISTANCE (M) OISTANCE iM) STANCE OL 150 150 ia w " w S al #3 Pile Olea CONTOUR = MLW a ral #3 TIME (TEAR) EGNTGUR = MSE by Py L 4 al HS) hts WIeIRhR CONTOUR =: MHW M) ( DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (M) E DISTAN CSAC mah Tinie ese Ve sN es © 1) tl Up) 9 @) Mm Ww cd 89 wall Us) ite Weta! CONTOUR -5.49 Oo Oo ae) oO =! “63 Gil aS TIME tYEAR) CONTOUR =: -3.66 M uw ve) OJ uw in 59 all vs TIME (TEAR) CONTR SSM STATED EONTEGURS Ail MBrtes M) al ED) ay ru} <5 2 x e wo if z | e 69 a 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW = aren ix) =p fis) 5 {5} z Lo = in oO a a o 63 71 73 TIME (YEAR! CONTOUR = MSL = pote = =f" uJ fa ae, (SG ee Ww [= = ti = ae) Th 73 TIME (YEAR) CONT@UR = MHW OL STNEE eROM THE BASE EINE TO Sia eb eGNTelns Ai MB: sd 157 APPENDIX D KURE BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS 158 (MI DISTANCE (Mj OLISTANCE (MI DISTANCE 50 30 50 30 50 30 70 TIME CUNTGUF: : 70 al TIME (YEAR) CONTGUR = MSL ee aman Ws fu wal TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW (YEAR) MLW (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OTSTANCE DI STVNGE ROM The BASE EINE 78 Ln in Las tn ™ 6g 70 Fl TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : -5.49 M (=) (>) OJ co . = = 69 70 71 TIME (YEARI CONTOUR : -3.65 M i] m fal fo =) Pag 70 il TIME (YEAR) CON POU Ric esi i DARED CONTOURS Al KB Ss iM) DISTANCE (M} DISTANCE M) ( OISTANCE 30 UO) wy) Mae (=) un (M) DISTANCE 70 fy 56 He Onerlay! CONTOUR = MLW = ud W) z c = uw om) 70 74 “66 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MSL (M) uu 2 a ——_—* © a Ww) a — oO fg ey BG TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MH KB wu DISTANEE PROM ThEn BASE ENE she 160 70 Letie Wilelsiay CONTOUR =: MLW rad Wotive Uv lelslay! CONTOUR MSE rae TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW KB 5 STATED CONTOURS ay M) ( DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 40 40 40 69 i ¥3 THE) Mella CONTOUR =: MLW VOHE. OMe lehay td] | ie 69 a 73 TIME (YEAR) CAUNTGUR : MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO 161 iM) DISTANCE (Mj OISTANC tM) OLSTANCE Ww OI | | om] (ea) “gg 71 73 TIME (YEAR) GONE G se eS =) Ww un? Mm ~69 Pi HS ive GEAR CONTOUR = -3.66 M (om) m aN ect 63 hull Gs WHE Wdesln CON BU So Sls eiSh 1H STATED CONTOURS AT KB ? (M) DISTANCE M) ( DISTHNCE M) [ DISTANCE = Lid tL) Fae, (ac — wh =) wae 71 We TIME (YEAR) CONTEUR = MLW a = = " Q TIE race eo = a wo (=) i 63 Wak 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MSL ud [e) rae xc ke Ww (=) 6Y wil US TIME {YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW Be ES 63 71 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW LO ea ait 73 iM E WKEARy CONTOUR = MSL “Bg 7a 73 TIME (YEAR CONTGUR = MHW SB) 5) DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS 162 (Mi DISTANCE (mM) 0 280 DISTANCE M) DISTANCE (M) DS) ek) ( DISTANCE (MJ OLTSTANCE = at 69 ral 73 6g # il