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 —@ <a ~~ 2 So ee CC) (@) wor7e38 (1) Sc (peed
; tp : seo] sass] 20uB 28 Tp TOA UBT = aT OAd = uot e007
eee TTT WONTON AN UOTE «Bmy0s [oA OT eITON J] uM
UOFIENTEAS TITJ-yeeg *y eTqeL
26
front. The excursion loss due to sorting was determined in the same
manner from estimates on the volume of beach fill lost due to sorting or
from volumetric loss calculations based on the critical ratios of the
beach-fill material. Note that the initial fill distance, the excursion
loss (due to sorting), and the net fill excursion are only comparison
estimates and should not be considered as absolute values. Figure 8
shows the spatial distribution of the beach-fill excursions along the
study area, with an obvious concentration of fill activity in front of
the townships of Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach. Areas of
reported net beach fill are shown to extend in some places to
approximately 100 meters (300 feet). Because these values only reflect
the fill excursion remaining after the initial loss period and do not
consider the fill loss due to storm-induced or long-term (annual)
erosion rates, they are slightly misleading. Most fills were placed
after the previous fill had been severely eroded away.
Table 5 presents all historical events influencing beach volumes
since 1965, with a brief description of each event. Storms were
included in this table only if noted beach erosion occurred, if asso-
ciated storm surge was noted, or if the windspeeds were in excess of
80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). A complete list of all
storms during the study period is available in supplemental data
Volume I, Section B.
3. Excursion Distance Analysis.
Selected beach profiles from all stations were plotted at a small
scale and visually checked for accuracy and acceptability of data
points. Larger scale profiles were then drawn to compare sequential
outlines. Areas of erosion from one sequential profile to the next were
highlighted by a dot-screen pattern. Typical short and long beach
profile plots are shown in Figures 9 and 10. All of the larger scale
plots of the short and long beach profiles are contained within sup-
plemental data Volumes II to VIII.
A common base line was established for each sequential profile and
the horizontal distance from that base line to the location of the MHW,
MSL, MLW, -1.83 meters (-6 feet), -3.66 meters (-12 feet), and
-5.49 meters (-18 feet) contours were calculated. These distances were
plotted against time of measurement, and the relative distance between
the first and subsequent distances represents the excursion distance
through time for each contour.
A sample plot from each beach is shown in Figures ll to 15. A
linear regression ("least squares") line which mathematically "best
fits" all data points is drawn on these plots. One straight line is not
representative of the average excursion rates between the years 1965 and
1975, especially for Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches.
When few data points exist, the scatter due to seasonal fluctua-
tions, prior storm erosion, etc., can totally mask the longer term or
CAT
APPROX. EXCURSION DISTANCE OF HISTORIC BEACH FILLS.
APPROX. EXCURSION DISTANCE OF HISTORIC BEACH FILLS.
SPRING 1970
ir
NOTE: 1 m/yr excursion =
8.23 m3/yr/m of beach-fill volume.
Influenced by construction of jetty
SPRING 1970 eos
TOWNSHIP OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
MB
NOTE: CROSSHATCHING SHOWS
AREA OF REPORTED NET BEACH FULL.
-5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
DISTANCE (kilometers)
SCALE
—
t') KILOMETERS 4
NOTE : im/yr excursion =
8.23 m'/yr/m of beach-till volume.
NOTE: CROSSHATCHING SHOWS
AREA OF REPORTED NET BEACH FALL
ae
TOWNSHIP OF CAROLINA BEACH KB
CB
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
DISTANCE (km)
Figure 8. Distribution of beach fills along study area.
28
Table 5.
1965
Spring
Apr.
24 May
July
1966
Spring
Spring
10-11 June
9 July
Oct.
1967
Mar.
15 Mar.
29 May
Oct.
24 Nov.
28 Dec.
1968
7-12 June
Aug.
19=20 Oct.
1969
1-2 Nov.
1970
Mar .—-May
16-17 Aug.
30-31 Oct.
Dec.
Dec.
1971
26-30 Jan.
13 Feb.
5-7 Apr.
Mar.
16-18 Aug.
27 Aug.
Oct.
1972
24 July
1973
9-10 Feb.
22 Mar.
Sept.
1974
30 Nov.-1l Dac.
NOTE:
Historical events affecting beach volumes during
study period, 1965-1975.