a3 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW CANT@UR ¢ -S.4u9 M ies 71 73 ate al aa TIME (YEARJ TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR + -3.66 M oO ~ fi a (25) i jeu | a wi {3} oO . uD Mais 71 73 eG 71 73 TIME (YEGRI POS aIME. (vEaR). CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR + -1.83 M ISN eeRROM: THe bASE EINE TO srAreo see NiOURS A h6 Ne 163 TANCE: (M) Ol: (M) & OISTAN M] ( OISTANCE A) 70 = SiS) niu), US OO z x a yn a Bil Hal ” Fil HS TIME (tYEAR) TIME {YEAR CONTOUR =: MLW CONTOUR = MLW s WwW (o) = jam ke wn = is) 71 73 69 71 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MSL CONTOUR + MSL = lu OQ = ed Ww) a rE a Oo 71 73 Bg 71 73 TIME {YEAR TIME (YEAR CONTOUR : MHW CONTOUR : MHW KB 1] KB 12 DISTANCE GROM ThE BASE EINE 18 Siaiel cuNnihgurs 164 (MJ 100 OLSTANCE (MJ DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE 20 100 100 69 Vl TAGME CONTOUR : w w 69 Vi TIME CONTOUR : | ‘a 63 Pall WME CONTOUR = (YEAR) MLW (YEAR) MSL (YEAR) MHW (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (=) (=) rm uw Cd “Eg val We TIME (YEARI CONTOUR : -5.49 M (=) ~4 Cd uw? uw —6g Th 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : -3.66 M (=) = uo ~ BY al 73 TIME (YEARI CENTER ss owls Bese DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT KB 13 165 (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE Eo = = te ey ra Zz io = Ww (cc My ail 73 sg it 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW CONTOUR = MLW ie ae : z ———————— (ac i a Ww = jon) 71 73 as vial 74 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR = MSL = uJ (5) ae lem bt uw 1 ait ve gs Ta 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR = MHW KB 14 Ee) SUE DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS 166 {M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE IM) DISTANCE = © a Q a <= J ed Ww (=) oO (=D) fat —_ 69 val 73 MBG ral 73 TIME ‘YEARI TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW CONTOUR : -S.4S M = tee? (Eo) lu Cu Q a las ke uD Oo 2 ae Gs ai 73 = eg 71 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEARI CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR : -3.66 M say OLSTANCE 5 ee Th 73 ae 7h 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR : -1.83 M DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TG STATED CONTOURS AT KB 17 167 (M) DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE (M) . (Ss) uw eee 2 M x | ol wo SS ou fu 69 ral we 69 Fi 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CENTAUR =: MLW CONTOUR = MLW = iS w 3 x = Ww a a 6g Wall US 63 Fil nS TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR = MSL [M) DISTANCE Bg Bil 73 68g Fil TS TIME (YEAR TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW CANTOUR = MHW KB 18 KB 19 DISTANCE SP hOt Site VBASE UNE Be She SE GINTE iS 168 (M} DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE DISTANCE FROM (c=) ea a =f a 59 fl 73 He aelelay CONTGUR = MLW 63 al ethls Melsiay. CONTOUR : MSL 649 wll CME Chee RR CENTOUR = MAW THESE RSE El NEG 169 STATED CONTOURS AT KB ine) APPENDIX E FISHER BEACH EXCURSION DISTANCE PLOTS 170 M) ( DISTANCE (MJ DISTANCE (MI OLTSTANCE SI 63 Bil 83 Sil i 70 71 TIME -(TEAR) CUNTOUR : MLW 7Q wl Wes wisely CONTOUR =: MSL ial (YEAR) © MHA 70 Wwe CONTOUR RBS td. DISTANCE FROM THE BASE 171 (M) DISTANCE MD ( OISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE 110 a WA a THEME SKEa RH CONTOUR : MLW io) Sf 110 a TLME CONTOUR : ve (YEAR) MSL 110 90 69 rial TIME CONTOUR : 3 (YEAR) MHW fibre ce LINE TO STATED CONTOURS {M) OLISTANCE [M) & DISTAN (M) DISTANCE w = = 5 ——_———_——_———., =) as " ins Fa (ec — w Oo oO 2 4 (>) ~ 69 igi is iS Gel 3) eM ETE TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW CONTOUR = MLW = (=) Se) real ay —_ uj - io) Ce x = Ww (3) (=) oO 7 Be el HS “69 lk ua TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR + MSL CONTOUR : MSL =o =I} Ww — = = re wd jam = coment fe) ~ 69 Hel aS > (eis tiles UN ealay TIME lLYEAR) CONTOUR = MH CONTOUR =: MHW A. Ss Fabsiepaete DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS Iv2 iM) DISTANCE (M1) OISTANCE (MI OTSTANC = a = "5 m7 Ww = UU 2 é 2 i w oO a e ' 69 rp 73 '69 71 Gs TIME {YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW CONTOUR : MLW = a) =) mm WwW =! fe) 5 = fom a - Oo r (=) [o) fa] =i 169 ral wel '69 Th es TIME (tYEHR!) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR =: MSL = (=) (=) ™m WwW a QO) = x _= & Pst ue , : > th Cd = '69 Bill We) 1693 FeAl es WEMEs WER TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHA CONTGUR =: MHW FB S FB 5 DioiANGE FROM athe BASE EINE Ths iAiEbeGaNnTaurs 173 (M) DISTANCE (M) OLSTANCE (Md OLSTANCE 40 40 63 = Ww (=) =z es wn {S) al HS, 63 wil 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTGUR : MLW CONTOUR =: MLW = oO w — OU z= B cx w ke a oO t] jam) 71 73 63 71 vs} TIME (YEAR) DIME (TERR CONTOUR : MSL CONTOUR GMS = =) w = = x = re Ww 5] er “ ines o val ee 69 al eS TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW CONTOUR =: MHW RIBS gue rie) its DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS 174 (M) (M) 10 ‘DISTANCE DISTANCE CONTOUR =: MLW (M) OLISTANCE (M) OLSTHNCE (M] (M) 10 DISTANCE OLSTANCE a ate Wil 7 TIME (YEAR CONTOUR = MLW Lao ~~] bah | ah | Bik eS oe elala CONTOUR = MSL a 71 ies UME Che RR CONTOUR =: MHW ly fall DISTANEE FROM: THE BASE EINE TO stATeD: CONTOURS (M) OISTANCE (M) OISTANCE (M) 5 Ol = z = 2 (=) Wd Od QO = x te w oO jm) 5 Cu ' 69 eu 7s} '69 71 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW CONTOUR = MLW = ud = x — w (=) '6g wi Hs Wile detain! CHE. Weta CONTOUR + MSL CONTOUR +: MSL TANCE =) = O Od a WwW Od = a z - | = a (=) > me (=) ] od vu —— '89 val va '6Y 7 Ua TIME (YEAR) TIME. (EAR CONTOUR = MH CONTEUR =: MHW FB 11 FB| 12 DISiANEE BRM ihe BASE SINE Oo SihAieD CONTOURS 