Wrightsville Beach
Carolina Beach
Fort Fisher Beach
Wrightsville Beach
Masonboro Inlet
Wrightsville Beach
Carolina Beach
Fort Fisher Beach
Carolina Beach
Wrightsville Beach
Carolina Beach
Carolina Beach
Fort Fisher Beach
Carolina Beach
Carolina Beach
Beach fill 1.9-7.0 km; 47-m net excursion
Beach fill 22.2-26.5 km; 32-m net excursion
Storm; high wind, rain, beach erosion
Beach fill and revetment 32.7-33.0 km;
6.5-m net excursion
Beach fill 3.4-6.1 km; 10-—m net excursion
Completion of Masonboro jetty
Tropical Storm Alma passed offshore
Storm; 147-km/h (92 mi/h) winds
Beach fill 3.4-4.0 km; 6.5-m excursion
Beach fill 21.7-23.5 km; 10.5 m net
excursion
Storm; 71-112 km/h (45 70 mi/h) winds
Extratropical cyclone; severe erosion
Beach fill 32.7-33.0 km; 6.5=—m excursion
Storm; 96-km/h (60 mi/h) winds
Storm; 122-km/h (76 mi/h) winds
Tropical Storm Abby
Beach fill 23.0-23.7 km; 13=-m net excursion
Hurricane Gladys
Storm; 96-km/h (60 mi/h) winds
Beach fill 2.7-4.6 km; approx. 31.5-m net
excursion
Storm; 2.5-m (8 ft) waves, riptides;
112-km/h (70 mi/h) winds
Storm; beach erosion
Beach fill 22.2-23.5 km; 2l-m net excursion
Completion of rubble-mound seawall
Limestone revetment added
Storm; near hurricane-force winds
Storm; near hurricane-force winds
Storm; 109-km/h (68 mi/h) winds
Beach fill approx. 23.0-26.5 km; ll-m net
excursion
Storm; 3-m (10 ft) seas
Tropical Storm Dora; 96-km/h (60 mi/h)
winds, 1.2-m (4 ft) surge
Hurricane Ginger; 147-km/h (92 mi/h) winds,
1.2-m (4 ft) surge
Storm; 83-km/h (52 mi/h) winds
Storm; 80-km/h (50 mi/h) winds, high seas,
erosion
Storm; 3-4-m (10-12 ft) seas, high erosion
Extension of rubble-mound seawall
Storm; erosion
Dates of beach fills, coastal construction, etc. are given only as
month or season in which they were completed. Dates of storms are given as
calendar date.
29
"yoReg ej/|AS}YBLA ‘sejjjosd ysoyS eANesedwog *¢ ein)
(QHWIG.2 £5 SNTYHSE
Renew |) SSA
059 i= SoG = = Ss TOSS h oon
SY3L13W NI SINHLSTO
GO} QS
Weeize) Cea abel S) qe
OSE DOE ose ooe
= l3434 NI al
99+991 JlIs40Yd Wau4g JMIASIHOTEM
SdjlaW NI NUILBAS 1S
30
NeTisddo3
NOTSOd4
oO
I ) !
o
Ww
(OS) Gah Op) eS}
ow
OJ
1
WI
a)
|
NOILGASTa
Ieee) Ss) IN
-
“"yoReg eII|AS}UBLM ‘Sej)joId
[SHWI 3.0h ASS INIYHI9
LS Ale) SS
Sones Sit
SHILIW N
005
o00t
eZ} e}] IN 2
cO+¢cee Jlils0ud
Buo; erjesedwod °oj eunbyj4
I JINHISTO
O08
oaS
2) a)INisl dbs Ie
HJb59 JTIIASLHOIYM
SY3L3W NI NOTLYAA1S
3|
[M}
DISTANCE
TANCE (M)
DI
(M1
i TANCE
5
Lis
100
64Y
69.
elie
CANT ALR
TAME
5
q
CONTOUR =
CONTELR
(YEAR)
MLW
[YEAR]
MSL
i TEAR]
MHW
Cle Un
C
DISTAN
(M)
i TANCE
Sc
OT
iTANCE [M1
S
OL
ca
ay
ug
eal)
Mey 69 mi
TIME (VERR)
CENTOUR : -5.49 M
jo)
CJ
iia)
4
ia] u
Od
Cd BY 6g aA
TIME (YEAR!
CONTGUR : -3.66 M
bY 74
TIME
CONTOUR :
IYEAR)
Sako les:
Figure 11. Distance from the base line to stated contours at WB 15.
(M1)
DISTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
Mj
(
DISTANCE
6g
Wile
CONTOUR
69
TIME
CONTOUR :
62
TIME
CONTOUR
(YEAR)
MLW
{YEAR}
MSL
(YEAR)
MHW
~J
ty
(M)
DISTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
(M3
STANCE
DI
365
M65 ag os
TIME (YEAR)
CONTAUR : -5.49 M
A
=
=)
mei) ie, ?
TIME (YEAR
CONTIURG Soe omy
uy
Cd ry
AL a
Fy a
i 1]
w
uo D eecerenn scrrmcsnn Ar FSET Sr CET]
Od X
elle
Lu |
as 6g
TIME (YEAR)
GENMGUR GE ee osaM
Figure 12. Distance from the base line to stated contours at CB 71.
(M)
140
DISTANCE
TANCE [M)
LYO
(=
=]
U1
(Md
DISTANCE
100
100
140
100
ay
wl
=
(2)
da)
Wd 1m
WW)
re,
(ac
—
ie)
=
a
[)
al Ye aS Hal, ms
TIME (YEAR) TIME (YEAR)
CONTOUR = MLW CONTOUR = -5S.49 M
=
sz (e)
co
a uw Td
to
Fes
(ag
oa
Ww
a —
=)
&
Od
Fil 43 SES Pil Ws
TIME (YEAR) TIME {YER
CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR =: -3.66
= un
ui Ve
=
x
Wd
(j=)
uW?