176 (M) DISTANCE (M) OLISTANCE (IM) 30 DISTANCE 30 = {0 {M) (=) Pm (run), BS | Ci = te oa] Oo (=) OJ Hh 73 '6g TIME (YEARI CONTOUR = MLW z iS WW Od = = wn =) =} ai Hall vs IME CER CONTGUR = MSL (M) STANCE Ol 71 73 ‘6g TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MHW Fa 13 DISTANCE TRACE THES BASEeeiINE Rie UG Te el TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW 74 hl PEM ES nee CONTOURS MSL STATED iia TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW ls} dike CAN TELIRS TS) (MJ OISTANCE (M) OTSTANCE (M) OTSTANCE =10 => )L10) 30 0) 69 = Ww (Cy) Fe (OG — Ww eS a 73 Diss “i 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR: CONTOUR : MLW CONTOUR : MLW = a rn ) Fz x = 9 pe ae a tH a oO i) Hal 73 63 gal 43 TIME (YEAR) ay ie Y IO Melsl ay] CUNTGUR = MSL CONTOUR = MSL = u (i) z cE | oe Ww (=) Fal HS 69 Vell 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (TEAR) CONTOUR =: MHA CONTOUR =: MHW Buel RABY 16 DISTANCE FROM THE BASE EINE TEAS TAIEDY EONmewRS 178 M) ( DISTANCE M) { DISTANCE M) ( DISTANCE 70 | DISTANCE 30 70 30 (MJ LJ Ww Fa, Cen — Nn oO il 73 iste 71 73 TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MLW CONTOUR = MLW M) ( Hal 73 69 wh 3 iM E EAR) TIME) (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR = MSL = Lu tht = jeu = w oO ad ak #3 Ve, itelalay TIMES trEAR) CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR =: MHW Rabie lie meals) DISTANCE BROMS THe: BASE ET NER TO soiAiEDSEONTOURS 179 (M) » DISTANCE (M) DISTANCE (M) OLTSTANCE 90 (M) Oo oO & | wn Op oO Gi Ga 169 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR =: MLW = = (S) Oo uj - LD Fa c ol Ww T=) D Pill Ws 169 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL = Qo (as) in = = faa — a wn eraser ee Ba est "a ae) [eon aticenee hail Oo Gl HS 169 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MHW BB ad CS ANGE eh mee elas INE) ple) 180 ee k«,___—an “1 elt 73 Lives IrneA Ry CONTOUR =: MLW ] =e al #3 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL — —_— _ ————_ai- Hal wal TIME iYEARI CANTOUR = MHW FB 2D STATED CONTOURS = oO Ww Oo = ae ke w eiges oO at 169 Wal Ws) TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR : MLW x : -————" = 5 Ww (os) = | aed un Oo S a 76S wi 73 TIME (YEAR) CONTOUR = MSL o_ t—_—_»+.—_____, US (5) ea in ares ah 164 roll Gal gales els lay CONTOUR =: MHW DISTANCE FROM THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT FB e1 181 APPENDIX F COMPARATIVE SHORT BEACH PROFILES 182 (QUW)3.0S 9SS INIWH3S Noriaua9yu [|] ozgny or **— Notsoua FE} oznur €t——— “J°N* HIOW39 JVILTASLHITYM SIIW4OYd LYOHS FAT LUYdbdWOI*” dung 4 O0S9J 009 OSS OOS OSh 0On OSE ™ ra SHILAW NI JONUISIO ac OOoT 0 Co + —~ 0 0 ae 2. _| e mn S+ | Sic HK] OT+ (Sei z =o rae (22 So see : O2+ Lt h r OSE OOE 0GSe 00¢ OSI O00! 8) fe2jais) INI 2INGTES UG 12+O0€1 311 404d HIN¥3G JATIIASLHDIYM SYS1SW NI NOILBAZ13 183 (SHW) 3. nS 8SS ONTYNIG Noriay9ou [ |] o2330 or-~%—*— Norsoua £&] ozsny o-——— Al ie | | 4 | = 0 | | | 059 O0S9 O09 OSS =o : = OT+ OSe 00e “J°N° HIB39 JTVILASLHITYM SJIAOYd LYOHS JATLYYbdWOD* JYNIT4 OST at let |——™ | H i ee YOu | 3 tee a : 0 | | | T+ OOS OSh OUR OSE SYILAW NI SJINULSTO OOT ac — OSI Ialsia) Nii SIDING INS UG Te+O€) JIIS0Ud HJb3SG JVITASLHOT YM SY3L3W NI NOILBAR13 184 (96W) 3. mS SSS INTYWIG NOT1L3Y99u [| FEY duis = a “J°N* HI838 ATILASLHITYM NOTSOUY4 ES (Gea) 210) (0) ee SATL40Yd LYOHS JATLHYbdWOD Jungs O0e | Ost 0S9 OS9 009 OSS 00S OSh OOh OSE SYSL3IW NI JINULSIO oot OS 0 1334 NI NOILBAS13 OSE 00 0S2 00¢ OST OO 0G = 0 1444 NI JINULSIOG 1e+0€1 J114O0Ud H9b39 JTIIASLHIIYM SYSL3W NI NOILBAZ1S 185 (9HW) 3.fS 8SS INIYbAG NOTL3Y¥I90 fl Oe) ear yey “I°N" HIBWAG JTITASLHITYM NOTSOY4 EY CES ke Ln) fe SIIL4OYd LYBHS JATLYYUdWOD~ SYNIT A SYSLAW NI JINUISIO OUT OS 0 wtdass Nil NOILbART3 a a iad] + OSE OOE Osi O0e¢ OS] OOt OS 0 aga NT 4INGL STO }e+0€) JI] 40Ud HIJU3E JVIASLHOIYM SH3135W NI NOILHAI13 186 (SUH) 3.hS 9SS SNIYHAS Noriauaay [ ] 2930 or” 7 Notsoua FE] tz9ny 6e——— “I°N* HOUSE ATILASLHOTYM SIIISOYd LYOHS JATLUYbdWOI” SY4LIAW NI JINUISIO it3a4.NI NOILYARIS Sie OOE OSe 00e¢ tj44 NI JAINULSIO 1e+O€1l JI] s0ud OS OST Oot OS HJbID ATITASLHITYM SYuNIT4 Sdal3w NI NOTLBYA3R13 187 (HW) 3.nhS 8SS INTHYAS NOW Maas) A) SAMs i Notsou3s Fe] 12330 o-——— “I°N* HIbV3G JVITASLHOTYM SIWAVYd LYOHS JATLbdbdWOd° SYS1LIW NI SJINUISTO wtd34 NI NOILYAR3 oO Cd + OSE OOE 0Se 00e (OS |! O01 OS f3dd NI JINUISTO }e+O€1 J1140Ud H3IU39 JTIIASLHOIYM JYUNIIS SY3L3W NI NOILBAR13 188 (HW) 3.nS SSS ONIHU3S Noite (favets) |fS], GTi) Se Notsoua FEY ezysy 1-——— “I°N* HIOW39 JTVILASLHSTYM SIIWASOYd LYBHS JATLUYYdWOD SYSLAIW NI JINUISTO it3a4 NI NOILYAI13 UGE OOE OSe O0e 1444 NI JONUILSIO Te+O€T 41] 404d OSI OOT 0 HIJb3SD ATITASLHOITYM JHNII4 "SUaLah NI NOILBAS13 189 (96W) 3. 0S SSS INTYWA © NOT139990 [ ] el Ja0.9 gem “I°N* HIW3E JTILASLHOTYM NOISOYS Fe CEN GS Sige SJ1140Ydd LYOHS JALLYYbdWOD* Syn 4 SYSLSW NE JINUISLO oO G+ aad NI NOILYARI3 j=) OJ ws 1444 NI JINUILSIO 1c+O0€) 311 40d H3039 JATIIASLHOTYM ise 00k ise 00 0g 7001 A. SY313W NI NOTLYAS1S 190 (HUW) 3.nS 8SS SNIYHIE Nor1gu33u [_] e2udy 1r-*—*— Notsouas FE} 22930 9 “I°N° HIWSAE JVILASLHSTYM SAITSOYd LYOHS JATLUYHdWOD* SYSLIW NI SINUISIO tags Ni NOTLYAR13 (OSS OOE USE 00e¢ Helels! WWI SIQINCWES JG 12+0€1 31140Yd OSI O01 OS HIV3S9 JTIIASLHOIYM SYuNIT4 SY3L35W NI NOTLHASR13 191 (9UW) 4.nS SSS INIYWAY NOTL3YII0 [ie Sie) inlie <— "IN" HOb3G JIVILASLHOTYM NOTSOYS Fd See SJILIOYd LYOHS JATLBYbdWNOI~ dYuNIT4 SYSLSW NI JINULSTIO tasa Nt NOILHA3R13 SY34L3W NI NOTLYAR1S j=) OS + Hajajs} Hl slo ES IAG 1¢e+O€1 31140Yd HIJUIG JIIASLHSIT YM 92 (NUN) 4.nS 9SS SNIHW3E NOUhauaaU (fl) 62940 Olea Notsoua BE] ezony »®-——— “J°N* HOb38 JTILASLHOTYM SITL4OYd LYOHS JATLbYUdWOD SYSL3IW NE JINKISTO pags NI NOLLYAIN3 = Ow + OSs OOE OSe O0e OSI OOT QS FS ont SINGLES 12+0€1 31] 40d H9N39 JTIITASLHOIYM