9
Pall 73 ™ 69 reall He
TIME (YEAR) TIME IYEARI
CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR = -1.83 M
Figure 13. Distance from the base line to stated contours at MB 17.
34
{M)
OLSTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
IM)
2
&
OLSTAN
650
=
Se te)
r~-
ld Cd
Y
as ee fon
C1] =
up
[}
a
Hil #3 “Bg Hal ws
TIME ‘'YEARI TIME {YEAR)
CONTOUR = MLW CONTGUR - -S.45 M
T
| =
uJ
O
“ e =
[=]
ud
ae ae Te
BS 71 73 = 59 ral 73
TIME (YAR) TIME (YEAR)
CONTOUR = MSL CONTOUR : -3.66 M
=I
uu —
O
faa
kt
io)
a ie
2
6g 71 73 = 69 71 73
TIME {tYEaR) TIME: (YE@R}
CONTOUR = MHW CONTOUR : -1.83 M
Figure 14. Distance from the base line to stated contours at KB 17.
35
(M)
5
OISTANCE
20
/
ele A elelay)
CONTOUR = MLW
(M)
OLSTANCE
TIME Raw ERiny
CONTOUR = MSL
IM]
OLSTANCE
a
my Lee
Ee TE lt Ue
UME GER
FONTHUR = MAW
Figure 15. Distance from the base line to stated contours at FB 10.
36
man-influenced excursion rates. The plots (Figs. 11 to 14) are, in one
way, atypical of all profile plots taken along each beach because each
of these profiles has some data taken below MLW, whereas the majority of
profiles along the entire study area do not. This means that analysis
of contours below MLW is not worthwhile due to the paucity of data, and
that available data can result in misleading or questionable excursion
rates. Only Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches have high temporal
densities of data points for each MHW, MSL, and MLW contour and,
consequently, only plots from these beaches were redrawn at yet a larger
scale and analyzed. All large-scale plots for Wrightsville Beach and a
representative set from Carolina Beach are contained in Appendixes A and
B, respectively; all smaller scaled plots for Masonboro, Kure, and Fort
Fisher Beaches are in Appendixes C, D, and E, respectively.
Historic events which may have affected the beach erosion-accretion
(excursion distance) are indicated on each excursion distance plot for
Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches (Figs. 16 and 17). A circle is placed
on a data point measured shortly after localized storm activity (see
Table 5), and an arrow is placed at the approximate time beach fills
were completed. The same profiles in Figures 11 (WB15) and 12 (CB71)
are shown in Figures 16 and 17, respectively, drawn at the larger time
scale and with the historic events indicated. Excursion rates between
the beach fills (seasonally averaged response shown as a dashline) can
now be identified and quantified. Localized storms account for many of
the sudden losses in beach volume. However, some erosion (loss of
excursion distance) occurs at times other than those indicated in
Table 5, possibly due to localized storms of lesser magnitude, but
probably due to erosion from swell waves generated from distant storms.
Sequential beach profiles taken between January 1970 and December
1974 for profile WB15 are presented in Appendix F. These profiles are
presented to aid the reader in visualizing the postfill response of
Wrightsville Beach and thus to help interpret the results shown in
Figure 16.
The following discussion outlines the general method of analysis
used on all excursion distance plots for Wrightsville and Carolina
Beaches. A schematic plot, similar to the MLW excursion distance plot
for WB15 (Fig. 16), is used as an example and is shown as Figure 18.
Section IV.4 contains a beach-by-beach discussion and quantification
detailing the effect of natural and manmade influences on each.
The three most prominent features exhibited by Figures 16 to 18 are:
(a) the long-term erosional-accretional trend is approximately constant
(linear) between beach-fill periods with minor fluctuations due to
seasonal storm-induced erosion and accretion cycles; (b) the placement
of a fill results in a sudden positive spike in the excursion distances;
and (c) immediately following a significant beach fill, loss of material
occurs at a rapid rate which gradually decreases to equal the long-term
recession rate.
oi
aor
= Lar
=e z Sees "
AL) hacen helene =D BS = eae ey 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 <YEAR?
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 TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB 71
138
(M)
DISTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
90
LQ
BS 66 5? 68 BY 7O vA HE v3
TIME. (YEAR)
CONTOUR =: MLW
“65 66 B57 68 69 70 71 72 73
TIME (YEAR)
CONTOUR =: MSL
65 BG 7 68 639 70 all Ue WS
IME RAIVERR
CONTOUR = MHW
DISTANCE PROM. THE BASE LINE TO STATED CONTOURS AT CB
139
93
(M)
DISTANCE
(M)
DISTANCE
STANCE (mM)
J
Ol
oO
a
|
BS BB b? 66 69 70 41 He vs) 74
TIME? (rEAR3
CONTOUR : MLW
ot,
lige 5 a 4
4) a (3) @ s >] 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 =| -
<a a Sig ‘ = = i ee ‘zien jee aot eee te a
‘ : a ee N ore * aarti eS Oe
f Sees pl apie res
Se ert it nei umn ete Ft
ee” eae
> 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
- ®
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11