SYuNoTS 0 + RL A SYS13W NI NOILBAI13 193 (9HW) J.nS-8SS SNIYWIG NorLay39u [_] heydd h—* 7 Norsoua fe} ©2930 o-——— “J°N*° HIB3IG JIVILTASLHOTYM SAIIWAOUd LYOHS JATLYYUdWOD * SYILIW NI JINULSIO i4assNI NOILBA373 OSE OOE OS Ug a la4d4 NI SINUILSIO 12+0€) JVI AOUd OSI det 0S H3039 JTIIASLHSTYM SYuNIT4 SY3L3W NI NOILBAI13 194 (96W) 3.mS SSS INTYWIAG NOLTL43Y¥990 (el WAT e) (See “I°N° HIBS JTVILASLHOTYM NOISOYS ES WS la) yl a SAIVSOUd LYOHS JAI LYYUdWOI~ dYunot4 SY3LAW NI JINULSIO itdds NI NOTLYARIa SYILIW NI NOILBAZ13 oO OJ + OSE QOE OSe 00¢ OST OOT OS 0 f44d4 NI JINUISTIO 12+0€1 31140ud HI0399 JTITASLHSIYM 195 APPENDIX G WAVE REFRACTION PLOTS 196 ihe if, /, / Wy “il / Hi M4 /] feo pth YE fest 7 fi) iif {///, Ky <= ag Z¥ue “ 182c01 | ies Biui® igobe ig! eee 4! 5 gueec!. Le jesee.! e2gs“*ri 2 N = ee 10.8 19. 20.0 as. 39.0 38.0 OISTANCE (KILOMETER) WO o BAIGHISVILLE BEACH. NC MB © BHHSONBUAD BEACH. WC CB > CHROLINA BEACH. wo AB o MURE BEACH, Wo 00 © FORT FISKEA. we 197 PEARIGO = 6.50 SECONDS (AE ASUREO CLOL Aw) SE FROM Tre OATH Wo 0.90 METERS MIL Gn TENS OISTANCE (HK JLOMETEAD OAIGIO DIAATS AD ROATHERN-NODT STATION WO + HAIGHISVILLE GERLM, WE WB > MHSONHUHO BEACH, ML CO > CHA IMA BEACH, ML * RURE BEAL. MC 2 FOAI FISHER. wc OM USHSId 1NOd * IW ‘wayad JuoN « WW 'HINID WNITOUND © Ob WOTLUIC LSOM-WUIHIWON LO CLUHIG WIDTUO W ‘NW4B OUDENOSUH » JH “HQUID TVUASLNITUN © (U3L3WOTIM) JINUIGIO ost 070 ose 03 sQwoyas OO fF + MW “HSHBIS LuO9 - In ‘HIv3IO Jum = ON “H9WIB UNITONUD - WOTLULS LSOW-MHIHLYUON LB SLUBIS NETTUO ON “HHI OudeNOSuH = ON “H9UIA IVIIASLHOIMH = (USLSNOTIM) JINUISIO o"sé o-os 0°s2 0°02 ost Q-o8 o's 0-0 SUILIW ORI = H (HLUOH JHL WOUS ISEMNION GINNSHIW) $334930 O°S2e = 2190 SONOIIS OS°@ > OOIWId LF) o4 as oy 93 on oH 198 ON “HIWSTS LHOU* aN “Hovde JvOM = EM “WOHI8 HNITOUND = 2 wIu|aB OYOSNOSY 732 3m \\\ | \\ \\\ \i\\\ ) \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\\NY ee cuaLHOMIN (a awas suaLay onl > 4 MOFLULE LSOM-MUIHIVOM LU GAUUIS MOTUO : i - ue wW Tee N SUILIHOVIN ws Syai3sH Ohl = H (HLYON HL HOUd 3S14NI073 OSUNSaH) $99u930 Q'aL2 = 31 BONOIIS OS Ol = OOlvad - Z| Ay ae | 200 JW “UBHEId Loy - By TW ‘HdYIG JuMM + Uy ya ubeeg uyimowws - 07 WOTLUIG LSOW-MUIHIVON IY GlUYIG BISINO JH “HOWI9 OUDgNOBUY - é JW “WIUTO IVIIAS LAI ‘o i (WILAHOTIM) JINVIEIO 0° 0°08 0°88 00a 0°68 0°00 0°6 0 ASIMHINII GAyNsvsH? o°sé @2 N e SHat jolie awIs Sula UWI - u (tuuoN Jus HOU 0 3816x2019 DaensusH) §32u990 O'Oc2 - JONY BON0IaS OU'9I > OOINId WOTLUIG 1GON-MUIHIVON (UIR INO TE wD G08 sli ; u w lu ose a — < Eb “umNSId LyUs © Os “HIu30 JuON - OX UNITOUN) - @ | © TD i Sha Ww 2wIs SH3ITW ORL oe HW icTh ™ d 361mvI01) 0 iF) $33W930 O'SIE = 2 OuoFss OS°Ol ° DOIUId WM “HY TAS. (Y313HO1 Q's; | : it : 204 un "wNIS1d LuOd aH “HaNI0 SuOH ON “HOWIA UNIOUKD MOILUIS [SOM-WUIHIUON LY SiBHLS NEQTUU NW “HIHIO OYOBNOSUH JN “HIV38 FVTIASLHOTUM (W391 3WOTIM) JINUISIO 2 "02 ast esa xe #23 o°sé A 0's. 7 h SHaLaNOTIN yIs $¥aL9W Oh} > 4 GUYON JM WW a81N4I099 daunsu 3H) $3audiu O'OLe = 379NY SOND99S OS's = OOIYad WM "V3HSI9 AvOs'> Oy ™ "HIHI9 3uOM © By JM "M1890 UNION?) © 8D E JM "H3~38 OVOBNOSEH > GH MOULULG LCOW-WUIHLVON LU GiuuLG mote ee nee (U3LAaNOTI YM) JINVISIO oa o'e8 6-00 N ae , SuaZaNDTIy Sy Vids Suaaay Ont ce (HiLvON P41 wWOUS 9S143079 OIuNsuaH) $99u930 O'OLE = 379NY SON0I3S OS°9 = aoluay 205 4 ie rong rn Resi ath | Fe a ee Rte Ge meee Se Cae me = : Eka" Ata “Ai RD CE s Pres tee sae aot pincer: Secsmestie: mETSsay , PS see, rhea Lp VRS tk fgce a het eck es co = “ey avert ale © getee : Ee, Gee fe, “eee atl — i oa ae ee = Tuas sea. taeesi Ati et Sars pees Goetety2 ae: rrtiees 30°% : a feet cotey a eS ye ereerel 2ne as veane a sees Peay 1 eseeh:: = a "ae eee tem ee: Pers y ee" ir yl oy yam i on Py UH ORRAE =, elena pay, ht peyit-s fpr ances i fel dmatian Viner ‘reine Wp ge ee Ks 7 : rape Sore: cae “2: aparece —- eS SOP gos) sire, Yomeeag ° Sareemet 5 : ee ae Pave ere 0D =< C's'a) Fezsed “Siteaieg, Seeeee yi “pete ey err. yo eared, AI — erage Pee GIy * ee eos, ears yeaOTaey “y - e Tistie eae a eee MSS See Ua ees SET VST IEE a Bz war ean oir ihe ated = - sakes ee = [Fs sae ne patel pup Sere: es ma as nea si cig i + tiem Zee SS ee : : ee ee ‘Sr Sos Swit Sate tey po ekyey aR nae er rete = aay soe ome : a : 2s ‘pew: sf =| - ie ire Shear rier ifs: JO-FFZAL SOY Bi ale ei 78 eee | aE ee aateos 3 ‘thas: see es pied a Se eee oon ene) goose “apa E: i anes MOST SO 4 gees = age ay oar ges s rIGeTNss 2 ra : Ned ocause J i aiiae Se “Se S. Z 9-18 *ou auTgcn* €072OL “SOF19S| “AT “9=118) ©oU ((°S*n) equa yor1eessy BuTiseuTSuy Teqyseo)) J1ods1I snosueTTe0SsSTW :SeTleg “III °*(°S*n) AeqUeD YOIeesey BuTAseuT3uy TeqjseoD “IT °O°L SuOJUTM *[] *eUTTOIS) YRION--JuaewysTinou yoreg *¢ *eUuTTOIe) YIION --sessa00id JTeloVITT *Z *ceuyToOAeD yIION--JAodsueizq YuSUTpes °T *TsySTyY JOY 02 YOesg STTTASJYSTIM WOIF sUTTeIOYS eUTTOIe) YIION ay JO quam8as AaqJoWOTTYy-zZy e BuotTe sassev01d qiodsueij Juautpes Teqyseod oy2 Fo stsKkTeue ButiseuT8ue saTsusysidwuos e squeseid jiodey ,°1aqueg yoresssy SuTIseuT3uy [Teqseo) ‘siessuT3uq Jo sd1op ‘AwIy °S*Q AOFZ pairedeaig, «u"T86T 9UnLr,, °8TITI TeACD = *(T000-0-6/-ZL £ mova 39e13uU09) (9-[g ou { AaqUaQ YoIReSey BuTIseUuT3Uuq TeISseOD Auty *s°n / jyiodai snoaueTTessTW)--°m> /z § sdem ‘Tr: *d [coz] *T861 ‘SIIN Wory eTqeTTeae : *ea ‘pTayysutads £ requag yoieessy SuTiseuT3uq Teqjseo) Ady *s*n : °eA SATOATeqG 3I0G--*[°Te qa] °** uoqUTM *O°y Aq / euTTOIeD YIION S1eYySTY 310™ 07 YoRag STTTASIUSTIM WOIZ sassao0id jiodsuei1jz JusuTpas Te,seod jo stTsATeuy 9-T8 °ou amTgcn° €07OL SS9F29S) CAT <9=119) sou ((°S°n) 1e3que yoreesay BuTiaeuT3uq [Teqseo)) 310deI snosueTTeosTH S8TI9S “TII °(°S*n) aqua) yoIeesey BuyiseuT3uyq Teqjseo) "TI °O°L SuOJUTM *[ °eUTTOIe) YRION--JUSeMYSTINOU Yoeeag °*¢ *eUTTOIe) YIION --sessacoid [e1OIITT *Z °eUTTOAe) YIION--Jiodsue1q QueWTpes °T *I2USTY J1OJ OF YOROY STTTASIYSTIM WoAZ sUTTeIOYS eUuTTOIe) YIION 242 JO Juew3es JSeJeWOTTY-Zy e BuoTe sessav0id jaodsueiz jJueutTpes Teiseod ay. jo stskTeue BuTIseuT3ua sATSusyeidwod e squaseaad ja1oday ,°1aqueg yoieesay SuTiseuTsuy Teqseoy ‘siaeuTZuq Jo sdiog ‘Awsry *s*p 10j3 poredelg,, ibe ORO [ie *8TIFI APA =—* (T000-9-6/-ZL S$ MOVd 30813uU09) (9-Tg sou {£ JeqUeQ YoIRPaeSsey BSuTIeeUuTSsUq TeISeOD Auty °s*n / 310da1 snoaueyTTeosTW)--°wo /z § sdem ‘*T{TT : ed [coz] °1861 “SIIN Wory eTqeTyeae : ea ‘SpTetzsutads { raquag yoieesey BuTiseutTsuyq Teyseop AWAY °S°n : °eA SITOATOG JAOq--°[°Te qo] °** uoqUTM *D°~ Aq / euTTOIeD YIION ‘IEYSTY JIOq 07 YORog STITASIYZTIM WoIZ sassav0id yarodsue1sq JUsUTpes Teyseod Jo stTsATeuy L209 D> TeieOu awTgcn® £0701 *SeTt9S “AI °9-T8 °OUu £ ((°s*n) reque9 yoieesay ButTisaeuT3uq Te}se0D) J1odeI snosaueTTe9STW !S8TI9S *TII °(°S°n) Jequey) yoreasoy ButiseuTSuq TeqIseo7 “JI °)°L *uOqUTM *J °eUTTOIeD YIION--JUaeMYsTinou yoeag °¢ “*eUTTOIeD YIION --sossav0id [TeIOIITT *Z *eUuTTOIeD YRION--J1odsue1}z JuaMTpes °T *l9YSTY J1OY OF YOeeg STTTASIYSTIAM WoAZ suTTe1OYS euTTOIe) YIION e432 JO JUeWZes AsJOMOTTHY-Zy e BuoTe sassav01d jiodsueizq Jueutpes Teyseod vsyq Jo stskTeue ButiseuT3ue sATsusysidmos e squesaid jiodoy ,°1aqua9 Yyoiessey SuTiseuTsuq Teqjseo) ‘siseuTsuq jo sdiog ‘Away *s*gq A0F porzederg, «"T86T 2Unf,, °8TIFI TACD =—* (T000-9-6/-ZL £ MOVd 39813U09) (9-Tg cou { ABqUa) YOIeessy BuTiseuT3uyq Te }SseOD Awty °S*n / 310de1 snoaue,TTesstW)—--*wo /z § sdew ‘*TTT : ed [coz] °I861 ‘SIIN Worz eTqeTyeae : *ea ‘pTeTysutads £ 1equag yoieessy ButTiseutTsuq Teqseoy AWiy °S*n : °eA SATOATAG J1I0¥--°[°Te qa] e°° uoqUTM 9°] Aq / euTTOIeD YIAON SAEYSTY JAI0gJ 09 YoRog STTTASIYZTIM WOIF sassaovo0id yiodsuei} JUsWTpes TeIseod jo sTsATeuy L279 9-18 °ou auTgcn* €07OL *sefteg “AI “9-18 °ou ((°S*n) 1aqUeD YyoTeessy BuTIseuTsuq TeIseo)) JIoda1 snosueT Te STW :S9TIIS “III °(*°S°M) Jeaquej yoreasey ButTeeuT3uq TeqseoD “TI °O°L SuoqUTM °*I °eUTTOIe) YIION--JUsMYSTAnou yoeeg °¢ ceUTTOIe) YIION --sessov0id [TeIOIIT] °Z *euTTOIeD) YyIION--J1zodsuely JUsaUTpss °T *19USTY 3J1OY OF YOeSg ST[TASIYSTIM WolZ sUTTeIOUS eUTTOIe) YIION au} Jo JuawZes JaqeWOTTyY-Zy e BuoTe sassavoid jiodsueij JusuTpes Teyseoo sy jo stskTeue ButAssuT3ue saTsuaeyeidmos e sjuaseid qiodoy ,°1aquay yoreesay SutTaseuTsuy Teqyseo) ‘sioeuT3uy jo sdiop SAwIy *S°g A0Z perzedeig, Goes Sate °28T372 198A =—* (T000-9-62-ZL $ mova 30e19u09) (9-[g cou { itaqUeD YoIReSey BSuTIeeUuTsU_ TeISeOD Auty °S*n / 4i0dex1 snoauetTTasstW)--°wo 7/7 { sdew ‘*TTT : °d [¢0Z] °I861 “SIIN Wo1z eTqeTyTeae : *eq ‘pTeTysutadg £ requep yoreesoy BuTisoutT3uyq Teqyseo) Away °s°n : °eA SATOATOG JAO¥--°[°Te qe] ee* uoquTM °9°y Aq / euTTOIeD YIION S19YSTY q1oq 07 Udeag STTTASIUZTIM Wory sesseoo0ad jaodsue1z JuswTpes Te}seod Jo stTsATeuy Tuite eae ae Cae Me i} 7 a ie 5 ‘ a eG @ A a - — s k se : : =] 1 Re. : x . i S 7 - ®